• comment on a post George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42 over 5 years ago

    Ha, even Nixon comes in head and shoulders above Bush. That is one bar below which no president wants to fall, much less by a large margin. I hope that despite the deeply in denial nature of his character, he secretly knows he's no Truman and it stings.

  • Both Roland Burris and Caroline Kennedy succumed to political opportunism, and I had a strong sense that each would ultimately cause the party embarassment. Caroline I can easily excuse, but Burris disgusts me because he played Chicago politics in tandem with Blagojevich to force his way in. I hope he loses his bid for election in a couple years.

  • That is how I understood verona's comment also. I believe Jess meant well, coming to your defense, a simple misunderstanding. Thanks for the excellent diary Bob.

  • I see what you're saying. My objection boils down to disagreeing with someone without being disagreeable. By that I mean, stating your opposing views without demeaning the person you disagree with. I agree that both sides are at fault. Taking it a bit further, I understand exactly why hyper partisan Democrats and hyper partisan Republicans can't stand each other, and I agree with them both! Niether likes what they see of themselves in the other side, truth be known. It's why I refuse to be a part of it - to engange in divisive rhetoric, or divisive behavior - what I believe canadian gal is referring to. Thanks for responding.

  • So agree with you. There is very little room for an opposing opinion respectfully and reasonably stated. Thoughtful discussion? Forget about it. Instead, at best you are dismissed and labeled as something akin to being silly or preposterous. At worst, you're either a PUMA, or you supported Hillary. When you stop to think about it, it's the very essense of what we most despised about Bush and the former Republican congressional majority - squashing & silencing everyone without a proven strictly partisan view of their world. What's puzzeling about it is Obama is going out of his way to change that way of thinking and operating. Go figure. I have to keep reminding myself to step back as far as it takes to remain objective, and more often than not, it results in next to no participation, or as in this instance, without much of a posiive nature to say, so why bother.

  • comment on a post NY-Sen: "Officials" Say The Seat Is Caroline's over 5 years ago

    No sooner do Democrats assume total power, than it's back to business as usual again. I certainly don't fault Obama or Congress. This has everything to do with the governors of N.Y. and Illinois, and to carry it further, Caroline Kennedy and Roland Burris, both of whom chose to take advantage of circumstances to intrude upon the political system. I'll accept what appears to be the inevitable, but will never agree with nor condone it. This is not democracy in action, not even close.

  • comment on a post Religious Belief Astounds Me... over 5 years ago

    "They shall see, and not comprehend." I'm not saying evangelicals who use their Bible as a weapon are correct in doing so. Believing dosen't automatically exempt one from error, but neither does not believing. Your outright dismissal of people who believe is as arrogant and flawed as their dismissal of anyone who dosen't. Merry Christmas!

  • Very few are willing to rise above it, so to do the same thing rings of the pot calling the kettle black, and we're right back where we were during the primary. That's what I meant.

  • Hillary moved to N.Y., subsequently became interested in the job, campaigned, and won. No one handed her anything.

  • The real issue here is blurring the line between deserving accomplishment and political entitlement. The next United States senator from New York ought to be someone who has worked for the honor. It bothers me that Caroline dosen't appear interested in playing by the rules or waiting her turn. The hugely qualified Carolyn Maloney, for example, is a workhorse, and is backed by NOW.

  • Oh well, the peace around here was nice while it lasted.

  • on a comment on A mother of three over 5 years ago

    No, but in light of a near absense of public service combined with a near absense of doing much of anything to help elected officials prior to Obama, at least having a solid votiong record would be something, and provide an indication of where someone stands on issues. Caroline hasn't done spit to merit the job, and it would be a travesty of democracy to pass over others who have invested considerably more of themselves, and are more deserving.

  • comment on a post A mother of three over 5 years ago

    For someone with a spotty voting record who has made a career out of shunning public life to suddenly step into the limelight one month and actively campaign for an important government appointment to elected office the following month is ludicrous, imho. If her name was anything other than Kennedy..

  • Ok, sorry, thank you. That's the 2nd time today I've been called out for my wording. I'll have to watch that :)

  • I think I know why Obama did this - as a means of obtaining the conservative evangelical right's blessing on his presidency/administration via the symbolism of Rick Warren swearing him into office. I'm not offering this up as an excuse or rationalization, but rather just what my intuition senses is really at the bottom of it.


Advertise Blogads