That's not really true. I mean, it's true in the sense that a generic blue dog would have outperformed Franken, but so would a generic liberal. Franken suffered because he was a celebrity and a lot of people didn't want him to win because of that.
That being said, nobody is upset with these Blue Dogs unless they start posturing and start mucking up the gears. And moreover, it depends what you care about. If you care about liberal issues, you might be annoyed by Blue Dogs trying to posture on the subjects. For those people, it really doesn't matter.
And the only reason you can credibly claim it doesn't matter even now is because we have so many liberals already. If we had a larger number of Blue Dogs, we'd all be screwed, because nothing of importance would be getting done.
Can we stop indulging these people that keep insisting their objections are because of Hillary? There's plenty of people that were upset because of Hillary Clinton's treatment, and those people have moved on.
I'm ready to say it. These leftover PUMAs are all closet racists. They all believe the "inferior black man" garbage. I'm not saying ANYONE who criticizes Obama is racist, that's insane. But the people who have consistently hated him without any real provocation... yeah. Those are not tolerant people.
No, there is a very steady audience that is buying it, one that has been feeding them for years and years now. Like Glenn Beck tellingly said and Jon Stewart collected, "Even if it's wrong, believe in something!!"
It's so unfair, isn't it? Bush and the Republicans are getting all of the blame (for the mess they helped create and allowed to fester), but will receive none of the credit when it turns around (after Obama and the democrats fix it)!
That's the right's talking point. I wish I was surprised.
It was no less important than the first time an American politician acknowledged the validity of homosexuality. Though I have to admit I don't know who or when that was.
Still, it's not like there's any real political capital to be gained. Nonbelievers, almost by definition, don't vote on the basis of religion. There are as many Republican atheists as there are Democratic ones.
Look, if he says ONE WORD supporting nationalization, he destroys the stock market of all banks everywhere, not to mention the market as a whole. Not to mention that people would start getting all their money out of the bank.
There will be a time to move on all of this, but that time is not before a plan is ready for what comes next. And not without taking over enough banks that the market feels the cancer has been sufficiently excised so there won't be a relapse.
If it happens, it will happen in a heartbeat. But it can't be announced as a plan, it just can't.
It's important to remember that while FNC is the most popular cable news channel by FAR, you have to keep perspective. These are people who are often not watching ANY local or national newscast. And all the network newscasts eclipse their ratings by huge numbers.
So remember... Tiny numbers overall, it's just that the people watching it are the ones you see soiling all the media sites online with hateful comments. A small but vocal number.
Yup. Minnesotans are probably livid, and with good reason. The national party fully supports the guy, I'm sure, but there were TONS of people voting for an independent candidate. Who do you think THEY like now?
From a perspective of pure paranoia, I don't want Obama anywhere near anything that could be called a "New World Order". Do you really want nutjobs to start actively plotting against Obama? It's hard enough to tamp down those "Obama is Antichrist" psychos as it is.
From a political perspective, Americans are NOT anywhere close to being ready.
From a perspective of reality, I don't want it because I don't think it works for the EU and I think it would work far less here.