By ByteMe

November 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Hmm.. 27% approve of Bush and 25% disapprove of Obama. I get where those are mostly the same people.

By Joey

November 10, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

A poll by any other name is still a propaganda device.

Less that one week ago there was a poll where just over 50% of US voters chose Obama. In that poll over 25% of voters stayed home. Yet today Gallup says Obama is favored by 70%.

Didn’t Gallup finish out of the top ten is polling accuracy on Tuesday?

By leni

November 10, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this

Just saw the pix on my Times. That Michelle is a big woman.

By GodHatesTrash

November 10, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

George W. Bush, lowlife.

By Bosch

November 10, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

I like the pix they have of the two on the home page at ajc.com - Bush, dark in the shadow, Obama in a beam of sunshine - talk about your traditional good vs. evil symbolism.

By Just_Me

November 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

Off topic

Martin Eisenstadt, one of the Mc-P aides has come forward to claim the comments Palin is trying to downplay. Additionally, he warns her, “But Sarah… careful what you ask for: some of us may have more to reveal.”

and to steal good Ol Andy’s preferred method of delivery…

*” Did we outright give her a geography quiz when we started the prep? No, of course not. But yes, in the context of the prep, it slowly became apparent that her grasp of basic geo-political knowledge had major gaps. Could she have passed a multiple choice test about South Africa or NAFTA. Probably. But it was clear that she simply didn’t have the ease of knowledge that we come to expect from a major party political candidate. Other slights came up, too: Not knowing the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas. Or the difference between the Shiites and Suni. Or when it came to international terrorist organizations, knowing that the IRA was in Northern Ireland, and ETA in Spain.

The real thing we had to constantly remind her was to never, ever compare herself in any way to Hillary Clinton, as she had at her announcement speech. We had it on good authority that Biden was prepping to unleash the inevitable line, “I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine. And Sarah, you’re no Hillary Clinton.” Alas, Biden would have been right.”*

BTW: he states that he is proud of being the leak…he probably realizes he’s done us all a favor and sleeps better at night.

I guess Palin can try to call him an unprofessional jerk, and coward to his face…but I doubt it….sounds like there’s a LOT more to share…

http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/11/10/eisenstadt-the-source-for-sarah-palin-africa-leak-and-proud-of-it/

By .......throw Saxby out

November 10, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

Bush can’t wait to turn over the Huge Mess he has made. Obama has a lot of uneccessary problems to solve because of the Worst Administration since Herbert Hoover. Clinton left office with a surplus and Bush screwed up the whole country with 8 YEARS of STUPIDITY.

By "The Corporal"

November 10, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

Obama’s ratings will probably never be so high once he takes office and has to start making tough decisions.

As one of his transition staff members said recently, “he can’t wait to rule (oops, she meant govern).

By "The Corporal"

November 10, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

By the way, has anyone heard from the Clintons lately ? We all know they really wanted Obama to lose.

By Just_Me

November 10, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

Saxby keeps running a recycled ad, how “Martin is going to help Obama raise taxes.”

In the interest of getting along with a Democratic majority (in both houses, thank you) and a dem. President, how does this show Saxby’s willingness to reach across the aisle?

By propagating something that even independent economists have repeatedly said isn’t true? (factcheck.org-lovely place, visit it sometime..you know, it is part of the annenberg foundation, from that Liberal bastion Walter Annenberg).

I do know people who voted early and voted for Saxby. They said they will NOT vote for him again.

And, once again, it looks as if I am filling my eldest’s gas tank again, so he can come home and vote. he is skeptical of the presidential elections (electoral college negates votes), but believes strongly in voting in local elections.

By getalife

November 10, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

The base are loyal.

Lets see if the Dems stab the Obamas in the back like they did the Clintons.

By Just_Me

November 10, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

Corporal, Once again, you are just woefully wrong.

While the Clinton’s may not-esp. at the beginning-Obama’s biggest cheerleaders, trust me, they loathe the Republican party even more.

That, if for no other reason, is why they would have NEVER have pulled the lever for Mc-P…

btw: my brother is an ex-marine-wished him a happy 233rd.

Tempted to wish the same to you…but not too sure if you’d be willing to reach across the figurative aisle her to take it.

By "The Corporal"

November 10, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

To Bosch

Go to “Truth Even More Important in Wartime” @ 2:26 & 2:29. Let’s keep it over there.

By RB from Gwinnett

November 10, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

Did Gallup happen to mention where Pelosi’s congress was in the favorable department? Just curious…

I don’t suppose you put any thought to how O got 52% of the vote yet has a 70% favorable rating did you? Maybe a sampling problem or perhaps the way the questions were asked? Seem illogical to take the numbers as gospel as they are while still in the shadows of the election last week.

But why would we expect Jay to question anything about his annointed one?

By Dennis

November 10, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this

From the AJC Op-Ed Page.

Based on a study just completed by a Liberal Institute of Higher Learning, it turns out that Liberal Institutes of Higher Learning are not “hotbeds of liberal indoctrination.” And Maureen Downey concers.

Who could have guessed this outcome?

By SL3

November 10, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

And what is the approval rating of congress? Let’s see how high Obama’s rating is in a few months since everything will be his fault after Jan 20. This would only be fair as everything is Bush’s fault right now.

By TN Gelding

November 10, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

ByteMe

November 10, 2008 4:01 PM

And all of them congregate here.

By Eric1

November 10, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

Eric, please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you.

Jay

By getalife

November 10, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

Well, we can count on the 25% base will never be “real Americans” thinking “country first” and support their President.

By Bosch

November 10, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

Corporal@4:34,

In case you haven’t noticed, I haven’t addressed you any where but over there.

Or is that some kind of weird Marine code?

By Domi Nation

November 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

Lol! The election just answered that question!

America LOVES Nancy Pelosi! The House just picked up 20 seats!

Democrats- 256

Republicans- 175

By Dusty

November 10, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this

Why doesn’t Bookman just say MEOWWW since this is the cattiest piece I’ve read yet. While the President and Obama are acting like people of character, the libs here are acting like two cats fighting on a fence. They couldn’t say anything good about President Bush if his approval ratings were 150..each sqawler trying to outdo the other.

Journalism here! NO!. It is more a gossip party where everyone decides who looks the best or had the most sunbeams (bosch even threw in a little witchcraft bit) or smiled the prettiest or danced the best around the May POLE.

What a shameful gang! Bush and Obama are working together which is best for the country. Meanwhile the most ordinary group of hicks stands on the side making ugly comments. Congrats, low lifes. You really show the world who are the UGLY AMERICANS in this era.

By Soixante huitard

November 10, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

I wonder, would anyone agree with me that there is one possible - though unlikely - route open to George Bush for an image rehabilitation (short of him moving to New Orleans with a hammer and nails and basically rebuilding that city by hand), that being a shift in popular opinion towards viewing him as a naive but likeable simpleton who was merely a puppet in the hands of more ruthless and scheming individuals such as Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld? Under this scenario, he might possibly come back and be seen as having had his heart somewhat in the right place despite being so badly manipulated by others.

Again, I’m not saying it would make much sense or that it’s likely, but it could be possible. Popular sentiments are hard to figure sometimes and who knows, maybe Bush could catch a break more than it seems now. (And of course I’m drawing a distinction here between scholarly opinion and popular opinion. Needless to say, as far as academic historians are concerned, that goose is cooked.)

By AJC/DNC Management

November 10, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this

“According to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Nov. 6-8, only 27 percent of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president. This contrasts with the 70 percent of Americans holding a favorable view of Obama….

Look, I don’t like denigrating my own country but we are 28th in the world as far as educational standards go, what do you expect?

The goony left wing media is just leading their sheep through life, Bad Bushie!!, “ahhh, isn’t barry the most lovely thing you ever saw, sighhhhhh. I wish he’d look at me.”

I have no fear of our future, the next four years are going to be so disastrous and disgusting that people will be begging for Bushie’s third term.

You can only lead your little sheeple so far before you get to the cliff.

Happy landing!

By GodHatesTrash

November 10, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

Frankly, 68, it’s anatomically impossible to have your head as far up your large intestine as George W. Bush has his and still have your heart in the right place…

By GMAN

November 10, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this

Ding dong the Bush is dead The wicked old Bush The Bush is dead Ding dong the wicked Bush is dead

By Dusty

November 10, 2008 5:27 PM | Link to this

Soixie,

As far as academic historians or professors are concerned, their reputations are about cooked. A few more academic superlatives like Ayers showing up and they can serve their tenure in Cuba. Let us hope the radical academic libs are decreasing as they don’t set good examples and the quality of education suffers.

George W.Bush building houses in N.O. when he has already directed millions there? Surely you jest?? NO, I guess not. Just another liberal on the loose, probably one of those academic ones at that.

History will catch on to Bush long before you lefty laggards have finished complaining. Lincoln and Truman are fine examples of the changes of history. There’s another change coming.

By Dusty

November 10, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this

GHT and GMAN,

Just say MEOWWW. That’s easier than the other junk you post.

By Soixante huitard

November 10, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this

I have no fear of our future, the next four years are going to be so disastrous and disgusting that people will be begging for Bushie’s third term.

Aren’t you confusing Obama with what was going to be the case under a McCain / Palin scenario?

By GodHatesTrash

November 10, 2008 5:36 PM | Link to this

Perhaps they were depressed over the election…

By AJC/DNC Management

November 10, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

Aahhh, yes, Bush is a “dunce:”

Yesterday on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s White House Chief of Staff said: “We have postponed dealing with an energy crisis since 1974. We had a crisis; we kicked it down the can… . We had a health care crisis… . These are, just taking those two examples, these are crises you can no longer afford to kick down the can. The crisis we have here, the American people know we have one… . You cannot afford now to kick those down the can any longer.” You can kick a can down the road, and you can flush something down the can, but “kick down the can”—a phrase Emanuel repeated three times—simply makes no sense.

You mean kick the bucket, right, what you want America to do?

By getalife

November 10, 2008 5:43 PM | Link to this

GA-SEN: Obama sending team to GA to ensure Martin victory

Support our President and elect Martin.

By GMAN

November 10, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this

Oh, I see a bright light at the end of this eight year long dark tunnel! Now all you wingnuts, leave the Wasilla Hillbillies alone. Just give them the clothes and let them return to their cabin in the hills!

By "The Corporal"

November 10, 2008 5:58 PM | Link to this

To Just_Me

Of course they pulled the lever for him but you know they wanted him to lose. That would have given her one more chance.

And yes ………. Semper Fi.

To Bosch

“Over there, over there, yes the Yanks are coming over there ….. “

By Soixante huitard

November 10, 2008 6:16 PM | Link to this

Krugman today:

the truth is that the New Deal wasn’t as successful in the short run as it was in the long run.

Amen.

I wonder how many family trees in this country have been forever lifted up out of their modest conditions thanks to mass education — I’m thinking here of the GI Bill — the positive effects of which are simply incalculable.

Three cheers for FDR.

To those who despise him - to the Norquists of the world - I say, may we have another!

And something tells me that we are gonig to get out way.

By TN Gelding

November 10, 2008 6:30 PM | Link to this

Soixante huitard

November 10, 2008 5:09 PM

Another way would be for him to embrace Obama and include him in the decision making process.

He could start by inviting him to the economic summit this weekend and introducing him to world leaders.

These are not normal times.

By Soixante huitard

November 10, 2008 6:32 PM | Link to this

the truth is that the New Deal wasn’t as successful in the short run as it was in the long run. Krugman

And one more thing on that point.

The FDR haters are well aware of this fact - and that is why one never ceases to hear movement conservatives’ hatred for his legacy which they well understand is the very soil out of which modern America grows. So it’s not exaggerating to say everything they dream of is predicated on reversing every single thing FDR ever did.

Well, 8 yrs. of George W. Bush might have been in this sense the worst thing that could have ever happened to movement conservative (boy do I sound like a Krugman groupie or what!) because it gave this country a good glimpse of what we would get under true movement conservative conditions where they were able to roll back every progressive advance that had been achieved over the last century. What we could get is just what we’ve got - stone age conditions, socialism for the rich and suck-it-up for the rest.

Expect to hear more of my ranting on this in the future.

The ‘baby’ is being drowned in the bath tub alright - just one that’s a little closer to Mr. Norquist’s heart than he expected.

We rejoice.

By RW-(the original)

November 10, 2008 6:34 PM | Link to this

teach,

Do you fact check the things you tell your students?

Since last we spoke of M. Thomas Eisenstadt - the hoax formerly known as Abrad2345 - he has been mostly quiet, limiting his blog posts mostly to a crpytic response to myself, as well as a post stating that he was changing his name to “Martin Eisenstadt,” possibly after being contacted by the real Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute.

By Greg Mendel

November 10, 2008 6:39 PM | Link to this

Bush’s approval down the drain for two years — and the wingnut cult is still seeing light at the end of the toilet.

By Soixante huitard

November 10, 2008 6:45 PM | Link to this

He could start by inviting him to the economic summit this weekend and introducing him to world leaders.

These are not normal times.

It would sure be an eye-opener wouldn’t it Gelding?

Woudn’t be a bad thing the old image, huh.

And of course he could also simply do it cause it’s the right thing to do, but then … that would presuppose that we’re starting out with a good faith belief in a common purpose that transcends party and ideology, and that there really wasn’t a larger ideological war being fought, wouldn’t it?

By RW-(the original)

November 10, 2008 6:51 PM | Link to this

Gelding,

President Bush announced an invitation to the summit to whichever candidate was elected when the summit was announced.

By TN Gelding

November 10, 2008 7:02 PM | Link to this

Join me in saluting another fallen warrior:

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Staff Sgt. Timothy H. Walker, 38, of Franklin, Tenn., died Nov. 8 in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to the 64th Brigade Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.

For more information media may contact the Fort Carson public affairs office at (719) 526-4143; after hours (719) 526-5500.

By Dusty

November 10, 2008 7:04 PM | Link to this

Oh no

I do believe Soixie has been teaching with Bill Ayers. Did you read his 6:32 close enough to catch the radical left scenario he posted about our country: What we could get is just what we’ve got..stone age conditions, socialism for the rich and suck-it-up for the rest.

Even you other far left libs should realize that is about as far left as you can get and not be fighting against our country. He/she says there will be more ranting. More against our stone age country? Indeed.

What is more amazing is the number of people trying, begging and slipping into our country so they can enjoy our “Stone Age”. Guess they hadn’t heard, unlike Soixie, how backwarda we are. But, I guess they are not as well educated as Soixie and Ayers who obviously dislike the USA. Wonder why they stay??

By GodHatesTrash

November 10, 2008 7:09 PM | Link to this

I’m stealing this from somewhere else on the internets, but this caption will work for Bookman’s picture:

President-Elect meets President-Reject

By TN Gelding

November 10, 2008 7:26 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

November 10, 2008 6:51 PM

Hat’s off to him if he did.

And it would be a mistake for Obama not to attend if he was invited.

Obama’s transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter confirmed the president-elect would not be attending the upcoming summit.

“As he said himself, there is only one president at a time,” she told reporters after Obama’s first post-election news conference in Chicago.

Earlier the White House confirmed it did not expect Obama to take a seat at the talks on November 15.

“We are in communication and coordination with them. I don’t know whether someone will actually be in the building. I don’t expect in the room,” spokesman Tony Fratto said of Obama’s economic team.

By Soixante huitard

November 10, 2008 8:10 PM | Link to this

radical left scenario

Radical left scenario?

Now Dusty, I’m glad the caterwauling has stopped and we didn’t have to call the fire department to get you down from that pole safely. I was getting worried there. But why would you come to such a rash conclusion as to suggest a ‘radical left scenario’, and, horrors, to accuse me of being a colleague of Bill Ayers? But that’s OK, Dusty, I’m sure you’re not meaning that as a personal attack but are just stressing something you feel strongly about.

But, Dusty, really, you remind me of our fine state rep Paul Broun, who actually went so far today as to suggest that our next President is a - shhh! - Marxist.

Can you believe that, Dusty, that he would leap to such a conclusion? I wonder on what basis he means that, do you know? I’m scratching my head.

But what takes the cake is the Gestapo security force assertion.

Is this what we really need Dusty? I mean, really. This seems like a real stretch and an unwelcome jumping to conclusions at a time when we need cooperation during thie transition to a new government. Wouldn’t you agree that’s reasonable Dusty ?

By Soixante huitard

November 10, 2008 8:23 PM | Link to this

But, Dusty, if you’ll allow me, what really gets by back up - to continue the feline metaphors - is the association our fine State rep, Mr. Broun, makes between Marxist and Gestapo, which, as a student of history, I have to take exception to.

Surely I won’t be wrong to assume that you, Dusty, are well aware that the Gestapo is a product of fascism, a movement of the Right, which lies at the opposte pole on the political spectrum from Marxism. And let us not get into a debate on the differences between state police oppression under Right-wing vs. Left-wing totalitarian - which I know you folks on the Right like to refer to in the same breath - but really, surely we’re not so poorly educated here in this state (to give a shout out to our friend Mr. Management) as to think that simply by being a Marxist that that means you’re bent on setting up police surveillance and the stripping of the basic rights of citizens, are we Dusty?

And surely you’re aware that there have been many respectable Socialists (who we might roughly call Marxist in their basic outlook) over the decades who have been perfectly decent public servants and hardly prone to donnnig brown shirts and taking to the streets with billy clubs (and I’m thinking here of people like Francois Mitterand). Would I be going to far, Dusty, to make such assumptions?

By "The Corporal"

November 10, 2008 8:26 PM | Link to this

Wise Words for Today …………

“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Abraham Lincoln

By GodHatesTrash

November 10, 2008 8:44 PM | Link to this

68, America’s brownshirts wore Confederate grey and white sheets, and most Caucasian southerners recall them fondly…

By GodHatesTrash

November 10, 2008 8:51 PM | Link to this

Good post corporal.

Young Mr. Lincoln was referring to the treasonous activities of John C. Calhoun and South Carolina’s Nullification Act - do you think decent folk will have to declare war on the South to resolve this issue?

Better yet, just go.

By "The Corporal"

November 10, 2008 9:05 PM | Link to this

To GodHatesTrash

Of course that is what he was referring to but in their generic sense the words are still applicable to today. Surely you understand that?

Similar to these ……….. :o)

“Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system.”

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 B.C. to 43 B.C.)

By Lee

November 10, 2008 9:14 PM | Link to this

Since y’all are frothing at the mouth about Lincoln, how about this quote:

I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.”

Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858

By Soixante huitard

November 10, 2008 9:16 PM | Link to this

Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system.

What a perfect load of gibberish from a second-rate philosopher and first rate big-mouth who ended up with his head on a platter for nice ladies to stick hair pins in his eyes.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going upstairs to listen to some Merle Haggard. A’hem.

By Soixante huitard

November 10, 2008 9:26 PM | Link to this

Correction: it was of course the orator’s tongue, not eyes, that the wife of Marc Antony stabbed, apparently haven been removed from the severed head.

Good night.

By GodHatesTrash

November 10, 2008 9:31 PM | Link to this

Ahhh, trashing Lincoln - Bookman’s blog once again attracts the SCVers, the Skinheads, the Aryan Nations, the Freepers, et. al.

I call them Dixie’s Dregs. With a few “good Germans” thrown in.

By GOP is gone

November 10, 2008 9:38 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Is’nt time for you to go eat something else?

By Soixante huitard

November 10, 2008 9:56 PM | Link to this

Dog days in the Bay Area for football, huh ?

By "The Corporal"

November 10, 2008 10:13 PM | Link to this

To Soixante huitard

I included Cicero’s thoughts because that basic concept (jibberish as you called it) was repeated by our founding fathers.

Basically, they feared an out of control electorate similar to one below (attributed to Alexander Tyler (1790).

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Alas, we have arrived !

By "The Corporal"

November 10, 2008 10:33 PM | Link to this

P.S.

Instead of all these bailouts why not just pass a law that individuals, businesses, banks and corporations no longer owe anyone any money? All is forgiven. There, problem solved and we can all start from scratch again.

By Soixante huitard

November 10, 2008 11:10 PM | Link to this

Instead of all these bailouts why not just pass a law that individuals, businesses, banks and corporations no longer owe anyone any money? All is forgiven. There, problem solved and we can all start from scratch again.

Sort of like rebooting the financial system.

But who would give the order?

It would be like pulling the power plug on the merry go round at the fair. Those left stuck at the top would not be a happy bunch. Might not be so good for public order.

By Soixante huitard

November 11, 2008 12:18 AM | Link to this

I included Cicero’s thoughts because that basic concept (jibberish as you called it) was repeated by our founding fathers. The founding fathers certainly took a little of this and a little of that. They were concocting a heady brew and drawing on things from varied sources.

I was just having a little fun with Cicero there. I’m not a big fan of Stoicism as a school of thought, though it has some insights. As a man, Cicero seems to have been a great lawyer and orator, but a hopeless wreck when it came to seeing the implications of what was going on around him during an extremely chaotic period in history. He didn’t fare so well, but then again, he wasn’t the only one.

By itpdude

November 11, 2008 1:13 AM | Link to this

I really think the only way GW Bush will be viewed well by history is if the Mid—East turns into a region of prosperity, democracy, and peace.

In other words, it’s somewhere between slim and none.

By ron

November 11, 2008 5:20 AM | Link to this

A smooth transition of power?On the surface,yes.

Soixante huitard———While it is certainly true that our representatives have voted to give large rewards from the Treasury to a few individuals,I am not so sure that could be attributed to democracy.The voters who have elected Obama in a democratic electoion that are hoping for a big reward from the treasury are simply delusional.

By Joey

November 11, 2008 6:57 AM | Link to this

Soix——

“The voters who elected Obama in a democratic election that are hoping for a big reward from the treasure are simply delusional.”

And yet they did vote for Obama. Wasn’t that was one of The Corporal’s points?

By bobfromcanton

November 11, 2008 7:15 AM | Link to this

I noticed an interesting stat in the AJC the day after the election. 98% of blacks voted for O. but it wasn’t a racist thing was it? I am guessing the 2% of blacks that didn’t vote for O where at that level of pay that will be taxed out of existence….

By CherokeeDave

November 11, 2008 7:43 AM | Link to this

JB: You never cease to be unimpressive with your “opines”. How about that fairness doctrine making sure that all opinions will need to be equal and balanced for “fairness”? In this case, if my memory is correct, CONGRESS’s approval rating is around or below “14”% but Oooooh you libs love to overlook that one don’t you. So Sad!

By barn

November 11, 2008 7:49 AM | Link to this

Obama should be ashame to come face-to-face with President Bush after being so disrespectful to the President of the United States for the last eight years, but most disrespectful the past two years. Obama is a disgrace to this country. Everyone will learn this before him term is up. A DISGRACE!

By Copyleft

November 11, 2008 7:55 AM | Link to this

So, pointing out how Bush’s policies have damaged the country is “disrespectful”? In that case, we need more disrespect, not less.

The disgrace is that so many millions of Americans, even after seeing all the damage that Republican policies have done, STILL stupidly chose to vote Republican yet again. We really do need to fix our education system…..

By BARN

November 11, 2008 8:03 AM | Link to this

To: President George W. Bush

Come on home Mr. President. Texan’s loves you.

By Soixante huitard

November 11, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

Ron: While it is certainly true that our representatives have voted to give large rewards from the Treasury to a few individuals,I am not so sure that could be attributed to democracy.

Agreed!

That’s for sure. An oligarchic coup if I’ve ever seen one.

The voters who elected Obama in a democratic election that are hoping for a big reward from the treasure are simply delusional.

I could certainly be proved wrong someday, but there’s a certain element that thinks this way and that is more or less permanent. But I’m prepared to say I think they’re far outweighed by those who feel a renewed (or why not, new) sense of pride in their country and are ready to take ownership in it as never before - in a constructive sense. (In other words, when I say take ownership I mean not as looters taking away possessions of a store but rather people working and acquiring a share in the store itself. A potentially good thing.)

By Soixante huitard

November 11, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this

So, pointing out how Bush’s policies have damaged the country is “disrespectful”? In that case, we need more disrespect, not less.

Well put, Cleft.

May the disrepectful tones be heard loud and clear from every rooftop!

Everybody together now ….

By Soixante huitard

November 11, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this

Hey, I’ve got one: weren’t there some whispers of Mr. Bush having trouble lining up funding for his big library? And wasn’t he given something like a brush off from potential publishers recently when they were approached about a memoir book deal?

So in light of all that, here’s an idea of how Mr. Bush can begin trying to rehabilitate:

He can start by doing the unthinkable - he can simply forego making any of the typical fancy post- presidential symbolic statements - building a library, etc. - in an effort to consolidate his legacy and instead he can come out and say something like: he will not lay the first brick in a presidential library until Iraq is peaceful and stable and functioning in at least a vaguely democratic fashion.

Then, as to a memoir, he could pitch it as a charity vehicle. And to really be bold, he could co-write it with a staunch but reasonable critic of his administration and write it in discussion form. Proceeds would go to helping the city of New Orleans.

I’m sure these rough ideas would have to be considerably hammered out and refined to be remotely workable, but what do you think, could he not at least win a little sympathy back by moving in this direction?

By gadem

November 11, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

A Georgia Congressman calls Obama a Marxist?!? When will the Republicans stop the fear mongering? When will the stop?

By "The Corporal"

November 11, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

To Joey

Thank you. They have their heads in the sand. Time will prove us correct but then it may be too late. The barbarians are at the gate !

By Soixante huitard

November 11, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

The barbarians are at the gate !

Yeah, how do things look inside?

Just kidding, couldn’t resist. :-)

By CommunistAJC

November 11, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

gadem, Obama studied under Marxists professors. He has never denied this when asked. Joe Biden could not answer a reporter in Floridas question about it. Obama Hussein has proposed a new “civilian security force.” Marx did the same thing. No one knows what Obama Hussein is really going to do. Just yesterday Obamas team said that he would be ready to RULE on day one. RULE? I thought elected presidents were there to govern, not RULE. Obama won for one simple reason. The economy. Nothing else. Once we get attacked again, which we will, because Obama has said NOTHING about what he plans on doing to protect us, we will all remember WHY we were not attacked under Bush. Oh, by the way, democrats used to be champions of free speech yet they are hell bent on curbing free speech. IE the fairness doctrine. Liberals are nasty and mean people. Your democrat party is going to eat itself in the next year or so. Trust me, liberals eat each other.

By gadem

November 11, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

CAJC, Bush endorsed the idea, so is your beloved Bush a Marxist as well? Please take off your tin foil hat because you look silly…

By cogitoergosum

November 11, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

CommunistAJC—- We WERE attacked under W’s leadership. Didn’t you hear? It made the news once or twice. 9/11 was, in fact, perpetrated during his first term. I do not assign blame to anybody in our government for it, but to assert that we are somehow safer now under Bush than we will be under Obama is LAUGHABLE!!!! I cannot think of single action undertaken by the current Administration that has made us any safer.

By TN Gelding

November 11, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

CommunistAJC

November 11, 2008 9:38 AM

Bush wasn’t out to lunch on 09/11?

By Say What?

November 11, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Obama is a Marxist.

Bush is a Fascist.

The radical right are fearmongering anti-patriots.

The liberal left are tree-hugging airheads.

There. Those insults should cover the field. Can we now get on to the MANDATE that Obama was just given?

By SkepticTank

November 11, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

So what if Obama is tested in his first 6 months in office. Bush was tested on 9/11, and it ended up being the worst attack on American soil in our history.

You simply cannot re-write facts…you can just spin them.

By "The Corporal"

November 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

To Soixante huitard

We are locking and loading ….. :o)

By misterearl

November 11, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

Treason

What the hell is State Representative Paul Broun thinking?

Who will have the courage to call him on his ignorant and inflammatory rhetoric?

Where are all the people who chant USA, USA, USA when you really need them?

By spankmonkey

November 11, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

Somebody double check me here, but here’s my tally up to this point in this blog:

47 Lib coments with 9 of those I would deem outright hateful.

27 Conservative comments with 11 of those I would deem outright hateful.

7 comments I can’t really detect a bent one way or another on…

By TN Gelding

November 11, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Shoot yourselves and spare us the insults.

By "The Corporal"

November 11, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

Just like we were when the hippy-dippies didn’t have the guts to come over those buses and try to burn the Whitehouse down.

Such a pity

By ron

November 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that everyone that voted for Obama is delusional,only the ones thart expect the big government checks.Then again,maybe they’ll get them and I’m the one that’s delusional.

In the never ending saga of the banks,I now read that a tax break has been cut for them where they’yy actually be paid to spend our money in a way that doesn’t benefit us directly.

Seems like if a bank buys another bank that is ailing,the buyor gets a taxbreak for doing such.The example given was Wells Fargo.They bought ailing Wachovia for 14 plus billion and they get a tax break worth 20 billion.We the taxpayer get to actually pay them 6 billion for accepting and spending our money.Talk about a win-win for one side and a lose-lose for the other.

By Emily

November 11, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

In the world of reality it will be low earning democrats that will suffer the most because of the spend like drunken sailors in the congress we have today. Instead of stopping the bleeding wound of spending like Bush did, this administraion will do just the same, spend and spend some more. Soscialism is cheap folks.But, you all can wear your Obama tee shirts…the commemorative ones, in the soup lines and the free holiday meals at Turner field.