moonbattery.gif


« Moonbat Anti-Semitism Festers | Main | Open Thread »


April 28, 2009

Benedict Arlen Defects to the Dems

There's one more Dem in the Senate, but one fewer treacherous, insidious RINO in the Republican Party:

Veteran GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania intends to switch political parties and run in the Democratic primary in 2010, FOX News has confirmed.
Republican voters had sent him to the Senate five times. But faced with the prospect of a strong challenge from conservative Pat Toomey in the GOP primary and the state trending Democratic, Specter jumped ship.

If the obnoxious professional clown Al Franken is successful in his appalling bid to steal a Senate seat in Minnesota, this will give the Dems a filibuster-proof majority, ensuring that nothing slows down the headlong rush into socialist ruin.

But Specter was virtually a Democrat anyway, having gone so far as to vote for Obama's obscene $787 Porkzilla spending extravaganza, an act of sabotage that will inflict long-term damage on our economy. He has been the definitive RINO, always eager to cut deals with liberals that allow him to advance his short-term interests at the expense of the country's well-being. This is the "Republican" who denounced the concept of defending our borders as "racism and xenophobia."

Only by ridding itself of the lowly likes of Specter will Republicans reemerge as the party that can rebuild the country by upholding the principles that made it great. My only regret is that Spectacle doesn't take his fellow "stimulus" porkers Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe along with him.

Arlen_Specter.jpg
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

On tips from Varla, Byron, and Conan.

Posted by Van Helsing at April 28, 2009 10:01 AM

Comments

Indeed, if Collins and Snowe would follow Spectre, the numbers would suck, but we'd have a fresh start and could get on with the business of rebuilding. If we could throw McCain in there too, we might actually be able to get to something with intellectual integrity - the prerequisite for winning in the future.

Posted by: mega at April 28, 2009 10:10 AM

The Dems are welcome to him. Although I doubt they'll be stupid enough to actually trust him.

Posted by: Rob Banks at April 28, 2009 10:15 AM

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em mentality is to be expected over the next several years, at least until the present generation of elected officials (read overlords) dies off (read is dead). The difficult times are yet in the future, this is only the beginning. Be patient, we have the trials of Job comming, and it will not be pretty.

Posted by: Eric at April 28, 2009 10:25 AM

Yes, the numbers suck, but weren't they misleading anyway, seeing as these RINOs go wherever the wind blows them? We can just assume that the Maine monsters are dems as well.

Wonder what someone from PA thinks?

Posted by: Karin at April 28, 2009 10:27 AM

I guess Mr. Specter had enough of the GOP nonsense. In his statement he even stated the party went to far to the right. Now all that needs to be done is the seating of Senator Al Franken.So how does it feel being in exile? No leader, No plan, and being the incredible shrinking party?

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 28, 2009 10:49 AM

I'd rather be in a shrinking party of honorable patriots, than part of a majority of depraved, corrupt, socialist moonbats.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at April 28, 2009 10:55 AM

His brain has been eaten away by cancer. Its no suprise since hes been a RINO for years. Good riddance. He looks like that Romulan guy from the last Star Trek movie.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 28, 2009 10:56 AM

Benedict Arlen Specter!

Posted by: LoneWolfArcher at April 28, 2009 11:00 AM

I've been in and following politics for a good many years, and 30 years ago when Spector first ran for the Senate, it was widely discussed that he was actually a Democrat - had in fact switched parties in order to run. We all hated him then and my feelings have not changed. Good riddance to bad rubbish, as my old grandmother used to say!

Posted by: Jamie Shafer at April 28, 2009 11:10 AM

He left a long time ago. The Republican voters in PA will have a clear choice next election cycle. Will this fracture the PA Democrat party? If you were a lifelong Democrat, would you vote for this guy? Politics is not about forgive and forget.

Posted by: Nancy at April 28, 2009 11:12 AM

Good ridence to bad rubish

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at April 28, 2009 11:18 AM

While the country has moved to the middle/left you guys still chirp about going further right. Mr. Specter obviously recognized that. While you wish to ignore voters swinging progressive these days, you are inching closer to the way of the Whigs. Have at it! Hmmm, and in June....Senator Al Franken (60)!

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 28, 2009 11:18 AM

turncoat bastage! good - one rino weeded out.

Posted by: nancz at April 28, 2009 11:19 AM

Senator Al "Bunny ears and a diaper" Franken. Oh, yeah. That's a great image to present to the world.

Wouldn't be surprised if showed up on Capitol Hill in clown shoes.

Posted by: hiram at April 28, 2009 11:22 AM

Specter looks like the bastard love child of the Emperor from Star Trek and Dr. Evil.

Posted by: Judith M. at April 28, 2009 11:22 AM

Oops! The Evil Emperor from "Star Wars" not "Star Trek".

Posted by: Judith M. at April 28, 2009 11:24 AM

He's complete POS and I hope the PA voters who kept putting this traitor in office are proud of themselves today.

Oh.....and how CONVENIENT it is that the story breaks on the day the Obamination Adminstration would have had to explain their terrorist White House flight ops yesterday over NYC!

NOTHING that this administration does surprises me anymore. They know exactly what strings to pull at exactly the right times.

God help us all....

Posted by: R985wasp at April 28, 2009 11:28 AM

I really don't understand Ghost of Wellstone's blind loyalty to his party... or anyone's.

The party's president can't order a Happy Meal without a teleprompter and seems happiest in the company of thug socialist dictators. And his cabinet of liars, crooks, and tax cheats.

The Vice president is a moron who thinks "Jobs" is a three letter word, and that President FDR went on Television after the stock market crash in 1929.

The Speaker of the House is a botoxed socialist hack. The majority leader of the senate is the reanimated corpse of Granny Clampett... and they are spending the country into oblivion with deficits unlike any in history.

Corruption? The Chairman of the House Banking committee was trumpeting the junk-mortgages that brought about financial ruin while sharing a bunk with one of the junk-mortgage ringleaders, and Chris Dodd was getting a sweetheart mortgage deal from another junk-mortgage broker.

Then, we have Gavin Newsom, the alcoholic philanderer who champions gay marriage rights while banging his aide's wife. But at least he's not molesting underage boys like Democrats Gerry Studds, Sam Adams, Gary Becker, and Jeff Rosato. (Not that Democrats have any problem with any of that.)

Meanwhile, fat hypocrites Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and RFK Jr jet around the world on private jets, claiming that the the planet is going to burn up.

It takes a special brand of stupidity to be utterly indifferent to the corruption, stupidity, and depravity of your partisans.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at April 28, 2009 11:31 AM

Arlen Specter needs to retire.

I'll never forget how he defended the murdering, lying scum Ira Einhorn.

Sadly, I think there's a very good chance that he can win again because of the very large Democratic votes in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Posted by: mst at April 28, 2009 11:32 AM

He has just raised the collective IQ's of both sides of the aisle.

Posted by: James McEnanly at April 28, 2009 11:33 AM

Come to think of it, old snarlin' Arlen (defender of the unicorn killer Ira Einhorn) will fit right in with Wellstone's party.

Maybe he can help John Murtha funnel more millions into the airport nobody uses. Maybe he can help Charlie Rangel write tax laws that he and other Democrats will evade. Then, he can help Ted Kennedy welcome terrorists into the country and sign them up for welfare.

Yes, he will fit right in.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at April 28, 2009 11:35 AM

na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey

Good Bye!

Posted by: Heather M at April 28, 2009 11:36 AM

As my WW2 Vet father would say:

Adios

Mother

F*cker

Posted by: GunnyG at April 28, 2009 11:47 AM

Gregory, it is hardly a "blind loyalty" as you suggest. It is looking a two party system that is full of corruption, I agree. But if you believe the corruption is reserved for the Democratic Party you are sorely mistaken.Recognizing a party that does a better job of representing people vs corporations is a pretty clear choice. You guys are just stuck on this "teleprompter" garbage, would you rather have the stuttering fool back? Further, if you wish to discuss corruption, then fine let's discuss that. Cheney and Halliburton, Carlyle Group, KBH,Blackwater, Marvin Bush, and the rest of the Bush Crime Family...should I continue? Further, to call Nancy Pelosi a "Socialist Hack" is laughable. Investing in OUR country is socialism? And you really want to bring up Gavin Newsome? The future Gov of California, who in the midst of his indiscretions took ownership of it, unlike Mark Foley who ran and hid behind his party faithful for months. Or David Vitter, who was rumored to actually wearing diapers while he was with prostitutes unlike Al Franken who wore his on a SNL skit. Or Newt's affair with an aide while his wife was hospitalized, or Rotten Rudy's corrupt behavior on tax payer money.Don't try the family value crap.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 28, 2009 11:55 AM

This is excellent news, with that idiot Obama in office there will be a bounty on Democrat ears in 2 years or less. HIS will be included!! Just Fantastic ;-)

Posted by: TED at April 28, 2009 11:56 AM

Arlen Sphincter is almost 80 - he wont be around much longer any way. Maybe Ted Kennedy can take him for a drive over an old favorite bridge of his.

Arlen has been a mixed bag over the years but after being attacked by cancer he become too much of a lose cannon. It will be funny when he votes against Card Check - a vestage of the small part of his brain that remains sane.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 28, 2009 11:59 AM

Gregory, you really are in top form in this thread! btw, your blog rules.

"I guess Mr. Specter had enough of the GOP nonsense. In his statement he even stated the party went to far to the right."
Ghost, did you not read the article referenced here?
Specter switched sides because the state appears to be more Democratic leaning, and because he knew if he stayed in the Republican party, he'd face a strong challenge in the primary from Toomey.
In other words, he did it because he's a weak- willed, cowardly sellout.

Posted by: Adam at April 28, 2009 11:59 AM

Good Lord, is that really Specter? He looks like an extra from a Night of the Living movie.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 28, 2009 12:04 PM

Jeepers creepers that picture! Is that Specter or Nosferatu?

Posted by: Jan in NYC at April 28, 2009 12:05 PM

And you really want to bring up Gavin Newsome? The future Gov of California, who in the midst of his indiscretions took ownership of it, unlike Mark Foley who ran and hid behind his party faithful for months.

No, Wellstone. Here's difference between Republicans and Democrats:

- Foley (R) Gone. Studds (D) re-elected 9 times (and he actually molested a boy, didn't just send inappropriate text messages. Sam Adams (D) ... sitting pretty.

- Duke Cunningham (R) and Ted Stevens - Gone. John Murtha, Charlie Rangel (D) and Alcee Hastings (D), re-elected. And Tax cheat Tim Geithner is Treasury Secretary.

You constant crow about how great your Democrats are, but apparently, corruption means nothing to you guys. You never have a harsh word to say about anyone on your own team. You're a partisan hack, and you deserve Arlen Specter.

And people versus corporations? Give me a break. After the Democrats bail out Wall Street, and let Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae keep the millions they made from junk mortgages, you're really going to believe that "party of the people crap." You're an idiot.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at April 28, 2009 12:21 PM

In some respects we may be better off if the Dems get a filibuster-proof majority. Give them their head, and see how/what they do (I shudder a bit at typing that, I must confess). If they perform as I suspect they will, they'll discredit liberalism for another generation, just as Carter did thirty years ago. The electorate just needs a booster shot to resist the disease.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 12:21 PM

Skeletor joined the Council of Doom years ago, good riddance.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 28, 2009 12:28 PM

HA HA HA HA HA!..... once Al Frankin is in, we're gonna take away your guns, outlaw your angry old testament god, torture you till you turn flaming gay... and YES!!! ...ban country music and cowboy hats... And also, (your paranoia here) too. HA HA HA HA.... HA!

Just kidding ya.

Posted by: LaughingLib at April 28, 2009 12:29 PM

just remember one end of the spectrum always kept an anchor, the chain is cut, now begins the slide to insanity.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 28, 2009 12:32 PM

Dear Anonymous,

I think you'll be pushing daisies if it comes to that because it will be Civil War II. And you guys have no guns!

Posted by: LoneWolfArcher at April 28, 2009 12:38 PM

The difference between republicans and democrats is that republicans can every so often, slowly, on a glacial scale, purge themselves of poisonous, brain-damaged vermin that manage somehow to creep into the party's back door and park their tic-like parasitic carcasses.

the libs will keep Ted Kennedy until his last whiskey breath.

Posted by: Fiberal at April 28, 2009 12:38 PM

This geezer's next stimulus package will be a defibrillator. Bye-bye formaldehyde-breath!

Posted by: Sylvia at April 28, 2009 12:54 PM

Gregory, it is hardly a "blind loyalty" as you suggest. It is looking a two party system that is full of corruption, I agree. But if you believe the corruption is reserved for the Democratic Party you are sorely mistaken.Recognizing a party that does a better job of representing people vs corporations is a pretty clear choice.

Yeah, Republicans are so supportive of corporations that they're directly injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into the pockets of corporate executives. Oh wait...

Yes, they're even taking ownership stakes in struggling corporations and ordering their executives to leave. When corporations that have received bailout monies from the government try to pay them back, Republicans are denying them that ability so as to maintain control. Oh wait...

Republicans are so enamored with corporations that they're forcing bleeding behemoths to stay in business as opposed to letting them go bankrupt, as they should. Oh wait...

Democrats represent the people so well that they've shut off TARP funding, which was opposed on the order of around 300:1. Oh wait...

Democrats represent the people so well that they thoroughly read and understood the largest spending bill in history and made sure earmarks were nowhere to be found. Oh wait...

And your platitudes about both parties being corrupt ring especially hollow as you gleefully celebrate the end of the Republican Party. Be careful. As Jay said, y'all have complete, unbridled power now. You own everything, including the results. Just sayin'.

You guys are just stuck on this "teleprompter" garbage, would you rather have the stuttering fool back?

At this point, I'd take Barney Fife.

Further, if you wish to discuss corruption, then fine let's discuss that. Cheney and Halliburton, Carlyle Group, KBH,Blackwater, Marvin Bush, and the rest of the Bush Crime Family...should I continue?

You should absolutely continue, because I think that's the best you can do. Gregory pointed to actual corruption from actual, sitting Democrats. Your response? A jumbled mix of conspiracy theory and finger-pointing at people who, by and large, didn't actually make policy for our country. Ooohhh, scary Blackwater. Zoinks, Haliburton! Oogedy boogedy.

Please.

Further, to call Nancy Pelosi a "Socialist Hack" is laughable. Investing in OUR country is socialism?

How is Pelosi investing in our country?

I personally don't think she's a socialist hack, because then she would at least have principles. As it is, she'd beat an infant to death if she thought it would help get her re-elected. Looking at her constituency, it probably would, but I don't want to give that walking corpse any ideas.

And you really want to bring up Gavin Newsome? The future Gov of California, who in the midst of his indiscretions took ownership of it, unlike Mark Foley who ran and hid behind his party faithful for months. Or David Vitter, who was rumored to actually wearing diapers while he was with prostitutes unlike Al Franken who wore his on a SNL skit. Or Newt's affair with an aide while his wife was hospitalized, or Rotten Rudy's corrupt behavior on tax payer money.Don't try the family value crap.

And again, "rumors," innuendo, supposition, and nothing else. It's funny you bring up Foley, seeing as he's...gone! Whereas with Ted Kennedy, you can apparently be a murderer and end being beloved by the Democrat Party. Gregory made a good point when he noted that impropriety and corruption does exist on both sides of the aisle. Apparently it's largely Republicans who will actually punish someone for it.

And you, Wellstone, with all your blathering about moderates and center politics and blah blah, are a divisive, idiotic, partisan hack.

Come back when you can string a few points together without embarrassing yourself.

Posted by: cowlove at April 28, 2009 1:03 PM

Further, to call Nancy Pelosi a "Socialist Hack" is laughable. Investing in OUR country is socialism?

Read the "stimulus" bill. I did. Much of the spending doesn't kick in until 2011. 2011??

Oh yes. Long after this recession will be over, but right before the next Presidential election.

They're not investing, any more than someone buying a plasma TV is investing. They're consuming, in this case, consuming wealth that hasn't even been created yet.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 1:09 PM

I had to laugh at this one from Ghost:

"Recognizing a party that does a better job of representing people vs corporations is a pretty clear choice."

In the first 100 days, that's all Obama and his minions have done, is get into bed with huge corporations! Don't you watch the news? Are you even awake? Sober? Cowlove went through all the details, so I won't again, but I will add that Obama is trying to get poised to make OBSCENE amounts of money for General Electric, as well as Wall Street speculators with his CapnTrade and green moonbat energy schemes.

Pure Chicago politics. Quid pro Quo pay for play. Ask Blago about it.

Even some at the Democratic Underground called Obama a corporate whore. Of course, they were promptly banned. NO dissent allowed there. People might start to think.


Posted by: Karin at April 28, 2009 1:36 PM

Ephialtes; he has the face and the convictions, all he needs now is a hump (actually, maybe that's what they offered him!). ;-)

Posted by: JustAl at April 28, 2009 1:48 PM

This is a good thing from where I sit. People like Specter are useless dead weight the Democrats were able to use to share the blame for their failed socialist projects. All the Republicans need to do is convince the rest of his slimy ilk to follow, and the Republicans have a good base from which to rebuild. Ghost of Wellstone is clearly a blind party honk who doesn't deserve to be ackowledged. People like him are so brainwashed, it makes debating them pointless. I'd sooner strike up a conversation with a brick wall.

Posted by: Right0fReagan at April 28, 2009 1:50 PM

Honestly, this is the start of how the Republican party can turn around. Getting rid of those who don't stick to conservative principles that voters have come to expect. Which leads me to wonder and be very concerned about how Republicans like Snowe Specter and Collins get elected in the first place.

Also, freaking fantastic post cowlove.

Posted by: Krouse at April 28, 2009 1:57 PM

I'm curious as to how winning an election by getting more votes counts as stealing...

Posted by: Leon at April 28, 2009 2:10 PM

Right, because Franken had less votes in the beginning, and lost the first time. Luckily votes were discovered in trunks of cars of poll workers.

Posted by: Krouse at April 28, 2009 2:41 PM

I think this may be a bit bigger than you guys are giving it credit to be. This may very well be interpreted as an ousting of anyone that doesn't adhere to what has become the leftovers of the radical far right. In other words, moderate Republicans are no longer welcome in their small and hostile circle. Voters are watching. Just food for thought.

Jay wrote: "In some respects we may be better off if the Dems get a filibuster-proof majority. Give them their head, and see how/what they do". That is an excellent point and you may be very correct. Historically, they've hung themselves with much less rope.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 28, 2009 2:49 PM


If Democrats make Specter their candidate for Senate, furious Republicans will turn out in mass to vote against him in the general election, which will help the whole ticket in Pennsylvania -- and he still won't be liberal enough to win the enthusiasm of the Democrat base. Not bad.

Posted by: Brenda at April 28, 2009 2:56 PM

If Arlen Spector is no more moderate than His "O"lliness. "Moderates" "Progressives" , the left just love trying to redefine the political specturm to suit themselves. This man was a liberal on the majority of issues and always was.

Any party that "represents all" represents nothing. Let him and all like him go and take their failed ideology with them. His new masters will discard him at the first opportunity.

Posted by: JustAl at April 28, 2009 3:07 PM

Good Luck Rino, You'll need it

Posted by: Unicorn Fart at April 28, 2009 3:10 PM

Actually, I would vote for Phil Spector over Arlen any day of the week- seems like a more stable and sensible choice, lol.

With all due respect, Senator- don’t let the door hit your butt on the way-out. And nobody on our side’s going to miss you.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Reaganite Republican Resistance at April 28, 2009 3:13 PM

If Republicans are clever, (and they're not), this is the point when they start talking about "restoring balance." Americans have historically been leery of one-party rule. And the Democrats pretty much have absolute power, now. Middle of the road voters might well be persuaded to vote Republican just to keep the Demoncrats in check.

Posted by: V the K at April 28, 2009 3:32 PM

This may very well be interpreted as an ousting of anyone that doesn't adhere to what has become the leftovers of the radical far right.

andy I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion. Specter left of his own accord; no one ousted him.

I also don't see how you can label the majority of Republicans in Congress as "radical far right." If anything, they've appealed so much to the center that they have lost whatever conservative ideals might have made them Republican in the first place. See McCain "Shamnesty," and Bush "I abandoned free market principles to save the free market," for reference.

I have no doubt that there are remnants of strong, conservative Republican ideals still in Congress, but they have some scrambling to do if they're going to convince anyone they're relevant. The best thing going for them, in my opinion, is that Democrats are totally running the show here. There is absolutely no pinning anything on them from here on out, whether good or bad. They can't even be called obstructionists anymore.

On a side note, I have to call you out on your broad brush of "radical far right." It smacks of rhetorical nonsense, in that it's an easy phrase to use when you'd prefer not to engage in actual discussion. I don't see anything radical in the stances of the Republican minority. My complaint is that they are far too squishy and "go along to get along." I could only hope they'd actually walk a more radical line.

Posted by: cowlove at April 28, 2009 3:41 PM

This may very well be interpreted as an ousting of anyone that doesn't adhere to what has become the leftovers of the radical far right.

So, by extension, Lieberman was ousted from the Democratic Party by the leftovers of the radical far left?

Actually, that’s closer to being true. Lieberman failed to win his party’s nomination to run for re-election, so in that sense he was ousted by the Party. Specter just changed his mind. No evidence that anyone pushed him, no elections imminent, no way to pressure him to leave. (Why would Republicans want him to leave? They need every vote they can possibly get.) In fact, one could more easily make this out as a case of expediency on Specter’s part, to curry favor with the party in power.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 3:49 PM

Good point VK. If only if wasn't such a huge word. Realistically, despite the Bush Regime's gross incompetence and absolute allegiance to the almighty dollar (or those that possessed those dollars and willing to contribute to their campaign), at the end of the day, the one party Republican party of the 109th was devastating. Looking back, it was that same control of Democrats that allowed the takeover of that "Contract To America" in the mid 90s. So, here we are again with Dems on a mission. They I believe, will ultimately hang themselves with the mass quantity of rope they've acquired. What an opportune time for both parties to learn that there's a diverse society out there and that it ain't all about them.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 28, 2009 3:51 PM

What an opportune time for both parties to learn that there's a diverse society out there and that it ain't all about them.

Amen.

Even look at every news report about Specter's flopping. "He faces a tough re-election bid." So his decision is to completely abandon the ideals that got him elected in the first place??? I know, I know, Specter is hardly a model Republican, but when people vote for a Republican surely they expect them to, you know, be a Republican.

Our elected leaders are only concerned with remaining our elected leaders. There may be a few who are actually worth a damn, but they're few and far between. Disgusting.

Posted by: cowlove at April 28, 2009 3:57 PM

This geezer knows that being in this Administration now is immortality. Even after you've passed away and have been buried, your vote STILL COUNTS in all future Congressional legislation. It's known in Washington as "A Proxy from Beyond."

It wins Presidential elections, too! Bury the dead, but keep them counted in the Census and in Voter Registration. If you can collect their Social Security checks too, that's a BONUS! Go for it Dems!

Posted by: Uncle Reamus at April 28, 2009 4:01 PM

Jay, Lieberman lost mainly because of his buying Bush's War on Fear. Nice try. That almost reminds me of Michelle Bachmann today claiming that the swine flu only happens on Democratic President's watches even though the last one was during Gearld Ford's watch. I guess as long as some false statement burns in a few people's mind then the lie was damn worth it? The reason Lieberman switched parties was because he LOST. The reason Spector switched was fear to losing. Your argument is weak but we can go for it if you like. Do we really need to debate this history lesson?

Republicans didn't want Arlen to leave, no more than Dems would have wanted Joe to change caucuses. What I was saying was that there's a political perception in the Dem's favor if they want to strategically use that for ammo. Reps are seen as weak and as of having no voice other than Rush that seems to be somewhat of the extreme. You may disagree but 2010 ain't exactly looking good for you guys.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 28, 2009 4:07 PM

Realistically, despite the Bush Regime's gross incompetence and absolute allegiance to the almighty dollar (or those that possessed those dollars and willing to contribute to their campaign),...

C’mon, Andy, the Teleprompter Jesus outspent his opponent by seven to one. He effectively bought the Presidency. And on whose behalf? We don’t know – his campaign hid the source of credit card donations by going out of their way to turn off address verification, a default feature on a merchant credit card account. It’s almost as if they didn’t want to know where the money came from, isn’t it? Almost as if they suspected a dollar or two might have come from overseas, in contravention of American law...

So don’t start in on Bush campaign finances. They’re clean as a hound’s tooth, certainly by the standards of Obama, whose campaign was one of the grubbiest in American history in that respect. Who’d a thunk a Chicago machine politician might be grubby? Who indeed?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 4:13 PM

Jay, Lieberman lost mainly because of his buying Bush's War on Fear. Nice try.

What’s Lieberman doing today? Is he helping out Senator Lamont?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 4:16 PM

Jay, Lieberman lost mainly because of his buying Bush's War on Fear.

Just a quick note. The vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was 77-23. A couple notables that voted in favor: Clinton, Dodd, and Reid. I don't see them suffering any ill effects.

Republicans didn't want Arlen to leave, no more than Dems would have wanted Joe to change caucuses. What I was saying was that there's a political perception in the Dem's favor if they want to strategically use that for ammo.

Oh I see. Specter left of his own accord. But, get the Dem political machine on the case and presto-changeo, Repubicans ousted him because he wasn't part of the radical far right.

You're getting loopy here. Let's get back to some reasonable common ground, shall we?

Posted by: cowlove at April 28, 2009 4:18 PM

Jay, please come to terms with this fact: I along with close to 80% of America as well as the majority of the world, were not happy with George W. Bush or the McConnell lead clan. And yes, I know the final vote tally was closer. All your arguments against Obama didn't outweigh the resentment of the Bush years. If (that big word again) McCain could have, or simply gave it lick and a promise of a chance to somewhat distance himself from Bush, he may very well be POTUS. He didn't and it's mainly because he couldn't. The Chicago Machine or another 4 years of the same. That's what America voted for. Argue it all you like but I think America said "hell no" to what your party had to offer.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 28, 2009 4:26 PM

Cowlove, you lost me. My bad I'm sure. Care to elaborate?

Posted by: andy42302 at April 28, 2009 4:30 PM

Which part are you referring to?

Posted by: cowlove at April 28, 2009 4:34 PM

The reason Lieberman switched parties was because he LOST. The reason Spector switched was fear to losing. Your argument is weak but we can go for it if you like. Do we really need to debate this history lesson?

Yes, let’s do, since you evidently need it. If Specter was “ousted” – as you asserted, then so was Lieberman, a fortiori: he was rejected by his party. (If that’s not an ousting, nothing is.) Specter feared he might lose, which was exactly what had already happened to Lieberman. If Lieberman wasn’t ousted, then certainly neither was Specter. Can’t have it both ways.

You may disagree but 2010 ain't exactly looking good for you guys.

On the contrary, Dems are going to have problems in 2010. Mid-term elections always favor the party out of power, because making decisions and wielding power engenders loss of popularity. By 2010 inevitable Obama’s tax increases will have been passed (and all that “95% of the people will get a tax cut” crap will be revealed as such), and the shine will have worn off him. It’s wearing off as we speak. (The teleprompter jokes are making Obama into a laughing stock on late night television already.) Another 18 months like these last three, with more ham-fisted moves to take over companies, more embarrassing foreign policy gaffes, along with a sweetheart deal for the UAW (in the works). Dems know this; it’s why they were frothing at the mouth about the tea parties.

And if there’s a terrorist attack? Forget it. Obama has been remarkably stupid to make himself look soft on terrorists and terrorism, because now he’s given hostages to Fortune. His anti-terrrorism record has to be absolutely perfect. One slip, and Obama and the Dems are done. The inevitable comparison with Bush’s seven years without an attack will finish Obama’s career. Guaranteed.

You’re probably not old enough to remember Carter. I am. He started off slightly more popular than the Messiah. And yet by the end of his first term his own party (Ted Kennedy) was trying to take the nomination from him, he was that bad and that unpopular. The good part: his successor was Ronaldus Maximus. We can only hope history repeats itself.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 4:41 PM

"Oh I see. Specter left of his own accord. But, get the Dem political machine on the case and presto-changeo, Repubicans ousted him because he wasn't part of the radical far right."

Why did he leave????

The 77-23 vote became irrelevant after other factors evolved. I'm not laying blame on the decision (although I said no from day 1). Joe lost to Lamar (I think without googling) because he refused to except facts and played along with the "fight em there instead of fight em here" crap (as if a nation with no army, navy, or air force would board a transatlantic flight to fight us here). People soon understood that Saddam really didn't attack us after all and additionally, he had no WMD. Joe promoted the hype and lost. His republican challenger was no better so the folks took the incumbent.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 28, 2009 4:47 PM

You guys are on a sinking ship. At least you still have Rush Limbaugh to guide you into the rocks once again. And let's not forget Al Franken will wind the ELECTION by a majority of the people in the state. You may say he cheated, but that's what losers do, they make excuses for losing. With 60 in the senate you can kiss your ass goodbye. Take a few of those oxycodone that Rush is addicted to, and wake up in four years for the next election. It really is a loss for intolerance. Sorry.

Posted by: paget at April 28, 2009 4:48 PM

Jay, please come to terms with this fact: I along with close to 80% of America as well as the majority of the world, were not happy with George W. Bush or the McConnell lead clan.

First, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the world outside our borders. Couldn’t care less what they think about anything. OK?

Second, I don’t believe George Bush was running in 2008.

Third, who the hell is McConnell?

And yes, I know the final vote tally was closer

The only popularity contest that counts. Which Obama won, by the same margin as voters here in California rejected homosexual marriage. So if the Presidential election was a repudiation of the Republican Party, California’s voters repudiated homosexual marriage.

All your arguments against Obama didn't outweigh the resentment of the Bush years. If (that big word again) McCain could have, or simply gave it lick and a promise of a chance to somewhat distance himself from Bush, he may very well be POTUS. He didn't and it's mainly because he couldn't.

Couldn’t, and wouldn’t. Amusingly enough, Obama hasn’t distancing himself from Bush’s policies either, apart from a few cosmetic gestures to assuage the cognitively challenged (i.e., his base). Iraq? Check. Afghanistan? Check. FISA? Check. Gitmo? Check.Wiretapping? Check. (Expanded, in fact.) Extraordinary rendition? Double-check. (Also expanded.) So what exactly has changed?

That's what America voted for.

America voted for a prom king. And we got one.

Argue it all you like but I think America said "hell no" to what your party had to offer.

A seven-to-one spending ratio may have helped a little, too. But ask yourself this question: if you personally were in a tight spot – say held captive – whom would you rather be held with – Obama or McCain? I think even Michelle would plump for McCain. Character counts.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 4:55 PM

You may say he cheated, but that's what losers do, they make excuses for losing.

I will not have you badmouthing Al Gore like that.

With 60 in the senate you can kiss your ass goodbye.

Ah, grasshopper, stop and think. With a bullet-proof majority, you can do anything you want. Anything. But...you’ll be responsible for what you do. You can’t strike poses about the great ideas you would have implemented if only you had power. You can’t bitch from the sidelines that this is the “wrong war;” you’ll have to make real-world decisions, and some of them will be wrong. You can’t screw things up and then lay off any of the blame onto anyone else. It’ll be 100% on you. Every scintilla of it. Anything goes wrong – and it will, guaranteed – you will own all the blame. Think about it.

It really is a loss for intolerance.

My irony meter just blew up.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 5:03 PM

I'm glad to see that Arlen Specter has not rendered you Republicans "speechless" as others are saying other websites. Keep fighting for ideological purity. Only with purity can we get back on top!

Posted by: Mark G at April 28, 2009 5:04 PM

But McCain's nickname is "Song bird" because he sang like a canary BEFORE he was tortured!

So, yeah, I'd pick Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 28, 2009 5:06 PM

I'll make this prediction: four years from now, a lot of today's Obamanauts will deny they ever supported him. (Or, alternatively, they'll dissemble and admit they voted for him, but say it was as the lesser of two evils.) There'll be no indication that in 2008 they wanted to have his baby (whether they be male or female).

Think that's far-fetched? Try to find someone who'll admit to voting for Carter.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 5:06 PM

But McCain's nickname is "Song bird" because he sang like a canary BEFORE he was tortured!

So why did they torture someone who was talking? Sheesh.

So, yeah, I'd pick Obama.

Given your first sentence, I believe you’re silly enough to do just that. Ask Alice Palmer about Obama’s sense of loyalty.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 5:12 PM

Andy, well said. Lieberman lost his primary not for voting with the Bush Crime Family, but for his continuous lying in support of it.

As for Jay and Gregory, my earlier statements were fact and have been widely reported, I just figured you were smart enough to have actually read the reports.

Again, Andy was correct, the country said no to the far right policies promoted by Bush and Co. I know the continued losses sting, and if you should of learned anything this past fall, is most voters do not like the far right rhetoric that Michael Steele used today when referring to Arlen Specter.

While the Democratic Party has strolled into two decisive victories with Progressive Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats. The GOP has become the party of old white men, and crazies like Michelle Bachmann. What one can see with the Republicans is that it is the leadership's rhetoric,and messages on social and religious issues that are hurting you. Further, behaving like Norm Coleman is, is not making you guys look any better. Trying to argue that Franken lost on election night is a joke. It is state law in Mn. to have a mandatory recount if there is a slim margin. In addition, the ballots that have been rejected, were done so because of irregularities like voting for both candidates. The Military votes have slightly gone in favor of Franken, so you cannot use that argument anymore. Al Franken's trips with the USO left him wildly popular amongst those serving overseas.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 28, 2009 6:02 PM

Jay,
McCain gave incorrect information when he was tortured. He gave the roster of a football team when asked for names, the Cowboys I believe.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 28, 2009 6:04 PM

Jay, like it or not, Bush beat McCain in 2000 and again in 2008. No, Bush didn't run in 08 but he beat him just the same.

Nor does the world give a rat's ass of you.

Mitch McConnell is the ex U.S. Senate Majority Leader and the present U.S. Senate Minority Leader.

I understand that we both know the final Presidential election tally. And the winner was?

"Obama hasn’t distancing himself from Bush’s policies either, apart from a few cosmetic gestures to assuage the cognitively challenged (i.e., his base). Iraq? Check. Afghanistan? Check. FISA? Check. Gitmo? Check.Wiretapping? Check. (Expanded, in fact.) Extraordinary rendition? Double-check.""" and as we speak, exaclty who is Obama running against??? Your point?

Your hypothetical of being held captive defies logic, as if Caribou Barbie would have skydived in and held off Putin with her AK47 as McCain untied me and my kids or something. Are we playing this WWF smackdown thing again? Is this the same logic that makes your accusations of our President being a "prom queen" relevant?

Seriously Jay, the days of fear mongering irrational diatribe are over. People are trying to pick up the pieces from the Bush years. Granted, not everyone agrees with Obama's every move but the concept of "stupid" no longer applies.


Posted by: andy42302 at April 28, 2009 6:17 PM

Ghost, I can sympathize with many on the right about Franken's win. There's much about the entire process that's questionable. However, as much as I hated seeing Bush win over Gore, I came to terms with the fact that it was time for gore to step aside. Accordingly, Coleman should follow suit.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 28, 2009 6:40 PM

GET RID OF ALLLLLLLLLL THE RINOS!

Posted by: nancz at April 28, 2009 6:40 PM

" At least you still have Rush Limbaugh to guide you into the rocks once again."
Again with the moronic stereotypes which have no base in reality, eh paget? Sticking to the only debating strategy you know?
I don't listen to Limbaugh, genius.

" You may say he cheated, but that's what losers do, they make excuses for losing."
People like you of course know all about that, since you have a LOT of experience being sore losers. You spent the last eight years whining and throwing mind- numbing temper tantrums over the fact that Bush won twice. "WAAAAH! WAAAAH! ELECTION FRAUD! BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION! WAAAAAH!"

"It really is a loss for intolerance."
Again, you seem oblivious to your own hypocrisy. Every single one of your posts has demonstrated your intolerance of conservatives. You label us all as dumb, Bible- thumping rednecks, yet then have the nerve to accuse US of being the intolerant ones?
It would be funny if it (And you) weren't so pathetic.

Posted by: Adam at April 28, 2009 6:47 PM

The GOP has become the party of old white men

Racist, ageist, undemocratic, shameful, and ultimately, untrue.

Further, behaving like Norm Coleman is, is not making you guys look any better. Trying to argue that Franken lost on election night is a joke. It is state law in Mn. to have a mandatory recount if there is a slim margin.

Comrades, how exactly is that any different than Algore? You do remember him, right? The guy who had a psychotic break after losing his home state, his running partner’s home state, and ultimately the Presidential election, the last after demanding selective recounts and trying to block military absentee ballots? That Algore? Meanwhile, Franken & Co. are busily and happily Gregoiring their way to a majority. The only suspense is the margin by which total votes cast will exceed the number of registered voters.

Military votes have slightly gone in favor of Franken, so you cannot use that argument anymore.

Horseshit.

McCain gave incorrect information when he was tortured. He gave the roster of a football team when asked for names, the Cowboys I believe.

So by Democrat lights that constitutes breaking faith? Face it – Obama would be offering blow jobs to his captors in the same situation. He’s just not that much of a man. You know it, I know it, he knows it. He’s an opportunistic weakling.

Jay, like it or not, Bush beat McCain in 2000 and again in 2008. No, Bush didn't run in 08 but he beat him just the same.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense, but I gather that you’re saying Bush is better than McCain...or Kerry...or Gore, since Bush beat all three.

and as we speak, exaclty who is Obama running against??? Your point?

So Obama said whatever he thought the left half of the bell curve would buy? Obama ran on opposition to FISA, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, and extraordinary rendition, and yet we have all of those, some of them expanded. Face it – you guys were conned, but apparently aren’t bright to realize it. Hope! Change!

Your hypothetical of being held captive defies logic, as if Caribou Barbie would have skydived in and held off Putin with her AK47 as McCain untied me and my kids or something. Are we playing this WWF smackdown thing again? Is this the same logic that makes your accusations of our President being a "prom queen" relevant?

I forgot I was dealing with liberals, so I’ll try to explain this without using any big words. The point was not that this was a serious scenario, but rather an imaginary test of character. In that kind of situation, would Obama keep faith, or sell you out? Would he have refused repatriation from Hanoi? We both know the answer. He’d have split, and left his comrades (Americans, in this context, not liberals) in the lurch, and afterwards trotted out some bullshit rationalization as to why he did so. The man’s a weathervane. He’d collaborate in a heartbeat for his own aggrandizement. Everything in his background shouts lack of character. He’s never persevered against adversity, always taken the path of least resistance. If you’d trust his character, you’re a complete fool.

And Caribou Barbie, as you call her, has more balls than Obama on his best day. In a tight situation, he’d be sniveling and blubbing like a little girl. He’s a weakling. You know that’s true. And I termed your President a “prom king,” but your Freudian slip is closer to the truth. We’d be as well off getting any male model from New York.

Seriously Jay, the days of fear mongering irrational diatribe are over. People are trying to pick up the pieces from the Bush years. Granted, not everyone agrees with Obama's every move but the concept of "stupid" no longer applies.

The Democrat Party is based on fear and hate; it’s all you’ve got, and all you’ve had, since slavery was replaced by the KKK, segregation and Jim Crow. Look at the fear induced by a few tea parties. Democrats are the party of hate. They hate Republicans, they hate Americans, they hate America, they hate capitalism, they hate the prosperous, they hate families, they hate humans for degrading the planet, they hate...pretty much everything this country stands for. Their whole platform is class warfare. Even now they can’t stop hating Bush and Cheney. It’s all they’ve got. Notice the language politicians of the two parties use: Republicans say “I’ll work for you,” whereas Democrats say “I’ll fight for you.” A small thing, but telling. And what do they love, or at least pretend to? Let’s see: the UN, Europeans, the environment, polar bears, socialism, as well as criminals, homosexuals, and other losers.

But now you’ve got the power – temporarily, as always in these things – and now you’ve got to deliver. Now excuses, no bullshit, no blaming the grownups for not implementing your sophomoric notions, no posing about what you would do, if only... There’s nothing stopping you now. Implement every harebrained notion you guys have ever had. Hug it out with Iran. Implement reparations for slavery. Count on the Europeans to lift a finger to help us. Bankrupt the nation. Bleed working Americans white. Please. Do it.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 7:10 PM

There's much about the entire process that's questionable. However, as much as I hated seeing Bush win over Gore, I came to terms with the fact that it was time for gore to step aside. Accordingly, Coleman should follow suit.

Prepare to be amazed, but I agree with you, despite considering Franken to be a worthless human being. I actually voted for Gore (I’m ashamed now to say it, but it was a heads/tails kind of decision), but turned against him when he challenged the election results. I vowed then and there that I would work against him if he ever ran for anything ever again, because he placed his personal aggrandizement ahead of the good of the nation. Nixon – who actually was cheated, in 1960, by Democratic electoral fraud in Chicago and Texas – to his credit refused to contest the election result because doing so would be bad for the nation. Gore gained my undying enmity by not following suit.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 7:19 PM

Nor does the world give a rat's ass of you.

Of course not. I never thought that they did, and didn’t expect them to. I lived in Europe for many years, and I’m well aware of their feelings toward Americans. Not just Republicans; Americans generally, you included. It’s nothing to do with who is President. Believe me.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 7:32 PM

Jay the last time you said "horseshit" to me you were sorely mistaken. Remember that, when I said the crew of the Maersk were Union? Huh? Remember? Do your homework on Franken's USO support and how much the troops love and appreciate him. Much of it can be found at USO.org.

You are coming unhinged my friend. Democrats the Party of fear? You must not remember the Security Threat Levels that magically changed everytime the Republicans were challenged from topic to topic. And calling us Un-American ran out of gas in 2005. I happen to love my country and wish all of us well, it just so happens that your party's plans did not pan out. It is time for a different approach...deal with it.

Face it, you guys are in exile. And if you think my comment about being the party of "old white men" was racist and ageist, I suggest you look at an electoral map. Specter did and saw blue in his home state. The idea that you think you could win with the tactics of 1994 is an utter joke. Hang your hopes on Newt, please do.

And if you think Democrats hate what this country stands for you are a fool. While the KKK had it's elements of Dixiecrats, that is the voting block the GOP pursued after the Civil Rights Bill. In addition, the Democratic Party was started by Thomas Jefferson. You need to read a little deeper in your history books Jay, and find that the likes of Thomas Paine, Henry David Thoreau and Walt Whitman among others shaped the society in ways you apparently do not recognize. Psst, they were all liberals.

I agree with you, there are no excuses now. Which is why setting a precedent for the future by moving forward with potential prosecutions for torture and other acts is crucial. Clinton allowed the first Bush criminals to get away with murder, I do not see that happening this time.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 28, 2009 7:42 PM

Back to the topic at hand...

Senator Spector switches parties 'cuz he thinks he can't win. LOL! That's funny. So what, are Democrats gonna vote for the "moderate republican" now? So are Penn. Democrat Politicans who have been members of the state party all their lives and have their eyes on that seat just gonna step aside and let Spector waltz right into their primary and take that seat? No Democrat is going to run against him in the Primary? Doncha think some REAL Democrat is going to run against him, pointing out how he was a Republican for 30 YEARS, and only decided to become a Democrat so he could keep his job? I don't know Pennsylvania politics but where did this idea come from that just 'cuz he switched parties he is going skate right into another term.

Posted by: Gregory at April 28, 2009 8:04 PM

While the KKK had it's elements of Dixiecrats, that is the voting block the GOP pursued after the Civil Rights Bill.

Had its elements? Please. The KKK was founded to resist Republican Reconstruction policies. Resisting Republican policies was it raison d’etre. Everyone in the KKK was a Democrat, pretty much by definition. All the segregationists were Democrats. Every single one. No exceptions. Bull Connor. George Wallace. Lester Maddox. The lot. The KKK was to the Democratic Party as the IRA was to Sinn Fein.

And let’s look at the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (from Wikipedia):

The Senate version

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)

Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The House vote (on the Senate version)

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)

Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Of the Republican Senators who voted against (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire) did so not out of racism, but out of concern that the Act constituted an unwarranted extension of the powers of the Federal Government). Meanwhile, 21 Democratic Senators voted against the bill. No prizes for guessing why.

Democrats the Party of fear?

Absolutely. They’re terrified of all sorts of things that don’t exist, such as global warming. Look at their calls to reduce the human population. Where do all the apocalyptic scenarios (Y2K, killer bees, heterosexual AIDS, global warming) take root? We could probably convince them that rabid Easter bunnies were about to attack us because we’re hurting the environment. It’s for the children!

Democrats today are un-American, and that’s a charitable assessment, because in fact they’re anti-American. Look at John Kerry – treating with the enemy in a time of war, then slandering his fellow servicemen. Look at John Murtha today – smearing American servicemen as murderers (all subsequently acquited). Look at Dick (appropriate) Durbin, likening American servicemen to Nazis. Can you seriously say that these are pro-American activities?

I’m old enough to remember when that wasn’t true, when Democrats included JFK, Scoop Jackson, and even Hubert Humphrey, and the Democratic Party was still honorable and respectable, and most certainly pro-American. Read one of JFK’s speeches; he’d be too right-wing for the Republican Party today. Seriously. Read one of his speeches. He made George Bush look lukewarm on America. You’d never have seen any of those worthies snogging with Hugo Chavez, or putting up with Daniel Ortega’s crap, much less apologizing to the son of a bitch. And JFK spent three years trying to get Castro killed.

In addition, the Democratic Party was started by Thomas Jefferson.

We’re going back a ways here, but in this context I’ll note that the Republican Party was founded – and a lot more recently – by Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps you’ve heard of him.

Face it, you guys are in exile.

Of course. Now. But in time Americans will regain control of their government, and then the liberals will be in exile.

And if you think my comment about being the party of "old white men" was racist and ageist, I suggest you look at an electoral map.

So if I said the Democrats were the party of criminals – because criminals pretty much vote Democratic, as a bloc, which you know is true – you’d be OK with that? If not, why are Democrats trying to give felons the right to vote? Answer: because they know they’ll get the vast majority of the criminal vote.

In addition, the Democratic Party was started by Thomas Jefferson. You need to read a little deeper in your history books Jay, and find that the likes of Thomas Paine, Henry David Thoreau and Walt Whitman among others shaped the society in ways you apparently do not recognize. Psst, they were all liberals.

Somewhere between simplistic and moronic, and ahistorical into the bargain. “Liberal” in the 18th and 19th century (basically until 1960) meant exalting the primacy of the individual (rights of man and all that) over the state, and thus was closer to the present meaning of “conservative.” The antonym of liberal in those times was...monarchist. So the term “liberal” didn’t mean then what you think it did. Modern “liberals” exalt the collective over the individual; they do not exalt the individual over the state. Far from it.

Which is why setting a precedent for the future by moving forward with potential prosecutions for torture and other acts is crucial.

A dangerous path, my friend. A dangerous – and un-American - path indeed. Bear in mind that the Teleprompter Jesus would then be answerable for his actions, judged in hindsight, almost certainly by a philosophically antagonistic Administration. You don’t want to go there. That way civil war lies.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 28, 2009 8:42 PM

NANC-Z I guess it's ok to steal the Z from a famous left wing entertainer/liberal/"hoodlum" as O'Reilly calls them. Have you told all you "wigger" nieces and nephews in the trailer park about your cool nick-name? Anyway, it would be impossible to change the rhetoric with bomb throwing right wingers. What good does calm conversation do against a dialogue of vehement hatred that is coming out of the right? I don't dare list the 5 hours of programing that is aired nightly on Fox that is supposed to be "fair and balanced", and please don't give me the "i don't listen to Rush line" Intolerance of the Right= No Gays, No Abortion, No Mexicans, No Protesting, No Questioning George Bush, No Muslims, No Gun Control, No Rubbers... dare I continue with what you actually do: No Rubbers, No Parenting, No Education, No Role Models, No tolerance, Nowhere to go and yes, for you, No Future.

It does sound rude and harsh, but this is the way your Republican politicians represent you guys. I would be mad at them if it was you. I mean, is all that stuff true?

Cheney/Satan 2012

Posted by: paget at April 28, 2009 8:46 PM

That picture of Arlen looks like half of all the Whole Foods customers in LA. Vegan hairless moonbats. Get out of the bulk aisle and back in your coffins, it's nearly sunrise!

Posted by: Uncle Dick at April 28, 2009 9:05 PM

So Dick, now it's come to poking fun at cancer victims? That's tasteful.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 28, 2009 9:15 PM

Jay - Your posts are great.

Well thought out, articulate and surgically precise in cutting deep into these lame libtard talking points they probably get emailed daily from David Axelrod. Bravo!

Posted by: R985wasp at April 28, 2009 9:28 PM

A little more on the Specter defection which will likely see Al Franken seated. Since he sits on 3 committees, Republicans could lose those seats. Since organizing for committees begins at the start of a new term, they risk losing those committee seats since the Franken/Coleman election has been holding up the process, the Republicans may have no choice to have Coleman concede.Dems have some leverage here "Allow us to seat Al Franken or lose those committee seats".

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 28, 2009 9:37 PM

Ha ha! What class! Wingnuts like Uncle Dick casually mocking someone for how the look during kemo! As if they themselves may never get cancer.

Do you realize what you sound like to independents, other normal Americans?

No you don't. No wonder you fools are in the Rump Party.

Posted by: American at April 29, 2009 12:18 AM

From a PA resident:


Dems:"HA! We got Specter!"


PA GOP: "Specter? HA! You can have him!"

That's pretty much how it went down here.

Posted by: Murff at April 29, 2009 3:03 AM

Paget, don't you EVER get tired of making an ass of yourself?
"Anyway, it would be impossible to change the rhetoric with bomb throwing right wingers."
This, coming from a hateful, bomb throwing left winger? Oh, please.

"I don't dare list the 5 hours of programing that is aired nightly on Fox that is supposed to be "fair and balanced","
Again, I only watch Fox News if they're covering a major event (i.e. the State of the Union Address or something), or someone I greatly admire is going to be a guest on one of their shows (i.e. When Rebecca St. James appeared on 'Hannity and Colmes' a few years ago). Sorry that your pathetic stereotypes don't apply to me, loser. Better luck next time.
" No Mexicans,"
Okay, how can someone so completely stupid as you even know how to type on a keyboard? Conservatives are opposed to illegal immigration, not at all the same thing as hating Mexicans. My cousin is half- Mexican.
" No Protesting,"
Are you on crack? Who am I kidding, of course you are!
What about our tea party protests? What about the conservative groups that protest outside abortion clinics?
Maybe you think those don't count because A) They are put on by conservatives, and B) Those protests don't start riots which turn cities into war zones, the way your liberal/ Communist/ Anarchist protests do.
"No Questioning George Bush,"
We question George Bush all the time, moron. For instance, we've questioned his weak response on illegal immigration.
" No Parenting,"
No, see, you're thinking of liberals. Conservatives believe in strong parents guiding their children on what's right, and helping them to grow into strong, capable adults. Liberals believe in aborting children so they won't have to raise them, and view any attempt at parents trying to help guide and discipline their own children as "Stifling their creativity" or some crap like that.
"No Education,"
No, see, we believe that our children should receive the best education possible, that is why we are so opposed to how much the public school system has been taken over by incompetent, unqualified liberal loonies who are much more concerned with indoctrinating our children with their warped views than actually educating them and teaching them things they'll need to function in real life. Those liberal teachers, rather than teaching our kids the three R's (Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic), are much more concerned with teaching them the three S's ("Self- esteem," "Social Justice," and Sex Ed).
"No Role Models,"
Again, that ties in much more with liberals than conservatives.
Conservative parents believe in trying to act as good role models for their children, and pointing them towards other good role models like pastors and competent teachers and other people who actually make a positive difference in the community. Liberals believe their children should have role models like the homicidal lunatic Che Guevara, pretentious, dope- addled Hollywood liberals, and guttermouthed gangsta rap artists.
"No Tolerance,"
LMAO!
That is so immensely funny, coming from someone as completely bigoted as you are. You have demonstrated ZERO tolerance for conservatives, people who believe in God, etc.
You are a pathetic little loser who does nothing but puke out hateful rants.

Posted by: Adam at April 29, 2009 4:24 AM

Jay, Adam, et al, well done.

Just quickly looking at the collective comments of paget, andy, and Wellstone, the only key theme that sticks out is, "haha, we won."

You certainly did, and in fact, I don't see anyone here denying it. No one is denying that Dems now have a filibuster-proof majority. They essentially did in the first place, seeing as every time a major vote came up the first thought from Republicans was, "Uh oh, what's Specter gonna do?" Have him, nothing's changed except the letter next to his name.

According to andy, Bush was hated by 80% of the country, verily, he was hated by the entire world. Republicans had destroyed the country, and everyone wanted change. Obama outspent "Bush III" by seven to one, as Jay pointed out, and...he won...by 4% percentage points. Wow. And now, as Jay pointed out, he has damn near flipped on nearly every single key position he ran on. And your response? "Well, he's not running against anyone." Utterly pathetic. You're not even using nuance anymore. You're outright admitting that you couldn't care less about policy; it's all about power.

Look, you guys have the power. The gloating is expected from the party of Al Franken, but eventually you have to actually do something. No one is going to deny that the Dem political machine isn't expert at deflecting blame and responsibility for Democrat actions, but even that can't save you from your results now. Solid majority in the House, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and the White House. Not even Bush can save you from your mistakes now. On the flip side, you can claim credit for any successes you have, completely. My suggestion: get to it, because if you think you won't be hammered for every little thing that goes wrong, you're sorely mistaken.

On a side note, I have to laugh at someone who claims tolerance and understanding, yet can spout things like, "The GOP is the party of old white men." Irony, thy name is liberal.

On another side note, why do you three (paget, andy, wellstone) always make appearances with one another? Do each of you claim the other two as the sole readers of your "blogs?" If you're going to parrot the Kool-aid Kos Kiddies' talking points, you might as well post your blogs there. Someone might actually read them, and you won't have to go around making asses of yourselves on other blogs just to advertise.

Posted by: cowlove at April 29, 2009 5:32 AM

So why did they torture someone who was talking? Sheesh.

They didn't. Sheesh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzVxbUOn4EI

Posted by: Anonymous at April 29, 2009 5:46 AM

ROFL, that video didn't even address what did or didn't happen when McCain was tortured. You're the first person I've seen to actually imply he wasn't even tortured. Seriously reprehensible.

These people, some of them veterans, have a problem with McCain's voting record and, apparently, his temper. Wow, anonymous, I'm super duper surprised here.

And for real, if they're going to say he made propaganda tapes, 32 of them, why not show a couple? On a finer point, even these thick-headed morons can rightly identify a propaganda tape as such. That's a far cry from actually giving away military secrets, isn't it?

Next?

Posted by: cowlove at April 29, 2009 5:57 AM

It's sure funny how the MSM reports this as a surprise, when conservatives have known all along that Specter is a long time RINO.

Get 'em out of the party... there is no room for liberal supplicants.

Whos next? Olympia Snow?

Posted by: J W Wright at April 29, 2009 6:15 AM

And for real, if they're going to say he made propaganda tapes, 32 of them, why not show a couple?

Because of his vote perhaps? Not to be made public. See how that works?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 29, 2009 6:27 AM

Because of his vote perhaps? Not to be made public. See how that works?

Which begs the question, again, how are these "experts" so knowledgeable about what did or didn't happen?

"We know he made 32 tapes, but we just don't have the evidence, you see, because McCain said we couldn't."

Is this sort of like how fire can't melt steel, or something?

Besides, I've seen released footage of McCain in the POW camp, we all have. These accusations ring about as hollow as your skull. Oh that reminds me, are you still spouting the line that McCain wasn't tortured?

Posted by: cowlove at April 29, 2009 6:32 AM

Cowlove, once again you ignore the issue and create your own argument. You seem content with replacing dialog with diatribe.

I can only speak for myself and not for any comments made from any other liberal posters and I'm not seeing as I've "parroted" anyone's talking points as you've accused in you side note.

You decide to deduce the comments of my post as a "ha ha, we won" but you're missing my point. It's not that we won but there was a reason we won. When Republicans come to terms with that, instead of waiting for the inevitable abject failures that Democrats will incur in with their absolute power, the less damage they will see to their party. I stand by my statements of Bush's approval rating hovering the 20% mark (19% at an all time low and maybe 28% on at times might be more accurate). You want to point out that he only lost by 4 points but you fail to mention what he had to over come. I never said that Obama was what Americans wanted but another Bush era that McCain/Palin were promising was what they did not want. Despite being a black man, sold as a Muslim, labeled as a terrorist, an obvious far left liberal, being questioned of being born here, and even his lack of government experience, he still won. It's like an acquaintance mentioned to me back in the primaries,,,"they could run a tree stump against McCain and the stump would win". You understand my point?

I really have no concerns of promoting anyone's blog. I've personally become board and disgusted in current issues and have been lazy in keeping any of my 3 blogs updated. They are simply my personal web logs that I record issues that I find of interest. Nothing else.

I'm guessing that I've been "smacked down" again considering that you've change the position of the ball in play and instead of constructive debate, you're forcing me to defend myself against posting non sequitur accusations. I guess the strategy here is to be the first one to come with something like "uh, oh yeah,, well your mom wears combat boots so take that" in order to be the one to win.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 29, 2009 9:59 AM

Have you told all you "wigger" nieces and nephews in the trailer park about your cool nick-name? Anyway, it would be impossible to change the rhetoric with bomb throwing right wingers. What good does calm conversation do against a dialogue of vehement hatred that is coming out of the right?

Yep, Americans are haters all right. No point wasting your calm thoughtful posts on such close-minded, intolerant people as ourselves. Kumbaya!

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 29, 2009 10:05 AM

It's not that we won but there was a reason we won. When Republicans come to terms with that, instead of waiting for the inevitable abject failures that Democrats will incur in with their absolute power, the less damage they will see to their party.

I’ll answer this one. The reason was: voter fatigue. Dems had a tailwind in 2008 regardless of who the respective candidates were because...Republicans had held the White House for eight years. The electorate typically wants a change at that point. The party in power inevitably wears out its welcome to some extent.

(Additionally, a factor helping Dems in particular is that in the intervening eight years another cohort of young – read, “naive” – voters has come of age who will believe that the party out of power can make dogs and cats live together in harmony. They believe this because they’re too inexperience in life to realize they’re comparing the real-world deeds of the incumbent party with the lofty words of the other.) Hope! Change! The future – that’s where we’re headed! Woohoo!

So don’t draw any sweeping conclusions from this about the long-term prospects of either party. Carter won handily in 1976, had a larger Senate majority than Obama does now, and had higher approval ratings at the 100-day mark. And we all know how Carter turned out.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 29, 2009 10:38 AM

Despite being a black man,

Make that “Because of being a black man” and I’m with you. His race sewed up the black vote virtually to a man, made the media swoon for him, and was a clarion call to every liberal to “prove” he wasn’t racist – by voting for someone on the basis of his race.

sold as a Muslim,

I don’t care much about this matter, but objectively, the chance that Obama wasn’t raised as a Muslim, at least part of his childhood, is pretty much nil. Forget the “Hussein” bit. Do you know who “Barack” (commonly spelled “Buraq”) was? In Islamic theology, he was the mythical creature who bore Mohammed from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the “Night Journey.” Obama’s grandfather was certainly a Muslim, so we can fairly assume that his father was too, and that he exhibited the religious open-mindedness for which Muslims are so well-known. Obama attended a Muslims-only school in Indonesia, where he studied the Koran, and has famously (according to the NY Times , no less) recited the Islamic call to prayer in Arabic, with a “first-rate accent.” (How they knew this, I don’t know.) So the “Muslim” ponderings aren’t out of left field, although as I said I don’t care much about this.

labeled as a terrorist,

Straw man, and untrue. He was labeled as a buddy to a terrorist – Bill Ayers – which is absolutely true, and relevant. Ayers admits to being a terrorist, so there’s no question about that. Suppose McCain had been tight with David Duke. Would that have been relevant to his candidacy? Of course. It speaks to the man’s character and values.

an obvious far left liberal,

You say that like it’s a bad thing... Seriously, Obama is an obvious far left liberal. Objectively, his voting record made him the most left-wing Senator in Congress, and his actions in office underscore that assessment. Anyone talking glowingly of “redistributing the wealth” is pretty far left by definition, unless you consider Karl (“from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”) Marx middle of the road.

being questioned of being born here,

I agree that the birth business is silly (rather like our unhinged friend upthread trying to maintain that McCain wasn’t tortured, he was just clumsy).

and even his lack of government experience, he still won.

Even his lack of government experience? Government experience doesn’t strike you as having some small relevance to selection of a President? You’re kidding, right? Would you select a surgeon who hadn’t operated before? An airline pilot reading “Flying for Dummies?”

On top of which, Obama doesn’t just lack government experience – he lacks any experience, at anything, apart from standing on a street corner with a clipboard, and of course, campaigning. He was editor of the law review...but never wrote so much as a shopping list for it. He got a law degree...but never really practiced law (apart from filing an anti-redlining lawsuit against Citibank on behalf of ...ACORN). He “practiced” law for too short a time even to make partner. He was (s)elected for the state legislature...but never took a stand, and ducked every contentious issue by voting “present.” He was elected to the Senate (after his opponents were mysteriously cheap-shotted – hmm), but never did anything there either. As soon as he unpacked his bags he started running for President. He probably can’t find the Senate men’s room without asking directions. He didn’t so much as chair a committee, so you know what his fellow Dems thought of him.

So let’s see...no government experience, essentially at all. No business experience whatsoever. No legal experience effectively. Mom was a communist fellow-traveler, Dad was a Muslim, Mom’s family obviously had a history of mental problems (not many fathers named daughters “Stanley” in 1943), his mentor in Hawaii was a communist pedophile (Frank Marshall Davis), and his activities in college are kept quieter than A-bomb secrets. He worked on an anti-apartheid campaign with Ayers and lived three blocks away from him but didn’t know him, but for some reason moved to Chicago where once again was a neighbor of the guy he didn’t know in NY. The wife of the neighbor he didn’t know from NY worked with Michelle, as luck would have it. (Small world.) The neighbor he didn’t know from NY and Michelle’s co-worker babysat for him, while the neighbor he didn’t know from NY tapped him to dispense $100 million (you know the way you ask people you don’t know well to hand out a few hundred million bucks). Then the neighbor he didn’t know from NY and Michelle’s co-worker hosted his political coming out party.

Nope. Nothing fishy about any of this. He’s a perfect candidate. I can see why you’re enthused.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 29, 2009 11:22 AM

I'd rather be in a shrinking party of honorable patriots, than part of a majority of depraved, corrupt, socialist moonbats.
You'll get your wish. Sorry "true conservatives", you have to compromise occasionally. Conservatives are a large bloc in this country, but not large enough to rule. You can cling to your principles such as they are, but if you have ideological purity tests, you'll be the minority party in perpetuity.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 29, 2009 12:01 PM

Well said Anon...ouch! At least I am one of the few liberals around here. The domestic issues are what have landed this party in such a mess. They demand less Government, yet support agendas that violate privacy, the younger voting bloc is not falling for it. Further, supporting the candidates Club for Greed seeks out as primary challengers to moderates will show to be a losing cause. Alienating moderates within your party can be devastating, the Democrats learned that. The Democratic Party now consists of the Blue Dog base, the Progressive base and the Conservative Dem base. That is how to build, that builds diversity. Having Arlen Specter caucus with the Democratic Party is a good thing, and if they wish we would gladly take Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, although the independent minded residents of Maine may disagree. As the country moves to the center/left, the Conservatives are moving to the to the right...WTF?

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 29, 2009 12:25 PM

I stand by my statements of Bush's approval rating hovering the 20% mark (19% at an all time low and maybe 28% on at times might be more accurate). You want to point out that he only lost by 4 points but you fail to mention what he had to over come.

According to you, 80% of the country hated Bush, and by extension, Republicans. Again, the whole world hated Bush. I'd say the fact that McCain only lost by 4 points is amazing, wouldn't you? As you said, you quite literally could've run a stump against McCain, and the stump probably would've won. Your point essentially amounts to, people prefer Republicans unless they royally screw up. Bush screwed up, thus, people felt compelled to hold their nose and vote for Obama.

Yes, it is really quite amazing. And now, he's doing a 180 on virtually every aspect of his platform. But that's ok, right? Because you guys have power?

You understand my point?

I think so. Apparently, Obama is not he centrist uniter he said he was, doesn't really plan on acting how he said he would, but that's ok, because Bush sucked and Dems are in power now.

Am I getting close?

Posted by: cowlove at April 29, 2009 12:31 PM

Sorry "true conservatives", you have to compromise occasionally.

Heh, yeah, maybe if we offer amnesty to illegals, go soft on terrorism, offer "compassionate conservatism" instead of fiscal responsibility, in short, try to be more like Democrats, maybe then we'll have a shot. It's not like that hasn't hurt us in any way already, right?

Hell, maybe we should just abandon all of our principles and stick a D next to our names, like Mr. Specter! I mean, it's power that matters, right? Certainly not principles...

You lefties embarrass yourselves constantly.

Posted by: cowlove at April 29, 2009 12:34 PM

As the country moves to the center/left, the Conservatives are moving to the to the right...WTF?

Oh yes, clearly. Insane spending under Bush. "Abandoning free market principles to save the free market." "Compassionate conservatism." Bailing out banks and giving loans to other major financial institutions. Obviously, those are incredibly radical, far right principles.

When people vote for Republicans, they expect them to uphold Republican ideals. The reason Republicans are struggling right now is because they are not conservative.

I'm curious, what's your opinion of Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan? His administration's increase in wire-tapping? His increase in TARP funding and bailout monies being given to Wall St.? His positions on gay marriage? I mean, people voted for him for change, and his declared policies during his campaign are the opposite of his actual actions during his presidency, and more in line with his predecessor's. Any thoughts?

Posted by: cowlove at April 29, 2009 12:42 PM

As the country moves to the center/left, the Conservatives are moving to the to the right

You must be very young, or not overly bright. The country’s politics swing from left to pro-American and back, and have done for decades. Thirty years ago, after Nixon, Republicans looked dead. Then came the Carter Administration, with all the fiascos and bumbling for which Carter is so rightly excoriated. Reagan swept into office with a much larger margin of victory than Obama’s. Liberalism looked dead, dead as dog food. Reagan’s popularity actually increased once he was in office, when he fired the air traffic controllers for breaking a no-strike agreement. Democrats looked dead. Bush I followed, and his popularity was sky-high (90% country) when he launched Gulf War I.

But by 1992 the economy was in recession, and Clinton ran on economic issues (“It’s the economy, stupid”) and won. Republicans looked dead, until 1994 two years into Clinton’s Presidency, when they regained control of the House and the Senate based on the Contract with America .

More recent history is probably more familiar to you, and so I won’t bother recounting it. But the point is that the political situation has historically been fluid, is fluid now, and will be fluid in the future. What we’re seeing now politically is much like what we’re seeing economically: a period of transition and retrenchment.

Triumphalism by leftists bespeaks a failure to grasp the situation in its historical context. Dems have the White House and both houses of Congress now – just like in 1977, and in 1992 – but that could change in 18 months, just as it did then. Eighteen months from now could see Democrats running for re-election refusing to have Obama campaign for them, and frantically distancing themselves from him to avoid catastrophe. If you doubt that that’s possible, wait until people get their tax bill next year, and realize that they’re working their butts off to give some UAW hacks a free ride. And if there’s a terrorism attack, forget it.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 29, 2009 1:27 PM

No cowlove, you're nowhere near close. You completely ignored the part I said about Obama. Yes, people despised Bush. They equated McCain to Bush. They despised him so much that they settled for a (as many on the right have depicted him as) Muslim, terrorist, god-damn-America, and under qualified non white far left socialist that may not even be a U.S. citizen. That's how much people hated Bush. And they seemed to have thought even less of the lapdog republican leaders that backed him.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 29, 2009 1:34 PM

Posted by: andy42302 at April 29, 2009 1:34 PM

Yes, andy, so I was entirely correct in my summary of your points. Bush was despised. Total failure. Worst.President.Ever. Destroyed our country.

Obama won by 4 points. Now he's making even Bush look good.

Where are you going with this?

Posted by: cowlove at April 29, 2009 1:43 PM

You must be very young, or not overly bright.

Definitely not mutually exclusive, Jay.

Posted by: cowlove at April 29, 2009 1:45 PM

They despised him so much that they settled for a (as many on the right have depicted him as) Muslim, terrorist, god-damn-America, and under qualified non white far left socialist that may not even be a U.S. citizen. That's how much people hated Bush.

Settled? Settled?? Chris Mathews settled for a tingle running up his leg? The media wanted to have Obama’s baby. They were in love! In addition to the fawning media coverage and the gratuitous Hollywood endorsements, outspending your opponent 7 to 1 often gives one a pretty good boost in the polls, yes? It’s amazing he didn’t win by a landslide.

You’re right, Bush was hated (by liberals; not by Americans). Only Lincoln was hated more - right up through April 13, 1865. Bush got an easy ride compared to Lincoln, whom Northern Democrats (Copperheads) subjected to unspeakable vitriol. (Needless to say, Southern Democrats were not admirers either.) Seriously, read the history of Lincoln’s administration. Nowadays people think that Lincoln was a beloved President. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lincoln expected to lose re-election in 1864 (Democrats used the “quagmire” meme even back then) until Sherman captured Atlanta, giving new hope to the North that it could win the war.

The point is that the measure of a President cannot be taken in his time. At least a decade has to pass to appreciate the consequences of his decisions. For example, Truman, like Bush, was unpopular in his time (in Truman’s case, for inter alia, firing Douglas MacArthur and integrating the armed forces). But Truman is now considered to have been a near great President for those very same decisions that made him unpopular in his time.

Conversely, we are to this day living down the disastrous decisions made by Carter, who for example kicked the props out from under the Shah, giving us the revolutionary government in Iran that is trying so hard today to develop nukes to use on us.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 29, 2009 1:53 PM

Arlen Specter - the rat swimming TOWARDS a sinking ship.

Posted by: Jim at April 29, 2009 2:22 PM

"Now he's making even Bush look good". Uh, says who? Obama's honeymoon popularity seems to be hanging on with 68% of the folks happy with him.

"You’re right, Bush was hated (by liberals; not by Americans)" Bush's approval ratings resided in the 20s.

Now forgive my math as I'm unsure of the statics but I think one could deduce that probably most liberals disapproved of Bush as well as somewhere near half of conservatives. Likewise, probably most liberals approve of Obama as well as maybe something like 25% of conservatives. I didn't google the figures but I bet I'm somewhere in the ball park.

Gentlemen, this kinda falls back to my original points in this thread. "This (The Spector defector) may very well be interpreted as an ousting of anyone that doesn't adhere to what has become the leftovers of the radical far right" and "please come to terms with this fact: I along with close to 80% of America as well as the majority of the world, were not happy with George W. Bush or the McConnell lead clan" and "What an opportune time for both parties to learn that there's a diverse society out there and that it ain't all about them". You can argue all you want but the results of the approval ratings along with the results of the 06 and 08 elections validate my points. 2010 is coming up fast. There's a very elementary and simplistic reality that comes to mind here: if you keep on doing what you've been doing, you'll keep on getting what you've been getting. The GOP continues to be stuck on stupid and not listening to those 68 to 80%.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 29, 2009 2:42 PM

andy are you being purposefully dense? What the GOP has been doing is abandoning their principles in favor if squishy moderation, and thus, they've been losing the support of their base: conservatives. You even touched on this with your probable statistics. Perhaps Republicans should stop trying to be Democrats, and start acting like Republicans. That's just crazy enough to work.

Or, maybe they can listen to you, and Pelosi, and Reid, and try to be even squishier and appeal even more to the direct opposite of the principles that make them Republicans. Yes, surely they should take their policy cues from far-left idiots. No way has that bit them in the ass before.

Posted by: cowlove at April 29, 2009 2:50 PM

Now forgive my math as I'm unsure of the statics but I think one could deduce that probably most liberals disapproved of Bush as well as somewhere near half of conservatives. Likewise, probably most liberals approve of Obama as well as maybe something like 25% of conservatives.

I’m sure most liberals approve of Obama, and perhaps some Americans do as well. But please note that when Bush’s approval ratings were ca. 20%, Pelosi’s were in single digits. (True.) What does that do for your conjecture?

I along with close to 80% of America as well as the majority of the world

What is it with the CPUSA and “the world?” Fuck the world. Got it? Repeat after me: Fuck. The. World. I couldn’t possibly care less what “the world” thinks about anything, any more than they care what Americans think. (If you think that Europeans, for example, give a rat’s ass what we think, you are sadly mistaken, I assure you. Nor do I expect them to.)

Only arrested adolescents make decisions based on popularity (and polls count as popularity contests). (“Gee, I sure hope the Europeans sign our yearbooks.”) Men do what they think is right. Consider FDR’s violation of the Neutrality Act to help Britain before Pearl Harbor. (Google, e.g., Reuben James.) His actions in protecting the convoys of a belligerent nation were a straight-up act of war, and flew in the face of American opinion, which was strongly isolationist. Yet he acted as he did because he thought it was right. It’s what men do.

McConnell lead clan

First, McConnell is below the mayor of Hamelburg in public consciousness. I never even heard of him, but for some reason you’ve got a bee in your bonnet about him.

And second, it should be “McConnell led,” not “McConnell lead.” Sorry, my irritation is getting the better of me.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 29, 2009 3:05 PM

I really thought you were something for a while Jay, but your xenophobia and intolerance have been rearing their ugly head in your posts of late.

Of course the rest of the world shouldn't be our only, or our main concern. We need to be mostly concerned with what's happening here ... but "f*ck the world?" That is just plain dumb, and I hope you know it. Of course you should know what the world is thinking, even if you disagree.

How can you even know if you agree or disagree if you don't frigging know? Sure they don't get a say and I don't want them to have one, but stick your fingers in your ears and say F them, that's blatantly ignorant.

And your rhetoric of late sucks lately too "liberals and Americans" Ugh, to vilify your opponent is not winning, its just making it easier to hate.


Posted by: Moon bat at April 29, 2009 3:42 PM

Moon bat, let’s clarify. When liberals talk about “world opinion” they mean European opinion. Agreed? They don’t care what Bolivia, or Thailand, or Guatemala think, do they? Our stock is at an all-time low in the Central African Republic? Oh no. Gee, I guess we take Prozac and try to butter them up. The point is that no one here cares about those countries. Implicitly liberals are referring to Europe when they talk about “world opinion.”

I lived in Europe for many years. I know exactly how and what they think. And I can assure you that they couldn't possibly care less what any American thinks about anything. Yet for some reason, like neurotic high school girls, liberals agonize over what the popular girls think of them. It's a bit pathetic, actually.

Also note that I didn't say we shouldn't know what the world is thinking; you're putting words in my mouth there. My point is that we shouldn't conform our decisions to what they're thinking. I care very much what Iran is thinking, for example, but don't propose to act on their wishes, or worry about our popularity there.

I apologize for the French, but I was making a point: that we shouldn't slavishly follow European opinion. Do you see my point? We’re only mildly interested in the views of Japan, or India, even though those countries are vastly more important than all of Europe put together. (Can you even name the prime ministers of those countries? I can’t, offhand. Do you know anything of their histories or cultures? I know a little, but not much.) The only reason anyone cares at all about Europe is historical, and the propensity of Americans toward a cultural inferiority complex. We need to put that behind us.

Put it another way. Not so long ago, a considerable segment of European opinion held that countries that needed Lebensraum had the right to seize it, and to make lampshades out of people as appropriate. (And not just the Germans, but the French too, who astonished the Germans with the verve with which they rounded up Jews. Call it the “Dreyfus effect.”) European opinion ran strongly to seizing other countries and exploiting them as colonies. (They finally stopped doing so not because they had a Damascene conversion, but because they were too weak to do it anymore and were either kicked out, or were about to be.)

European squabbles about colonies ultimately led to two world wars, both of which we bumpkins had to help sort out. More recently, the French laid the foundation for the Vietnam War by trying to re-establish Indochina as a colony after WWII. The Europeans invented the concentration camp (during Cuban insurrection, perfected by the British in the Boer War), Europeans have been at each others’ throats since the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, the longest peace in recorded European history has been...the Pax Americana, when they knew that anyone *cough*Germany*cough* who got out of line would answer to us. Meanwhile, Europeans are bitterly critical of Israel, and cower before Muslim terrorists, and for one reason: they hope (without success) to escape terrorist attacks through their meekness. These are the people whose favor you want to curry?

And your rhetoric of late sucks lately too "liberals and Americans”

That was a bit gratuitous, but paradoxically I’m pleased you noticed it. There’s real hope for you. Note that no other liberals here even noticed it, much less objected. Presumably they, like Joel Stein (in the LA Times) don’t consider America to be anything special, and they’d be just as happy to live anywhere in the developed world. Citizens of the world apparently don’t mind being distinguished from Americans. Berkeley (where I used to live) is full of UN (and Rainbow) flags; those few American flags put up by intrepid souls get vandalized. For the liberals in Berkeley, being distinguished from Americans is a source of pleasure. That you took offense suggests that you self-identify as American, and that patriotism flickers within you. That gives me cause for hope.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 29, 2009 4:22 PM

The approval rating of the 109th Congress was something like 12 to 14%, the lowest ever recorded. Both houses were run by Republicans. They were considered the most "do nothing" Congress in history with the exception of legislating for their campaign contributors. That's one of the reasons they were dubbed as the culture of corruption party. Dems took over in 06 but the 110th didn't do much better. This wasn't because Dems didn't try. The House passed all 7 of their campaign promises the first 100 days but every bill was shot down from Senate filibusters by the Senate. These filibusters were led and promoted by Rep Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Before the end of the 1st year, there were more filibusters than in any Congress in history. It seemed that the strategy of the republicans was that instead of allowing Democrats to legislate the will of the people and win approval, they'd roadblock all bills in order to prove them useless.

My point wasn't that the world needed your approval Jay but rather, the world seems to concur with American voters. I think we both understand that you don't care.

Yeah, I saw the lead/led error but since I was coping and pasting my own statement, I just left it as it was as I saw no point in trying to pretend it wasn't there. Or you can simply believe that I'm poorly educated. Neither really matters but it is a bit small of you to resort to pointing out irrelevant flaws in order to strengthen your case. I've always believed that it's hard to build yourself up by cutting someone else down. I suppose that's just one of those far left quirks of mine.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 29, 2009 4:54 PM

I noticed the "liberals and Americans” comment but chose not to take the bait. If I did, I'd lose. The objectives of comments like those are to distract, put the opponent on the defense, and basically open up a new discussion when one comes up short in debating the issue at hand.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 29, 2009 5:01 PM

It seemed that the strategy of the republicans was that instead of allowing Democrats to legislate the will of the people and win approval, they'd roadblock all bills in order to prove them useless.

The will of “the people?” The Democrats uniquely were aware of this in some mystical fashion? How? What about the people who voted for Republicans? Their will doesn’t count? People elect representatives to exercise their own judgment in the legislature and represent their interests, not to play pat-a-cake with the opposition party doing something they disagree with. Remember: the Dems will be on the other side of this, perhaps quite soon. Will they just go along with the majority? Have they in the past? No, of course not. That’s politics.

They were considered the most "do nothing" Congress in history with the exception of legislating for their campaign contributors.

You mean like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid greasing the campaign contributors (the ones we know about, not the illegal overseas ones) in Wall Street with bank bailouts, or greasing the UAW by keeping GM on life support with tax dollars? That sort of thing?

That's one of the reasons they were dubbed as the culture of corruption party.

No, they were dubbed that as a PR move by Democrats. The Republicans had their problems, for which I make no excuse. But any party infested with the likes of Rangel, Conyers, Murtha, Molohan, Waters, Feinstein, Jefferson, Hastings, Dodd, and Frank (and let’s not forget Obama himself, whose cozy and remarkable house purchase next to Rezko stinks to high heaven, or the tripling of Michelle’s pay when Barack went to the Senate), to name a few off the top of my head, has no business getting snippy about corruption. A pox on all of them.

My point wasn't that the world needed your approval Jay but rather, the world seems to concur with American voters. I think we both understand that you don't care.

You got this backwards. My point was that we don’t need the world’s approval, not the other way around.

Neither really matters but it is a bit small of you to resort to pointing out irrelevant flaws in order to strengthen your case. I've always believed that it's hard to build yourself up by cutting someone else down. I suppose that's just one of those far left quirks of mine.

Don’t get precious. I wasn’t trying to strengthen my case, or cut you down. I just found it irritating to read after a while, rather like reading “we was” over and over again, and pointed it out to avoid reading it again.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 29, 2009 5:20 PM

If they had done the will of the people, why did the go from holding a dominate lead in the House and Senate to where they are today? Wasn't it the people that voted them out?

Posted by: andy42302 at April 29, 2009 6:18 PM

No.

It was some of the people. The reification of "the people" is a persistent leftist trope. Those elected to seats based on Republican principles were, if anything, obligated to advance those principles, and none other.

Or are you saying that even a 50.1% majority obligates the 49.9% minority to go along with the majority's program? Before answering, bear in mind that Democrats will be a minority again some day - guaranteed - and perhaps soon. Would Pelosi, Reid, and Kucinich vote with Republicans in that case to conform to the will of "the people?" I can hardly type that without laughing.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 29, 2009 6:25 PM

Jay, aside from Specter's defection and the incoming Franken, the Senate went from 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 1 Independent in 2006 to 56 Ds, 40 Rs, and 2 Is today. The House saw the same pattern with 229 Rs, 202 Ds, and 1 I in 06 to 256 Ds and 178 Rs today. That my friend, is a powerful swing and says a lot more than Obama squeaking by wit a few % points. But it didn't stop there. Democrats took over in the gubernatorial elections as well as in is state legislators all over the country.

Now, guess who made these decisions Jay. They were people, those guys and gals that stood in line to vote. Spin it all you want but at the end of the day, Republicans suffered a huge defeat and there was a resounding message all over the country (and I know you don't care, but all over the world). Now, I realize you might sense a touch of gloating there but that's not really my intentions. My point goes back to my statement that Specter's departure may have the appearance of an unwillingness for Republicans to change and that Moderates are no longer welcome in their circle.

You seem content on the strategy of simply waiting it out for the Democrats to screw up. That will likely work. In time, people will forget the destruction of the Bush years as Democrats will abuse the absolute power they've obtained. And again, the people will reject the Democrats. I personally prefer a government that could learn to work for the people. Of course we all know, this ain't a perfect world.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 30, 2009 5:19 AM

Jay, aside from Specter's defection and the incoming Franken, the Senate went from 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 1 Independent in 2006 to 56 Ds, 40 Rs, and 2 Is today. The House saw the same pattern with 229 Rs, 202 Ds, and 1 I in 06 to 256 Ds and 178 Rs today. That my friend, is a powerful swing and says a lot more than Obama squeaking by wit a few % points. But it didn't stop there. Democrats took over in the gubernatorial elections as well as in is state legislators all over the country.

As I keep saying, it’s swings and roundabouts. Parties go in and out of power all the time. I already pointed out how Carter and Clinton were in exactly the same position...for 18 months, until the first mid-term election, when both lost control of both houses of Congress.

They were people, those guys and gals that stood in line to vote.

Several times, in fact, if they’re urban Democrats. /g

You left out that 48% voted against the Messiah. Or did they not stand in line to vote too?

there was a resounding message all over the country.

Resounding message all over the country? Kinda like the tea parties? Btw, the next series are planned for Fourth of July. Liberals probably don’t appreciate the significance of that date. Hint: it’s not UN Charter Day, or Earth Day, or AIDS Awareness Day.

My point goes back to my statement that Specter's departure may have the appearance of an unwillingness for Republicans to change and that Moderates are no longer welcome in their circle.

You mean moderates like Lieberman? He was run out of the Democrat Party because he put the country ahead of Party loyalty, and supported the President in a time of war.

And make no mistake: Specter is no moderate, he’s a straight-up opportunist. Always has been, always will be. You’re welcome to him.

The funny part is that Democrats don’t realize how badly left their party has been infested with leftist notions. They used to be a patriotic party, but now are embarrassed to be patriotic. At all. Any of them. That’s why I distinguish liberals from Americans, for which on reflection I make no apology.

Conservatives, whatever their other faults, are straight-up, full-on patriotic Americans. I think you’ll agree with that. Liberals, on the other hand, are “Yes butters.” Do they love America? “Yes, but...” and then what follows makes clear that the true answer is “no, not really.” They’ll then proceed to list our faults, real and supposed. (If your wife/girlfriend asks you if you love her, try the “Yes, but” approach and see what she thinks of that.)

Notice also their language: they hate to say the “A” word. When pressed, they – like Obama – will say something vague like “I love my country,” because they hate to say the word.

Seriously, try the experiment. Ask a liberal if he loves America. Do it. See if you don’t observe the phenomenon I’m talking about. You’ll get at most a “Yes, but” and possibly a “I love my country.”

You seem content on the strategy of simply waiting it out for the Democrats to screw up. That will likely work.

It’s already working. The tea parties alone establish that. The Democrats have already screwed up – first by choosing Obama as their candidate (a hopelessly flawed narcissist, who makes Carter look perfectly suited for the Presidency), and second by pushing through the stimulus bill laden with pork. Wait until the passage of the tax bill to pay for the stimulus. You’ll be out protesting.

We just have to put with this now, but we’ll be able to tar Democrats with the Obama brush for a generation, just as we did with the Carter brush. Carter swept into office on a platform just like Obama’s (if you’re not old enough to remember this), promising to bring “morality” to government after Watergate, but halfway through his term the country, and even his own party (Ted Kennedy challenged Carter for the nomination at the Dem convention, and almost won it), turned against him and wanted him out. Obama is on course for the same fate. And Carter had larger majorities in Congress, and higher approval ratings than Obama at this point. Think about it.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 10:23 AM

Jay, You are an ass to suggest that Liberals do not love their country, or are unpatriotic. This rhetoric lost steam in 2005. How dare you! I suggest you contact Michelle Bachmann and push her to investigate Congress on who is "Pro-America" and who is "Anti-America". The notion that you are somehow more American is frivolous. That a Liberal has a worldview that consists of respect for Treaties that the U.S. and other nations have signed on to does not make us un-american. That we respect the institution of the UN, with all of it's faults provide an openness that Republicans lack, and therefore have landed you guys where you are. When you resort to petty rhetoric like this you lower yourself to a level I had hoped you were above.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 30, 2009 11:54 AM

So...do you love America?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 12:15 PM

I believe my comment answers that for you Jay. Nice try.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 30, 2009 12:20 PM

Priceless. Wellstone lecturing anyone on rhetoric and patriotism. Do you have some more Zionist conspiracy theories to post, Wellstone? I, too, would like to know if you love America.

Posted by: cowlove at April 30, 2009 12:33 PM

I believe my comment answers that for you Jay.

It sure does.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 12:36 PM

Let's see you guys embrace an ideology that has recently talked of secession, Republican Civil War, teabagging in a time of crisis, and bigotry. You may want to look into the Creator's Rights Party. While I have not doubted the well studied comments both of you post, I do believe ignoring the diversity of America is short sighted.

Providing substance to your community is crucial at this time, and looking at minorities and diversity with contempt is unproductive. By the way, my contributions to society are well received by Vets, the LBGT Community, Animal Rescue, Women's Groups, and Senior Centers. Suggested reading for you
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html
This from former Conservative Frank Schaeffer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/open-letter-to-the-republ_b_172822.html


Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 30, 2009 1:07 PM

Too late. We already have your answer. You can't say the words. Case closed.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 1:12 PM

Suggested reading for you: this and this

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 1:16 PM

Not taking your bait Jay, read your comment on how this started.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 30, 2009 1:18 PM

Oh Jay, c'mon don't be like that. It was a great thread to follow, and I think both sides made some great points.

The anti-American rhetoric IS tired. I'm certainly tired of it, and it doesn't hold water.

The 'patriot' phenomenon you are talking about is created by fear of being linked to the flag-waving folks who do no thinking. They say "support our troops" but don't understand how wanting to get them out of harm's way, save their lives and get them out of fighting an illegitimate war could be supporting troops. As you and cowlove have pointed out simple before: If you thought a war was wrong, would you want our troops risking their lives for it?

Its this thinking that anything that you don't support is un-American. Try again.

Also, despite having lived in Europe, you apparently don't recognize that "America" is a label applied to two other countries -- Central and South, they don't appreciate it (I know you don't care) but furthermore, I'd rather not confuse the issue. We are the US or USA in my book.

And like it or lump it Jay, I love my country, I'm not moving anywhere.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 30, 2009 1:20 PM

Let me just spell that out while I'm at it: I love the United States of America, and anyone who says I don't is a liar!

Spin that.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 30, 2009 1:23 PM

You love... your country. Got it.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 1:24 PM

Too late. Your first impulse is diagnostic. The second was a conscious afterthought.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 1:25 PM

Oh fine, be that way. I enjoyed reading anyway. Back to work ...

Posted by: Anonymous at April 30, 2009 1:26 PM

And by "work" I mean "my evil laboratory of anti-American Socialism" of course.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 30, 2009 1:28 PM

And let's just be clear.

You love the United States of America, despite

its history of slavery and oppression and imperialism (as some would have it), and

being capitalistic and

having income inequality and

considering itself exceptional and

not taking due cognizance of world opinion and

being dominated by white males and

balking at homosexual marriage?

All those things, put together, and you still love America - as it is right now, not as it might be someday - unreservedly despite all that, and still consider it to be the greatest country on the face of the earth, and would defend it with your life if need be?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 1:33 PM

Wow, looks like Jay opened a can of worms with such a simple question.

As you and cowlove have pointed out simple before: If you thought a war was wrong, would you want our troops risking their lives for it?

What are you talking about? Don't attribute statements to me that I never made.

Posted by: cowlove at April 30, 2009 1:35 PM

Cowlove, posing that simple question is like holding a cross to a vampire. It's especially illuminating when you can watch a leftist's body language as he tries to answer it. People look more comfortable passing a kidney stone.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 1:45 PM

May I suggest we reopen this debate at that next open thread? Jay, Cowlove, it appears we have a healthy debate here, and it will get lost once this post moves off page.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 30, 2009 1:47 PM

I have to admit, I was expecting a simple answer; probably short-sighted of me. Instead we get a laundry list of U.N. treaties, America being both North and South, work done for LGBT and animal shelters, etc. etc.

Amazing.

Posted by: cowlove at April 30, 2009 1:49 PM

Is it not settled?

Posted by: cowlove at April 30, 2009 1:53 PM

Cowlove, this is typical, actually. Prevarication, I believe it's called.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 1:56 PM

Jay I called you out at my own blog
http://ghostofwellstone.blogspot.com/2009/04/combating-pea-brains.html

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 30, 2009 2:47 PM

"Conservatives, whatever their other faults, are straight-up, full-on patriotic Americans. I think you’ll agree with that".

As in contrast to liberals? No, I don't think that at all.

Every rebuttal you give Jay pertains to rhetoric while evading the issue.

I'm a liberal and I take offense to your accusations. I'd be interested in knowing where you obtained your statistics on "yes but" answers of liberals. This is interesting coming from someone that interprets polls contingent on who benefits from it and how the question was asked. Let me answer directly, damn right I love this country. You sir, are a coward.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 30, 2009 2:47 PM

Ghost, I think their objective is to get the last word, regardless of the integrity of that last word. Its the same as they argue any liberal's point, regardless of the relevance of their argument. You see, in their minds, this is the only way they can win. It's just as McCain almost won and that a small, irrelevant, and Obama bashing group of tea baggers think that they speak for the 68% of Americans that support our President.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 30, 2009 2:59 PM

Well said Andy!

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 30, 2009 3:00 PM

Let me answer directly, damn right I love this country.

“This country.”

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 3:09 PM

Frivolous Jay!

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 30, 2009 3:12 PM

Spot on, really. You're both so up in arms about a question, and one with a simple answer. It's quite telling. Prevarication really is the word.

Posted by: cowlove at April 30, 2009 3:22 PM

I really don't understand you distraction. This land is your land, this land is my land.... I also happen to love this land, my country, The United States of America. What is your point? You have none. Who the hell are you to judge someone base on how they speak?

Posted by: andy42302 at April 30, 2009 3:27 PM

"Do I love you, honey?

"Well, that's an interesting question, I mean, I suppose... it depends on what your definition of love is, of course, and it's such an ... uh ...unsophisticated word, of course, with ... uh ... so ... many meanings and all, but ...I'm ...uh... certainly... uh...fond, yes, that's the word, and ...uh...I ...well, of course I ... uh ...care ... uh... very much in fact, and I ... uh ... don't like to indulge in ... uh... you know ... such ... uh ....maudlin expression of affection, of course ... but ... and I like to think I ...uh ... love all of humanity, of course ... and of course ...you're ...uh... someone... so uh ... I ... guess you could say ... 'yeah,' if you want to ...uh ... call that 'love.' I mean... uh ... some might. You know."

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 3:33 PM

Andy for a dose of sanity, you may like Democracy Interactive

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 30, 2009 3:41 PM

But what if I answered my love one when asked if I loved her with "of course" or "absolutely"? What if I were talking to someone else in the presence of my wife and told them "I love my wife dearly" vrs "I love Jane/Sue/or whoever Dearly" You're a coward with trick questions that has no rebuttal to constructive debate.

This blog reminds me of an old story of a young prankster trying to trick an old wise man. The boy approached the sage with a small wren clenched in his fist and asked the wise man if the bird was dead or alive. The boy had decided if the sage said the bird was dead, he'd crush the bird and prove him wrong. If the sage said dead, he'd open his and and the bird would fly away. This same scenario holds true in every debate and argument I've encountered with you jay (along with your sidekick cowlove) You want to know if I love America? I'll answer the same way the old wise man did. Obviously, it's all up to you.

Now, what does any of this have to do with the topic. Nothing. You have no leg to stand on so you distract.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 30, 2009 3:49 PM

andy what is the debate? Political history, election margins, campaign issues and actual policy, have all been raised to you as reasonable points, only to be answered with, "yeah, but Republicans lost, big time." If you want to strive for civil discussion and constructive debate, then at least attempt to offer some (and no, denigrating the gay community by using their sexual proclivites as points of mockery doesn't count). The discussion evolved, as discussions do, and you and Wellstone lost your marbles when asked if you loved America. Up until that point, I was convinced the discussion was over, for the aforementioned reasons. I never would've imagined that you two would consistently dodge such an easy question. It was enlightening, to say the least.

Posted by: cowlove at April 30, 2009 4:24 PM

Oh please! Cowlove, that Andy and I were smart enough to not take the bait of Jay's, is a simple concept, sorry it flew overhead for ya. Behaving like some flag waving monkey while you are teabagging is unproductive. Maybe we should blog with our lapel pins on? Or sing the National Anthem? Give me break! While you witness a shrinking party, you are embracing an attitude of "Oh Well, so be it", the is not constructive to American politics. It is political suicide. You are stuck in this echo chamber of sorts. At least some Conservatives on the moderate side are stepping up to at least recognize what is going wrong, and offering a new version of Conservatism and it is not this "re-branding" bullshit of what happened in 1994. Arlen Specter jumped ship, yet, other moderates aren't willing to do so... yet, but my guess is their days are numbered.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 30, 2009 4:50 PM

Cowlove, that Andy and I were smart enough to not take the bait of Jay's, is a simple concept, sorry it flew overhead for ya.

Bait taken or not, you both stumbled over yourselves attempting to answer a simple question.

Regardless, please forgive me if I don't take advice on proper conservative ideals from the likes of you: an anti-semitic, barely literate, completely partisan drone who echoes andy's arguments of, "Republicans lost, big time." I truly, sincerely hope you both stick around.

Posted by: cowlove at April 30, 2009 5:08 PM

Behaving like some flag waving monkey while you are teabagging is unproductive.

Yes, we fail to rise to that liberal standard of reasoned debate.

Give me break! While you witness a shrinking party, you are embracing an attitude of "Oh Well, so be it", the is not constructive to American politics. It is political suicide.

So you should be pleased then, right?

a new version of Conservatism and it is not this "re-branding" bullshit of what happened in 1994.

Remind me, how did the mid-term election in 1994 turn out?

You are stuck in this echo chamber of sorts.

Consider this: here you are posting on an American site, characterizing patriotic concerned Americans as “flag waving monkeys” who indulge in homosexual practices much more familiar to liberals than Americans (most of us had to Google the term), and yet...you’re allowed to do so. People debate you, sometimes vilify you, to be sure, but let you have your say. True?

Here’s your calibration on the left and its tolerance. Sign up for an account on Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Pandragon, Firedoglake, Huffington Post, or other leftist site, and say something pro-American (or God forbid, anti-Obama, e.g., “perhaps He is not Perfect”). Even something pretty innocuous will do, such as “Not everything Bush did was entirely bad. Some of it was just mostly bad.” Your account will be blocked in a heartbeat. I guarantee it. Try it. Try it before you come back here. Think about the differences, and the implications. Better yet, type in “I love America, and all she stands for” over there, and prepare to be educated.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 5:15 PM

Jay, not so. I actually belong to all of the aforementioned sites.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 30, 2009 5:23 PM

cowlove, you're a tool, only to chime in as needed. Simply put, you are the "spot on" chimer that reacts to the electronic puppet pulses.

Jay is simply an element of distraction in order to maintain the opinion of the failing far right radicals. His debating skills are sophomoric on his best days. It's not unusual to hear the ole, "well you hate America you Nazi" diatribes. Jay, wanta buy a cowlove?

Posted by: andy42302 at April 30, 2009 5:30 PM

Make that "well you hate America you Nazi" that "indulge in homosexual practices". Right on topic Jay.

Oh, "flag waiving monkeys" is plural. You referring to me or to anyone that happens to disagree with you mindset? That would be the American haters, right?

Posted by: andy42302 at April 30, 2009 5:35 PM

Andy, I actually started the "Flag Waving Monkey" comment. However, you are correct in the "chime in" comment. To Jay's credit, he will engage in debate, no matter how distorted he can be, Cowlove continues to be nothing more than Robin to his Batman. Pretending to be some Patriot while spewing nonsense is no way to go through life.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at April 30, 2009 6:01 PM

Jay, not so. I actually belong to all of the aforementioned sites.

Of course you belong to them. I wouldn’t have expected anything less. Now go post a pro-American comment on them, after which you’ll no longer be able to say that.

Make that "well you hate America you Nazi" that "indulge in homosexual practices". Right on topic Jay.

My point was not that you won’t get criticism – which is perfectly fair in any case - but rather that you’re allowed to continue posting here. On the lefty sites, anyone who made correspondingly outlying comments would get a stream of four-lettered invective followed by banning from the site. You know that’s true. C’mon, admit it.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 30, 2009 6:19 PM

Damn, I'm so sorry to see that this fell apart. All of you did so great for a while -- Jay/cow & Andy/Ghost but emotions eventually washed both sides away in my opinion.

The four of you folks are smart enough to figure out some solutions ... real bi-partisan answers based on common sense, a knowledge of history and strong political/language skills. With talent like this I know we should be able to agree on more things. It seems like it must be possible.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 30, 2009 10:25 PM

I'd be inclined to agree with Anonymous, and I'll keep my fingers crossed.

This began to fall apart with Jay posing a question, and you two lost it. I truly was not expecting your arguments to degenerate into pure ad hominem that amounted to, "shut up."

I'm not sure if your goal here was to reinforce nearly every stereotype of liberalism and its adherents, but that's essentially what you've both done.

I look forward to and anticipate actual civil debate in the future.

Until next time.

Posted by: cowlove at May 1, 2009 4:48 AM

This thread didn't go sour as a result of an insult. Jay,like far too many on sites like these, you ignore the point I am making, and simply repeat in trite boilerplate language the
things you hate. You dont engage in dialogue
or thought pattern, you just repeat what you
hate. What a waste. This is the internet
at its absolute worst, I am sorry to say. The Republican party, regardless of the refusal to admit it, is in deep dodo. No, this isn't a seasonable adjustment or ups and downs on Capital Hill. My point mainly pertained to Specter (you know, the guy that this topic is about) as possibly being construed as the Republicans refusing to work with Moderates, much less being bipartisan in any fashion. Voters have proven across the country that this is unacceptable.

Now, perhaps Jay, cowlove, et al. disagree with that and that's find. But to inject nonsense such as because Obama uses a teleprompter weakens my point or the shortcomings of Rangel, Conyers, Murtha, Molohan, Waters, Feinstein, Jefferson, Hastings, Dodd, and Frank means it can't happen defies logic. The reason Lieberman lost and then won as an Independent is irrelevant despite your insistence of a connection. It's just that each response you give only dissects a given statement out of context and you then add your spin of irrelevance. When this becomes obviously old, in comes the childish insults on spelling and/or grammar. The finale is that liberals hate America. And you've deduced this by the manner in which a loaded question was answered. It reminds me of the childhood teasing game where one boy would ask his buddy, "who's gay, you or your boyfriend?". But during the course of discussion, you ignore any pertinent answers or comment (The sage and the bird, etc.) and procede with your distractions.

Of course, I'm a guest here so I have no right trying to dominate the discussion and I hope I haven't done that. I just think that your "liberals hate America" spin was over the top and obviously proves that a rational debate can't happen here.

I'll give you credit for your latest diversion of left sites being quick to ban. I don't go to DU as they're a bit too radical for me. Huff isn't too bad but I've always felt that Thinkprogess should allow right wingers to at least rebut their point. And I'll even give kudos to Redstate even though many on the left complain about their quickness to blam left views. I've been a member there for over 3 years (not this name) and have ruffled a few feathers but not banned. I've argued the war, SCHIP, Libby's pardon, Bush's incompetence, and other issues. If you give a constructive rebuttal in a civil manner and can reasonably back what you say, you're generally allowed in the discussion. So, I guess I'm saying that I generally agree with you jay but other than to deviate from the issue at hand, I fail to see your point.


Posted by: andy42302 at May 1, 2009 7:46 AM

So, I guess I'm saying that I generally agree with you jay but other than to deviate from the issue at hand, I fail to see your point.

The point was that proposals that come from people who don't actually have America's interests at heart are in the same class as Muslim suggestions that we impose sharia. And people who can't say "I love America" without prevarication or dissembling about their enthusiasm for the UN, treaties, LGBT, NAMBLA, CPUSA, or whatever, are not acting in America's best interests. Far from it.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 2, 2009 9:02 AM

Let's be clear on what I agreed with. It was only the part about blogs banning (another one of your distractions that have absolutely nothing to do with anything). I adamantly disagree with the notion of someone's love for America is contingent on how Jay Guevara interprets or likes the way they say it (and once again, a distraction from the topic that has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than to attack the ones you're debating). Even if they answered to your satisfaction, there's no doubt that you'd find some type of Nazi/Terrorist/Muslim/etc attack to retort with. Jay, when it comes to constructive debate, at the end of the day, you come up short but refuse to yield.

Posted by: andy42302 at May 2, 2009 11:51 AM