• Ok, so Russonello also advocates for Tea Party darling Sharon Angle over Harry Reid on his last blog. That's hardly the credentials of someone with the best interests of Democrats at heart. As I thought.


  • Yes, there's no downside.. for the GOP. Give them my regards, will you.

  • comment on a post Nation needs a Democrat to challenge Obama over 3 years ago

    How much is the GOP paying Russonello to write this vacuous an analysis?

    If Obama has been less than effective, it's because the self-serving imbeciles that pass for congressional democrats never had the gonads to back him on many of his initiatives, choosing instead to pander to the right-wing idiocracy. Precisely who exactly does Russonello think is capable of capturing the imagination of the electorate enough to swing the 2012 vote in another Democrat's favor? The ENTIRE democratic rank-and-file have been under attack since '08.. Obama just happened to be the face of the revolution that attracted the most flak.

    Russonello can whine all he cares to about corporate malfeasance, but we've seen in '10 how easily tea party malcontents were duped to ensure, well, many more years of even more malfeasance - 41 billion in oil industry tax breaks, anyone? In the face of such self-evident stupidity, Russonello's limp ideological posturing isn't going to break any new ground. Yes '12 will be a challenge, but our best hope is to ensure that he draws the kind of minority support Obama saw in '08, and hope for at least a slim national majority.

  • Lots of memes here, not sure I agree with many of them. I'd agree however that we are where we are because there's been simply far too much GOP sh*t lying around to be cleaned up in a year.

    The healthcare initiative has been a top priority of the administration, and it did run the risk of taking the emphasis off job growth (and clearly, has given the malcontents sufficient ammunition to frame the debate in their favor). We can claim, accurately even, that healthcare reform was necessary for our long-term economic security, but the masses are always going to favor immediate solutions over foundations for the future.

    I actually respect that this adminstration has made fighting tough policy battles a priority, over championing politically expedient initiatives. And it would behoove us to remember this every time we're disappointed that our pet cause is yet to be made a priority. We're going to get nowhere as a party until we divest ourselves of our circular firing squad tendencies.

  • on a comment on New York/Maine Results Thread over 4 years ago

    I care.

    How many teabaggers do you know? Their lunacy and belligerence has to be seen to be believed - and, trust me, is NOT to be encouraged.

  • on a comment on New York/Maine Results Thread over 4 years ago

    Right. The maturity really shines through in that "Thanks Obama, you jackass" comment.

  • on a comment on New York/Maine Results Thread over 4 years ago

    Those not given to disingenuous or reactionary claims might reasonably blame the teabagger scum parades, big business' distorted propaganda, Glenn Beck's chicanery, town hall rent-a-mob "socialism" idiocy, in addition to local issues... not to mention naive and equally reactionary swing voters.

    So more Jersey exiles are going to high tail it to North Carolina and turn this state even bluer. What's not to like?

  • on a comment on New York/Maine Results Thread over 4 years ago

    And what exactly did the local issue your ass?

  • comment on a post Maybe a public option is still within reach over 4 years ago

    I was watching Feinstein on John King, and she mentioned that the health insurance industry and Baseball were the only organizations that were exempt from anti-trust legislation.

    Is this true? Why?

  • on a comment on Maureen Dowd: "You lie, boy!" over 4 years ago

    You people really have issues...

    Hmm. And who might your people be?

  • on a comment on Maureen Dowd: "You lie, boy!" over 4 years ago

    It sounds like you took that pretty personally. You sure of your loyalties, boy?

  • on a comment on Maureen Dowd: "You lie, boy!" over 4 years ago

    Agreed. I've scoured the networks coverage of the event, and there's no mention of racism at all.

    This sort of innuendo has the ugly brand of Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck all over it. I wonder if our "conservative democrat" just happens to be a fan.

  • on a comment on Maureen Dowd: "You lie, boy!" over 4 years ago

    I have plenty of friends who are republicans...many conservatives....they dislike Obama becuase of Politics not race.

    Fine. Looking beyond the anecdotal nature of your evidence, how exactly did you conclude why they dislike Obama? Because they claimed it was "because of politics"?

    Will you agree that a personal loathing for a person is likely to shape your politics when that person is the President?

    What basis is there to conclude that the contributory factors to this loathing, myriad though they may be, couldn't possibly include a subconscious racism?

    I am a conservative democrat and have plenty of criticism of Obama

    No kidding. And your criticism is based on? "Politics", I suppose.

  • comment on a post Petition the President for the Public Option! over 4 years ago

    He isn't the enemy. The powerful insurance lobbies are.

    Support and donate to initiatives like Move On, and take the fight to the b@st@rds:

    https://pol.moveon.org/donate/healthcare _ads-a.html?id=17087-9212235-qE4lPwx& ;t=3

  • comment on a post Getting Ready for the Palin Administration. over 4 years ago

    hell, the right thinks Martial Law is literally days away, and the internment camps complete with Guillotines are already under construction (I wonder if Halliburton got the contracts for the build?)  They're figgering there will BE no 2012 election, cause they will all have been rounded up and sent off for indoctrination.

    Too true.

    I encourage that line of thinking. And encourage them to move to Texas, where there'll at least be strength in numbers.


Advertise Blogads