• on a comment on Lieberman Roundup over 5 years ago

    Yes, he hasn't had a sex or corruption scandal, but he was a ruthless supporter of the Republican nominee and a ruthless critic of the Democratic nominee.  I doubt that many Democratic senators are viewing his 19-year service in the Senate with equal (counter)weight to his totally outrageous campaigning against Obama.

    Honestly, I can't comprehend your ambivalence on this issue.  Lieberman more than supported McCain.  He attacked Obama every chance he got.  I don't know how his being a Senate veteran, his being a professional politician, can redress his utterly despicable behavior.

  • on a comment on Lieberman Roundup over 5 years ago

    (Knowing full well that a Republican can't be given the gavel.  I was just making a point.)

  • on a comment on Lieberman Roundup over 5 years ago

    But doesn't installing a more rational committee chair serve the better good?  Who cares about being "vindictive" or whatever dramatic angle you prefer.

    Seriously, I'd rather trust Susan Collins (the Republican ranking member) with the gavel than Lieberman.

  • on a comment on Lieberman Roundup over 5 years ago

    "We can also look at his overall character, which appears to be an utter calculated ruthlessness in seeking his agenda."

    OK, so I take it that you'd be happy to see him lose his gavel?

    "... so few people in the know thought that Obama initially had a chance, and by the time he was a nigh-unstoppable juggernaut, Lieberman had already backed the wrong horse."

    Huh?  Backing the wrong horse is different from ruthlessly attacking Obama's character and readiness in a f*ckin' Republican convention.

    I don't know what your point is, really.

  • on a comment on Lieberman Roundup over 5 years ago

    The old paradox:  if you take Lieberman at his word, then he isn't fit to be chairman of Homeland Security, esp. at a time of crisis.  However, if you don't believe in anything Lieberman says, then what good is he?

    Why cast it as "revenge"?  How about seeing it as a simple realignment of leadership, after a decisive election?

    It's practical, reasonable, and justified.

  • comment on a post Lieberman Roundup over 5 years ago

    How can Obama be OK with a chairman of Homeland Security who thinks he's not ready to lead?  That he hasn't always put his country first?

    Heck of a time to placate so-called "moderates", when we just had a landslide rejection of the scare tactics that Republicans and Lieberman deployed in the campaign.

    Republicans don't trust Lieberman, and don't count him as one of them.  We has hell don't trust him.  Why keep this guy in a position of power?

    Lieberman has no credibility, and Obama will not alienate anyone (other than Lieberman) if he maneuvers to send him down.

  • comment on a post The Rehabilitation of Sarah over 5 years ago

    "She also comes off way smarter than the caricature of her ..."

    Well of course, she won't appear stupid in these interviews, because she no longer has to talk about policy and other things that require facts and some understanding of current events.  Instead, she's being asked soft-ball questions that require her to only appear "genuine" and "honest" to pass.

    To be able to recite the appropriate Oprah platitudes does not make one smart (or smarter).

  • So what is the point of your post, anyway?

    Nitpicking the lice in the data?

  • What you say, "You're right, he did increase in every measure possible,"  does not bolster your assertion that Obama has made inroads specifically among the evangelical community.

    Your baseless assertion, and your pathetic efforts to reestablish the power of the evangelicals in the national discourse, remains so, independent of my crassness.

    The fact of the matter is, the evangelicals are not a major constituency of this Democratic majority.  Arguing otherwise without any real numbers isn't productive.

  • comment on a post Obama's Economic Transition over 5 years ago

    Smart is back in vogue!

  • You're right.  Just a "Barack Obama is better than Bill Clinton" message.

    Which, as it has been discredited by responses here, is also totally pointless and unproductive.

  • comment on a post 365! over 5 years ago

    Sorry to break it to you, but the district that contains Omaha is abutting Iowa, which is blue this year too.

    So YES, it would be sweet to make inroads in Nebraska, but technically NO, it won't be a little blue square breaking the vast sea of red in the middle of the country.

  • Proof, please.

    Till then, your suspicions are unfounded.

  • Obama, having garnered a solid majority, seems to have improved across the board from what either Gore or Kerry achieved previously.  Therefore, blips like 3-4% in subpopulations, which are probably within the margin of error, tells you NOTHING.

    I bet Obama also increased support among "godless" people too.  How would you read such "raw data"?

    This is a stupid post.

  • comment on a post Why the 50 State Strategy Worked over 5 years ago

    The "50-state strategy", whatever that entails, could not have been effective without the prevailing economic climate in the red states.

    Don't tell me that the map has been redrawn because people in red states have seen the light of moderation and even liberal ideas.  Florida has approved to amend its constitution banning same-sex marriage and any kind of same-sex civil unions.  And there are a number of similar examples.

    If Wall Street didn't crash and if people's 401k weren't threatened the way they are now, your 50-state strategy would have been reduced to the usual local battles revolving around morality and fear.


Advertise Blogads