tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post3989616242956920780..comments2024-03-19T08:07:28.854-05:00Comments on Althouse: "Dear Patriot: It's Now or Never for Conservative voters."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12002244373000698302012-01-05T07:33:57.473-06:002012-01-05T07:33:57.473-06:00No, that will be the result of extreme immaturity ...<i>No, that will be the result of extreme immaturity - and it won't be Gingrich's,...</i><br /><br />It doesn't matter. The end result is the same.Scott Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02459388007426664813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43916113427031582472012-01-04T23:43:22.041-06:002012-01-04T23:43:22.041-06:00Crack,
What are Gingrich's accomplishments? ...Crack,<br /><br />What are Gingrich's accomplishments? Bill Clinton handed Gingrich his ass. Clinton ran in 1992 on welfare reform and got the welfare reform he wanted. Clinton jacked up income taxes and cut capital gains taxes, which helped lead to almost a balanced budget. If Gingrich weren't such a blowhard, he'd have gotten more credit. But Clinton gets it. Gingrich got thrown out of the Speakers chair by his colleagues and then quit his Congressional seat to work in the private sector as an influence peddler. Did you see Gingrich's speech last night. He was a total whiner. Again. Romney is handing Gingrich his ass just like Bill Clnton did. Gingrich is a clown. He's going nowhere. You need to shift to another candidate.mcculloughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168402889404727565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71481185804774223282012-01-04T23:25:58.429-06:002012-01-04T23:25:58.429-06:00The Crack Emcee said...
"You went from a line...The Crack Emcee said...<br />"<i>You went from a line of questioning I find interesting (whether finding liberalism is a problem can be limited to ideology after 50 years) to one I find cheap, juvenile, and silly (semantic criticism when merely engaging with colloquial language) and did it so fast, I lost interest.</i>"<br /><br />Great way to distract attention from your inability to answer the point! I don't think anyone noticed. Doubtless they were all distracted by the faux outrage; way to go.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69508976215468299732012-01-04T23:11:01.889-06:002012-01-04T23:11:01.889-06:00Simon,
If you disagree, the ticket price is the n...Simon,<br /><br /><i>If you disagree, the ticket price is the name of a tea party group supporting Democratic candidates. Name one.<br /><br />Who's this "you guys" kimo sabe?</i><br /><br />You went from a line of questioning I find interesting (whether finding liberalism is a problem can be limited to ideology after 50 years) to one I find cheap, juvenile, and silly (semantic criticism when merely engaging with colloquial language) and did it so fast, I lost interest.<br /><br />mccullough,<br /><br /><i>I'm astonished you think Gingrich is better than Romney.</i><br /><br />List Gingrich's political accomplishments on one side of paper and Romney's on the other. Which is longer? Which is more substantial? Which has inspired people - people who don't even like Gingrich - to say he changed American politics "forever"? <br /><br />Do you seriously think I'm going to choose a man who, before RomneyCare, was best known for managing a sporting event - over a man of true political achievements? <br /><br />Are you serious about politics? About our country? I don't think so - listen to yourself:<br /><br /><i>Gingrich thinks he has the answers to all the problems.</i><br /><br />Oooh - that's a bad trait for the guy you hire to fix shit, huh? Better to hire an incompetent, right? Or a guy who thinks he's an incompetent? President Dumbass - that's who we need,...<br /><br /><i>He is a faddish thinker with no discipline.</i><br /><br />Who gave us a list of political accomplishments the length of my arm. I know - you're talking about his mouth - but guess what? I say he can talk as much as he wants while fixing the problems of this country.<br /><br /><i>He's too lazy to build a campaign organization to make a serious run.</i><br /><br />Oh - performing in your dog-and-pony show is more important than just putting someone in office who's proven he can do what's necessary. I get it now,...<br /><br /><i>Part of the reason Reagan won is that he had a good personality. He was likeable. Gingrich is extrremely dislikeable.</i><br /><br />He's running for president - not your Facebook friend. Either we have serious problems to deal with or this is actually a try out for Miss Congeniality - your choice.<br /><br /><i>He's arrogant, brusque, and a whiner.</i><br /><br />Hey, man, it ain't easy dealing with the pathology of delusion day-in-and-day-out. You know, like people who say, "Wow - we have incredible problems in this country - the answer is to look for someone LIKABLE!!!"<br /><br /><i>His personality alone will ensure Obama's reelection.</i><br /><br />No, that will be the result of extreme immaturity - and it won't be Gingrich's,...The Crack Emceehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08366101526773588864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88251815587757951302012-01-04T22:35:37.412-06:002012-01-04T22:35:37.412-06:00On the other hand there are plenty of big-governme...<i>On the other hand there are plenty of big-government conservatives who have drawn the ire of Tea Partiers: Orin Hatch, John Boehner, and Richard Lugar are obvious examples.</i><br /><br />I thought Carol_Herman was the only person who had a problem with Boehner. She even got over it, I think.chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18067761698146262132012-01-04T22:08:53.189-06:002012-01-04T22:08:53.189-06:00Revenant said...
"You falsely assume there ar...Revenant said...<br />"<i>You falsely assume there are small-government liberals running for office as Democrats.</i>"<br /><br />No, I don't. On the one hand, there are no "small-government liberals," which, given the modern connotation of "liberal" is a contradiction in terms. But even if I did, that wouldn't undercut my point. If the tea party would back small government liberals (or an abominable snowman, cars that run on rainbows and unicorn kisses, or attractive Victoria's Secret model), that's great, but it underscores my point: They would do so because such a candidate would share their belief that government is too big. Well, that government (or at least outsized government) is a problem, and a concomitant belief that shrinking it is the solution, are ideological claims. Again, they're claims that I happen to agree with—I'm not faulting them or disputing them—but they <i>are</i> ideological claims.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12288833575077041602012-01-04T21:22:08.506-06:002012-01-04T21:22:08.506-06:00If you disagree, the ticket price is the name of a...<i>If you disagree, the ticket price is the name of a tea party group supporting Democratic candidates.</i><br /><br />You falsely assume there are small-government liberals running for office as Democrats. There aren't, so the lack of Tea Party support for liberal candidates is unsurprising.<br /><br />On the other hand there are plenty of big-government conservatives who have drawn the ire of Tea Partiers: Orin Hatch, John Boehner, and Richard Lugar are obvious examples.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5382475634694178032012-01-04T21:02:02.558-06:002012-01-04T21:02:02.558-06:00Crack,
None of these candidates is a perfect cons...Crack,<br /><br />None of these candidates is a perfect conservative. Perry has probably the most consistently conservative record. But I'm astonished you think Gingrich is better than Romney. Gingrich thinks he has the answers to all the problems. He is a faddish thinker with no discipline. He's too lazy to build a campaign organization to make a serious run. Part of the reason Reagan won is that he had a good personality. He was like able. Gingrich is extrremely dislike able. He's arrogant, brusque, and a whiner. His personality alone will ensure Obama's reelection.mcculloughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168402889404727565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-79248584411102124542012-01-04T21:01:12.625-06:002012-01-04T21:01:12.625-06:00The Crack Emcee said...
"[Simon said that the...The Crack Emcee said...<br />"<i>[Simon said that there are a lot of folks in the tea party who believe that they represent untold multitudes, and that those untold multitudes are yearning for a real conservative candidate.] That's not true. I attended my last Tea party event on New Years and I didn't meet one person who fit that profile. ¶ Tea Partiers are people looking at problems and trying to solve them - they are not ideologues by a long shot.</i>"<br /><br />Tea partiers are, in the main, people who believe that we have problems to solve: That liberalism is a problem to solve, or that liberalism has created a number of problems for us to solve. Those are ideological claims. They are ideological positions with which I happen to agree, but they are ideological positions. If you disagree, the ticket price is the name of a tea party group supporting Democratic candidates. Name one. <br /><br />"<i>Like this smearing of me as a cultist</i>" <br /><br />Who called you a cultist?<br /><br />"<i>when are you guys</i>"<br /><br />Who's this "you guys" kimo sabe?<br /><br />"<i>get out of your own head's projections and deal with reality</i>"<br /><br />Kind of my point. The reality is that a unified GOP needs roughly 18% of independents to win, varying a little by state. They won't get it by nominating someone unappealing to those independents who are up for grabs.<br /><br />Hardly anything said about the Tea Party is true, and it's been that way from the day it emerged - when is some truth going to come out of you guys?Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4949095412906889122012-01-04T20:59:34.299-06:002012-01-04T20:59:34.299-06:00ut "the Catholic Church teaches it" cont...<i>ut "the Catholic Church teaches it" contradicts "it is insane."</i><br /><br />Not even slightly.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-21446522746023996042012-01-04T20:56:32.097-06:002012-01-04T20:56:32.097-06:00el polacko,
one thing that can be said for romney...el polacko,<br /><br /><i>one thing that can be said for romney is that his baggage is light. you can only beat up on him for 'flip-flopping', state healthcare, and mormonism so much before they become superfluous attacks.</i><br /><br />Nobody said Romney can't win - we're saying he shouldn't. <br /><br />I find it incredible, as you guys keep displaying conventional wisdom at it's finest, you can't even articulate any argument but your own - which can be found in any nightly newscast nation-wide.<br /><br />You're a bunch of parrots, and it's pathetic.The Crack Emceehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08366101526773588864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3998686030390316792012-01-04T20:46:40.832-06:002012-01-04T20:46:40.832-06:00Simon,
Scott, Chickenlittle, he may have it in fo...Simon,<br /><br /><i>Scott, Chickenlittle, he may have it in for the tea party, but that doesn't make him wrong. For once , I agree with him. Not about the tea party generally, I mean, but as I said above, there are a lot of folks in the tea party who believe that they represent untold multitudes, and that those untold multitudes are yearning for a real conservative candidate.</i><br /><br />That's not true. I attended my last Tea party event on New Years and I didn't meet one person who fit that profile. Tea Partiers are people looking at problems and trying to solve them - they are not ideologues by a long shot. <br /><br />They do recognize that conservatism is better than liberalism, but beyond that, there's not a word you're saying that's true. Like this smearing of me as a "cultist," when are you guys going to get out of your own head's projections and deal with reality? Hardly anything said about the Tea Party is true, and it's been that way from the day it emerged - when is some truth going to come out of you guys?<br /><br />Am I the last honest man around here?The Crack Emceehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08366101526773588864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90221007345670811042012-01-04T20:43:53.618-06:002012-01-04T20:43:53.618-06:00if santorum should, somehow, become the candidate ...if santorum should, somehow, become the candidate then obama wins. there are SO many of santorum's past statements that are mis-informed, i'll-informed, willfully ignorant, often loony, and sometimes downright hateful that there will be ample ammunition to make him a national laughingstock and worse. <br />one thing that can be said for romney is that his baggage is light. you can only beat up on him for 'flip-flopping', state healthcare, and mormonism so much before they become superfluous attacks.el polackohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13265451503377552500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-70056307024366787272012-01-04T20:39:47.141-06:002012-01-04T20:39:47.141-06:00Cedarford,
One of the dumbest things to emerge re...Cedarford,<br /><br /><i>One of the dumbest things to emerge recently in conservatives is the faith-based belief that the public HUNGERS for someone as far-right as possible...combined with a twin faith-based belief that Obama, Harry Reid are so unpopular that NOW IS THE TIME!! to nominate a "true believer".</i><br /><br />I was thinking about this thread today and it did occur to me that the communication problem we're having is that some of you guys DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING, and this comment is evidence that's the case - it's only half right:<br /><br />I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER, EVER said "the public HUNGERS for someone as far-right as possible," and you're admitting you're delusional to imagine I did - in a "faith-based" manner or otherwise.<br /><br />But the "faith-based belief" charge is the worst - just like Ann recently claiming I'm leading a "cult" of hypermasculinity. <br /><br />When are some of you going to stop trying this reverse-smear of me with my own topics - when you KNOW I'm into no such things? <br /><br />Why can't you just admit you can't keep up with my reasoning?<br /><br />Oh yeah - because then you'd also have to admit you're not that smart yourselves. My bad.<br /><br />I sit here, reading all this conventional wisdom and it's heartbreaking - especially from Ann - because you're all supposed to be so smart. Ann was top of her fucking class and the best she could come up with is THE CRACK EMCEE IS A CULTIST? <br /><br />That approach is so lame she should be offering to give her degree back - or her college should be demanding it.<br /><br />And the idea that I - a person who has made his feelings about "beliefs" very clear for YEARS now - should be charged with harboring a "faith-based belief" is just as ignorant, if not more. I'm talking serious bottom-of-the-barrel stupidity.<br /><br />You really need to grow up.<br /><br />Now, instead of saying, "the public HUNGERS for someone as far-right as possible," I'm saying that's the answer to our problem (whether they get it or not) and, if we elect such a person as our standard bearer, the public will be boxed into going along with that decision because they know - yes - four more years of Obama and Harry Reid spells obvious disaster.<br /><br />Back in the day, nobody thought Reagan could be president - except he faced Jimmy Carter. That's where we are today. Nobody thought Carter was a bad guy (at the time) but they did know we couldn't endure four more years under his "leadership," and that's where we are now with Obama. <br /><br />It's the biggest open secret in politics.<br /><br />So go on pretending we have to pick another loser to replace him - when we don't. We can pick someone who can actually accomplish what's necessary - whether the general public "likes" him on Facebook or not - and, if we don't, we're fucked.<br /><br />That's all I'm saying,...The Crack Emceehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08366101526773588864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90211969355824798882012-01-04T20:39:25.140-06:002012-01-04T20:39:25.140-06:00Carol_Herman,
It's still the "funny Unde...Carol_Herman,<br /><br /><i>It's still the "funny Underwear Man" ... or worse. And, it's the advantage Obama needs to win a second term.</i><br /><br />The first comment after I leave and it's a reiteration of the same tired argument - we aren't going to beat a proven loser. Incredible.<br /><br />Scott M,<br /><br /><i>I'm 42. The only likely conservative voters I know of in my extended family and friends that have mentioned social issues are all at least 54 or older. I don't know why that is, but that's what I've seen so far. Everyone else is firmly fixed on $$$. And why wouldn't we be? That's the real threat.</i><br /><br />Older people care about social issues because they are mature enough to understand a presidential election is NOT a one issue proposition. Say you focus exclusively on electing a money man, and then a true social crisis comes up - what have you done? You've fucked yourself, that's what. And that's EXACTLY what you're planning on doing with Romney.<br /><br />Lyssa,<br /><br /><i>Sigh. Do these tiny minority of anti-birth control people realize how much more difficult they make life for the rest of us who just want people to stop killing babies?</i><br /><br />Being in the I-want-people-to-stop-thinking-with-their-privates crowd, I don't know,...The Crack Emceehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08366101526773588864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13254613378007244822012-01-04T20:20:27.364-06:002012-01-04T20:20:27.364-06:00Revenant said...
"The second sentence is unre...Revenant said...<br />"<i>The second sentence is unrelated to the first. 'Catholics believe it' does not contradict 'it is insane.'</i>"<br /><br />Sure. I'm sure there are Catholic birthers; their being Catholic doesn't make them sane. But "the Catholic Church teaches it" contradicts "it is insane."<br /><br />"<i>Besides, most Catholics DO believe in, and use, contraception. I guess you could say 'those aren't real Catholics,' but try telling them that.</i>"<br /><br />I do. If they are in dissent from <i>Humanae Vitae</i>, they need to reconcile themselves to it and get to a confessional—rapidly. I've heard the same stories you have, seen the same numbers, but I just don't believe them. Are there soi-disant Catholics who are openly in dissent from <i>Humanae Vitae</i>? You bet. Are there Catholics using birth control? You bet. Are there Catholics using birth control who really don't know in their hearts that what they're doing is wrong? You bet. But "most"? Doubt it. I think those numbers are cooked by people who don't agree with the teaching.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50618816035554687922012-01-04T20:14:11.320-06:002012-01-04T20:14:11.320-06:00For the record, neither my 18:46 comment nor anyth...For the record, neither my 18:46 comment nor anything else I've said here or anywhere else, ever, whether separately or cumulatively, was intended to tar Tea Party leaders or Sarah as religious extremists. <br /><br />All I said above was that many conservatives and many conservatives overestimate the degree to which America at large agrees with their views, and from that faulty premise make the entirely rational mistake of thinking that America at large is waiting for the same true blue conservative candidate that <i>they</i> are.<br /><br />Are you getting that from "true believer"? I didn't understand that to be a reference to <i>religious</i> belief but political—"true believer"="a rock-ribbed supporter of 100% of the goals, methods, and views of the tea part.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12065920952004522062012-01-04T20:11:20.143-06:002012-01-04T20:11:20.143-06:00There's nothing loony about it. Catholics don&...<i>There's nothing loony about it. Catholics don't believe in contraception</i><br /><br />The second sentence is unrelated to the first. "Catholics believe it" does not contradict "it is insane".<br /><br />Besides, most Catholics DO believe in, and use, contraception. I guess you could say "those aren't real Catholics", but try telling them that.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40436762693916332232012-01-04T19:32:27.888-06:002012-01-04T19:32:27.888-06:00Simon wrote: Wait, what? Where did I do that?
6:4...Simon wrote: <i>Wait, what? Where did I do that?</i><br /><br />6:46: <i>He's also right, I think, that among many conservatives (especially among those who tend to mistake themselves and their peer group for the views of America at large) there is a "belief that Obama, Harry Reid[, et al] are so unpopular that NOW IS THE TIME!! to nominate a 'true believer,'" because those few Americans who aren't themselves conservatives are so desperate to get rid of Obama that they'll vote for anyone to do it.</i><br /><br />I was conflating you with Cedarford and I apologize for that. But I also was folding in months (years) of tweet-watching--including yours. But don't take it personally. I was directing my remarks more at Cedarford.chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68213462495265667032012-01-04T19:18:48.011-06:002012-01-04T19:18:48.011-06:00chickenlittle said...
"@Simon: First, thanks ...chickenlittle said...<br />"<i>@Simon: First, thanks for your thoughtful response. It seems to me that Romney's problem is that he cannot generate enough enthusiasm sua sponte. If he does, show me.</i>"<br /><br />I think Romney's problem is that a large percentage of Republicans don't really like him, and even among those who aren't distinctly hostile to him, he doesn't generate much enthusiasm, as you point out. I agree with that.<br /><br />"<i>I argued on Twitter as long ago as a year that the Tea Party (or what's left of it) needed to join forces with Romney. The defeat of Obama will surely not happen with one side trying to marginalize the other. It just won't happen.</i>"<br /><br />I completely agree with that, too.<br /><br />"<i>I respectfully disagree with your tarring of some Tea Party leaders as religious extremists--Palin especially.</i>"<br /><br />Wait, what? Where did I do that?Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-63807737127729772072012-01-04T19:12:48.443-06:002012-01-04T19:12:48.443-06:00@Simon: First, thanks for your thoughtful respons...@Simon: First, thanks for your thoughtful response. <br /><br />It seems to me that Romney's problem is that he cannot generate enough enthusiasm <i>sua sponte</i>. If he does, show me. <br /><br />I argued on Twitter as long ago as a year that the Tea Party (or what's left of it) <i>needed</i> to join forces with Romney. The defeat of Obama will surely not happen with one side trying to marginalize the other. It just won't happen. It may even be a nefarious plan. <br /><br />I respectfully disagree with your tarring of some Tea Party leaders as religious extremists--Palin especially. The problem is that in some people's minds, <i>all</i> personal beliefs are automatically construed as <i>ex post facto</i> legal threats. Despite whatever personal feelings Bachmann or Santorum may have about people's predilections, they are not calling for pogroms or vendettas against them. <br /><br />Loathers and haters could do everyone a favor by providing examples where candidates (any candidate) actively <i>legislate</i> to control behavior. Otherwise it just looks like people are pissed-off because they're not getting approval and warm hugs.chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-61058857309414849512012-01-04T18:46:14.177-06:002012-01-04T18:46:14.177-06:00Scott, Chickenlittle, he may have it in for the te...Scott, Chickenlittle, he may have it in for the tea party, but that doesn't make him wrong. For once , I agree with him. Not about the tea party generally, I mean, but as I said above, there are a lot of folks in the tea party who believe that they represent untold multitudes, and that those untold multitudes are yearning for a real conservative candidate. That's basically what Cedarford said above, and he's right. He's also right, I think, that among many conservatives (especially among those who tend to mistake themselves and their peer group for the views of America at large) there is a "belief that Obama, Harry Reid[, et al] are so unpopular that NOW IS THE TIME!! to nominate a 'true believer,'" because those few Americans who aren't themselves conservatives are so desperate to get rid of Obama that they'll vote for anyone to do it. <br /><br />The reality is that the tea party represents a subset of the Republican electorate (who knows how large?), which is itself a minority of an electorate that, with some state-by-state variance, comprises roughly equal numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and "independents." Tea partiers + non-TP Republicans !> Republicans! That's no math at all. To win, the GOP candidate must appeal to <i>independents</i>, a group that comprises a large number of self-deluding Democrats, a lot of moderates, and very few people for whom the GOP is simply too milquetoast. Simple math says that in the average state, a GOP candidate appeals to moderates or s/he loses. Yet folks like DaneCounty abound, and they prove Cedarford's point. <br /><br /><br />Revenant said...<br />"<i>Americans overwhelmingly view contraception of a good thing. The same is true of Republicans in particular. There are, therefore, exactly two reasons why Santorum is yammering on about his desire to "talk about" the "dangers" of contraception: 1. He wants to restrict contraception. 2. He's a moron who decided to tell the American people his loony opinions despite them being completely irrelevant to his campaign.</i>"<br /><br />There's nothing loony about it. Catholics don't believe in contraception. Nor is it loony to believe that public policy should be structured to promote moral behavior and discourage immmoral behavior, and it's not even loony to believe (although I would argue that it shouldn't be done in the case of contraception) that some immoral behavior should be proscribed by law.<br /><br /><br />Pragmatist said...<br />"<i>It wasnt moderation that caused McCain to lose last time, it was you and your fellow travelors. It is extremists like Palin who scared away the moderate voters into Obama's camp….</i>"<br /><br />Two wrongs don't make a right, and while Dane's analysis is flawed, yours isn't correct either. What pushed the moderate voters who were still on the fence—one must acknowledge that independents were already leaning toward Obama for reasons we don't need to get into today—into Obama's camp was McCain's feckless performance, especially when the financial crisis hit, coupled with the media's ferocious and wildly successful campaign to convince Americans that Sarah Palin was the devil in nice shoes.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83393102986201336872012-01-04T17:57:13.974-06:002012-01-04T17:57:13.974-06:00Cedarford wrote: We saw the wreckage of Sharron An...Cedarford wrote: <i>We saw the wreckage of Sharron Angle who went down in Goldwater-like flames of Purity.</i><br />=============<br />Goldwater lost by something like 38% to Johnson's 61%<br />Angle lost by something like 6%. Not even Reid was gloating, but Cedarford does. <br /><br />Face it Cedarford, you've had it in for the Tea Party since day one. You've railed against every single idea they've raised, every single positive shred of grassroots energy they've given off, and especially against every female candidate they offered up. <br /><br />There's something inherent in the Tea Party which you loathe. What is it, exactly?chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59875271673988384992012-01-04T16:39:08.123-06:002012-01-04T16:39:08.123-06:00Dear Dummy
It wasnt moderation that caused McCain...Dear Dummy<br /><br />It wasnt moderation that caused McCain to lose last time, it was you and your fellow travelors. It is extremists like Palin who scared away the moderate voters into Obama's camp (that and the fact that after 8 years of Republican rule we had a failed economy and two wars and large deficits). <br /><br />If you want to win, convince people that you are not nuts but willing to do whatever works to solve our problems. Be a problem solver and not a mess maker. Or show us that you learned nothing from 2008.Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12038143934150553741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75023294927715001592012-01-04T16:29:50.019-06:002012-01-04T16:29:50.019-06:00especially on their apocalyptic alarms that Santor...<i>especially on their apocalyptic alarms that Santorum wants a government ban on contraception</i><br /><br />Americans overwhelmingly view contraception of a good thing. The same is true of Republicans in particular.<br /><br />There are, therefore, exactly two reasons why Santorum is yammering on about his desire to "talk about" the "dangers" of contraception:<br /><br />1. He wants to restrict contraception.<br /><br />2. He's a moron who decided to tell the American people his loony opinions despite them being completely irrelevant to his campaign.<br /><br />The correct answer is "1", but "2" doesn't actually make him sound any better.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.com