Okay. Honeymoon's Over.
For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president.
Starting tomorrow, if not sooner.
Anne Coulter
Heh heh. Yesssssss...
Starting tomorrow, if not sooner.
Anne Coulter
Heh heh. Yesssssss...
posted by John | 2:27 PM
73 Comments:
My friends (whatever), the complaints from the right (should Obama lurch left) will be--as have been-- reasonably argued with good cause, and in good faith that the opposition is likewise reasonable and desirous of their fellow citizens' happiness and well-being (yeah, right).
And they'd love it.
it wouldn't be enough of a stretch, fj...
The reason why we're "no longer in any of that business," "bartcop," is because we never were save in your fevered paranoia that thinks, if we really were, that those institutional bogeyman can vanish overnight because of some messianic magic.
John - we were in the torture business. Ashcroft himself, at the President's request, approved 24 different torture techniques.
Obama - being gracious - was nice enough to give McCain some credit on this issue - I think he was too nice. McCain flip flopped on torture re Military Commission Act.
Even the educated faction of the GOP defended torture.
Four years ago I went to a part in NY during the GOP convention. That moron Zell Miller "spoke" (drooled?) that night. Somehow the subject of torture came up when someone was arguing with my girlfriend.
I recall it because no one came to Bush's defense and said "we don't torture." Rather, with no TV cameras around, they all defended torture.
Word to the wise - time for some GOP soul searching.
Ashcroft himself, at the President's request, approved 24 different torture techniques.
You mean 24 "not legally torture" techniques. LOL!
Hey John
Who do you think is hotter - Sarah Palin or Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm?
Wouldn't that be a great election to have those two debate?
Maybe Money Honey from CNBC could "moderate."
Don't you love this Palin-McCain fighting?
The latest is that Palin even bought clothes for her husband. 20K worth!
Wasn't he supposed to be some sort of Eskimo? Why didn't he just wear an Igloo?
ROFL!
John, - get ready for inauguration. Lots of parties - lots of babes.
Are you ready? Ready to get some ....
Obama made a mistake apologizing to Nancy Reagan. Obama's joke was actually kind of funny.
(Too many radio yellers came to her defense - Apparently, they were oblivious to the fact she never actually had seances - that was Mary Todd Lincoln and Harding's mistress too)
Nancy Reagan has been carrying on like she's
some sort of Royal.
I saw her speak in favor
of stem-cell research. That's fine - That's her opinion. But her reasons in favor were that she's in favor of it because of Ronnie. Blah blah blah -
That does't address any of the debatable points. She made no substantive argument. She thinks she's royal and can just say she is for something and think people will care.
You guys are not gonna believe this, but I heard
Rudy is thinking of running again in 2012.
That's a lotta chutzpah After running the worst campaign in recent memory and after delivering the hands downd worst keynote convention speech ever.
I hope he does it - just to see him fall flat on his face again.
It's a shame Hillary's no longer channeling Eleanore Roosevelt on White House tours anymore...
I gotta feeling Michelle Obama will be channeling Sally Hemmings pretty soon. Especially after Barack starts porking all the poon on the WH staff. No wonder Barack promised "his girls" a dog... it's the only "bone" they'll be getting from him for a long, long while.
Those of you tempted
to say "Intellectual
Conservative" is an
oxymoron - Read This!
http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122610558004810243.html?mod=article-outset-box
John, the troll gates got left open.
John likes to let people see how classy the Democrats are.
Oooops, did I say classy? I meant to say classless.
F. Scott Fitzgerald's
worts nightmare!:
http://www.236.com/video/2008/get_your_war_on_new_world_orde_10121.php
"For eight years, we’ve been told by those in power that we are small, bigoted and stupid — easily divided and easily frightened. This was the toxic catechism of Bush-Rove politics. It was the soiled banner picked up by the sad McCain campaign, and it was often abetted by an amen corner in the dominant news media."
LOL! Wow, now there's someone living completely out of touch with reality. The dominant news media was FOR McCain this election cycle? That explains everything!
Pssst. Boycott MSNBC and NBC Monday Night Football... PASS IT ON!!!!
Reward your friends and PUNISH your enemies!
ps - Spam a liberal blog today! It's funner than watching a welfare queen at a job interview.
the party of idiots truly believe fox news is "unfair and unbalanced", but statistics show differently:
among some of the findings:
* MSNBC stood out for having less negative coverage of Obama than the press generally (14% of stories vs. 29% in the press overall) and for having more negative stories about McCain (73% of its coverage vs. 57% in the press overall).
* On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1.
* CNN fell distinctly in the middle of the three cable channels when it came to tone. In general, the tone of its coverage was closer than any other cable news channel to the press overall, though also somewhat more negative than the media overall.
* The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC’s coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News.
* At night, the newscasts of the three traditional broadcast networks stood out for being more neutral—and also less negative—than most other news outlets. The morning shows of the networks, by contrast, more closely resembled the media generally in tone. That might surprise some who imagined those morning programs were somehow easier on political figures. Overall, 44% of the morning show stories were clearly negative, compared with 34% on the nightly news and 42% in the press overall.
never, ever try to confuse a leftist with cold, hard facts - it will cause their heads to cave in.
Op-Ed Columnist
Darkness at Dusk
By DAVID BROOKS
It’s only been a week since the defeat, but the battle lines have already been drawn in the fight over the future of conservatism.
In one camp, there are the Traditionalists, the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.
To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are the most prominent voices in the Traditionalist camp, but there is also the alliance of Old Guard institutions. For example, a group of Traditionalists met in Virginia last weekend to plot strategy, including Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. According to reports, the attendees were pleased that the election wiped out some of the party’s remaining moderates. “There’s a sense that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are freer of wobbly-kneed Republicans than they were before the election,” the writer R. Emmett Tyrrell told a reporter.
The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.
Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.
The Reformist view is articulated most fully by books, such as “Comeback” by David Frum and “Grand New Party” by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, as well as the various writings of people like Ramesh Ponnuru, Yuval Levin, Jim Manzi, Rod Dreher, Peggy Noonan and, at the moderate edge, me.
The debate between the camps is heating up. Only one thing is for sure: In the near term, the Traditionalists are going to win the fight for supremacy in the G.O.P.
They are going to win, first, because Congressional Republicans are predominantly Traditionalists. Republicans from the coasts and the upper Midwest are largely gone. Among the remaining members, the popular view is that Republicans have been losing because they haven’t been conservative enough.
Second, Traditionalists have the institutions. Over the past 40 years, the Conservative Old Guard has built up a movement of activist groups, donor networks, think tanks and publicity arms. The reformists, on the other hand, have no institutions.
There is not yet an effective Republican Leadership Council to nurture modernizing conservative ideas. There is no moderate Club for Growth, supporting centrist Republicans. The Public Interest, which used to publish an array of public policy ideas, has closed. Reformist Republican donors don’t seem to exist. Any publication or think tank that headed in an explicitly reformist direction would be pummeled by its financial backers. National candidates who begin with reformist records — Giuliani, Romney or McCain — immediately tack right to be acceptable to the power base.
Finally, Traditionalists own the conservative mythology. Members of the conservative Old Guard see themselves as members of a small, heroic movement marching bravely from the Heartland into belly of the liberal elite. In this narrative, anybody who deviates toward the center, who departs from established doctrine, is a coward, and a sellout.
This narrative happens to be mostly bogus at this point. Most professional conservatives are lifelong Washingtonians who live comfortably as organization heads, lobbyists and publicists. Their supposed heroism consists of living inside the large conservative cocoon and telling each other things they already agree with. But this embattled-movement mythology provides a rationale for crushing dissent, purging deviationists and enforcing doctrinal purity. It has allowed the old leaders to define who is a true conservative and who is not. It has enabled them to maintain control of (an ever more rigid) movement.
In short, the Republican Party will probably veer right in the years ahead, and suffer more defeats. Then, finally, some new Reformist donors and organizers will emerge. They will build new institutions, new structures and new ideas, and the cycle of conservative ascendance will begin again.
"Here's why the McCain stories were overwhelmingly negative, birdbrains..."
I'm afraid you don't meet the qualifications to participate here.
You also, quite obviously, have unresolved emotional issues and ill-bred behavioral habits which would (understandably) invite violence against your person in a drinking establishment, no less tar and feathering in an earlier time (or even the guillotine a little earlier and elsewhere) if only for disturbing the peace and inciting strife.
What you don't understand is that Obama's victory is not some mandated validation either of you or your worldview, as you seem to exult. Obama sprinted to the right faster than Carl Lewis ran in the Olympics, precisely because
the American people would have been appalled if he sounded anything like you or your political kind.
You are the ideological heirs of
liars and murderers.
And so Obama decided to ape someone who the American people were already familiar (and felt safe) with--President George W. Bush (Bush-fatigue notwithstanding) on matters ranging from FISA to abortion to gay marriage (while simultaneouly saying Bush was wrong on everything), and going even further right by invoking Ronald Reagan when trying to peddle a tax-plan that was not only nonsense to begin with, but had an expiration date of November 5, anyway.
And he got away with all of that because the average "undecided" voter is an idiot (who, along with the monolithic voting block of minorities who were aggressively registered and voted for racial and spiteful reasons, and the teeny-boppers gone wild, and elitist and/or opportunistic Republicans--precisely the ones who turned off the conservative base--pretty much accounts for the margin of victory which you crow as representing a vote of confidence for your depraved philosophy and even worse personality that is probably the result of a poor upbringing, disfunctional interpersonal relationships, certainly bad teaching, and most evidently of your class, making you the perfected--albeit rotten to the core-- fruit of godless liberalism).
It was, dolt, a combination of things--including McCrash himself thinking he could get liberals to vote for him if he was nice to them--that set the stage for an unknown actor like Obama to appear in the limelight, get top billing, and get voted as the newest American Idol because McCain couldn't sing a tune and Palin's poop-poop-pa-doop tap-dancing routine was sabotaged by spit-balls and a goopy glue that was slopped onto the floorboards, and Americans are shallow and see things in theatrical terms.
Meanwhile, you're nothing but a blind moonbat screaming at a pitch in the darkness that only dogs can hear but thinking you're some kind of Dark Knight who rescued Gotham City from the Joker.
No. You're just a little rabid rodent with erratically-flapping wings dispatched by your evil vampire overlords to harrass the simple-miinded townsfolk.
At best, you're one of thousands of anonymous worker bees working for the Queen Bee Obama who are indistinguishable from one another and is easily replaceable, and won't be missed when you're gone
Now gtfo, insect.
RE: Brook's article.
Nothing new there. Almost a verbatim analysis of the state of the Democratic Party after the 2004election (and with similar predictions that they'd be in the wilderness for a decade or two).
btw, I appreciate any poster who has the courtesy to provide a link to an article he/she deems relevant.
john - THIS would have been a very good lead-in to this post...hehehe...
Evan's posts have been restricted to telling us how big the GOP victory was going to be, then to how the election could still be reversed, then to how tiny the loss was.
Are we supposed to not ridicule that?
In the meantime, don't you have some irrelevant Plato stuff to cut and paste?
As for Patriot, she wants to throw out distorted information and let us spend time sending her sources which refute that but which would have no effect on her beliefs, anyway.
Why should we waste time with people like you in faux debates?
You're right, Karin. Don't waste your time.
Indeed, Nanc.
This is a projection:
"As for Patriot, she wants to throw out distorted information and let us spend time sending her sources which refute that but which would have no effect on her beliefs, anyway."
That is precisely why they cut-&-paste lengthy Kool-Aid articles.
I see another she-monkey pretending to be a parade of baboons has just passed through. Does she really think she's fooling anyone, John? LOL!
Jonh, it looks like you
have a lot of bad comments here.
the demonkkkrat party is usually mostly associated with the kay-kay-kay - that will never change as much as one may HOPE-A-DOPE!
BWAH!
*;]
In defense of Bush, he is not as dumb as Democrats think he is.
Nevertheless, there was a sad infantile quality to his speech today.
Bush's motorcade was booed by fireman outside the same downtown firehouse that cheered him post 9-11 and you gotta wonder if Bush registers the meaning of that.
(maybe he blames Rudy, which makes sense)
Bush then spoke and he spoke out against Fannie and Freddie - That was fine for an election diversion, but now that the election is over you'd think he'd drop that.
Rather than Fannie or Freddie, the running Republican line (attempt
to divert from CDS) is that the worldwide meltdown was "the subprime mess" (ie blacks and poor) that caused the mess, not Fannie and Freddie. Bush got them all mixed up.
Then Bush - non sequitor fashion - praised capitalism. Is anyone condemning capitalism.
One suspects he knows that he's recent bailouts of problems he created were making him look sill.
Then Bush praised the free market of Asia - but infantile of him to point to Asian countries with highly regulated French-like economies.
A friend of mine at Goldman said no one on the trading floor watched Bush's speech - Instead they watched Soros.
I guess that's why they get paid the big bucks. They don't waste their time with Bush.
Creaky, irrelevant, out of touch, the last gasp from the party of backwardness...like their recent candidates.
GOP Ponders Gloomy, Dark Forecast
Washington Post
MIAMI, Nov. 12 -- Republican governors were the brightest spot in an otherwise dispiriting election last week for the GOP, but the chief executives gathered here Wednesday provided a gloomy assessment of their party's failures and a dark forecast for the future.
The Republican Party is ill situated to serve a changing America, they said. Members make excuses for corruption. The Bush administration and congressional leaders are fiscally irresponsible and have ceded the tax issue -- of all issues -- to the Democrats. Large swaths of the country are off limits to GOP candidates. Republicans have lost the technology advantage, and if they were part of a corporation, "heads would roll." It's going to be worse in 2010.
The Republican Governors Association, meeting at a sleek hotel on Biscayne Bay to survey the damage, itself is a thinned version of what it was in the heyday of GOP dominance of national politics. There will be only 21 GOP governors come January, and only 16 of them even bothered to make the trip.
Soros does not get half the credit he deserves for Obama's win - More than anyone, he vouched for Obama with the capitalist class. Buffett came later,
Anyway - Palin was so unqualified and do dishonest during the campaign (ie 'Obama want
to read terrorists their rights') that it is hard
to feel sorry for her.
But I knew much of the current dumping on her was part of a hoax. I was right:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?_r=2&em&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.hardinginstitute.org/5.html
hilarious
Why do people keep mentioning Alinsky on this blog?
Hillary did not win.
Rather than Fannie or Freddie???
Some people are perpetually CLUELESS.
So who do you think established the precedent for securitizing and selling off subprimes, anyway?
Can you say FANNIE/FREDDIE?
And CDS was insurance for the securities. Divert attention? Why blame the LAST domino in a series to fall?
The Obamessiah has syphillis. He caught it during a romantic encounter w/Barney Frank.
Sooooooooeeeeeeeyyyyyyyy!!!!
...and the Obama neo-Marxist state will usher in heretofore never experienced economic prosperity for the American nation...
BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks guys. Might as well shoot yourselves now, and save us the trouble.
Subprime loans , by definition, are ones that do NOT conform to Fannie and Freddie standards.
The clown who commented above should do his homework.
Fannie and Freddie loans account for less than 2 percent of all failed loans.
This crisis was cause by the derivitive market masking debt levels.
It's really that simple.
Joe the plumber's conquest:
http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/11/02/joe-the-plummer-canoodled-cast-member-at-snl-after-party/
re Obama and Alinsky.
John - One of you smily commenters said Obama worked for Alinsky - Correction, Obama was
11 years old when Alinsky died.
You guys keep losing because you waste so much brainpower with rumor and misinformation.
Subprime loans , by definition, are ones that do NOT conform to Fannie and Freddie standards.
Really?Then why do Freddie and Fannie own so many subprime loans?
You guys keep losing because you waste so much brainpower with rumor and misinformation.
You're right, we could save all that time and brainpower by simply blocking YOUR IP and getting rid of the source of all the rumours and misinformation.
----
One of you smily commenters said Obama worked for Alinsky - Correction, Obama was
11 years old when Alinsky died.
Bill Ayers probaly killed him.
The previous comment had implied that Obama had worked for an Alinsky GROUP... which he did (Chicago's Developing Communities Project). Alinsky's son even praised Obama for "learning his father's lessons so well".
But hey, at least we've GOT brainpower to burn. You're maxed out using what little brainpower you have just to breath.
Freddie Mac alone lost over $25B this quarter.
But they're not part of the subprime problem, folks... as Barney Frank said before the crises, FANNIE and FREDDIE are in GREAT shape! And now, America is merely making "an investment" in them...
Fannie's net worth, or the difference between assets and liabilities, tumbled to $9.4 billion as of Sept. 30 from $44.1 billion at Dec. 31. The Washington-based company said Nov. 10 that the number may be negative by the end of the year. Freddie's net worth stood at a negative $13.7 billion at the end of the quarter.
I can hardly wait until next quarter to see how well our "investments" are doing!
This crisis was cause by the derivitive market masking debt levels.
LOL! Yes, the reason why homeowners cannot pay their mortgage bills is because the derivative market began masking debt levels. < /sarcasm>
Hey, don't try to take their little Freddie/Fannie thing from them.
It's all they've got left. We don't want to drown them completely.
We want to push them under and let them bob back up...so we can do it again.
And again.
You can't take away something you never had the ability to take in the first place. But please, try, try and try again! We love exposing non sequitors. LOL!
Haha...did you mean non sequitur, home schooler?
He not only doesn't use it correctly; he doesn't even know how to spell it.
Getting very boring over here. Nothing but the dregs of the loser party left, I guess. All the Buckleys, Eisenhowers and Goldwaters have come over to our side, and the average wingbat IQ is now lower than GW's approval ratings...or the number of felonies EX-senator Stevens (R-federal prison) has on his record.
If you weenies can't even put up any credible resistance any more, I for one am going to have to leave you all alone with each other.
Now there's a fate worse than death.
tata suckahs
re Fannie/Freddie (btw - they dont originate "subprime" loans)
http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/03/07/animal-house-and-the-king-how-the-plagiarism-scandal-leads-to-very-strange-places/#comment-2724
re Ayeres - despite the GOP campaign to suggest otherwise - Obama was only 8 when Ayers was doing his protest thing.
By the time Obama had met Ayers , Ayers had been name Chicagos Man of the Year and he was married to a friend of Hillary's who was lawyer at the super prestigious power law firm of Sidley & Austin (where some of my old Cornell pals worked as summer associates).
But it doesn't really mattter anyway - since Barack barely knows the guy. (McCain also had links to Ayers - via the Annebergs
Incidentally - Chris Matthews has contributed to the problem - The right wing cable mouthpiece (ironically used to work for Tip O'Neil) has
said on numerous occasions that Obama "worked with Alinsky" (as if there was something bad about that, if true - which it is not)
Matthews had some other right winger a few months ago saying the same thing - saying that Obama worked with Alinsky.
Obama was 11 when The Great Alinsky died and went on to organize Heaven.
- I don't know Alinsky's work too much, but the Christians say he did great work helping to re-think the uses of Churches
A prop for Bush - As he heads into this global economic forum with the whole world (rightly) blaming him fot the economic crisis (as well as him trying to divert blame to the blacks and the poor) we should recall his good deeds.
1. In 2000 he kept Lieberman out of the WH - Had 9-11 happened on Gore's watch (doubtful), the GOP majority would have lashed out irrationally and impeached Gore (with a secret assist from Joe The Backstabber) and Lieberman would have been President and he would start wars everywhere.
2.) I like Laura, the girls, and the dog Barmey.
3.) Left wing social life much improved with right wing tension from above. A good anti-Bush quip could get you laid pretty easily in most good cities and college towns.
4.) Bush's policies led to a weak dollar and that is causing long term havoc with Petro-dollar economies in the Gulf - Thus reducing their exporting money for terrorism.
5.) Saved us from Rudy in ways that have not yet been publicized.
Recall how you felt when Pinochet was toppled and you just sensed that his immunity would not last? Think about what Bush's lost meant and now read these incredibly articulate art-iculations about the meaning of Obama's November ascendency. The false link to Ayers was disproved and so was the fake (Matthews) link to ALinsky.------
Others:
It means we can see the end of Nixonland from here.
-- Spencer Ackerman, senior reporter, the Washington Independent
It means "hope" is not a four-letter word ... but "Bush" is.
-- Sean Aday, associate professor of media studies, George Washington University
It means you can run for office no matter your name.
-- Kenneth Baer, Democratic speechwriter and principal, Baer Communication
It means the long national nightmare is over.
Dean Baker, economist, Center for Economic Policy Research
It means that after years of splintering divisiveness, we're back in this together again.
-- Jared Bernstein, economist, Economic Policy Institute
It means Americans are starting to realize that there's nothing compassionate about conservatism.
-- Brian Beutler, blogger, brianbeutler.com
It means the Union won, with unions.
-- Lindsay Beyerstein, freelance journalist, majikthise.com
It means the era of conservatism is over.
-- Michael Cohen, senior research fellow, New America Foundation
It means that this damned thing [conservatism] doesn't work!
-- Brian Cook, editor, In These Times (invoking Doc Brown)
It means the 9/11 era -- of dealing with the world 9/11 created rather than using 9/11 as a political club -- has finally begun.
-- Brad DeLong, economics professor, UC-Berkeley
It means that James Cheney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman did not die in vain.
-- Matthew Duss, research associate, Center for American Progress Action Fund
It means that my two sons will grow up in a country where everybody knows that an African-American can become president.
-- Henry Farrell, assistant professor, George Washington University
It means the Democrats have two years to show they can govern through effective, progressive policymaking … tick, tick, tick.
-- Tim Fernholz, writing fellow, the American Prospect
It means that, following the political equivalent of locusts, the plague, the trials of Job, and 40 years (more or less) in the wilderness, it is actually fun to be a Democrat again.
-- Kathy Geier, the G Spot
It means the world is ready to follow if America is ready to lead.
-- Mark Leon Goldberg, Undispatch.com
It means that we grabbed the steering wheel and pulled on the hand brake just before this bus called the U.S. of A. careened into the abyss.
-- Jaana Goodrich, Echidne of the Snakes
It means that the Republican Party has to give up appeals to coded racism and accept the reality that United States is a multiethnic democracy.
-- Jeet Heer, freelance journalist, Regina, Saskatchewan
It means that the conservative era is over, and a progressive one has a chance to begin.
-- Michael Kazin, professor of history, Georgetown University
It means Barack Obama now has earned the additional challenge of showing that he's not Bill Clinton, circa 1993, and that 2010 won't be 1994.
-- Ed Kilgore, managing editor, the Democratic Strategist
It means that the voters will punish incompetence, even at the cost of voting for intelligence and eloquence.
-- Mark A.R. Kleiman, professor of public policy, UCLA
It means that the 9/11 era is over.
-- Ezra Klein, senior editor, the American Prospect
It means the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
-- Joe Klein, columnist, Time
It means at least three Supreme Court justices who aren't vetted by the religious right.
-- Andrew Leonard, Salon
It means the end of the great national nightmare that began on April 12, 1861, when Americans began the long struggle to determine what an American is -- that the hue of a citizen's skin does not determine their value to themselves and their fellow citizens of this great experiment.
-- Robert Mackey, historian and consultant, Washington, D.C.
It means that sometimes being "pro-America" means different things to voters than to politicians.
-- Mike Madden, Salon
It means that I will see a Latino president and Supreme Court justice in my lifetime.
-- Sylvia Manzano, political scientist, Texas A&M University
It means the North has won the Civil War.
-- Harold Meyerson, Washington Post columnist and American Prospect editor at large
It means market fundamentalism no longer has a veto and it is now possible to build an economy with widely shared prosperity.
-- Larry Mishel, Economic Policy Institute
It means America is not afraid!
-- Dayo Olopade, reporter, the Root
It means there is more to America than is dreamt in Karl Rove's philosophy.
-- Harold Pollack, public health researcher and writer, University of Chicago
It means that the term "proud conservative" is now more toxic than "San Francisco liberal" ever was.
-- Sarah Posner, columnist, the American Prospect
It means the Democrats have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make good on some bold promises.
-- Eric Rauchway, professor of history, UC-Davis
It means national conversations about sexism and homophobia are up next.
-- Alyssa Rosenberg, staff correspondent, Government Executive
It means, as a friend in Tbilisi, Georgia, said to me today, that our nation managed to "push the reset button," and in one action, revived all the wonderful, idealistic overtones that go with the word "America."
-- Jeremy Rosner, Democratic pollster, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research
It means power even that seems at times absolute is ultimately fleeting.
-- Laura Rozen, journalist, Mother Jones
It means, as ever, that America is capable of surprising itself -- and the world.
-- Tom Schaller, Salon
It means I can start watching State of the Union addresses and presidential news conferences once again, without feeling embarrassed.
-- Gary Segura, political scientist, Stanford University
It means Barack Obama will be able to get a cab in New York anytime he wants.
-- Adam Serwer, the American Prospect
It means that some right-wing entrepreneur will be on the market with the "Obama Countdown Clock" within the week.
-- Walter Shapiro, Salon
It means that we can finally have someone represent the black community to mainstream America who isn't Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or wearing a summertime fur coat and platinum chains.
-- Jesse Taylor, founder and editor, Pandagon.net
It means sunset has arrived after Reagan's morning in America, and it's now the optimistic dawn of a bright new day.
-- Mark Thoma, Economist's View
It means the beginning of the end of a nightmare that began on Nov. 4, 1980.
-- Jonathan Weiler, political scientist, UNC Chapel Hill
It means that principled, visionary domestic and foreign policy need not come at the expense of morality and justice.
-- Patricia Weitsman, political scientist, Ohio
Btw - Chris Matthews was not the only one peddling the false story about an 11 year old Obama working for 70 year old Alinsky.
It was on a lot of right wing blogs too. But Matthews was the only mainstream conservative peddling it.
Thank god I don't have cable anymore. Matthews is insufferable during the holidays like xmas etc
(btw - they dont originate "subprime" loans)
They dont (sic)?
Fannie/Freddie don't "originate" ANY loans, dumbass! They just buy them from those that do...
It means that evolution works but that it sometimes takes a while to eliminate the lower forms.
We really need a final solution to that, this time.
Oh, no ovens...I'm just thinking spay and neuter.
Btw...I'm really afraid of those Fannie/Freddie lies.
I think they can win the election with that.
Oh, that's already over.
Nicolas Sarkozy saved the President of Georgia from being hanged "by the balls" — a threat made last summer by Vladimir Putin, according to an account that emerged yesterday from the Élysée Palace. . . .
The Russian seemed unconcerned by international reaction. "I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls," Mr Putin declared.
Mr Sarkozy thought he had misheard. "Hang him?" — he asked.
"Why not?" Mr Putin replied. "The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein."
Mr Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: "Yes but do you want to end up like Bush?"
Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: "Ah -- you have scored a point there."
In other words, Bush has unwittingly left us with a new way to insult people.
"Don't pull a Bush."
Reagan must be looking up at us and wondering why so many Republicans are "blaming Americans first" during the financial crisis.
While Reagan would rightly score Bush and hold him accountable, he would rather blame foreign banks than blame our poor citizens.
Btw - Obama better do something about poverty. At the end of 8 years he should have goal that we have EU levels of health care and human rights protection.
Hey - did anyone else notice the odd fact that Bush seemed cocky during his speech yesterday?
Does anyone have any theories as to why?
As the Chinese say - Was there a method to his madness (shakespeare also said this)?
How can Bush call himself a free market person ???- He was a failure as a Business Person and his Dad's pals bailed him out - Then he created this financial crisis and had to get Congress to bail ALL of us out.
Countdown to Obama! He will bring us up to EU levels.
Maybe Bush had god write his speech - Afterall, he talks to a HIGHER father. Hahhahhhhhhhahh.
anti-semitism outbreak in the UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/nov/14/oxford-students-bring-a-jew-party
Reminds my of my college days with "ghetto fabulous" parties.
Parties can be offensive.
For my fellow conservatives who watch Fox News:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
Note what Arthur Laffer (Reagan advisor) says last year and make sure to watch the 3rd minute.
Also - make sure to watch what the "Bhuler Bhuler" actor says
REAGAN'S REVENGE:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/nov/17/00014/
Wow...that was one amazing video. I hope Schiff ties those wingbat morons in a chair and makes them watch that video 24/7.
Speaking about amazing video's... yep, that BF sure is one sorry BF'r.
McCain adviser admits America is ‘center-left.’
While conservative pundits and even some traditional journalists continue to insist that America remains a center-right nation. Today in a Washington Post op-ed, Hoover Institution fellow and former informal adviser to the McCain campaign Tod Lindberg rebuts this myth:
Here’s the stark reality: It is now harder for the Republican presidential candidate to get to 50.1 percent than for the Democrat. My Hoover Institution colleague David Brady and Douglas Rivers of the research firm YouGovPolimetrix have been analyzing data from online interviews with 12,000 people in both 2004 and 2008. It shows an overall shift to the Democrats of six percentage points. As they write in the forthcoming edition of Policy Review, “The decline of Republican strength occurs by having strong Republicans become weak Republicans, weak Republicans becoming independents, and independents leaning more Democratic or even becoming Democrats.” This is a portrait of an electorate moving from center-right to center-left.
Lindberg acknowledges that “the percentage of voters describing themselves as ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ has held relatively constant over many election cycles.” However, he notes that “the views behind those labels” have shifted to be more liberal.
Wow, that was really deep. A McCain adviser's opinion on the current state of political opinion...
Just remember that today's answer to that question is always blowing in the wind. Today from the left, and tomorrow from the right.
You sound a lot like one of Odysseus' companions shortly after their escape from the Cyclops...
On his further voyage he (Odysseus) arrived at the island of Aeolus, probably in the south of Sicily, where he stayed one month, and is said to have been in love with Polymela, the daughter of Aeolus (Parthen. Erot. 2). On his departure Aeolus provided him with a bag of winds, which were to carry him home, but his companions, without Odysseus' knowing it, opened the bag, and the winds escaped, whereupon the ships were driven back to the island of Aeolus, who was indignant and refused all further assistance (Od. x. i. &c.)
This blog is as dead as the rest of the right.
Good riddance.
Wishful thinking alone cannot make a thing so.
At first I thought FJ would like this map (or hate it):
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/330-from-pickin-cotton-to-pickin-presidents/
But now he sounds like Homer quoting liberal.
Wow. That's some insight. BLACK people voted for Obama...
What revelation could possibly be next? That reporters voted for Obama, too?
Post a Comment
<< Home