• comment on a post McCain/RNC Robocall Disgrace over 5 years ago

    you should see the two mailings I got today here in New Hampshire.

    The first, from the RNC, is this vicious Ayers piece that pretty much calls Obama a terrorist.

    The second, from the state Republican committee, is all about how, while the financial crisis was happening, Barack was in Hollywood partying with his buddies, like Barbara Streisand and Leonardo DeCaprio.

    I hope to find time to scan them in for a diary soon.

  • on a comment on Are the PUMA's with us? over 5 years ago

    But you will notice that after the primary, and a lengthy mourning period, she is attempting to tamp down the wingnuts, at least on her site, in professed hopes of organizing them later. I don't think she's noble for that, but she is different than say... the master of "partizane", who is using and manipulating his unwitting readers without them even realizing it.

  • on a comment on Are the PUMA's with us? over 5 years ago

  • on a comment on Are the PUMA's with us? over 5 years ago

    Not by much, but slight. I would actually exclude Allegre from that list. She has made a valiant effort to forbid people on her site from promoting McCain but rather to keep it to issues. Although she threw me out as soon as she noticed me, she does allow one former PUMA, who still posts here and will remain anonymous, to present opposing views. Allegre herself tends to keep her posts to pro-Hillary stuff, and I think she's in the category of people who will never be an active Obama supporter, but will begrudgingly vote for him in November.

    I have no love loss for Allegre, but I do think she's in a different class than 99.9% of PUMAs.

  • comment on a post Are the PUMA's with us? over 5 years ago

    The PUMAs now represent a tiny non-homogenous group. For the most part they're not here, but you can find them over at the PUMA sites. Allegre, New Hampster, Riverdaughter and others who were once here are now there. For the most part those sites are echo chambers with the same dozen or so people commenting on all the sites. They aren't interested in any contrary opinion, and I know that because I've tried, and been thrown off two of those sites even while being on my best behavior, because contrary opinion isn't allowed unless you are a long-term PUMA who has seen the light in which case they may put up with you.

    PUMA is now an umbrella term that encompasses some people who, while still smarting from the primaries, will hold their nose and vote for Obama, but still consider themselves PUMAs. There are also many Republicans, either long time members of that party or new recruits. There are some, and I won't mention any names, who are just using the rest for an attempt at making some money or to get attention. There's a spattering of racists who have found a home there.

    What there are not are pro-McCain Hillary supporters, because those terms are mutually exclusive. There are a few pro-McCain former Hillary supporters however.

    PUMAs will not have any discernable effect in the election.

  • comment on a post What happened to Bill Bennett? over 5 years ago

    He had 50 large on McCain. Couldn't take it.

  • comment on a post A Stoner Debating An Alcoholic over 5 years ago

    What?

  • Forgot to mention. Obama will be here tomorrow, and Biden was here recently, so you can be sure they're not taking the state for granite (sic) either. ;-)

  • New Hampshire likes McCain, and despite what the polls say, McCain has a shot here. There are more McCain signs in my neck of the woods than Obama signs, and they're expecting a huge turnout at Salem High School this afternoon. In fact I just drove by there around 2:30 and folks were showing up for Caribou Barbie's 4:30 show. (And school was just getting out.)

    Believe it or not, New Hampshire is a swing state this year, and one McCain may actually need, despite our 4 electoral votes. Usually after the primary candidates don't show up here again.

  • What it does is apply a bandaid, and if it had been done in February it would now be over. At this point 90 days takes us to a new administration.

  • on a comment on Democrats should defend ACORN over 5 years ago

    You know what. Screw you. I entered your little discussion to point out that there is a lot unknown in this case, but all you've done is act like a tawdry little pissant. What were you? One of the ACORN canvassers? Have a nice discussion with yourself.

  • on a comment on Democrats should defend ACORN over 5 years ago

    Doesn't change a thing. Ya. ACORN's said they mark the suspect applications, but they have not said they marked these. Nor have they provided any info on what happened to the employees who submitted any bogus applications, nor would this seem to be difficult. What I would suggest is that we all demand that this investigation be done promptly.

  • on a comment on Democrats should defend ACORN over 5 years ago

    I'm not being timid about anything. I'm saying that a thorough investigation is in order. I don't care if a friend has been my friend all of my life. If he goes out and shoots somebody and that can be proven then, although I will do what I can, I don't condone the friend's actions. As I said, I will  point out ACORN's policies as stated here to anyone who brings up the topic, but someone needs to figure out what actually happened here.

  • on a comment on October Surprise over 5 years ago

    He didn't wear hats, and so the style, which was predominant to that point, died. I love hats.

  • comment on a post Democrats should defend ACORN over 5 years ago

    I am perfectly willing to present this defense of ACORN, however, someone falsified all of these registration forms, and we need to know how this happened and what the motivation was.

    While ACORN has said that they flag problematic forms, no one has said that ACORN flagged the forms that have been found to be problematic in this case. We need to know if that's true.

    In addition, we don't have numbers from ACORN as to how many forms they marked as problematic, what they did to investigate why, and what they did in response, i.e., firing the workers involved.

    All of this makes it difficult to defend ACORN at this point. I'd prefer to focus on the fact that Barack Obama has nothing to do with it.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads