Don't get smug though. The generic Republican is popular. I'm sure when actual human Republicans present their faces for our approval or disapproval, we won't find them so attractive.
June 2, 2010
How did the Republicans get this popular?
Gallup:
Don't get smug though. The generic Republican is popular. I'm sure when actual human Republicans present their faces for our approval or disapproval, we won't find them so attractive.
Don't get smug though. The generic Republican is popular. I'm sure when actual human Republicans present their faces for our approval or disapproval, we won't find them so attractive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
117 comments:
Ummm... maybe the solution is to find some young, vibrant candidates? Some fresh men and women who are not like the crusty old white Christian men that typify the Republican Party today?
Oh, wait! You can't say that! That's racist and offensive, isn't it?
Obama. Pelosi. Reid.
It's more that democrats and incumbents (who are majority democrat) are unpopular. This is a mistake that both parties continually make--they simply don't realize how much they are hated, just that often the other side is hated even more.
I'm sure when actual human Republicans present their faces for our approval or disapproval, we won't find them so attractive.
Really? Who is "we", Althouse? And why are you smugly predisposed to find "actual human Republicans" unattractive?
Don't get smug though.
LOL
I'm sure when actual human Republicans present their faces for our approval or disapproval, we won't find them so attractive
Like when people desert John McCain in droves to vote for a far-left extremist (because McCain isn't conservative enough)?
Oh wait, that's right. McCain was never a real Republican, so his example doesn't really count.
So what I'm hearing from you guys is: No, I really do want to get smug.
*Sigh.*
I'm sure when actual human Republicans present their faces for our approval or disapproval, we won't find them so attractive.
Tragically for the corrupt party machine presently in place (not to mention its feverishly spinning camp followers), we've already enjoyed the dubious benefits of a good, long, steaming gawk at their faces, as well... so: call it a wash.
How? When your typical Dem is a composite of Pelosi, Reid, Napolitano, Salazar, Biden and Obama, it's hard to not look good.
I'll be shaking like a puppy in the cold rain until the elections are over and at least the House becomes majority Republican. A lot of things can happen in politics in five months.
Speaking only for myself, Althouse, I am as smug about finding actual human Republicans attractive as you are smug about finding them unattractive.
Let's call it a draw, smugness-wise.
"So what I'm hearing from you guys is: No, I really do want to get smug."
Well, part of me wants to get smug. It will make me happier from now until election day.
Republicans are not more popular. Democrats are less popular. It is relative.
So is Ron Johnson a viable candidate? I don't know. He's an actual Republican, of sorts, but as for what he stands for?
As far as I can tell, he's running as not Russ with a dose of Tea Party added. Perhaps he just has trouble getting his message out.
Oh, I think that no matter our politics or even our sexual preferences, when an actual human Republican presents his face for our approval, we all find him attractive
Ha - Ann, great comment. I was thinking the same thing. IMO the Dems have really screwed this up royally, but...
I then look back and I don't like the Republicans who are in office. I think your post gets them defensive, especially when you mention those running. I truely hope and belive the younger/newer cantidates are not in the mold of the old ones.
Oh, wait! You can't say that! That's racist and offensive, isn't it?
Oh please, say it all you want. Really cause I like how liberals feel the need to always reference the race of conservatives as if somehow its a 2 point conversion.
They're not popular, they're just not as visible. No smug intended.
Republicans aren't popular, Democrats are unpopular, so there is no room for smugness. Voters are very unhappy and went from Obama mania to disillusionment in what, 18 months?
Althouse will never vote for a Republican over Obama because she won't find one that she likes.
"Gallup’s weekly presidential approval survey shows Barack Obama sliding to the lowest level of his presidency, 46%, while his disapproval ties its highest mark, also 46%, for the third time this year."
Not much room for "smugness" there either, methinks.
"Don't get smug" would be excellent advice for Gibbs and the Obami at this point, just as it was for Hasert & Co. a few years ago. But smugness among the political class (Dem or Rep) is just the flip side of their sense of entitlement -- both move in tandem, up or down. And the only time the smugness/entitlement meter moves down is after the voters administer a real thumping.
As for a preference between Dem and Rep, it's all relative. Like the weather (except in the Gorecle's universe, that is), the only constant is change.
Althouse will never vote for a Republican over Obama because she won't find one that she likes.
The poll is about Congressional elections.
I notice it happened in April too, and then they came back together. What happened in April, and afterwards, to change things?
Or are all these changes just within the margin of error?
To my fellow conservatives, repeat after me:
"I will not take advice from those who attempted to defeat us."
The Macho Response
Smug? With Steele still in place?
Heh.
There's actually a lot of young, new blood Republicans running this year, owing to the fact they're competitive in a lot of districts currently held by Democrats.
One advantage of the 2006 & 2010, a lot of the GOP's oldest, ugliest, and most politically "expedient" members have been bumped off or retired.
I don't want the Repubs, either. I want people who will rein in our out of control government.
Ann's advice reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's admonition (and my experience) that liberals hate success, feeling good about yourself, and their opponents discovering, after all the roadblocks they put in front of us, that we're right. They hate anyone else who's found to be correct.
I've heard some version of this advice my whole life. I've never been a shrinking violet about what I know - and paid dearly for it - because liberals always thought my being correct in my assessments was fueled by pride - their weakness - as though I'm anything like them. (When, to me, being correct is the whole point of attaining an education. "A mind is a terrible thing to waste", remember?) Now, in eventual defeat, Ann's even found a way to punish us for smiling.
Don't buy it. Get happy. Rejoice:
Dance on the Newage liberal's (political) grave.
This is The Macho Response
DJ;
Some fresh men and women who are not like the crusty old white Christian men that typify the Republican Party today?
You mean like this guy, or this "guy", and yes even this guy
I'm sure when actual human Republicans present their faces for our approval or disapproval, we won't find them so attractive.
True - once the MFM gets done vilifying that person, we'll hardly recognize them.
And I am sure the Good Professor will have a rational objective for not voting for them, just like with McCain. Admit it, if the ghosts of Andrew Jackson, FDR, and LBJ rose and ran as Republicans you would vote for the Democrat even if it was the reincarnation of Richard Nixon.
@c3-
Rubio - yup. Lagostino dude will win election based on the fact that we are all too poor due to the bad economy to eat real lobster.
Rand - yup. I'm called a "liberal troll" but I love Rand. Finally all you Rightists have a chance to make up for the terrible tar-and-feathering you gave his father.
Meg- She's pathetic! She did a crappy job at HP and she is only able to run now because of her aristocratic connections and a giant campaign of meaninglessness. If she wins, Republicans lose... big time.
"True - once the MFM gets done vilifying that person, we'll hardly recognize them. "
Good thing the people who lean right don't rely on the MFM.
People are ready for a new class of politician more like the current New Jersey governor, so more and more people like him will run and be elected. It's a demand that will be followed by a supply.
Some people can never see ahead of the curve. I would contend that ANY center to right of center individual who voted for Obama epitomizes that syndrome.
She'll vote against the long-time centrist senator who gave his own blood, sweat and tears for this country because he proved that he wasn't a principled, experienced conservative.
She'll vote for the inexperienced, radical leftist.
All because she doesn't find the number two on the Republican ticket attractive. But she does find Joe Biden perfectly capable of being President of the United States. Joe Biden.
Makes perfect sense.
In opposition party always seems to do well in non-presidential years, so that's already working to the GOP's favor. However, given what's already happened since President Obama took office, and the subsequent special elections thus far, the Dems have GOT to be feeling the pressure.
Maybe they should have Reverend Pelosi lead them in prayer. Given yesterday's performance, I'm sure it would be a completely fluid and coherent message.
Record number of black GOP candidates running this year too...odd, that, huh?
Its the oil leak.
While I realize, certainly, that they weren't intended to work out that way: Scott M's and Lem's back-to-back comments, above, made me guffaw out loud. ;)
From the poll's fine print:
one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of error is ±3 percentage points
In other words, all those changes? Not statistically relevant.
Maybe that's why the Professor said Don't be Smug.
@MM
You're right, of course. One should never count their seats before they've been won. I suppose it's reasonable to assume that in the few months left before the elections, the economy could rev way, way up, unemployment could drop 4-5 points, Isreal could survive our veritable abandonment, and Biden could make a string of intelligent statements.
Unlikely, but reasonable.
I'm called a "liberal troll"
Probably shouldn't have to pull the 'crusty old white guy' line then if you don't like the moniker. Unlike liberals, conservatives have actually embraced the concept of judging on character rather than color.
Republicans always lag behind in generic nationwide congressional polling, relative to their performance in actual seat-by-seat elections. If the generic polls are like this by election day, the results will be crushing. Look for a swing of at least 75 seats.
I'm not being smug. Things could change, and Republicans haven't exactly earned this advantage. But numbers like this aren't supposed to show up in generic polling. It portends a monumental beatdown.
and Biden could make a string of intelligent statements.
Elvis will rise from his grave, lean and vital once more, hips electrically a-swivel, before you ever see that one happen, brother. ;)
And, since Democrats tend to be concentrated in racially gerrymandered districts, the news is even better than this poll suggests.
Certainly not good news for the Democrats, and Gallup is not a partisan poll, so the results are noteworthy.
This poll likely reveals a lot of protest votes, which make up a portion of the vote in any election. Proof of that would be another poll (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/06/01/both_parties_at_record_low_favorable_ratings.html) which shows the GOP's favorability to be lower than the Democratic Party's by a similar margin.
The biggest concern for Democrats is a possible enthusiasm gap. People on the right are very motivated to vote, while people on the left are less so. Just ask the people at Fair Trade, Ann.
The Sconz
Elvis is dead?
Running the country is like cleaning the toilet. While you're doing it, nobody wants to shake your hand. The Republicans aren't cleaning the toilet at this moment.
One more thing:
You want a new Republicanism/conservatism? Then, damn it - along with politics - start paying attention to the social/cultural part of it:
Donate to The Macho Response, or iOwnTheWorld, or anyone else who doesn't necessarily represent (but also isn't necessarily at war with) that Christian, evangelical-looking, old school Republican aesthetic. We need art - music, especially, which is my field - and a whole lot more.
What we don't need is anyone willing to take the advice to be humble, NewAge, or Buddhist-lite. We will not hide the American character. We are leaders.
I would love to smugly vote for candidates that are more libertarian regardless of party, color, crustiness nor sexual looseness. Hell, I'd even vote for a candidate that prefers hairless women and transcendental meditation as long as they want small government. I have priorities.
the poll I'm most interested in is the opinion of independents. The party divisions remain in a fairly constant range. So there's this "hard chasm" between the party's and the party faithful with the "muddled middle" floating over the top from left to right. We saw a shift of independents and moderates (or as some lovingly call them squish's, RINO's, DINO's ...)in '08 toward the left. Note now in Gallup Poll the continued drift rightward. Blanche Lincoln could be the "poster child" of that drift.
So likely we'll get more "hard right" folks and more "soft right" folks in '10.
We have too often voted for candidates based on stuff that has nothing much to do with government. We have battles in local races over abortion, foreign policy, etc. I care only about those issues involved in the job they want.
In national races, I care about a respect for American Exceptionalism. For me that is just understanding good and evil and therefore having the wisdom to decide national and foreign policy issues correctly. Beyond that, I want people that understand that small is beautiful and liberty is powerful. The rest gets in the way.
The Professor has a good point: we don't seem to ever find anybody attractive enough to get our votes. That is foolish. We are like the coaches that only tell their team what losers and bums they are...and turn out to be right. We need to find some candidates and tell them that they are capable of being winners despite their having human flaws, and they will turn out to be winners.
I think some explanations are:
a) Republicans are running a relentlessly negative campaign and have abandoned the responsibilities of governing. They, and their media colleagues like Fox, are meeting some success tearing down the Dem image.
b) The BP oil spill is a killer. And it damages the governing party, as well. Again, the Republicans are attacking Obama, demanding the government run the rescue operation, (despite their hatred of government takeovers).
c) Memories of the results of Republican policies are fading.
d) The reporters who serve the rich publishers and broadcasters are consistently pushing stories against Dems and for Rs.
If Rs get back in power, this country is really screwed. They will peddle again the Bush policies that put us in the mess we are in.
Plus the Democrats don't offer a very recognizable alternative framework. They are a feckless collection of timid and cautious careerists who won't challenge the corporations.
They lack the stones to make hay out of this glaring weakness among the Rs: (credit to Katrina Vanden Heuvel)
"But actually, what's surprising is that after the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, the worst mining disaster in 30 years, and what is now the worst environmental disaster in the nation's history, more conservatives aren't revising the gospel about the blessings of deregulation and the horrors of government. Despite what should be obvious failings, deregulation, smaller government and privatization remain central to the dominant Republican message. "
Republicans are running a relentlessly negative campaign and have abandoned the responsibilities of governing
Myopism is fun to watch in action. What's even more fun is actual fundamental attribution error in action right there in front of us.
Kudos on both counts, AL. I guess that "judge not" stuff didn't last 24 hours for you.
Bitches.
Alpha:
Will you promise [again] to leave the country if Reps win? Heh.
Scott, by all means show us the Republican policy proposals on Wall Street regulation, health care, etc. They don't bother even putting any out.
On health care, early on, Obama offered a deal on tort reform and requested a counter-offer from the Republicans. They offered -- NOTHING.
AJ, it's my country, why would I leave it? I love the US, I love Americans and I do not run around hating on them like conservatives do.
My philosophy has always been to stay here and fight the corrupt right wing.
Did someone say "corrupt right wing?" We have another Republican scandal for Ann Althouse and her right wing web patrons to ignore:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/fun_reading.php#more?ref=fpblg
"-- Greer cut out the state party's existing successful fundraiser, according to the affidavit. First he tried to muscle in on her business then slashed her salary when she didn't play along. He also began restricting her access to Gov. Charlie Crist and blocking her from meeting with major donors, telling her they were "men's only" meetings.
-- Greer's alleged scheme coincided with some tough economic times for the Florida GOP. At one point Greer held a press conference where he cut up an American Express card as a symbol of the party's new austerity measures. Except, the AMEX card didn't belong to the state party. It was some poor staffer's personal card. Other staffers scrambled to pick up the cut up pieces before the press could photograph them and discover who the card really belonged to, according to the affidavit."
More on yet another Republican scandal which will be under-reported by the national news media:
"Authorities in Florida have revealed the charges against former GOP chairman Jim Greer: six felony counts of fraud, theft, and money laundering."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/livin_high_on_the_gop_hog.php?ref=fpblg
AL incrdulously stated: "a) Republicans are running a relentlessly negative campaign and have abandoned the responsibilities of governing."
If by negative campaign you mean simply playing back Democrats remarks, then yeah, those eeeevil Rethuglicans are so negative. Oh, and by way, the Republicans aren't governing right now, champ, this mess belongs to the Dems and has since 2006 big guy.
"Again, the Republicans are attacking Obama, demanding the government run the rescue operation, (despite their hatred of government takeovers)."
Well, your Number One Guy did manage to say that the federal government owned it from day one. Not that anything the President says means anything to you.
"c) Memories of the results of Republican policies are fading."
Again, you must not really care about what Your Guy says because he keeps blaming the last administration as well as a couple of private citizens. Are you doubting The One's ability to educate us peons?
"d) The reporters who serve the rich publishers and broadcasters are consistently pushing stories against Dems and for Rs."
I don't suppose it would be too much to ask you to prove such a wild assertion? Yeah, probably is.
"[Republicans] will peddle again the Bush policies that put us in the mess we are in."
Really now? Care to name a couple?
AlphaLib continues: "Plus the Democrats don't offer a very recognizable alternative framework. They are a feckless collection of timid and cautious careerists who won't challenge the corporations."
Psssst, because they're too busy bailing them out and taking their campaign contributions. But keep up those stale lefty talking points from 20 years ago dude. You're a riot.
Alpha:
You're Alec Baldwin aren't you? If not, I am sorry - I heard that somewhere and assumed it was true.
[psych!]
To say that conservatives hate Americans is so wrong and so misinformed as to almost be corrupt. This from a guy on the side that discards concepts like American exceptionalism.
During the little sit-down the GOP had with the Dems and President Obama, the one that CSPAN covered because the President, once again, breaking a plain-spoken and easily-achieved campaign promise...the GOP offered policy ideas, raw data, forecasts of raising costs (which have since turned out to be more accurate than the Dem's version), and frank discussion. The Democrats offered heartstring plucking stories about retainers and such. It was embarrassing. It is embarrassing.
We simply don't have enough of other people's money to keep governing the country like the Dems have in just the past couple of years. That doesn't by any means say...fuck it, let's go back to 2001 to 2006. Quite the opposite.
We need fiscally conservative governance right now. Period. Everything else is a distraction, a special interest, or, at the very worst, pure corruption. The spending spree currently going on in DC that you would seemingly have us continue is a surefire path to history's dustbin. We're talking about survival issues here. Not touchy-feely fluff stories about faceless constituents that somehow represent the entire country.
AlphaLib falls down again: "Scott, by all means show us the Republican policy proposals on Wall Street regulation, health care, etc. They don't bother even putting any out.
On health care, early on, Obama offered a deal on tort reform and requested a counter-offer from the Republicans. They offered -- NOTHING."
Are you lying or just that ignorant? You're in full talking point froth right now and it's a fascinating sight to behold.
The oft repeated lie that Republicans didn't offer alternative legislation is so demonstrably false that it takes about 15 seconds on google to educate you leftist sheep.
Hell, we don't even need to mention the secret and closed-door meetings the Democrats were having both in committee and in the legislative bodies do we? Because you probably aren't even aware of those well-publicized events are you?
I think the problem with the Democrats is that they don't have a coherent underlying moral philosophy.
What's startling to me is that this increase in popularity vice the Democrats happened despite all that Rand Paul has done to tarnish the Republican brand.
And what, pray may I ask, do you have against Ron Johnson?
AlphaLib: "We have another Republican scandal for Ann Althouse and her right wing web patrons to ignore:"
No one's ignoring it. Funny thing is, that scandal is the result of an internal audit. And there's full GOP co-operation on the investigation.
That's two things you'll never see with Democrats. As a matter of fact, Greer now has an excellent resume enhancement for a party switch. He'll fit right in.
Okay GMay-I just spent 15 seconds......
How bout you tell us?
@Alpha, what is the Republican position on healthcare? Repeal it! For most Americans (including me, when I retire in a few years and can no longer get Medicare Advantage), it results in poorer care while costing over a trillion dollars(that's a million millions in case you're counting).
Wall Street? Let's start by enforcing the laws currently on the books before we pass new laws. Especially laws like the Crhis Dodds travesty Democrats are currently pushing, which does nothing more than further enriching people on Wall Street who are large contributors to the Democrat Party.
That's for starters.
Are you lying or just that ignorant?
Objection. False assumption of binary. ;)
It looks like the Anns - Coulter and Althouse - agree. The Republicans shouldn't count their votes before they're counted - especially if any of The Zero's friends at ACORN or SEIU or the New Black Panther Party have anything to do with the count.
Seriously, the Michael Steele wing is only a little more popular then the Demos; it's the tea Party-inspired candidates that are generating the enthusiasm.
Dead Julius said...
Ummm... maybe the solution is to find some young, vibrant candidates? Some fresh men and women who are not like the crusty old white Christian men that typify the Republican Party today?
Col. Allen West
Marco Rubio
Rand Paul
Pat Toomey
Naw, nobody as young and clean as Fwank, Pelosi, Boxer, etc.
AL is right. The Republicans have no policies on anything. They are the "party of No".
"How did the Republicans get this popular?"
No kidding. Most people don't like hysterical children screaming "we're all going to die!" at the the top of their lungs in the back seat.
Here's a question:
If Republicans are in a statistical dead heat with Democrats with respect to popularity, why is that seen as good news for Republicans?
Good News all you Republican Candidates! You're no worse thought of than Democrats!!!!
Not exactly a Ringing Endorsement.
Republicans are really hysterical little children. Always predicting doom & gloom. Let's give health care reform a try, maybe 10-20 years and then we'll see.
"How did the Republicans get this popular?"
The Democrats won by being "Not Bush". I suppose it could go the other way in 2 years.
But what a joke.
The poll shows a dead tie, meaning almost half the country is stupid. Which half is the only question, and the remaining undecideds will cast the decisive vote.
Undecided???
Hell, the fact that there are still people who **can't decide** between socialism and capitalism is proof enough why we're screwed no matter who wins the next round.
Jesus MC, you can't be that incompetent at using a search engine can you? Allow me to assist you. All you need to do is type in the following:
"alternative republican legislation"
[without quotes]
Funny thing is, the wide variety of legislation that this query turns up. Go ahead, time it. 15 seconds is generous.
Its obvious even our liberal peanut gallery knows the democrats are in for an ass stomping this fall. But I give them some credit for not rushing to the democrats side. I mean who is really happy with the way things are going or think the democrats deserve another chance at total govt. control?
"Republicans are really hysterical little children. Always predicting doom & gloom."
And doing it by using simple math to show that when you spend more you make, you run out of money.
Speaking of doom and gloom, if you listened to the screeching of libtards during the Bush admin, you'd have thought Frodo failed in his mission.
"The fact that there are still people who **can't decide** between socialism and capitalism is proof enough why we're screwed,..."
Amen.
Once these dummies realize that without their own agenda well-presented, saying "anyone but Democrat" isn't enough to win against the Dem/Union GOTV machine, we'll already be talking about 2012.
They are smug dummies, the RNC Republicans. That much should be obvious to all (and I was a 2x Bush supporter, so don't put me in the Alpha box).
Smug is turd. The turd is love.
wv: "silotiv" -- a silo-launched explosive.
Republicans are really hysterical little children. Always predicting doom & gloom. Let's give health care reform a try, maybe 10-20 years and then we'll see.
Wow. Just...wow. A complete misunderstanding of the realities of modern entitlement programs. There's no "we'll see" because entitlements don't go away once they're enacted. They become political third rails.
As for hysterics, I suggest you do some reading on what the left, the Dems in particular, were saying about welfare reform after the last electoral ass-whuppin' they suffered. The problem there is, as hysterical as they got, the reforms actually worked. Even Hillary, through firmly clenched teeth, had to admit it.
Hysterical indeed. You know, regardless of my original misgivings about our president, I was willing to take the "wait and see" approach and said as much here. He's turned out to be worse than I could have imagined. Not run-for-the-bunker-bad (unless you live on the Gulf Coast), but I was never in that group anyway.
Bad enough, if only through the eyes of my childrens' share of the national debt.
The Democrats in power and people find out they are partisan hacks, just like the other party. Of course our current system only allows us to try and switch back to the other guys and hope for the best (even though it has never worked before). What we need is way out of the two party straight jackets. Open primaries help. My fav is instant run-off voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
which could be easily fit into our current system and would let people vote for alternatives without having to worry about electing the "more evil guy".
How? Democrats have controlled Congress for four years. Are you better off than you were four years ago? The Republicans really should run a nationwide ad campaign on that theme, maximizing the generic advantage.
There is very little purchase available for a Democratic nationwide counter-campaign. What good results can they effectively crow about? A negative counterattack runs into the problem that the Republicans aren't in power, Bush is gone, and nobody knows who John Boehner is.
Instant runoff voting sucks. Ranked pairs or Schulze don't have the defect that voting for somebody can cause them to lose; IRV does.
Alex: Let's give health care reform a try, maybe 10-20 years and then we'll see.
Translate: All we are saying is give fleece a chance!
For the last time (in this thread):
Focus on something other than fucking politics - we're losing the cultural war (music, films, etc.) by a mile.
Support conservatives artists! DONATE!
And, yes, I know it sounds self-serving, but you'll feel different when politicians are listening to me instead of fucking Bono.
Can we stop saying Republican and refer to conservatives instead?
How? Democrats have controlled Congress for four years. Are you better off than you were four years ago? The Republicans really should run a nationwide ad campaign on that theme, maximizing the generic advantage.
Why limit it to the last 4 years? Are you better off than you were in 1992?
Throw out all the bums! And by that I mean everyone.
MadisonMan,
The polls oversample Democrats consistently. You'll notice that it's the biggest lead in the poll history--but the polls go back to the big Rep wins in 2002 and 1992.
Hmmm. 1992, 2002...2012?
'course, 2002 was a freakin' disaster for the Reps and the country but 1992 worked out okay.
Deadn Julius,
Whitman ran eBay.
Fiorina ran HP.
Keep your slurs straight, if you please.
I worked on this when Fiorina ran HP, and I still think she sucks.
Then again, never underestimate the ability of the GOP to screw itself, hence the apparent nomination of loser Rick Lazio for governor in New York.
So Mad Man, does that mean you will vote against Russ Feingold?
The reporters who serve the rich publishers and broadcasters are consistently pushing stories against Dems and for Rs
WTF!?!
lol@c3
Have you not met AlphaLiberal?
He's mad.
We're all mad here.
Or if you prefer: We all go a little mad sometimes.
The reporters who serve the rich publishers and broadcasters are consistently pushing stories against Dems and for Rs
WTF!?!
If you ever needed proof that Alpha is disconnected from reality, this is it.
So Mad Man, does that mean you will vote against Russ Feingold?
I'd prefer to vote for someone.
The World will not end if Feingold is tossed out. I'll say that much.
Okay, I see a bunch of reactions to the bill, and a lot of talk about moving forward, and something from 2009 Fox, can you please give me a specific link to the official Republican alternative?
Ann Althouse said...
So what I'm hearing from you guys is: No, I really do want to get smug.
*Sigh.*
Damn straight we want to get smug.
We're going to take back Congress, assume that the country's with us, go too far, and get President Obama re-elected.
lol
Ben skipped the part where "we start spending like Democrats again".
blake said...
lol
Ben skipped the part where "we start spending like Democrats again".
No, no, that's later. Once we take back the White House, and the Republican Congress can't resist the promises a Republican president made.
Mark Sanford, the guy who slept in his office for six years rather than spend his housing allowance, was the only way to avoid that, and he just _had_ to go hike the Appalachian Trail.
an you please give me a specific link to the official Republican alternative?
LOLZ
Garage - screaming we're all going to die
This from the party that put forth the following slogan in 2004 - Vote or Die.
But we're the fear-mongers.
master cylinder tries: "Okay, I see a bunch of reactions to the bill, and a lot of talk about moving forward, and something from 2009 Fox, can you please give me a specific link to the official Republican alternative?"
I gave you the search parameters and you still failed?
You probably see red everytime "GOP" shows up on your monitor, so that's probably why you missed the first result on an easy Google query. Either that or you're blazingly incompetent at this internet thing.
You see MC, you actually need to click on the links on a search result page instead of skimming for liberal spaz trigger words like "Fox".
I'm sure when actual human Republicans present their faces for our approval or disapproval, we won't find them so attractive.
"(A)ctual human Republicans"! lol. That's a funny idea.
This from the party that put forth the following slogan in 2004 - Vote or Die.
Don't forget "A vote for Bush is a vote for rape!"
"But actually, what's surprising is that after the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, the worst mining disaster in 30 years, and what is now the worst environmental disaster in the nation's history, more conservatives aren't revising the gospel about the blessings of deregulation and the horrors of government. Despite what should be obvious failings, deregulation, smaller government and privatization remain central to the dominant Republican message. "
ALPHALIBERAL NAILS IT!!!! Because we all know there in Laos, North Korea, Burma, Venezuala, Cuba, and China there IS NO POLLUTION and the WORKERS ONLY DIE OF OLD AGE NATURAL CAUSES!!!! Hell, there has never ever even been an oil spill in Norway!!!! These countries are DEMOCRATIC PARADISES!!!! If only Obama can be PRESIDENT FOR LIFE we will all have PARADISE!!! And we can cleanse society of all those awful ugly racist TEABAGGERS!!!!
Tc
Despite what should be obvious failings, deregulation, smaller government and privatization remain central to the dominant Republican message.
I'm surprised Democrats haven't realized shit happens no matter how many regulations you write. Aside from medicine, these are probably already the three most regulated industries in the US. Do you really think more of the same will make things better?
I'm surprised Democrats haven't realized shit happens no matter how many regulations you write
You want to see a cool trick? Tell a libtard that the enviro wackos share blame for forcing oil companies to drill so far out. Their little heads will explode.
You want to see a cool trick? Tell a libtard that the enviro wackos share blame for forcing oil companies to drill so far out. Their little heads will explode.
No, we will call you what you are though, a shameless lying dick with eyes. I see this will be the excuse when this planet is finally underwater after 30 yrs of liberals telling them so. LIBRULS! IF TEHY WEREN'T FASCISTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING! LIBTARDS!
"I see this will be the excuse when this planet is finally underwater after 30 yrs of liberals telling them so."
Dude, you actually believed Waterworld? heh
Global warming is soooo 2009.
I see this will be the excuse when this planet is finally underwater after 30 yrs of liberals telling them so.
Oh, I don't see people on the left making sacrifices in this regard. Tell you what, I'll keep my "carbon footprint" below Al Gore's, okay?
Dead Julius,
hate to tell you but Meg was the founder of EBay, not the head of HP. That was Carly.
Post a Comment