Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Republican Yorkshire deflates

At the holiday meal, Republicans gather ‘round to see the Yorkshire Pudding come out of the oven. It’s always such a pleasure when it rises to the occasion! Yum! Imagine the quiet disappointment if the Yorkshire fails to rise. But fail is what we are seeing among the GOP presidential candidates. Fail indeed. The Republicans are falling, deflating, collapsing right before our eyes. According to the latest polling for the 2012 Republican Nomination for President among Republican primary voters, Undecided/Don’t know/Someone else now constitutes 31% among GOP primary voters. The more people get to know these clowns, the more they don’t want them.

Herman Cain has seen his polling drop by 7 points, to 18%, but it is just enough to edge Romney and Gingrich, both tied at 15%. These are astonishingly low numbers; incidentally, Cain is seeing his biggest drop among women voters. What a surprise. The clowns are all back in the clown car, and it is racing around in circles, with noxious smoke belching, and red handkerchiefs flying from the antenna and hood ornament. Who will emerge next?

By the way, here is the link to the poll:

Only Gingrich has seen a noticeable rise in his polling, up to 15%, which incredibly enough, is good enough for a tie with Romney. But guess what? Romney's campaign manager is an opposition researcher by profession. Gingrich might be the easiest target to take down among any of the candidates. His past is truly... colorful. Heh. Up until now, no one has bothered to take New down because no one takes Newt seriously. If Newt continues to rise in the polls, just grab some popcorn and sit back and enjoy, my progressive friends, for this will be truly, newtily entertaining.

And for you GOP voters... No popcorn for you! What are you doing with that flat piece of Yorkshire on your plate...? Hey! No slipping it to the dog under the kitchen table! It's not good for him! What did the dog ever do to you?

Posted by phx8 at November 11, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #331805

Gingrich has lots of really good ideas and he is the man most in touch with the trends that will shape the future among either Democrats or Republicans. But he has too much baggage.

Besides, I don’t think he has temperament to be president. Temperament is important. Oliver Wendell Holmes said about FDR, that he was a man with a second class intellect but a first class temperament. Gingrich reverses this.

Romney has both a first class intellect and the first class temperament. I think he would make an excellent president but he is a poor campaigner. Obama, BTW, is the reverse of this.

The key to Republican success, therefore, is to focus on the reality of governing. The Democrat strategy will be to focus on promises and fear. We will see which works better.

I will also remind you of the freak show the Democrats put on before they finally got down to Hillary and Obama. It was even worse in 2004. It takes a while to sift through.

The problem for Republicans is that there is no heir apparent. But time will create a front runner. This is just pre-season.

Posted by: C&J at November 11, 2011 4:14 PM
Comment #331806

NOBODY creates fear like the republicans NOBODY. Fear the gays fear the Latinos fear the blacks fear the Democrats fear everything only republicans can protect you.PLEASEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Jeff at November 11, 2011 4:44 PM
Comment #331807

phx8, it was much the same in 2007, Obama was around 20% of the polling until Iowa and then jumped up, before then there were aobut 40-45% undecided/other even though Hillary was polling around 40% most of the time, what good was any of that until the real beginning of the primary cycle?

You can try to trash Newt all you want, I don’t think he is going to care much. His baggage is known and out there already, most of it stupid in comparison to be honest.

And it will be hard to claim support for the economic times of Clinton without giving a nodd to Newt as well, considering those spending bills had to come from his congress (and the previous one wasn’t doing nearly as well).

Jeff, I don’t know, the left does a pretty good job of that themselves. You can read my article on that on here at :

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 11, 2011 4:54 PM
Comment #331808


Democrats are playing the fear card in that they claim that if Republicans win all the people will lose their benefits. It actually says a lot about the Dem electorate that they feel threatened by potential budget balancing cuts, but we have heard that.

Sorry if you feel that there is fear or gays, Latinos, Blacks etc. I notice that the front runner among Tea Party activists is black and that one of their favorite senators, a potential VP is Latino. I guess the fear doesn’t count for much.

I do fear Democrats in power, BTW. I think another four years of the Obama doldrums will be very unpleasant.

Posted by: C&J at November 11, 2011 5:03 PM
Comment #331810

Lets not confuse the truth card with the fear card.

Posted by: Jeff at November 11, 2011 5:18 PM
Comment #331812

Gingrich is the only Speaker to have been sanctioned for ethics violations.

With Newt, it will start with this quote, in which he justifies ending his second marriage because of an affair:

““There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”

Get that? He felt SO passionately about his country that he had an affair. Nice. And by the way, that affair took place while he was going after Clinton. His partisan effort to impeach was so unpopular- it was the worst midterm loss by a party which did not hold the presidency in 64 years (wikipedia)- he lost his position as speaker.

Oh dear, I could spend all afternoon writing about Gingrich. It’s no coincidence he hates the media so much. The media will publicize his past if Romney ever believes the public needs a reminder.

Will Romney be able to govern without a base? He’s smart and competent, but so tainted by flip-flops that no one will ever accept his compromises. He will always be accused of selling out. The national GOP is not like the MA GOP. If he wins the nomination, he will probably lose the general; if he wins the presidency, he will have a very hard time governing without a base that believes him.

Posted by: phx8 at November 11, 2011 5:19 PM
Comment #331817

Jeff, the right makes a distinction between their Blacks and other Blacks, their Latinos and other Latinos. They don’t attack all Blacks and all Latinos, there are some good ones.

The right wing has a firm grip on what and who is the good or the bad. A natural gift or a God given right?

Rhinehold, these Republican debates have become a joke with little in common with the debates of either the Democrats or the Republicans in 2008.

Bachmann carried the torch for the far right/tea party and for her efforts, was dropped like a hot potato the instant Perry got in the game. When Perry turned out to be less than desirable, they jumped to Cain. Then Perry flubs his comeback and now it’s Newt’s turn? No writer for Saturday Night Live could dream up such comedy.

Posted by: jlw at November 11, 2011 6:04 PM
Comment #331818

Don’t forget Trump and Palin and Christie!

Posted by: phx8 at November 11, 2011 6:09 PM
Comment #331819

And Pawlenty! Next to Perry, the most hype with the least substance.

Posted by: phx8 at November 11, 2011 6:10 PM
Comment #331820

I find it interesting that so many dems and libs follow the republican candidates since they just know that we will have four more years of Barry the Boob.

I am a conservative undecided myself so I wonder why it is so amazing to phx8 that many others are as well.

The last time around many libs and dems were crossing over party lines to vote for McCain because he was considered the man easiest to beat. Hell, even the liberal MSM was writing glowing article about McCain. I wonder if the libs and dems will try the same stunt this time around, not that I care much if they do. But, I do wonder who they would vote for as it would indicate which republican they believe they could defeat.

The republican candidate that seems to rank highest on the dem/lib scale is Huntsman. I suspect they believe he would be the easiest target for Barry.

At this point I like both Romney and Cain the best. Should either win the nomination the other would make an excellent choice for vice president.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2011 6:12 PM
Comment #331821


Yes - let’s not do that.


The thing I know about Romney is that he will be better than Obama. I am sure he will face challenges.


Re your, mine and ours - it is natural to make distinction based on what the persons says and what you think he will do. Naturally, conservatives like blacks who are conservative. We like whites who are conservative too, BTW.

Liberals and progressives see race first. That is the big problem. You guys have trouble believing that there are black conservatives, which is why you treat people like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain so poorly.

Re knowing good and bad - you cannot tell the difference? You have no opinion on this?

Liberals always accuse others of being judgmental, but then fill their comments with judgements.

Posted by: C&J at November 11, 2011 7:01 PM
Comment #331823

There are black conservatives, of course, but they are as rare as hen’s teeth. During the Bush administration, the margin of error in one poll was enough to put Bush in negative territory with black voters.

Posted by: phx8 at November 11, 2011 7:11 PM
Comment #331824

Most black conservatives have jobs, intact families, are well educated, pay taxes, love the United States and are strong believers in capitalism. That they number fewer than those enthralled with “entitleitis” is not surprising.

Since obama has not done much for blacks, at least not nearly as much as they were lead to believe, many liberals, and the young will simply stay home.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2011 7:21 PM
Comment #331825

jlw, 2008 yes. 2007, no.

phx8, would you vote for Clinton if he ran again? If you answer yes, do you consider yourself a hypocrite?

Last time I checked, Clinton was impeached. He was forced to give up his law license by the Arkansas Bar Association and lied under oath during a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Yet I see some complaining about Cain having accusations of sexual harassment by the very people that defended and praised Clinton. I see some complaining about Newt for many things by the very people that defended and praised Clinton…

Just asking…

Is it perhaps just the letter after their name?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 11, 2011 7:26 PM
Comment #331826

BTW, what was Gingrich guilty of again? I would have no problem having a side discussion about this topic and you seem to have a lot of information…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 11, 2011 7:39 PM
Comment #331827


I expect the number of black conservatives to rise. It is a big error to be liberal exclusively. People have a right to be wrong, of course. And we have the right to point it out. I think we have all been intimidated too long by the race issue. Time to show courage, as Holder said. IMO, a majority of blacks are wrong in their political ideas.

Re Clinton

Royal is right. It was appalling the way feminists in NOW and liberals in general prostituted themselves for party ideology. But now that they have done this, none of them have the right to complain.

Posted by: C&J at November 11, 2011 7:47 PM
Comment #331860

Would I vote for Clinton again? Well, tell me what would have happened with Bush #41 in a second term, or Bob Dole in office, and then I will be able to decide. Until then, games of ‘what if’ might make a great Futurama episode, but are pretty useless in real life.

Clinton lied under oath about a consensual sexual relationship with another person who was not his wife, NOT sexual harassment or the lack thereof with Paula Jones. The prosecutor engaged in a fishing expedition about Clinton’s sex life and cast the net far and wide. Since you seem to be comfortable playing ‘what if,’ would you, under oath, honestly answer every question about your sex life, no matter how detailed and intimate and embarrassing the questions may be, knowing that the entire world will see your testimony?

It was a disgrace, Rhinehold, a disgrace, and you know it.

Posted by: phx8 at November 11, 2011 10:44 PM
Comment #331868


“The prosecutor engaged in a fishing expedition about Clinton’s sex life and cast the net far and wide.”

If I remember correctly the fishing expedition didn’t even begin with Clinton’s sex life.
It started with an article in the New York Times about the Whitewater scandal in 1992, and ended with Clinton lying under oath about the sex, with side trips to Vince Foster land et al, and ended with Clinton’s impeachment in 1998.

Clinton was even accused of “wag the dog” when going after Bin Laden with cruise missiles.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 11, 2011 11:08 PM
Comment #331871

It was pretty wild. Yes, Clinton was accused by Republicans of ‘wagging the dog’ when he went after Bin Laden. Here is an article full of quotes, lots of quotes, from those fine fine Republicans:

Most of those yahoos who voted to impeach Clinton were kicked out of office shortly thereafter. The country was certainly served poorly by those conservatives. Very, very poorly.

And they want to bring Newt back? Really? Seriously?

Posted by: phx8 at November 11, 2011 11:47 PM
Comment #331878

I think polling primaries before voting is fairly useless. The media loves to see who’s on top and talk about it and generate buzz but they’re just filling a time slot. When the voting starts all the buzz will fall away and we will see who has the best ground work in key primary states and who’s message resonates the most.

I think the guy that is kicking himself most of all is Tim Pawlenty. I wonder if he can get back in the race? I’m sure he’s thought about it.

There’s a lot of bitterness growing on the GOP community I follow on the web as this race continues to be a clown car primary. They’re getting tired of Democrats watching it and eating popcorn and laughing our butts off at it. We can’t help it. It’s just really that hilarious and sad.

Somebody in this thread compared the current GOP Primary to the 2008 Democratic primary as if the Democrats deciding between two strong candidates was a “freak show”. That’s weak. Note that difference between deciding on strong candidates and the way every week a new candidate bubbles to the top for the GOP and then falls apart under the scrutiny. But it is fun watching the GOP play the Palin card and blame the media and the “Democrat machine” for reporting on the things they say and do with people listening.

I’m all for Newt, man. The night of the last debate I made this graphic up for folks to use as stickers. Fully embrace the Newtmentum. I want a Cain/Newt family values powerhouse ticket.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 12, 2011 8:49 AM
Comment #331879


I think MOST sexual harassment charges are witch hunts. But Clinton was guilty by the standards of the time.

“Consensual” sex with interns is not possible, according to feminists, because of the unequal power relationships. In this, I actually see their point. Rich and powerful men have long got “consensual sex” from young women.

I thought Clinton did a good job as president, despite his obvious personal flaws. He would have done better w/o them.

It is just that liberals have no right to act “shocked. shocked” by the accusations against Cain, when they have tolerated and celebrated similar things by the last good Democratic president.

Re “wag the dog” we heard a lot of the same things, much worse in fact, about Bush and Cheney. Again, Democrats have no standing to complain.

Posted by: C&J at November 12, 2011 8:50 AM
Comment #331883

Royal Flush,

“The last time around many libs and dems were crossing over party lines to vote for McCain because he was considered the man easiest to beat.”

Ever hear of “Operation Chaos”?

Perhaps you might want to rephrase your statement.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 12, 2011 9:42 AM
Comment #331888


I had a conservative friend who was positive that their shenanigans with Obama and Hilary would cause the race to run into the convention and destroy the “Democrat party” once and for all leading to the return to the permanent Republican Majority. I wonder how that turned out?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 12, 2011 10:17 AM
Comment #331889

Does anyone find it interesting that all the claims against Cain originated in Chicago, or with Obama’s past or present cabinet members?

Posted by: Mike at November 12, 2011 10:28 AM
Comment #331891
Clinton lied under oath about a consensual sexual relationship with another person who was not his wife, NOT sexual harassment or the lack thereof with Paula Jones. The prosecutor engaged in a fishing expedition about Clinton’s sex life and cast the net far and wide. Since you seem to be comfortable playing ‘what if,’ would you, under oath, honestly answer every question about your sex life, no matter how detailed and intimate and embarrassing the questions may be, knowing that the entire world will see your testimony?

I think you need to take a look at the real story here, phx8. Previous to Clinton being in office, the past sexual history of an accused sexual harasser was inadmissable in office. Clinton championed and then signed the changes to the laws to allow federal prosecutors to ask about the sexual history of an accused. So, when he was asked about HIS sexual history during HIS sexual harassment lawsuit, he perjured himself. Lying under oath about that (and who knows what else) to prevent himself being found guilty and denying Paula Jones her right to a fair and honest trial.

Sorry, but you can claim ‘witch hunt’ all you want, but Clinton did this, it was despicible and illegal and the excuses the left give to this day to defend it, especially while trying to take down their opponents, is hypocritical and disgusting.

Yes, the left successfully used their ‘spin machine’ to make it appear that Clinton was the VICTIM in this, congratulations. I hope it makes you feel better…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 12, 2011 10:49 AM
Comment #331892


“…destroy the “Democrat party” once and for all…”

Limbaugh talked on his radio show about permanently abolishing the Democratic party, but keeping one Democrat around in a museum as an example.

Conservatives don’t play well with other children. They want it all the power for themselves.

“There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power.”


Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 12, 2011 10:52 AM
Comment #331894


“Yes, the left successfully used their ‘spin machine’ to make it appear that Clinton was the VICTIM in this, congratulations. I hope it makes you feel better…”

So what you’re saying is that the whole Ken Starr Whitewater investigation was merely a ruse designed to get Clinton to perjure himself about Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky.

Who’da thunk it.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 12, 2011 11:07 AM
Comment #331895
So what you’re saying is …

No, you are getting your history and facts wrong…

Paula Jones brought a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton (she was not the only one claiming sexual harassment, btw) and during that trail Clinton perjured himself at least once that we now know of. Once it was brought to the attention of the special prosecutor that there was evidence of the perjury, then the 3 person panel directing the Whitewater investigation authorized Ken Star to switch his investigation to determine the facts of that perjury.

Again, I congratulate you on so confusing the facts of the case to make it appear that something else happened, it is interesting how so few actually know the facts surrounding the impeachment… This provides evidence of a job well done.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 12, 2011 11:32 AM
Comment #331896

“Does anyone find it interesting that all the claims against Cain originated in Chicago, or with Obama’s past or present cabinet members?”

I don’t.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 12, 2011 12:22 PM
Comment #331897

The blonde that showed up at the garbage sale with Gloria Allred lived in the same apartment building as David Axelrod. Axelrod also represented her in a matter of fraud in 2009.

That is rather convienient.

Then there is Ms. O’Grady and her connection.

I say the democrats are up to their eye no-balls in this one. Herman will survive it and move on.

The next scandal for both republicans and democrats will be the Abramoff tell all book. That should have some real bombshells to both parties. Insider-trading could be a good one to look at. Barney Frank’s queer boy allocation of staff members is another one. Both are hot enough to check out.

Posted by: tom humes at November 12, 2011 12:58 PM
Comment #331898

“I say the democrats are up to their eye no-balls in this one.”

It doesn’t make sense for Democrats to be involved in this other than to perhaps just embarrass the larger GOP by making one of their guys out to look the fool. But he was doing a great job of that on his own before it broke. Why pull strings on a primary candidate that hasn’t even gone to vote yet?

If there was this vast network of Democrats involved in this wouldn’t they have tried to sit on it? How good would this look for 5 women to come out the day after the Republican convention ends with Herman Cain the nominee? Why cause an uproar against a candidate that was just barely ahead in some polls and has almost no campaign structure worth talking about?

Does anyone actually think there is a Democrat out there afraid of Herman Cain? Even one? Does anyone actually buy Cain’s story that the “Democrat machine” hates a “business man” for president? It is much more likely that this is put out by Republicans who have actual interest in how the primaries go this early in the game. The Democrats do not.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 12, 2011 1:51 PM
Comment #331899

Adam Ducker, j2t2 made almost the exact same statement in the red column and this was his statement to me and I will include my comments to him:

“Frank, so your latest attempt to defend Cain is the liberal media is trying to bring him down! Lets face reality a bit Frank, How many conservatives or other extremist that would vote for Cain in the general election read and believe the liberal media? So then how can the liberal media bring him down? He is doing it all on his own. This conspiracy to bring Cain down is the doings of the Democrats machine! Why because the dems would rather see the only sane repub candidate in the bunch win the nomination? And you accuse others of not having the mental horsepower to “understand”, go figure.”

It will take more than conservatives to vote in a president; 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, 40% as moderates or independents, and only 20% as liberal. The goal of the liberal media is to affect the support for Cain, especially the moderates; even though conservatives know what the liberal press does, they also practice Saul Alinsky’s RULE 10: “If I push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Or repeat something enough and people will begin to believe it; or in terms you might understand, throw enough shit at the wall and some is bound to stick.

Robert Reich, from your link said:

“But Republicans don’t like Romney. His glib, self-serving, say-whatever-it-takes-to-win-the primaries approach strikes almost everyone as contrived and cynical. Moreover, Romney is the establishment personified — a pump-and-dump takeover financier, for crying out loud — at the very time the GOP (and much of the rest of the country) are becoming more anti-establishment by the day.
At this point neither the Republican right nor the mainstream media wants to admit the yawn-inducing truth that Mitt will be the GOP’s candidate. The right doesn’t want to admit it because it will be seen as a repudiation of the Tea Party. The media doesn’t want to because they’d prefer to sell newspapers and attract eyeballs.
The media are keeping the story of Rick Perry’s cringe-inducing implosion going for the same reason they’re keeping the story of Herman Cain’s equally painful decline going — because the public is forever fascinated by the gruesome sight of dying candidacies. With Bachmann, Perry, and Cain gone or disintegrating, the right wing-nuts of the GOP have only one hope left: Newt Gingrich. His star will rise briefly before he, too, is pilloried for the bizarre things he’s uttered in the past and for his equally bizarre private life. His fall will be equally sudden (although I don’t think Gingrich is capable of embarrassment).
And so we’ll be left with two presidential candidates who don’t inspire — at the very time in American history when Americans crave inspiration.”

By Reich’s own statement, the reason the left has attacked all conservative candidates with such zeal is because they fear the excitement that a conservative candidate would bring. According to Reich, Obama is facing lack of support and excitement from his base and if you add to that an excitement from the right for a conservative, Obama faces real problems. Socialists like Reich understand this and the liberal MSM understand this; and yet the left on WB still deny it.

Posted by: Frank at November 12, 2011 2:18 PM
Comment #331900

The problem with Republican candidates these days is that it’s become a valid excuse in their circles, when faced with embarrassment about something, to blame the media for not giving them a fair shake.

If you define fairness in a news story in terms of whether a news story harms you as a candidate, presents a problem for you getting elected, then naturally, as a self-interested politician, you’re going to tag every negative story that way. However, if one succeeds in getting your target audience to believe this all the time, then what we have isn’t a media bias against you, but rather one that’s for you.

The real question is one of merit. Negative bias isn’t merely the presence of negative stories, or even the absence of positive ones. It a question of whether the allegations are true. If they are, applying a corrective spin to the story, then you end up promoting a positive bias, which means your people have a overly rosy picture of the quality of your candidates.

I think the real question folks should be considering is not whether the media is biased about giving them the truth about their candidates, it’s whether they’re biased about the need for the media to flatter their sensibilities.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 12, 2011 2:46 PM
Comment #331901


First of all you do know that outside of a tiny group of well read community organizers, no one knows who Saul Alinski is, what he said, or what it means for them, right? I love how the name cropped up in right wing circles a few years ago and now that is the rules that conservatives think all liberals follow.

Second, I find it funny that you think the reason Cain, Bachmann and Perry are failing is not because they have failings but because liberals and the media are afraid of they’ll excite the base and we’d rather you nominate the “borning” one and stay home on election day. I have to remind you again that if you think the left is sad to see nut jobs like Cain and Perry bubbling to the top instead of more qualified saner folks like Romney, then you’re misjudging us completely.

I wish the liberals were as lockstep as conservatives pretend we are and I wish we had the media in our corner like conservatives pretend we do. I really do.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 12, 2011 4:54 PM
Comment #331902


“Again, I congratulate you on so confusing the facts of the case to make it appear that something else happened, it is interesting how so few actually know the facts surrounding the impeachment… This provides evidence of a job well done.”

You seem to laboring under the absurd notion that I think that Clinton shouldn’t have been prosecuted for his perjury.

IMHO the investigation that started with Whitewater was indeed a snipe hunt that ended up costing the American taxpayer more than $50 million with little to show for it. The right would have done anything to make Clinton look bad, and unfortunately for America, Clinton did all he could to help them out.
I believe that if Clinton was to be brought up on charges, it should have been after his second term was over. Due to the parochial nature of the right in this country that was never going to happen.

The circus that was the impeachment proceedings was a huge waste of time and taxpayer money.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 12, 2011 5:15 PM
Comment #331903
I believe that if Clinton was to be brought up on charges, it should have been after his second term was over.

Why on earth should someone who is accused of sexual harassment be allowed to bypass justice for years exactly? Sorry, but we don’t have kings, dieties or otherwise special people as our president, just another human prepresenting us to the world. If they do wrong, and sexual harassment is a huge wrong IMO, then it should be investigated immediately, not ‘years later’…

Why would you confer such special treatement onto a president that they don’t deserve?

As for the other investigations, they were 100% off topic and irrelevant to the sexual harassment lawsuit, something that the left has never been able to let go of, every time someone brings up the sexual harassment and perjery, the left wants to tie Whitewater and Vince Foster into it, to try to make them all seem part of the same thing. Then they can attack those and ignore the other, which is why so many people today have so little understanding of what was really going on…

Again, as I said, congratulations to the Democrats, you’ve manipulated the easily fooled yet again.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 12, 2011 5:24 PM
Comment #331904

Stephen Daugherty said:

“The problem with Republican candidates these days is that it’s become a valid excuse in their circles, when faced with embarrassment about something, to blame the media for not giving them a fair shake.”

Stephen you would do better to just keep quiet, when you open your mouth, your double standards show. I made this comment with Stephen’s quotes in the previous post.

Let me show you an example of the absolute, irrefutable, double standards of the left; below are two post that were entered in the liberal column of WB by Stephen Daugherty, concerning Anthony Weiner. Both of these posts are attacks, not on Weiner for his perversion, but on the media (in this case Brietbart, not part of the liberal MSM) because they brought out the story. Virtually every liberal on WB made personal attacks on Brietbart and defended Weiner, and yet we find the exact opposite now. The media is praised for declaring the “truth” and the victim (Cain) is found guilty and waiting for the tar and feathering. Is it possible for a liberal to ever feel embarrassed for their ability to use double standards? I don’t think so…

“On the Fine Art of Being Wrong In the Right Way”

“There are two things you’re going to expect from me, and one of them you will not get.

I will not apologize for having pursued the case against Rep. Anthony Weiner’s accusers, nor will I apologize to Breitbart for doubting him. He’s not only been wrong before, he’s pushed outright untrue material. In the short term he will gain more credibility, but my bet is, Breitbart will squander that before long.”

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2011 4:51 PM

“Call It By It’s True Name: BreitbartGate”

“Is he the guy who’s actually behaving scandalously? From all accounts, the original story, that he was cheating on his wife, or at least sending lewd pictures to a young admirer was a total setup. Even if the image was him, it was a private photo gained by unsavory means, not an inadvertantly released document of Representative Anthony Weiner’s personal immorality.”

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2011 2:19 PM

Adam Ducker said:

“First of all you do know that outside of a tiny group of well read community organizers, no one knows who Saul Alinski is, what he said, or what it means for them, right? I love how the name cropped up in right wing circles a few years ago and now that is the rules that conservatives think all liberals follow.”

Yes Adam, not many people know about this communist Alinski; but he came into the knowledge of the conservatives when we found that Obama was mentored by him and his policies. The “Rules for Radicals” written by Alinski, has been painstakingly followed by Obama and any time I can reveal Obama’s communist roots, I am more than happy to do it.

“Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness,” Alinsky Jr. wrote to the Globe. “It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

“I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

Posted by: Frank at November 12, 2011 6:12 PM
Comment #331906

the tille is about Republican deflation; but I bet this poll is really deflating to the democrats:

“Report: Polled Americans prefer Israel PM to Obama”

“President Obama’s hot-miked conversation with French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested that he is frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — but Americans might be more frustrated with Obama than they are irritated by Netanyahu.”

“A poll conducted by the group Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that 52.3 percent of Americans rate Netanyahu positively, compared to 51.5 percent for Obama,” reports Israel Today Magazine. “The results of the poll were enthusiastically discussed on Israel’s Channel 10 News on Thursday.”

I bet this is very frustrating to the democrats; over 50% of American people would prefer an Israeli Jew over a Kenyan black man.

Posted by: Steven C. at November 12, 2011 6:27 PM
Comment #331908

Frank: “…but he came into the knowledge of the conservatives when we found that Obama was mentored by him and his policies.”

Yes, and now you think every action liberals take is because we’re reading from the Alinski play book. Sad. The problem with Alinski is he simply wrote out the successful political tactics that all sides use even today both left and right. But how dare we suggest conservatives may be following the wisdom of marxists…

Steven C.: “I bet this is very frustrating to the democrats; over 50% of American people would prefer an Israeli Jew over a Kenyan black man.”

No, we don’t care. I wonder though if Netanyahu would run for GOP nominee. He’d be the new front runner apparently. Don’t worry that he’s not born in the US. Obama was born in the US and you imagine he was born in Kenya. You can just do the reverse for Netanyahu and imagine he’s born in the US. It’s all good…

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 12, 2011 9:16 PM
Comment #331910

AD said;

“Yes, and now you think every action liberals take is because we’re reading from the Alinski play book.”

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck; it must be a duck. It’s not hard to read Alinski’s political plan and then compare it to what democrat socialists want to do. The OWS protests are designed after Alinski’s plan for civil unrest, and guess who supports them…your right, every socialist democrat in America. What happens now when all these democrat mayors are forced to disperse these deseased, thieving, rapist, degenerates?

Posted by: Frank at November 12, 2011 11:43 PM
Comment #331912

Frank: “It’s not hard to read Alinski’s political plan and then compare it to what democrat socialists want to do.”

The irony I’ve always found in Alinski is that many on the right know more about Alinski than the left but folks like yourself still insist folks like myself are reading from it as a playbook. We aren’t. We don’t care. You’re the only one here that is reading from Alinski.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 13, 2011 9:12 AM
Comment #331914


The reason “the right” thinks about Alinsky is because the president grew to political maturity in an Alinsky rich environment in Chicago politics.

We recognize some aspects of this Chicago education in the way the Obama team deals with opposition. I doubt they are “following the playbook” but these kinds of things make a difference.

I read the “7 Habits of Highly Effective People” twenty years ago. I don’t “follow” it like dogma, but the fact that I read it and thought about it gives you some insight into my thinking. The same goes for Alinsky and Obama. The difference is that something like “7 Habits” is harmless self-help, while Alinsky is a pernicious monster whose methods can wreck but not build.

Some of us perceive this fault in the president’s policies. He is good at campaigning and especially defeating his opponents, but less adept at governing and uniting Americans. We don’t know if it is the malign effect of Alinsky or not, but it fits in with the old radical’s teaching.

Posted by: C&J at November 13, 2011 9:49 AM
Comment #331915

Frank as you continue to spew the far right talking points about the media here is a bit of reality.

The Bachmann campaign tries to spin her lack of support into media bias, but alas it is bunk.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 13, 2011 9:51 AM
Comment #331917

C&J: “The reason ‘the right’ thinks about Alinsky is because the president grew to political maturity in an Alinsky rich environment in Chicago politics.”

I’m fine with that. But watch carefully how many on the right use Alinski as an attack on all liberals and not simply as an attack on the policies of the president. The context of Alinski in this thread was not Obama but the media itself using his rules. That’s nonsense and we all know it. Alinksi has become a lazy way for conservatives to argue liberals want to destroy America.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 13, 2011 10:59 AM
Comment #331921


Alinsky had a profound influence on the left, even among those who never actually heard his name. He is the intellectual father of community organizing.

There is a fundamental difference of opinion among conservatives and liberals about community organizing. It is sometimes obscured by the fact that we both like grassroots, decentralized organizations that are superficially similar.

Conservatives harken back to the bottom up communities described by Alexis de Tocqueville, where people get together to do things like fix streets, repair buildings, set up neighborhood help and generally self-help. They specifically avoid asking government. This is what surprised de Tocqueville. It was American exceptionalism. In France, where Tocqueville was from, and most other places, the people waited for government to do these things and/or made demands of public official, who tended not to do things right or fast.

Liberals are more like the old-fashioned people Tocqueville contrasted Americans with. They demand government provide the services.

Community organizing tends to be leftist and its goal is usually to force the authorities to give more money to the particular communities. It is also not truly bottom up, since outside organizers (we conservatives tend to call them agitators) are dispatched to communities

I think guys like Alinsky are villains. Most leftist do not share my feelings. This is a big difference too.

So we all believe in grass roots organizations. I prefer those that solve their own problems with minimum resort to government. Leftists take the opposite view.

I see this kind of thinking in the Obama team. Strictly speaking, it is not socialist. But it is a kind of organization more common in places where socialism or state control was being implemented. It is outside the American tradition and more part of the European left, of which Alinsky was an heir.

Posted by: C&J at November 13, 2011 11:50 AM
Comment #331924

C&J: “Alinsky had a profound influence on the left, even among those who never actually heard his name. He is the intellectual father of community organizing.”

Did he, though? I would argue that Alinsky is important to a particular brand of community organizing that Obama is associated with. But so far as the broad community organizing at the root of the modern progressive movement goes I’d say his influence is much more muted. For instance Martin Luther King is much more important in progressive community organizing than Alinksy but of course the right fights tooth and nail to destroy the legacy of King and to pretend King was and would be a Republican. It’s no surprise why your side finds it better to link us to Alinsky the marxist radical instead of King the iconic civil rights figure and religious leader.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 13, 2011 1:12 PM
Comment #331925

C&J: “Liberals are more like the old-fashioned people Tocqueville contrasted Americans with. They demand government provide the services.”

We do demand government provide some services. Services the vast majority of Americans support, you might add. There’s a progressive in most of us but your side has seen to it that many of us don’t like that label.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 13, 2011 1:18 PM
Comment #331926

AD, perhaps I am not as politically correct as C&J; but as I said, I see the program of Alinski in the life and goals of Obama (and why wouldn’t I, because he served his community organizer apprenticeship under the teachings of Chicago based organizer Alinski), and I see the liberal press as following the same principles.

Alinski principles can be seen in the OWS protestors, the very idea of redistribution of wealth is a socialist/communist principle of Alinski, and demanded by the OWS crowd. Of course, Obama is in full support of the same socialist/communist redistribution of wealth. So I would respectfully disagree with C&J on whether it is socialism or not.

Alinski is not an excuse for arguing that liberals want to destroy America; Alinski priciples were and are designed to destroy America. If liberals want to follow these principles then liberals also want to destroy America. It the shoe fits…

Posted by: Frank at November 13, 2011 1:18 PM
Comment #331928


The wonderful thing about King was that he remained within the American tradition. I don’t know what he might have done in the 1970s and it might have tarnished his reputation to get involved with the fiasco of affirmative action.

But the part that we all should claim is the we should judge people by the content of their characters rather than the color of their skins.

I want to maintain King’s legacy. I am suspicious of affirmative action, black separatism and group rights, that many embraced after King’s death. This is not Kings legacy.

When Americans oppose affirmative action that has come very much like a quota, they are defending Kings legacy. Civil Right leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have sometimes betrayed it.

Posted by: C&J at November 13, 2011 1:23 PM
Comment #331929


re Tocqueville - of course things have changed some since 1830.

But the difference is that the American tradition gives more emphasis to people putting more into their communities then they demand to take out. They are participants, not just recipients and certainly not “victims” of the system.

If you like it better, we can always quote John Kennedy, who said that we should ask not what our country can do for us but rather ask what we can do for our country.

Posted by: C&J at November 13, 2011 1:27 PM
Comment #331937

It is the natural reaction of any group that when one of their members is challenged, the rest come to their defense. Was I wrong to come to Anthony Weiner’s defense? Yes. Just as you are wrong now to come to Herman Cain’s defense.

If you want to play Perry Mason, or some other TV prosecutor and thunder down from the heavens at me, be my guest, I find it rather funny. But the truth is, for all your name calling, you are blaming me for following my initial impulse, even while you express the same flaw in your behavior.

I admitted my error. I swallowed my pride and said his accusers were right, even while I explained what I believed were the very compelling reasons for that wrong belief. You are nowhere near admitting what’s going on with Herman Cain. So how is it you think you are in any position to judge me based on what was my strong belief in his innocence? Like I said in my entry:

The facts have changed, and so I have to believe a different story than I did yesterday. I have to believe something different, because what I believed before is no longer supportable. Am I ashamed to change my opinion? Well, on point of fact, I’d be more ashamed not to.

I liked what John Murtha did, in confronting Bush on the war. Is that worth a free pass on corruption? No. I liked what Charlie Rangel had to say, often enough. Free pass on ethics charges? No. William Jefferson was a liberal. Did that buy him any sympathy from me over that money in the icebox? No. I liked John Edwards during the 2004 campaign. Do I think he shouldn’t have to face the consequences of his actions, all around?

Of course not. Because I haven’t taken on the notion that I need to defend these people in order to save the country from the Republicans, or some other garbage like that. I don’t like the road we head down if the defense of my party requires the toleration of corruption. To me, that’s just like giving a warm embrace to a ticking time bomb. There’s no point in it, it doesn’t suit a reality based sensibility of politics. It doesn’t suit a sense of politics where getting things done right outweighs getting things said or politically arranged to our advantage.

Breitbart and I both advocate for our respective movements, but what I recognize and Breitbart doesn’t is that sooner or later, the BS comes back to haunt you. Sooner or later, the evil you do, or allow, in the name of your cause, or even your own prestige, will undermine you.

You’re only succeeding in exposing yourself as the one with the double standard. When the information sources carried no taint of association with Breitbart, I find it easy to take even folks who impressed me with their past behavior and abandon them to their disgrace.

Why don’t you show that you are my equal by at least admitting that it’s plausible, and not just a figment of the MSM’s imagination that Cain harrassed those women?

Your party isn’t some collection of perfect people persecuted by the media. Quit trying to call me out on a fault you take to a greater level yourself. I answered for my mistake, did so immediately after the revelation. You? despite all the folks in your party who have fallen prey to scandal, I’ve yet to see you fail to defend them as victims of the media.

You know, it’s perfectly possible that people get bad press because they put themselves in positions where no other press is truly merited. Admit that, and you can end the headache of maintaining implausible claims of superiority.

Bottom up? Is that why you deliberately hand wads of cash back to the so-called “job creators” in the expectation they’ll trickle down to everybody else? Is that why you go after Unions, which are essentially bottom-up organizations by which people gain the strength to defend their interests against management?

We’re drowning in vague generalizations here. Truth is, while you claim to want to free up the ground up organization of the people, your policies really focus on restoring those prerogatives to the elites, letting them decide whether they’re going to bother with doing things right.

It’s sold to many Republicans as putting power in their hands, but have you ever tried to get customer support on the phone to break their policies? And what good does spontaneous collective action do when the offenders have the vast majority of the market share?

Bottom-up action sometimes works. Sometimes you don’t need a government response to get things done. But there’s a difference between watching for the opportunity to see these outcomes play out, and insisting that there’s no other way to solve a problem.

My policy is to be flexible in either direction, and responsive to when one or the other works, or doesn’t work.

As for Alinsky’s rules? I heard something about Republicans employing those same “evil” rules. I mean, take number one:

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

What did the Tea Party due to build it’s strength? Well, it spread its followers throughout dozens of townhalls, even advising themselves to spread out within those meetings as well. Then you had Glenn Beck inflating those numbers for anybody who would care to listen to him.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Wow. I can feel the negativity just radiating off of it! Hair raising evil!

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Holy Crap, how could he get away with suggesting this? This is a vile obscenity of a rule that must be stamped out, lest more innocents be corrupted!

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

This basically describes what you’re trying to do every time you try and turn people’s support for Clinton against Cain’s accusers. This what you’re trying to do when you make offers of bipartisanship, but then refuse to compromise on anything. Long story short, this is what Republicans have been trying to do with Obama from day one, using his attempts to come off as a post-partisan president against him.

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Ah, your people haven’t ridiculed Obama at all, or the Democrats, especially as you blocked their legislation time and again. Your people don’t call him Obambi or Obummer, or any other insults of that kind, right?

I’m not going to claim my side is angelic in this regard, but two sides in a political fight ridiculing one another to provoke angry and unthinking responses is nothing new, and your side cannot claim that this particular evil doesn’t exist in its ranks, not by a long shot.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Wow. That’s just prince of darkness level thinking, don’t you think?

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

I tell you what, the eldritch abomination that is this rule has me bleeding out the ears. Or maybe that was the airhorn I just set off in my own ear.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Good thing that the Tea Party never did anything like that. That would be evil. Wrong.

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

Good thing that the Republicans never did something so awful as threaten something truly awful.

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Well, at least you’ve preserved yourself from this particular rule.

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

Yeah, you haven’t done this with anybody. Not BARACK OBAMA. Not NANCY PELOSI. Not even SAUL ALINSKY.

Kind of changes things when you actually see what these monstrous rules actually are. You convince yourself that you’re fighting some monstrous evil, you build up this legend about what Saul Alinsky was and what he was trying to do, and then you demonize the rules he created…

…even while you follow many of them in your own efforts to quickly grab back power. Isn’t it interesting?

It’s easy to see a world of heroes and villains, to see a fight between good and evil, and in doing so fail to see that your adversaries aren’t such monsters or fools as you would like to believe.

This is the big problem of the GOP nowadays: it’s got such stunning blind spots when it comes to understand just how much like its competitors it is, if only for the fact that they’re just as human as their counterparts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 13, 2011 2:14 PM
Comment #331942


I don’t believe in handing wads of money to “job creators” That is a Democrat/Obama strategy, as in Solyndra etc.

Of course, I do favor policies that allow people to keep more of the wealth they create, so that they can create jobs. I know Democrats like you think the government owns everybody and everything and so NOT taking it means the same to you as giving it. Sort of like the “generosity” of the crook who lets you keep half the money in your wallet.

Re “elites” - it depends on what you mean. In any situation there are always a few who understand better and so form a leadership. This will be situational. You know more about some things than I do. If we were in a situation like that, I would be wise to look to your leadership. You would be elite.

So I do advocate letting those close to the problem and with the most knowledge of it make decisions that affect them, with a minimal interference from political authorities.

“have you ever tried to get customer support on the phone to break their policies?”

Why should they change their policies for you? You have the option of not buying. It also depends on how you ask. I get lots of stuff I don’t “deserve” just by being nice and asking the right ways.

Re Alinsky’s “rules” - some work. Give the old fart credit. It depends on what is going on around them.

The Tea Party is just very numerous. You would expect them to attend town hall meetings, for example.

Re Clinton and sexual harassment - we are not asking Democrats to live up to high standards. We know that is impossible. What we are pointing out is that Democrats who accepted Clinton’s activities have no right to be shocked by unproven accusations against Cain, which are much less important.

BTW - I think many charges of harassment are BS. But if you believe in those things you have to apply the standard evenly.

Posted by: C&J at November 13, 2011 3:59 PM
Comment #331944

Stephen, just because you want to admit you were stupid by defending weiner, don’t expect me to do the same. When you have proof that Cain did something wrong, then you can ask me. With Weiner, Spitzer, and Clinton; there was physical proof. With cain itis no more the he said/her lawyer said. But even after your humble confession, the liberal kicks back in and you continue to bad mouth Breitbart. That kind of dismissed the confession. “I was wrong…but he was wronger than me”. Childish…

Posted by: Frank at November 13, 2011 4:11 PM
Comment #331955

Frank: “Alinski priciples were and are designed to destroy America. If liberals want to follow these principles then liberals also want to destroy America.”

It’s not political correctness that is your problem but overall correctness. Once somebody argues your politics are designed to destroy your own country then there is really no refutation to such nonsense and the discussion is over.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 13, 2011 5:50 PM
Comment #331956

I simply explained why I believed a con job was more likely than him being right. But, despite that belief, despite what I felt was likely, I was wrong.

As for proof? Look, some people like you won’t even accept a long form birth certicate as proof. Do you think that lobbying group that Cain was CEO was in the business of cavalierly handing out settlements to women who couldn’t prove their cases?

If you want to cry “liberal bias” every time somebody levels an accusation at a Republican, be my guest. You’ll do a good job of helping me convince others that you’ve got a strong bias in the other direction. Fact is, though, your fellow Republicans can fail to be good people, just like my fellow Democrats have.

There was reason for me to doubt Breitbart in general, but I should have been more restrained in my support for Weiner. I regret it.

You? It’s revealing that you say “admit you were stupid”, as if being stupid is always the problem with folks believing somebody they shouldn’t. Nah, people can believe folks they shouldn’t because they’re too caught up in the political game to see the facts clearly, or because the source is somebody they find distasteful, or undependable.

Your arguments aren’t persuasive. This isn’t a court of law, so you can’t simply deny that this looks bad- public opinion doesn’t work like a court of law.

I’ve admitted I was wrong about Clinton and Weiner. I felt gut punched after defending both of them for so long to find out they had let us defend them despite their having done the deed. It made me look silly both times.

I think it’s important to compare our different arguments.

You bring up my defense of Anthony Weiner as a way to tell me to shut up, essentially by saying that I defended a guy who didn’t deserve it, so who am I to talk.

Only problem is, I admit my error, acknowledge it fully. I’m not trying to shut you up on them, the way you are me. I’m trying to burst this little bubble of victimized martyrdom you’ve raised around him, saying that in similar circumstances, when I said similar things to you and others, my dogged faith in them did nothing to change their real guilt.

Then I pointed out that there were quite a number of Democrats who did shameful things, folks I didn’t go out of my way to defend them, as I learned the facts about them and decided they were likely guilty and not deserving of a defense. And these were people, sometimes, who I had liked, even admired at turns.

Why do I have that preference?

The sooner you allow yourself to admit that your leader’s behavior falls short of your standards, the sooner you’ll actually be doing something about it. The Republicans have crappy candidates because their reaction to those who point out the bad qualities of their favorite candidates is to deny such things and turn the attacks back on those making the accusations. It makes some kind of political sense to encourage this in a party, but it leads to people who actually did such bad things ending up free to continue such behavior.

Long story short, it may hurt my party short term to lose a Murtha or a Rangel, but if they’re corrupt, if they’ve dones something terribly wrong, it won’t help me to embrace them more closely.

You are right in that both sides of this debate have handed folks money in the hopes of stimulating the economy. Bush did that multiple times.

We, though, did it directly. To get the money, you had to do a certain thing. To get the money, you had to hire a guy. To get the subsidy, you had to accept a trade in from a customer looking to get a higher fuel economy car.

Your side? At best the goals of most of your policies were simply to leave everything in the hands of the so-called job creator. They didn’t actually have to do the job, so to speak, to get the reward. An incentive offered without a requirement isn’t an incentive, it’s a gift.

We require something out of those we provide something to. You cite Solyndra, but I wonder if I would site that program, given the fact that Solyndra is it’s only real failure. I would also wonder about the wisdom of doing that, given the fact that this program started not only under the Bush Administration, but under the Republican Congress. Several of the people getting all high might about it actually voted for it.

I guess we should add this to the long list of policies that Republicans have decided to reject or make notice of the problems of in the wake of the transition from the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. Interesting that your side can so eagerly attack it’s own policies as a way to scapegoat and attack the Democrats.

Interesting, but not terribly consistent in principle. There doesn’t seem to be a lot consistent about what Republicans stand for these days other than the need to compete with and defeat the Democrats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 13, 2011 5:51 PM
Comment #331958


Bush grew government too much. Obama grew it even more. It is the wrong thing to do. So Republicans did it too. I see that. I also see the solution is to STOP.

I mention Solyndra because that is a big one with half a billion dollars in losses. But the whole green jobs has been a bust. We spent billions and got nothing. Not everybody actually stole the money, like they did at Solyndra. Mostly they just wasted it.

Re giving money - you really do not see the difference between letting people keep & control more of the wealth they create and giving them money?

Here is a personal example. I do forestry. It requires thinning, replanting, fertilizing etc. If I make a profit on my trees and the government takes less in taxes, I can reinvest or use the money. My business. Say I “save” $1000 on taxes.

Now consider an OWS guy. He is producing nothing. If the government gives him $1000 do you really think this is the same thing from anything but a cost accounting perspective?

You really believe the government owns the people. I believe the people own the government. You believe everything is a gift FROM government to the people. I believe government is something the people create and everything government has is a gift from the people.

Your system is one that is good for serfs, slaves and dependents. Mine is made for free people.

I think I know my business better than the politicians. You think the politicians can make better decisions than you do.

How can you trust the political system so much, when you KNOW that it will be controlled by Republicans about half the time?

Posted by: C&J at November 13, 2011 7:09 PM
Comment #331959

BTW - Solyndra has taken its webpage down, but the summary still comes up on Google. This is what they said:

Solyndra | Clean and Economical Solar Power from Your Large …
- Block all results
Solyndra’s solar power solutions offer strong return on investment and make great business sense. Our cylindrical technology was designed for the rooftop and …

Like most liberal dreams, it reads better than it is lived.

Posted by: C&J at November 13, 2011 7:11 PM
Comment #331964

Stephen, it’s commendable that you would admit Clinton and Weiner were sexual deviants; after the fact. But please don’t ask me to side with the MoveOn, Huff Post, Kos or Politico’s blame game with no proof. It will take more than a he said/lawyers said for me to condemn Cain. And evidently I’m not the only one who feels this way. The funds just keep coming in for him.

Posted by: Frank at November 13, 2011 8:37 PM
Comment #332032


“Why would you confer such special treatement onto a president that they don’t deserve?

Um, let me think…

Didn’t Ford pardon Nixon so that he wouldn’t face prosecution for his crimes after he was impeached?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 15, 2011 10:32 AM
Post a comment