PDA

View Full Version : MA Dem losing in Senate race because ...



Whet
1/18/2010, 01:37 AM
of George Bush, of course, according to the Dem machine.

After Obama Rally, Dems Pin Blame On Bush (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/after_obama_ral.php)

January 17, 2010 6:16 PM |
By Felicia Sonmez

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush.
"People are upset because there's so many problems," Rosemary Kverek, 70, a retired Charleston schoolteacher said as tonight's rally wrapped up. "But the problems came from the previous administration. So we're blaming poor Obama, who's working 36 hours a day ... to solve these problems that he inherited."
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), speaking with a gaggle of reporters after the event, said that while state Sen. Scott Brown (R) offers voters a quick fix, in reality, the problems created by "George Bush and his cronies" are not so easily solved.
"If you think there's magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown," Kennedy said. "If you don't, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole ... then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president's in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that."
(Curiously, Kennedy mentioned Coakley repeatedly during his remarks to reporters, each time referring to her as "Marcia," not "Martha.")
More Kennedy: "One thing the Democrats have done wrong? We haven't kept the focus on this disaster on the Republicans who brought it upon us. We've tried too hard to do that right thing, and that's to fix it, as opposed to spend more of our time and energy pointing the finger at who got us [here] in the first place."
Blaming their problems on Bush does carry a risk for Dems, however -- with their sights so firmly focused on the past, Brown's campaign has managed to wrest the "change" mantle from them.
Meanwhile, even as Kennedy took on both Bush and Brown head-on, some attendees were more muted in their criticism of Brown.
"I mean, he is handsome," Christine DiPitro, 61, of Malden, said of Brown.
"He does appeal to the regular guy with his truck, but that's about all."


http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/after_obama_ral.php

Crucifax Autumn
1/18/2010, 02:00 AM
That's pretty stupid. If there was a real incumbent it mike make a tiny bit of sense, but in this case it's just dumb.

OU_Sooners75
1/18/2010, 02:02 AM
Just more proof that people in this country nowadays cannot and will not responsibility for their actions.

tommieharris91
1/18/2010, 02:38 AM
Scott Brown is about as much of a Republican as LAS.

LosAngelesSooner
1/18/2010, 03:26 AM
Your MOM is about as much of a Republican as...ah...STFU...

;)

Okla-homey
1/18/2010, 07:19 AM
I never sent a politician running in another jurisdiction any money before, but I sent Scott Brown money on the strength of his promise to oppose Obama-care.

soonerhubs
1/18/2010, 07:21 AM
Will Scott Brown block that stupid Healthcare Bill? If so, then I would support him regardless. We can sort out the rest after the powers become balanced a bit more.

Okla-homey
1/18/2010, 07:26 AM
The fun part is, the Donks are totally mortified at the prospect of a 'Pub winning dead "Ted Kennedy's seat."

And that could only happen because BHO and his agenda are such collosal failures.

And to think, this time last year, everyone with a microphone or a printing press was saying the GOP was dead, never to rise again. The Donks may pull it out in MA, after all, that Boston Donk machine has been winning elections by any means necessary for a hundred years, but if Brown wins, the coal mine canary scenario spells big trouble for Donks this fall. As in, "hope-n-change" gets tossed out as pure impracticle populist hyperbole.

JohnnyMack
1/18/2010, 08:56 AM
R's are good. D's are bad. Always.

Scott D
1/18/2010, 09:18 AM
Personally I'm most amused in that story with the 70 year old retiree that thinks a person can work 36 hours in a day. Apparently retired school teachers operate in that 192 hour day schedule that nobody else has ever heard of.

if those D's were smart, they'd be challenging the people of Mass. to "be bold" and elect a woman to the senate instead of doing the tired old "blame Bush" nonsense.

now where's rushy clone to say that ACORN is going to swoop in and save the day for the D's.

SoonerBorn68
1/18/2010, 09:19 AM
R's are good. D's are bad. Always.

I'd say it's more like 80/20. ;)

XingTheRubicon
1/18/2010, 09:57 AM
93/7

JohnnyMack
1/18/2010, 10:25 AM
I will say I hope Brown wins, I think it would be most amusing in fact.

olevetonahill
1/18/2010, 10:35 AM
I will say I hope Brown wins, I think it would be most amusing in fact.

Agreed :D

TUSooner
1/18/2010, 10:50 AM
I will say I hope Brown wins, I think it would be most amusing in fact.

I don't know nuthin about Brown, but that would make me happy, if for no other reason than it would upset the arrogant and overbearing Dem majority.

StoopTroup
1/18/2010, 12:40 PM
It the Pubs don't win....Ted will have won from the grave.

Okla-homey
1/18/2010, 12:45 PM
It the Pubs don't win....Ted will have won from the grave.

The other good thing is, if the 'Pubs win, the the entire east coast of the United States can be powered by a generator hooked-up to Teddie's spinning coffin.

StoopTroup
1/18/2010, 12:47 PM
The other good thing is, if the 'Pubs win, the the entire east coast of the United States can be powered by a generator hooked-up to Teddie's spinning coffin.
lol...nice visual....lol

reevie
1/18/2010, 04:30 PM
The Dems have already pushed the panic button because of this:


Dems look at bypassing Senate health care vote


Email this Story

Jan 17, 11:30 PM (ET)

By CHARLES BABINGTON

BOSTON (AP) - A panicky White House and Democratic allies scrambled Sunday for a plan to salvage their hard-fought health care package in case a Republican wins Tuesday's Senate race in Massachusetts, which would enable the GOP to block further Senate action.

The likeliest scenario would require persuading House Democrats to accept a bill the Senate passed last month, despite their objections to several parts.

Aides consulted Sunday amid fears that Republican Scott Brown will defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special election to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy's seat. A Brown win would give the GOP 41 Senate votes, enough to filibuster and block final passage of the House-Senate compromise on health care now being crafted.

House Democrats, especially liberals, viewed those compromises as vital because they view the Senate-passed version as doing too little to help working families. Under the Senate-passed bill, 94 percent of Americans would be covered, compared to 96 percent in the version passed last year by the House.

The House plan would increase taxes on millionaires while the Senate plan would tax so-called Cadillac, high-cost health insurance plans enjoyed by many corporate executives as well as some union members.

When the House passed its version, members assumed it would be reconciled with the Senate bill and then sent back to both chambers for final approval, even if by the narrowest of margins.

A GOP win in Massachusetts on Tuesday would likely kill that plan, because Republicans could block Senate action on the reconciled bill.

The newly discussed fallback would require House Democrats to swallow hard and approve the Senate-passed bill without changes. President Barack Obama could sign it into law without another Senate vote needed.

House leaders would insist that the Senate make some changes later under a complex plan called "budget reconciliation." It requires only a simple majority, but it's unclear whether that could happen.

The plan is highly problematic. House liberals already are bristling over changes the Senate forced upon them earlier, and some may conclude that no bill is better than the Senate bill. Meanwhile, some moderate Democrats may abandon the health bill altogether after seeing a Republican win Kennedy's seat in strongly Democratic Massachusetts.

Republican activists openly scoffed at the notion of Democrats passing the highly contentious health package after a GOP takeover of Kennedy's Senate seat. But some Democrats said failure to pass a health bill will cripple their ability to tell voters this November that they accomplished anything with their control of the House, Senate and White House.

"The simplest way is the House route," a White House aide said Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity because Democrats have not conceded the race to Brown.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to discuss the option, telling reporters that the administration expects Coakley to win.

If she does win, final passage of a House-Senate compromise on overhauling health care is not guaranteed but seems likely.

But even as Obama campaigned for Coakley in Boston Sunday, top aides furiously weighed options if she loses. They include:

_Acting before Brown is sworn in. Congressional and White House negotiators could try to reconcile the House and Senate bills quickly and pass the new version before Brown takes office. A firestorm of criticism would follow, but some Democrats say it would be better than having no bill.

_Seeking a Republican to cast the crucial 60th Senate vote. Some Democrats hope Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, might do this, but others seriously doubt it.

_Start over and pass a new, scaled back health bill using budget reconciliation, which requires a simple majority of 51 Senate votes. Several Senate aides said this was unlikely.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly ruled out a House vote on the Senate's version, and privately, officials have raised concerns about asking the rank and file to vote on legislation containing provisions that might prove problematic in the midterm elections.

As an example, the Senate-passed measure exempts self-insured health plans from many of the steps Democrats say are essential to curb insurance industry abuses. By one estimate, as many as 100 million individuals are covered under such plans.

It was unclear how the negotiators at the White House in recent days have resolved that issue.

Additionally, House Democrats in last week's talks pushed for additional subsidies for lower-income individuals and families who would be required to buy insurance under the measure that cleared the Senate. Several Democrats familiar with the talks said Obama had agreed with this point of view, and changes had been made accordingly.

SoonerStormchaser
1/18/2010, 06:27 PM
D's are bad. Always.

Only cuz double-D's are BETTER! ;)

Chuck Bao
1/18/2010, 08:45 PM
Only cuz double-D's are BETTER! ;)


God bless you sir for pointing out that.

But still as some people are contributing to one side, I will the other. Health care reform has to go through.

OklahomaRed
1/18/2010, 11:53 PM
Question? How can the Dems say they want to tax Cadillac health insurance plans, but then carve that out for unions and govt health insurance plans? Seems a little two faced to me?

Crucifax Autumn
1/19/2010, 12:41 AM
The Dems have already pushed the panic button because of this:

That's not new. That's been the contingency plan all along.

Okla-homey
1/19/2010, 06:21 AM
The most delicious part of this whole thing is that the MA Donks hosed themselves. They changed their rules when Romney was governor because they could not abide a GOP gov appointing Ted's replacement. They wanted a special election. Well, they have one now.

StoopTroup
1/19/2010, 06:43 AM
I'll agree with you on that Homey. Both the Pubs and the Dems have done everything they can to keep other parties from getting on the ballots in all 50 states during National Elections too.

It's a shame to see a Strong Party whether Pub or Dem use such tactics in order to strengthen their position instead of negotiate or change to attract voters. This is why more and more of us continue to move from both of the mainstream parties.

They are tearing each other to pieces and harming our way of life in America instead of working together to fix things.

OklahomaTuba
1/19/2010, 10:46 AM
They are tearing each other to pieces and harming our way of life in America instead of working together to fix things.Of course, it would help if we had congress and an administration that was interested in fixing things and working with the other side, and not just interested in taking control of things that don't belong to them and trying to hand them over to their political cronies, even if it requires bribery, theft and breaking longstanding Senate rules.

There really is no precedent in our history of this level of corruption & partisanship unleashed on the American people by the Democrats. They have overstepped big time, and will probably lose congress as a result. And they don't even seem to care.

soonerhubs
1/19/2010, 12:08 PM
Of course, it would help if we had congress and an administration that was interested in fixing things and working with the other side, and not just interested in taking control of things that don't belong to them and trying to hand them over to their political cronies, even if it requires bribery, theft and breaking longstanding Senate rules.

There really is no precedent in our history of this level of corruption & partisanship unleashed on the American people by the Democrats. They have overstepped big time, and will probably lose congress as a result. And they don't even seem to care.

Show me a party that doesn't have it's cronies and corporations to pander to, and I'll join it. The Republicans and the Democrats have both failed.

I support Brown in Massachusetts so that powers begin to be checked, but just as I'm against Tax and Spend, I'm also against Cut and Spend. I'm more for Cut and Cut.

OklahomaTuba
1/19/2010, 12:44 PM
Pandering is one thing, and will never go away.

However, openly bribing fellow US Senators (such as the Louisiana Purchase & Cornhusker Kickback) and the bail-outs to the various special interest groups for their votes and support is not simply "pandering". Its corruption of the highest degree, and on a scale like we've never seen before.

How can there be any balance of power now that we have leaders such as Obama and Pelosi and Reid that see no ethical problem with bribery???

And now comes word that there is an effort to change the rules again once Brown wins, so his vote won't count to kill ZeroCare.

TheHumanAlphabet
1/19/2010, 03:53 PM
Don't you know, George Bush caused Kennedy to get cancer and die. He caused the financial meltdown by making all those companies give loans to all those people who couldn't afford them and lied on their applications about their salary or job...He also caused the tradegy in Haiti by causing the earthquake and making all those shoddy buildings which he had a hand in the building codes fall down and crush the people in the building that he made them be in...

OklahomaTuba
1/19/2010, 05:07 PM
You know THA, I think you're on to something there.

Obviously, Katrina was made by Dark Lord Cheney and his evil cronies at Halliburton to kill thousands of brown people.

So why not the same thing with Haiti??

Perhaps there is a theory that has been suppressed by the Bush-Hitler and his Neo-KKKons in regards to man-made anthropological tectonic shift or (ATS)????

ouwasp
1/19/2010, 07:10 PM
R's are good. D's are bad. Always.

well, this R married a D...

But she votes the right way :)

Okla-homey
1/19/2010, 07:21 PM
Health care reform has to go through.

It died tonight, along w/with BHO's hope-n-change big-rock candy mountain. :D

Next up on the kill list, this outlandish cap-n-trade scam.

...and anything else out of the wacky factory that is the current White House.

Do you realize what happened tonight? The bluest state in the US elected a 'Pub to a Senate seat that's been in Donk hands since 1927. Entirely because of the fact the folks don't want Obama-care.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/19/2010, 07:25 PM
The other good thing is, if the 'Pubs win, the the entire east coast of the United States can be powered by a generator hooked-up to Teddie's spinning coffin.Badda-bum, Badda-bing!

Leroy Lizard
1/20/2010, 01:31 AM
Only cuz double-D's are BETTER!

Think: Double R's!

:eek:

JLEW1818
1/20/2010, 01:54 AM
God really does put our leaders in office :D

TopDawg
1/20/2010, 02:28 AM
And to think, this time last year, everyone with a microphone or a printing press was saying the GOP was dead, never to rise again.

Anyone who said that was about as dumb as anyone claiming the Democratic party was dead, never to rise again in 2000.

Or 2002.

Or 2004.

And there were lots of 'em around here and elsewhere.

There is nothing new under the sun. Winners will overstate the importance of their win...losers will downplay their loss. And before you know it, the shoe is back on the other foot. Perhaps that's why everybody on both sides of the aisle feels the need to gloat while they can.

Too many people have bought into the media's "this is the most important thing to happen ever" reporting style. But it keeps them tuned in and either complaining or gloating, so the networks make their money and the message boards never run out of ridiculous posts.

DBrown
1/20/2010, 03:08 AM
There is nothing new under the sun. Winners will overstate the importance of their win...losers will downplay their loss. And before you know it, the shoe is back on the other foot. Perhaps that's why everybody on both sides of the aisle feels the need to gloat while they can.

Too many people have bought into the media's "this is the most important thing to happen ever" reporting style. But it keeps them tuned in and either complaining or gloating, so the networks make their money and the message boards never run out of ridiculous posts.

That pretty much sums things up right there!
Still.....WE THE PEOPLE.....fired a warning shot over the bow.
Now the question is will this be taken seriously or will it be like Iraq's
minister of information "BOB" who said,"we are victorious" even as tanks
displaying Auburn flags drove by in the background?

Jerk
1/20/2010, 05:59 AM
This is what happens when you exempt yourself from your own legislation. Their arrogance reeked.

Thank you Ted for making this all possible.

OklahomaTuba
1/20/2010, 11:41 AM
You know THA, I think you're on to something there.

Obviously, Katrina was made by Dark Lord Cheney and his evil cronies at Halliburton to kill thousands of brown people.

So why not the same thing with Haiti??

Perhaps there is a theory that has been suppressed by the Bush-Hitler and his Neo-KKKons in regards to man-made anthropological tectonic shift or (ATS)????

See, told ya'll....


Chavista "Experts" Say U.S. Military Caused Haitian Earthquake

Both a Venezuelan state-owned radio and television properties zeroed in on a secret U.S. "weapon of earthquakes" as the cause of the earthquake that struck Haiti last week causing a death toll could exceed 200,000 according to some sources.http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/20/chavista-experts-say-us-milita

TopDawg
1/20/2010, 11:56 AM
Their arrogance reeked.

It's the same kind of arrogance that got the Pubs replaced during the last half of the 00 decade. When Republicans were in power prior to that, cheers of "the people have been heard" rang out from conservative Americans that finally they were going to have their say. Well, the arrogance of the Pubs and the decisions they made got them ousted from power and cries of "the people have been heard" came from the mouths of liberal Americans who were thrilled that they were finally going to have their say.

Well, then...

badger
1/20/2010, 12:23 PM
if those D's were smart, they'd be challenging the people of Mass. to "be bold" and elect a woman to the senate instead of doing the tired old "blame Bush" nonsense.

I'm not here to call D's stupid or unintelligent, but I do agree that it appears the people interviewed are choosing the wrong place to point fingers... or, if they're pointing in the tradition "1 finger out, 3 fingers" back way, they are pointing at exactly the right place.

If they are truly trying to focus on what's right, then they should have stuck with that win or lose. If they won, they shouldn't (and probably wouldn't) say that the victory was in spite of W. If they lost, they shouldn't have blamed W. either.

In retrospect, if they were gonna go the "blame W" route afterward regardless, they probably should have done that from the beginning and not just waited till afterward to look like sore losers.

OUMallen
1/20/2010, 12:25 PM
Pandering is one thing, and will never go away.

However, openly bribing fellow US Senators (such as the Louisiana Purchase & Cornhusker Kickback) and the bail-outs to the various special interest groups for their votes and support is not simply "pandering". Its corruption of the highest degree, and on a scale like we've never seen before.

How can there be any balance of power now that we have leaders such as Obama and Pelosi and Reid that see no ethical problem with bribery???

And now comes word that there is an effort to change the rules again once Brown wins, so his vote won't count to kill ZeroCare.

That's not corruption. That's politics. Dickering out terms, bartering tit for tat. It's being done poorly and yields unfair results, but that's not corruption, Captain Hyperbole.

badger
1/20/2010, 12:25 PM
It's the same kind of arrogance that got the Pubs replaced during the last half of the 00 decade. When Republicans were in power prior to that, cheers of "the people have been heard" rang out from conservative Americans that finally they were going to have their say. Well, the arrogance of the Pubs and the decisions they made got them ousted from power and cries of "the people have been heard" came from the mouths of liberal Americans who were thrilled that they were finally going to have their say.

Well, then...

Kind of reeks of George Orwell's Animal Farm, doesn't it?

SoonerProphet
1/20/2010, 12:32 PM
Kind of reeks of Orson Welles' Animal Farm, doesn't it?

George Orwell?

badger
1/20/2010, 01:06 PM
George Orwell?

Yeah, that's who I meant :D I remember books themselves a lot better than the authors.

76soonergrad
1/20/2010, 01:06 PM
Democrat party
Republican party
Tea party

: D

OklahomaTuba
1/20/2010, 02:02 PM
That's not corruption. That's politics.

So you don't think bribing the country into near bankruptcy, and doing it behind closed doors, is corruption????

Interesting.

Crucifax Autumn
1/20/2010, 02:24 PM
I would love to hear a radio play of Animal Farm played out as a live newscast.

JohnnyMack
1/20/2010, 02:34 PM
So you don't think bribing the country into near bankruptcy, and doing it behind closed doors, is corruption????

Interesting.

Tuba your posts are similar to those of an overly dramatic, hyperbolic 15 year old girl.

OUMallen
1/20/2010, 02:38 PM
So you don't think bribing the country into near bankruptcy, and doing it behind closed doors, is corruption????

Interesting.


All forms of government are susceptible to political corruption. Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement. While corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and trafficking, it is not restricted to these activities.

I call it a ****-poor job. But you're the only person, magazine, news outlet, pundit, or otherwise I've seen call the entire thing corruption.

Giving something politically to get a political vote is a contemplated function of our legislature. It's not bribery. If politicians couldn't do that with each other, there would literally be no legislative body.

How is it behind closed doors if we've heard about it, anyway?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong; the issue is much too complex for me to say so. Just saying you're pretty hyperbolic these days.

OUMallen
1/20/2010, 02:41 PM
So you don't think bribing the country into near bankruptcy, and doing it behind closed doors, is corruption????

Interesting.

http://i5.tinypic.com/20j5ve9.jpg

soonerscuba
1/20/2010, 02:47 PM
Tuba your posts are similar to those of an overly dramatic, hyperbolic 15 year old girl.I only see him through quoted material, and I'm better off for it, but I think an advocate of the unitary executive, under penalty of treason, from the years 2000-2005 now lambasting "corruption" and pining for transparency is the height of irony, not to mention unsurprising.

I'm glad Brown won as I don't like single party control, but I refuse to sit here and think that one can make a devine national implications because of a special election in a state with over 50% claiming independent status. I fully expect the Republicans to make strong gains this year, as do most minority parties at midterm elections.

Bourbon St Sooner
1/20/2010, 04:17 PM
So you don't think bribing the country into near bankruptcy, and doing it behind closed doors, is corruption????

Interesting.


Yeah, 'cause there was none of that going on in the 'Bridge to nowhere' days.

JLEW1818
1/20/2010, 04:18 PM
lol here is how an aggie grandes him

What do you grade:

- Lowest drop in approval ratings in a President's 1st year
- Increasing unemployment over 2% of what he promised it would be if we passed a "stimulus bill"
- A stimulus bill that is only stimulating bigger government
- A socialist healthcare plan that is not going to get passed
- Going out to support 3 people in Governor and Senatorial elections, all of them losing?
- Going to pitch Chicago for the Olympics and getting dropped in the first cut
- Telling Americans that "we all have to chip in" while using tax dollars to take his wife to dinner in New York, and have his favorite bands play in the White House
- Preaching transparency while having nothing but closed door meetings and backroom deals with only Democrats?


The list could go on and on, this is probably enough to give him a grade. What should it be?

MR2-Sooner86
1/20/2010, 05:01 PM
The list could go on and on, this is probably enough to give him a grade. What should it be?

F*ck up

Scott D
1/20/2010, 06:53 PM
I'm not here to call D's stupid or unintelligent, but I do agree that it appears the people interviewed are choosing the wrong place to point fingers... or, if they're pointing in the tradition "1 finger out, 3 fingers" back way, they are pointing at exactly the right place.

If they are truly trying to focus on what's right, then they should have stuck with that win or lose. If they won, they shouldn't (and probably wouldn't) say that the victory was in spite of W. If they lost, they shouldn't have blamed W. either.

In retrospect, if they were gonna go the "blame W" route afterward regardless, they probably should have done that from the beginning and not just waited till afterward to look like sore losers.

I'll call them stupid for using a tactic that worked 2 years ago only because it's safe to say that the country as a whole, for better or worse was on Bush overload. That's probably the most amusing thing about political parties in general is that they're worse than the media when it comes to molesting and totally abusing a dead horse as their call to arms.

I'd almost guarantee that if the GoP makes significant gains this November, that they'll for better or worse use the same tactics to try to gain their majority in 2012.

MamaMia
1/21/2010, 01:06 PM
lol here is how an aggie grandes him

What do you grade:

- Lowest drop in approval ratings in a President's 1st year
- Increasing unemployment over 2% of what he promised it would be if we passed a "stimulus bill"
- A stimulus bill that is only stimulating bigger government
- A socialist healthcare plan that is not going to get passed
- Going out to support 3 people in Governor and Senatorial elections, all of them losing?
- Going to pitch Chicago for the Olympics and getting dropped in the first cut
- Telling Americans that "we all have to chip in" while using tax dollars to take his wife to dinner in New York, and have his favorite bands play in the White House
- Preaching transparency while having nothing but closed door meetings and backroom deals with only Democrats?


The list could go on and on, this is probably enough to give him a grade. What should it be? Failing, but please go on. :)

OklahomaTuba
1/21/2010, 02:01 PM
How is it behind closed doors if we've heard about it, anyway?Like the Cornhusker Kickback, or the Louisiana Purchase???

Or the Unions negotiations that resulted in their being exempt from this disaster??

Are you saying those were all done out in the open???

OklahomaTuba
1/21/2010, 02:05 PM
Yeah, 'cause there was none of that going on in the 'Bridge to nowhere' days.And THANKSFULLY that guy is in jail.

But really, that bridge cost 400 Million.

Teleprompter Jesus spent that at breakfast this morning.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/21/2010, 02:33 PM
And THANKSFULLY that guy is in jail.

But really, that bridge cost 400 Million.

Teleprompter Jesus spent that at breakfast this morning.HEY, it only takes $300 million to buy a Democrat Senator's vote in Louisiana, in 2010.

Crucifax Autumn
1/21/2010, 02:51 PM
Reagan and Clinton both had pretty much failing grades at this point in their presidencies, so I really don't think any approval ratings at this time matter much honestly.

SoonerNate
1/21/2010, 03:33 PM
Reagan and Clinton both had pretty much failing grades at this point in their presidencies, so I really don't think any approval ratings at this time matter much honestly.

I want what you're smokin'

Is this what you're telling yourself to soften the upcoming political onslaught?

tommieharris91
1/21/2010, 04:06 PM
I want what you're smokin'

Is this what you're telling yourself to soften the upcoming political onslaught?

Well, they both did.

I forgot to add both were elected to 2nd terms.

ndpruitt03
1/21/2010, 04:16 PM
Well Reagan's plans took a while to work because of the mess Carter put him in. Same thing will happen with our next president trying to clean up the mess Obama will leave us if he doesn't change to a more moderate guy. Clinton you have to credit him for deciding to go to the middle so that he could get things done.

TopDawg
1/21/2010, 04:19 PM
Well Reagan's plans took a while to work because of the mess Carter put him in.

Are you suggesting that Obama inherited a good situation?

Crucifax Autumn
1/21/2010, 04:29 PM
Nate...I'm well known as a moderate around here who thinks both parties are retarded, corrupt and for sale to the highest bidder. Look at Reagan's poll numbers in the January on year after his inauguration. The hostage release bump was over and his later work hadn't gained any real approval ratings yet as the recession was still going, much like now. It was later in that year that his approval ratings rebounded as the economy improved thanks to late moves by the Carter administration and early moves by Reagan's.

There is a reason that a LOT of the news coverage has pointed out that this is the lowest 1 year approval rating since Reagan. My point...which you fully ignored...is that poll numbers this far out from congressional elections is largely irrelevant as the next nine to eleven months is a more accurate measure of what the administration's policies are truly accomplishing or not accomplishing.

This doesn't mean I think the dems are gonna have a miraculous recovery, nor does it mean I think the Republicans are gonna take over the house and senate this year. If the November elections were held today ALL incumbents would suffer and the Dems would suffer a bit worse due to public opinion AND the fact there are more of them to vote out. Both parties are failing miserably right now, but we have nearly a year of cluster**** and dirty campaigning on both sides. We can't accurately call the election now without a crystal ball revealing all the scandals to come and the economy in early November.

If your goal is to argue rather than look up and confirm my facts and the historical trends they represent I'll be happy to play, but you'll find that I am correct in my statements and both parties need to work their asses off and make damn sure to, as individual candidates, keep their shat together and hire the best strategists.

Again...This goes for both parties, no matter what the atmosphere is on January 21st with over 10 months to make a stupid misstep. The biggest thing the pubs have going for them is that there are more incumbent dems. The bets thing the dems have going for them is a fairly heavy majoriity, making it more difficult for the pubs to knock them out of power completely. I've been watching political trends as a politics junkie closely sonce the early 80s and I've studied the trends that occurred before my own observations and I feel confident that NONE of us can predict what weird Willie Horton or price of a gallon of milk fiasco may throw everything out of whack.

again, if you think I'm smoking something you may be right, but put down your own partisan crack pipe before you judge my awake since 4:30 yesterday, drunk azz and my apparently better informed comments and analysis.

Crucifax Autumn
1/21/2010, 04:35 PM
Well Reagan's plans took a while to work because of the mess Carter put him in. Same thing will happen with our next president trying to clean up the mess Obama will leave us if he doesn't change to a more moderate guy. Clinton you have to credit him for deciding to go to the middle so that he could get things done.

You also have to consider that the final moves of previous administrations usually don't have much effect for a couple of years either. Reagan nd Clinton both benefitted from this in year 2 just as much as they benefitted from their own policies in years 3 and up.

Some people need to read more quite honestly. The lack of knowledge of historical trends is almost embarrassing around her for a bunch of people that I am sure are not idiots, despite spouting off as if they are on a regular basis.

ndpruitt03
1/21/2010, 04:50 PM
Are you suggesting that Obama inherited a good situation?

No but he's not doing things that Bush wasn't doing. He's even more left than Bush was which was hard for me to believe when he won the nomination. Bush may have been a republican, but looking at what he and other republicans did in 00-08 they were liberals. I don't trust the republican party because they were idiots.

OUMallen
1/21/2010, 04:55 PM
Are you saying those were all done out in the open???

You heard about it before the bill was passed and signed, didn't you?

I mean, I understand your fear and stuff, I seriously do. But you being unreasonable in your opinion and voicing thereof merely hurts your credibility, and everyone thinks so.

Crucifax Autumn
1/21/2010, 04:55 PM
No, they were big spenders and budgetary morons, but that alone is nothing more than a short-sighted and completely ignorant use of the term "liberal".

ndpruitt03
1/21/2010, 05:00 PM
No, they were big spenders and budgetary morons, but that alone is nothing more than a short-sighted and completely ignorant use of the term "liberal".

Big spending has always been what liberals do best. Conservatives have rarely ever been about big spending till the 90s or so. I think both parties have gotten into this machine and are more worried about being career politicians than then American people. These healthcare and cap and trade bills are just so bad and so over the top that they aren't meant to even pass. You look at everything Obama promised on he pretty much contradicted all of it. He was going to be less spending and more managing the money well and that's just 100% wrong it's more spending and less management of money. Obama has basically pushed Bush's agenda and isn't getting criticized for it by a lot of liberals.

Crucifax Autumn
1/21/2010, 05:09 PM
If big spending is your sole definition of liberal you need to take some classe sor do some reading same as if you think conservative only means fiscal restraint.

ndpruitt03
1/21/2010, 05:18 PM
If big spending is your sole definition of liberal you need to take some classe sor do some reading same as if you think conservative only means fiscal restraint.

It's not just that a lot of the things Obama is doing were basically things that Bush was already doing he's just taking it to the next level. I see them as both on the same side of the aisle. Obama is just more extreme.

TopDawg
1/21/2010, 05:23 PM
Well, you're right that neither one of them is very financially conservative. Of course, a lot of people didn't really care when it was Bush but they're all in a tizzy now that it's Obama. Props to those who have been consistent in their critiques of the two.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/21/2010, 05:36 PM
It's not just that a lot of the things Obama is doing were basically things that Bush was already doing he's just taking it to the next level. I see them as both on the same side of the aisle. Obama is just more extreme.Pretty much. Bush just wanted to please too many people. he certainly was no fiscal conservative, but he most definitely wasn't an out-and-out marxist, or at least fascist, like Obama appears to be.

badger
1/21/2010, 05:39 PM
Props to those who have been consistent in their critiques of the two.

:D Why, thank you, Top Dawg.

;)

Seriously though, eff partisan politics. Just do what's best and what's right.

OUMallen
1/21/2010, 06:04 PM
Which guy do you think this is:

The president who

expanded federal spending by more than a trillion dollars a year, before his disastrous last hundred days

federalized education

laid out “a smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in Washington.”

protected the steel, agriculture, and textile industries from foreign competition
backed farm bills with lavish subsidies for producers

created the biggest new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson

bailed out Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, and dozens of other banks

provided government support for mortgages, credit cards, auto loans and other consumer debt, and

bailed out Chrysler and General Motors in direct defiance of Congress’s refusal to do so.

ndpruitt03
1/21/2010, 06:40 PM
The thing about what people see as right and left it's really not right vs left it's corporations(republicans) vs unions(democrats) Both are going based off how much they get paid by both. With the recent changes in Mass, NJ, and VA those weren't really corporation based republicans. And Palin is not a corporation republican and she was probably the first one I can think of that isn't really about corporations. I hope more republicans and democrats go against their extreme ends of their parties. I hope they don't care about the political machine of their parties and are able to vote for things that help more people that who pays their bills.

Breadburner
1/21/2010, 07:20 PM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/AFF_Trashed_ad.gif

TUSooner
1/21/2010, 08:03 PM
Given that most of the voters who elected Brown were independents, I think the Number One reason for his win is that most Americans do not like one-party rule, regardless of the party's ideology. All you people having orgasms because you think it was a referendum on Obama, conservatism, or the health care legislation need to go to the vodka thread and try a few of the recommendations there until you calm down.

Curly Bill
1/21/2010, 08:49 PM
Given that most of the voters who elected Brown were independents, I think the Number One reason for his win is that most Americans do not like one-party rule, regardless of the party's ideology. All you people having orgasms because you think it was a referendum on Obama, conservatism, or the health care legislation need to go to the vodka thread and try a few of the recommendations there until you calm down.


...or you libs could stick your heads in the sand and pretend Brown's win is just some sort of weird coincidence. ;)

TUSooner
1/21/2010, 08:57 PM
...or you libs could stick your heads in the sand and pretend Brown's win is just some sort of weird coincidence. ;)

Heh. Remind me to stab your face when we meet. :D

I do think it's a good thing though, far better than the alternative!
41's my new favorite number.

Curly Bill
1/21/2010, 09:04 PM
41 is indeed a cool number now...

...and oh how I still marvel at the poetic justice that it's Teddie's old seat! :D

OULenexaman
1/21/2010, 11:00 PM
hey....it's the peoples seat....not Teddy's or the dems....it's that platform and speech that he drilled on that won it for him......power to the people!!! Curly B is correct sir!!!

tommieharris91
1/22/2010, 12:38 AM
Big spending has always been what liberals do best.

Who was the last President to balance the budget?

Gandalf_The_Grey
1/22/2010, 12:53 AM
Now we get two pages arguing over whether Bill or Newt balanced the budget ;), way to go