Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > May > 08 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USRush and the GOP crossovers
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
On the day after the two Democratic presidential candidates split victories, Barack Obama supporters — and talk radio host Rush Limbaugh — were quick to attribute her Indiana victory to crossover Republicans.
“If it hadn’t been for Republicans taking Democratic ballots,” said former Demo nominee John Kerry, an Obama supporter, “they likely would have won in Indiana too. There really is no masquerade now — Rush Limbaugh was tampering with the primary and the GOP has clearly declared that they want Senator Clinton as a candidate.”
Obama strategist David Axelrod attributed the margin to Limbaugh and to cross-over Republicans. And, indeed, there was some indications that Republicans were making sport of the Democratic division in an effort to prolong the fight. Obama does seem inevitable, largely because the Democratic Party can’t risk denying him the nomination and thus offending one of the party’s most loyal constituencies. About 90 percent of blacks vote Democratic, slightly higher for women than men, and in the primaries about 90 percent of black Democrats voted for Obama. If Obama’s denied the nomination and they sit home in November, Hillary’s toast. Oh, the mess of it all.
Pollsters and pundits have lined up to draw attention to the racial divide in voting — it’s quite obvious and certainly relevant to November — asking repeatedly how voters who consider race an important factor intend to vote in the general election.
In Indiana, according to media reports of exit polls, 13 percent of white voters said race was important in their vote — a group that presumably includes those who consider it either a positive or a negative factor in their decision. Of those, 49 percent said they would support Obama against McCain.
The more shocking number, however, is that of the large marjority of whites who said race was not an important factor, a third in Indiana and about 36 percent in North Carolina will vote for McCain or sit it out if Obama is the nominee. In Indiana, Republicans and independents could vote in Tuesday’s Democratic primary so some of the one-third of whites who intend to vote McCain in November could be Republican cross-overs. In North Carolina, though, registered Republicans couldn’t vote in the Democratic primary Tuesday.
Without doubt I’d prefer Hillary to Obama as President, assuming that John McCain blows it. She’s more seasoned. She won’t venture too far, in policy terms, from the polls. As the last few months have established, she’s tough and she can take a punch. She bounces back when she’s down. She won’t foolishly surrender our gains in Iraq because she’s wrapped up in slogans and buzzwords — change moving forward — unmindful of the consequences.
Obama, on the other hand, took three weeks to get to the right place on Jeremiah Wright. And I keep repeating this: He sat an listened to 20 years of anti-American hate preach before his perspective broadened enough for him to hear. He will surrender Iraq and I have no confidence that his judgment is sound on national security matters.
The point, really, though is that Republicans and those intend to vote for McCain in November should resist the temptation to play games in the Hillary-Obama race. Recent primaries and Hillary’s resiliance — her ability to take a punch — convince me she’d be the stronger nominee against McCain. Republican should’t help Democrats out of the mess they’re in.
But more importantly, either McCain or the Democratic nominee will be President next January. And if I can’t have the candiate that I think would be best for America, I’d at least like to have the second-best.
Comments
By Redneck Convert
May 8, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
Well, it looks like we might get one of Those People as our president. He’ll probably turn around and pick one of Those Other People for vice president, that Richardson fellow from “New” Mexico. Luckily up here in Forsyth County we haven’t had to deal with Those People much. For years we ran ‘em off. And now the only ones we got live in mansions in them gated neighborhoods. Heck we’ve done got so fancy up here, they’s putting gates on trailer parks if all the trailers is double-wides. Anyways, back to the election, it seems like Wooten has done give up on the godly Republican nominee and its now betting on that Clinton woman. I think he’d better get on the McCain bandwagon, or start planning a four-year vacation to Canada where they don’t have none of Those People.
Hope that other Redneck Convert from Cabbagetown or Dunwoody or somewhere don’t show up. I also hope Jim will call a plumber soon. Seems like everyday when I get ready to write my piece, the computer says Jim’s page don’t exist. Well, it does cause I done read it.
Oh well, have a good day everybody.
By RCH
May 8, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
A little off the subject. Fulton County sucks.You conserve water as the governor asked you to do and what thanks do you get. A rate hike. Instead of developing a tierd system to encourage you to save water, the Fulton county commission takes the path of least resistance and sticks it to you!
By jbmlaw
May 8, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I am aware of “Operation: Chaos.” Rush’s justification for his effort at mischief is “payback.” His analysis is that the wishy-washy moderates, who swing back and forth between voting democrat vs. republican, “corrupted” the GOP selection process. The ditherers united behind the most prominent nonconservative nonleftist candidate, leaving the many well-qualified conservatives to fight to a “Nash equilibrium” defeat. Thus the conservatives, having been shut out of their own party by the nonloyal and uncommitted, are morally justified in their effort to similarly screw up the other side.
I resist mounting my moral high-horse, although the Kantian in me says Rush is wrong. Rush is a “rules-utilitarian” (perversely, so are many leftists) and within his ethical framework he is acting consistently – as the opposition rewrote the rules, he is now following the “new” rules. The only ethical defense I would offer Operation: Chaos is that it would be fully reasonable for a conservative to vote in the opposing primary to defeat the “more dangerous” candidate. In almost every election, except the two Reagan elections, I have voted for the “lesser evil.” I think Jim’s analysis of the objective superiority of Hillary (vs. Obama) argues a reasonable justification to vote in the primary of the other side. The calculus is similar to one I would have applied in a Cynthia McKinney election, to vote for any more competent candidate. I think that places me in agreement with Jim Wooten (based on his ending sentence) although I’m not sure.
I disagree with Rush’s core analysis, re: why McCain? The early primaries were held in nonconservative states (excepting only South Carolina, where McCain’s military history was a significant factor. Florida is not a conservative state.) Momentum flows with the nonconservatives in such a scenario. I do not blame insidious middle-of-the-roaders for the fact that we are stuck with Captain Queeg; rather I fault the voting order of the states.
Karl Rove today, in the WSJ, offers a differing perspective. He believes Obama is more beatable than Hillary, due to ideology, and thinks Obama’s ascent improves Republican prospects. He also offers his view that McCain is the best possible candidate that the Republicans could field this year. One may enjoy viewing Rove’s electoral map analysis, although I think there are few surprises. The most significant difference between the two candidates is the Rovian view that Florida would be Hillary’s state, but that McCain takes it big against Obama. That alone may be the difference between democrats re-taking the White House and republican retention.
By Redneck Convert
May 8, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
Well, old Rush kept the Clinton woman in the race so she can keep blasting this Obama and soften him up for the November kill. But the good Republicans of IN had a awful time following old Rush’s order. I saw somebody say on Fox News about 20 percent of the votes for Clinton was from Republicans but the Republicans that voted in the librul Democrat primary in IN split 52-46 in favor of Clinton. I reckon after all the years of hating the Clintons so much the Republicans got in the booth and had a mighty struggle with the Devil. Some of them just couldn’t bring theirselfs to vote for a Clinton no matter what and they forgot all about what old Rush told them to do.
But the most worst part is I read somewhere she won’t pull out unless Obama gives her the VP spot and pays her back the 11 million bucks she lent her campaign. So she’s standing on a stool and got him by his testackles and saying she will jump off if he don’t pay up. He must be fit to be tied. The longer she stays in, the longer he gets smeared with all kinds of stuff. And if she ever gets to be VP this Obama’s days are numbered. Just look at what happened to Vince Foster and all the other people that got in the way of the Clintons. So Obama got a choice, keep getting blackmailed or cave in and wait for the Clintons to lower the boom on him. I reckon Obama better learn to sing soprano.
Anyhow, it looks like Rush and the other people can’t make up their mind. I was listening to Sean last week in the beer truck and he had a Sink Obama campaign going. Now he’s switched to a Sink Clinton and Sink Obama campaign. I figure the librul Democrats have it coming. If they are stupid enough to let Republicans vote in the Democrat primary, one of these years they will have a nominee that’s a gay child molester with AIDs that’s a atheist and looks like Isama bin Ladin. Us Republicans will see to it.
Have a good day everybody. And be sure to call your Mama this weekend. I wish I could call mine.
By Don Corleone
May 8, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
I hear the Winnepeg Gazette is a fine newspaper, Jim.
By Taxpayer
May 8, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
I’ve voted Republican since Carter. No more. I’m fed up with this new Republican party. My new slogan: “This GOP is NOT for me”. Vote Ron Paul or Bob Barr.
By ron
May 8, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
Good morning Jim,Your words echo the thoughts that are running through my pea brain at the moment.Were I a voter,I could vote for either McCain or Hillary.I don’t believe that Hillary is anywhere near as radical as she’s made out to be.Obama,on the other hand has been listening to Wright for 20 years.I keep reading about Black Liberation Theology and his church.Interesting.
As for Rush,let him do as he pleases.He thinks Hillary is the easy mark and Rove thinks it’s Obama.One of them is wrong.
One thing for certain,we’re all in for a rough 4 years.We won’t be listening to Condoleeza Rice saying peace is possible in the Middle East.So is space travel,it just isn’t gong to happen any time soon.
By claucworc
May 8, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
I am a Democrat, and I agree that the Democratic party needs Jesus….but so does this country.
If McCain is such a standout Presidential figure, why has he never gotten the nomination in all his previous attempts?
Obama steps up to bat for the first time, sets fundraising records, wins in states that are not demographically profiled for him to win, and now everyone insults the intelligence of his support base as being wowed over by nice speeches?
Obama is both this party’s, and this country’s best hope; in spite of his some of his past unsavory alliances. At least he wasnt shaking hands and wining and dining the Taliban a few years before they decided to help take out the twin towers. Which is more of a threat to this country, a bitter ex Marine minister or a radical government faction?
Please remind me again who has the more “unsavory” alliances?
By blady
May 8, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
“He sat an listened to 20 years of anti-American hate preach before his perspective broadened enough for him to hear.”
Have you heard all of Rev. Wright’s sermons? Have you heard the entire sermon from which snippets were played on cable TV? I doubt it! Barack Obama SHOULD NOT be held responsible for the words of his pastor—period! And if that’s the new standard, how about holding McCain responsible for Hagee, who called the Catholic Church, “the great w*******”. How about the words of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who both blamed 9/11 and Katrina on homosexuals, abortionists, feminists, and A.C.L.U. lawyers? How about Robertson’s public suggestion that the U.S. government kill Hugo Chavez? McCain openly courted the endorsements of this preachers and the news media lauded his efforts. Yes, Hagee, Robertson, and Falwell are not McCain’s pastors; but he has embraced them, and by your new Obama-Wright standard, must agree with their every utterance — correct? Look hard, do you see a double standard?
By Lily Toad
May 8, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
Jim, all you’ve got to object to Obama is his preacher? You hear a sound bite and jump to the conclusion that Rev. Wright preached against America for 20 years? Keep on repeating it because the more people hear it the more irrelevant it becomes.
By George Washington
May 8, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
Only fools listen to and take orders from the FAT “former” drug addict…Druggies will tell any lie to git their next fix, be it physical or mental…and FAT boy rush is no exception…..Operation Chaos sounds like something from the tv series “south park” with butters in the role of Professor Chaos aka Rush Fat Boy druggie, imho…
By Craig
May 8, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Counselor I always wonder why anyone pays attention to the good Mr. Rove anymore. He pretty much singlehandedly destroyed the Republican “brand”.
Jim your column today is pretty good. I think the “law of unintended consequences” might apply here. I would only vote for someone I really believed in - trying to “game” the system usually doesn’t work.
By Copyleft
May 8, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
The far right is TERRIFIED of Obama… they’ve been doing opposition research (read: digging for mud) for better than a year now in a desperate attempt to discredit him.
And when that failed, they invented something: “outrage” over Rev. Wright. And even THAT hasn’t stopped Obama, who’s made a fantastic comeback.
Get used to it, fascists; Obama IS our next president. America’s sick of you and your failed Bush-style agenda.
By goober
May 8, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
Here’s the funniest part of all of this … black voters are lining up behind Obama because they hope they are going to put the first “black” person in the president’s office. But, wait! Obama is half-black and half-white. So what blacks are really saying with their vote is, “We accept that a 100% black man cannot get elected president, so we’re willing to settle for a half-black man, because the media will conveniently continue to report that he is black, not half-black. So our bondage continues, this time self-imposed.”
By Dennis
May 8, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten writes, “[Obama] sat an listened to 20 years of anti-American hate preach before his perspective broadened enough for him to hear.”
But, he heard, Mr. Wooten. He heard and denounced.
“[Obama]will surrender Iraq and I have no confidence that his judgment is sound on national security matters.”
Obama’s “judgement is [not] sound on national security matters”, but the judgement of George W. Bush is?
The judgement of George W. Bush by the American people is that George W. Bush is the worst president that this country has ever had.
Hey, Mr. Wooten….Hellooooooooooooo. Anybody home……..?
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Anyone But Hillary
May 8, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
I don’t listen to Rush but I have crossed over a few times and voted democratic. I did it to vote against Cynthia McKinney a few years ago and I voted for Obama earlier this year because he’s going to be the weaker candidate in November and easier for McCain to beat. Hillarity Clinton appeals to some independents and moderates and is, therefore, a stronger candidate. Obama has no appeal to the majority of Americans. He might win Illinois but he’ll be another Mondale losing the other 49 states. I also lie like a rug to the pollsters whenever I’m asked who I vote for and why. I like to watch their embarrassment when they’re so far off with their predictions.
By jbmlaw
May 8, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
Dear Craig @ 10:24, the answer to your question is obvious if you read the article. Like him or not, he is an analyst on a par with Dick Morris. I don’t understand why you leftists dislike Rove. His utilitarian ethics are indistinguishable from those of the left, he simply plays to win, truth and decency notwithstanding. I know why I don’t like him, his lack of conservative principles. You do not have that excuse.
By reebok
May 8, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
So Rush Limbaugh, Drug Addict and Moral Voice of Reason to Dozens, wants Obama as the Democratic nominee, does he? Somebody should tell Jabba the Hutt to be careful what he wishes for, because Obama will make McCain look like what he is…an old tired geezer.
By Craig
May 8, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
“you leftists” huh?
How quickly you jump to conclusions. I didn’t say I didn’t like him, just that he has damaged the Republican party.
“truth and decency” indeed.
By casey
May 8, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
Even Rosie O Donnell and Donald Trump can agree on one thing, that Bush is definitely the WORST President in history. It make me proud that the GOP is peeing in their pants over a probable loss in November. Who cares what that fat drug addict Rush thinks or says.
By casy
May 8, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
That’s the problem with you GOPs, you all lie like a rug.
By US_Voter
May 8, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
I, for one, do not have a problem with the race, nor the gender of a presidential candidate. I am a Georgia-born and raised White Male. I voted for Barack Obama. Not because he is half-white/black, not because he is a liberal (all three are liberal, in a sense, and I didn’t vote for him because he is a man. I have no problem with a woman being president, I just have a problem with THAT woman being president. Go back and read your world history. Read about what type of government they have in Venezuela, had in Yugoslavia (before the break up) and like they had in the former U.S.S.R. THAT is where this country will be headed is SHE is elected president. She will “take from YOU for the common good.” In every election, since I was old enough to vote, I have had to make a choice of the “lesser of two evils”. In this case the lesser of two (or three) evils was Barack in the primaries and will be McCain in the general election.
By Enigma
May 8, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
I’m a good-hearted person, concerned about the present and future of America, someone who works hard and takes care of my own, belives in planning for my own future, and concerned about you and your rights. I vote Republican in national elections. I’m also concerned about the environment, the economy, and the plight of minorities. I believe these things will be taken care of no matter who is the president. It has worked on the state level (example: New Jersey had its largest successes against pollution and environmental destruction under Republican administrations). I cannot vote for a Democrat for national office because I don’t want to be taxed to death and I don’t believe in redistributing my income to someone who lays around all day. There are many of us out there - we are not mean-spirited, we don’t hate you for who you are, we believe in the best for everyone and work towards that goal. We just can’t vote Democrat. Hopefully, you understand.
By RightyTighty
May 8, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
I proudly voted for Obama in the primary, mostly in the hope of voting against him in Nov.
Does that mean republicans help Obama win Ga too??
By Doggy
May 8, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
It’s a jungle out there, and every man has to fight for his own survival. I don’t give a hoot how many people do without healthcare or don’t have enough to eat, provided my family is all right. And it’s not my kids being sent to fight in Iraq, so why should I care?
That’s why I’m a Christian Georgia Republican and will vote for McCain in November. Save all this junk about helping the poor, etc., for Sunday services. Not with my tax money you won’t.
By Glenn
May 8, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
PoFo, stop mumbling to yourself. You’re scaring the children.
By The Truth
May 8, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
Long live Rush Limbaugh. The more he can make democrats look stupid the better off we all are.
By John Q. Public
May 8, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
Jim, you’ve really out done yourself this time. Be afraid, my friend. Be very afraid. You old tired, holier than thou, hate mongering so called conservatives (which starts at Rush, Hannity, Hagee, McCain(?), Larsen, etc. and beyond), got it WRONG with W. Further, you’re style of politics by instilling ear and diviseness in this country are OVER. Never thought I’d see the day, but I’m happier for it. Now you attack a Reverend because you’ve nothing else to hold onto. Scary ain’t it? Rev. Wright has said no more than any of the people I just named. Wouldn’t you consider that ELITIST? Yeas, Jim… you’re about to be IRRELEVANT shortly. You and the rest of the political right… Goodbye and Good Riddance.
By getalife
May 8, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this
The whole stupid Dem process they call an election is a joke and waste of money.
Much ado about nothing and nothing will change.
By DK
May 8, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
Hey blady,
Did Hagee marry McCain? Did he baptize his kids? Did McCain sit in Hagee’s services on a regular basis? Did McCain ever say Hagee was “Like an uncle”? No. You Obama supporters are dreaming if you think you’ll be able to sell the line that Obama and Wright is no different from McCain and Hagee. As all of the candidates are endorsed by people that they hardly know, an endorsement is hardly proof of that the candidate is a disciple of the endorser. I’ll bet that this is the case with Hagee and McCain
I want to vote Democratic but I don’t think I can vote for someone that sat at the foot of a racist like Wright for twenty years, soaking up his racist rants. If he didn’t believe the garbage Wright spews, he wouldn’t have attended his church for twenty years (regardless of how he’s lying now to save his campaign). One simply needs to reflect on the remark made by Obama’s wife about never being proud of America prior to her husband’s campaign to understand that the Obama’s are in lock step with Wright’s beliefs. If Hillary doesn’t win the nomination, I’ll probably stay home.
By Ross
May 8, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
This sort of perversion of American democracy is so typical of the current generation of amoral opportunists, bigots, and morons. I reported “Chaos” to the FBI crime watch site. I know nothing will come of it, but it felt good to report on another felony from that drug-addled pig.
-drl
By Ross
May 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
This sort of perversion of American democracy is so typical of the current generation of amoral opportunists, bigots, and morons. I reported “Chaos” to the FBI crime watch site. I know nothing will come of it, but it felt good to report on another felony from that drug-addled pig.
-drl
By jbmlaw
May 8, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
I respectfully believe our leftist friends misunderstand the “bullfrog” issue. A single tiny dot on a large otherwise blank piece of paper can be seen from a long distance. Obama refuses to discuss his beliefs (yes, I know “change,” but change to what?) Until the American people have some grasp on his positions, the bullfrog will loom large, as an “indicator.” I believe unilateral surrender in Iraq will not carry the day, so we should anticipate some “change” there, too. Can you say “nuance?”
The “dots on the paper” is why nobody cares about Rev. Hagee, whoever he is. Whether you despise McCain or simply dislike him like the rest of us, McCain is a brand name known by all. Hagee is not a meaningful identifier, because there are already a lot of dots on the page
By Lily Toad
May 8, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
DK, you have absolutely no understanding of racism. What do you consider racist that Rev. Wright said?
By George Washington
May 8, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
Well, I have no faith in either the left or the right….but at least the left is concerned with the little guy, while the right only cares about low taxes for people like steve shaftman and his ilk….America has a BIG downfall coming, actually it is currently underway, and their is nothing either left of right can do to make it better…BUT there is a lot either one can do to make it worse….I just this morning moved another 10K into USO, and another 10K into powershares gold….Hint: your beloved dollar is well on its way to being wallpaper, of the cheapest variety. Tomorrow, I will move 10K into Total, and 10K into Eni….Much as I luv XOM, I fear uncle stupid will sieze most of the profits, and demand the rest be invested in stupid things like oil shale, electric cars, and windmills…I prefer my windmills on the stage with a funny little spanish guy singing…….Next I must figure out how to invest half a million Euro’s without converting them to dollars…Ah doesn’t want to create a taxable event….Oh yeah, the downfall….look for electricity to double in cost this summer, I enjoy thinking of you super patriots sweating in your offices and homes, for natural gas and home heating oil to double this winter, and transportation fuels to go up another dollar by labor day…..Art Cashin says credit card debt went up 7.5% in March, as people are charging more of their groceries and gasoline to plastic without paying off the total at the end of the billing cycle….I have for years charged all such purchase to plastic, but it is automatically paid in full from my checking account each month. People are not paying off the card now….but they are giving priority to monthly minimum payments on car loans and credit cards, at the expense of the mortgage, on the theory that it will take six months to foreclose on their house, and something good might happen in that time. Like this, Barney Foggot is pushing debt forgiveness, but then again it ain’t Barney’s money his forgiving…ain’t my money either, I keep my wealth well beyond the reach of all such thieves….
By DK
May 8, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
Nothing, Lily. It just seemed like something I’d heard someone else say before.
By ghost rider
May 8, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
DK You say this!
By DK
May 8, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
Hey blady,
“Did Hagee marry McCain? Did he baptize his kids? Did McCain sit in Hagee’s services on a regular basis? Did McCain ever say Hagee was “Like an uncle”? No.”
As you correctly state “No” is the answer to your points.
But, you fail to mention that McCain actively sought Hagee’s endorsement knowing his views.
Where, Obama did not seek Wright’s endorsement.
By Blind Homer
May 8, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
And today Rush is convinced Clinton would be the tougher opponent for Granpa, proving again that once you take too many drugs your mind never totally clears up. But it doesn’t matter anyway, the Dems are so pitiful they once again have found a candidate that can’t win what should have been a dunk shot election for their party. First the wooden cigar store Indian look alike Kerrey and now the black liberation theologist, proving they’re even dumber than Rush! The lesser of two evils is worse than ever this year, please vote for the third party of your choice and maybe one day we’ll get a real candidate.
By jbmlaw
May 8, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
Dear Lily @ 12:31, you will find your answer @ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120952079425155103.html?mod=opinionjournalfederation
By DK
May 8, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
Give me a break ghost rider, I’m just spreading the talking points, Bub.
By BuckheadBill
May 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Medical science has proven that abuse of drugs can cause double posting.
By Shar
May 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Dear jbmlaw@ 9:38 - A clarification of your analysis of Rush Limbaugh, if you please. The villans of the piece, in his and apparently your view, are people like me. I am not a member of either party, finding them equally repulsive. I listen, analyze and evaluate candidates seperate from party ideology as much as possible, and I vote for the candidate I think is best. Sometimes that is a Republican, sometimes it is a Democrat and sometimes it is a third party candidate.
It appears that this habit of independent thinking makes me “wishy washy”, a “ditherer”, “nonloyal and uncommitted”, an “insidious middle-of-the-roader.” Is it Mr. Limbaugh’s opinion that a voter with an open mind has no legitimate voice in the primary process? As the primary, very often, gives one’s vote the strongest impact, why should voters not be encouraged to make their best choice? Is disenfranchising moderate voices (who, after all, decide most American elections) in anyone’s interest?
Plus, while the farther fringes of the Republican Party might have preferred a Sam Brownback or Tom Tancredo, neither of these gentlemen was even faintly electable in a general contest overshadowed by enormous frustration and hostility toward the current, nominally conservative, Administration. Moderates did the Party a favor by stopping those candidacies early. The remaining candidates, comparatively moderate but for Ron Paul, either self-destructed (Guiliani) or were seriously considered and rejected (Romney). Had a conservative candidate truly been preferred, Mike Huckabee would have easily beaten John McCain when they competed head to head.
One of the most resounding criticisms of the Bush Administration is that they listen to no one who disagrees with them. Shutting out opposing viewpoints shrinks the base of support and marginalizes relevancy. The Republican primary process yielded the candidate most able to win in a general election, not the candidate most preferred by an absolutist faction that has bungled their time in power and alienated the great majority of American voters of all stripes.
Choosing a candidate based on perceived adherence to unbending party principles is a recipe for defeat in a general election. Just ask the Democrats - for years, they’ve been nominating candidates who carefully appeal to the approved and righteous subgroups, and who are soundly rejected by everyone else.
By madingo
May 8, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
Well, it looks like we might get one of Those People as our president. He’ll probably turn around and pick one of Those Other People for vice president, that Richardson fellow from “New” Mexico. Luckily up here in Forsyth County we haven’t had to deal with Those People much. For years we ran ‘em off. And now the only ones we got live in mansions in them gated neighborhoods. Heck we’ve done got so fancy up here, they’s putting gates on trailer parks if all the trailers is double-wides. Anyways, back to the election, it seems like Wooten has done give up on the godly Republican nominee and its now betting on that Clinton woman. I think he’d better get on the McCain bandwagon, or start planning a four-year vacation to Canada where they don’t have none of Those People.
Hope that other Redneck Convert from Cabbagetown or Dunwoody or somewhere don’t show up. I also hope Jim will call a plumber soon. Seems like everyday when I get ready to write my piece, the computer says Jim’s page don’t exist. Well, it does cause I done read it.
Oh well, have a good day everybody.
you are an ingrate and a c**
By jbmlaw
May 8, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Dear Ghost @ 1:00. Hagee is a single dot on McCain’s paper, where there are thousands of dots and none stands out. Wright it also a single dot, on Obama’s paper, but it is the only dot on the page; it stands out. The solution to your anguish is for Obama to put more dots on his own page.
By ghost rider
May 8, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
By jbmlaw
May 8, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
JBM … Do you need for me to tell you what to do with your “DOTS?”
By Blind Homer
May 8, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
Shar - Your 1:06 is probably the most intelligent post I’ve ever seen on this blog! It constantly amazes me that otherwise seemingly intelligent people can spew out total nonsense like “Cindy Sheehan is costing American lives” or “Obama’s church is not relevant to his candidacy” simply because they are the group-think party lines. Great job!
By Wavy Gravy
May 8, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this
Hey, man - all this talk about dots is givin’ me flashbacks, man. Remember - don’t do the brown dots, man.
By Winfield Scott
May 8, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
Aw, don’t go gettin too awfully swell-headed now Shar, cause my staff report three errors in your dispatch. Huckabee weren’t no conservative, just someone out to hustle the right-wing vote. Giuliani weren’t no moderate, but a heavy-hitting conservative unacceptable to “values” conservatives, the GOP Vice Squad. Romney got the scrutiny to describe, but got dumped because he turned out not to be two things he never shoulda said he was: a conservative and a Christian. And finally, you failed to mention the chickens.
By munchi
May 8, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this
Wavy…Hey, man did you just blow in from San Fran…COOL!
You remember those days of the ole brown dots, man?
The Dead, Airplane and tripping…Oh, man!
By getalife
May 8, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
It is the dems fault for this ridiculous process they call an election.
The spineless dems are running a failed Senator that has done nothing but write a pathetic ethics bill that is a joke and had one hearing on freaking war oversight.
They are running a radical liberal solely on his words.
Obama will join the long list of losers that dems have run to lose another presidential election.
Nothing will change but it will get worse.
By jasper
May 8, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
A November Lament:
I just moved my assets off shore, You won’t see my tax dollars anymore You voted for Obama Now cry to your Mama, That the rich didn’t get rich by being stupid!
By JP
May 8, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
For Obama, it comes down to this - if you really believe he hates America, based on his relationship with a Rev. Wright or Ayer, or not wearing a flag lapel -that’s your opninion, which you are 100% entitled to. I voted for Obama in the primary and in my heart don’t belive Obama hates America or is a racist. As for the general, I am still undecided as I like McCain too.
By dirty harry
May 8, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this
By jasper
May 8, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
Jasper…It seems you need some help in forming a coherent sentence!
With that said. How in the world do you have any assets worth sending “OFFSHORE”
By Wavy Gravy
May 8, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
My memory’s kinda hit-and-miss, man, but what I do remember is pretty colorful. Don’t forget Joni, Dylan, and Bubble Puppy, man.
By political arm hair
May 8, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
Remember the bowling and beer swilling. It’s the 2008 version of shorty Dukakis in the tank.
By Glenn
May 8, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
Hey Wavy! How’re things down on the Farm, man?
By Lily Toad
May 8, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this
JBM, why don’t you go to source materials, the NAACP speech, rather than an analysis of it? http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/wright.transcript/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail
By Taxpayer
May 8, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
I want to know why all the dang lawyers choose to sit in class and soak up all that leftist garbage for years on end. They should just get up and walk out of class and even picket the classes in order to expose all of the leftist ideals that the classes must accept in order to become “good” lawyers. Ditto for MBAs.
By munchi
May 8, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Wavy..my brain is shot too..Man!
Dude..You remember Bubble Puppy? WOW!
How about a little Quicksilver or anything Dylan has to offer.
I’ve got to go take a nap now…my nurse is calling.
Ah, Sh!t just fell out of my wheel chair!
By Winfield Scott
May 8, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
What’s the deal with the chickens, Wavy? Like, wowwww…
Wot?
By PanamaJohn
May 8, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
He’s the defender of the Constitution. See more at http://johnmccain.dominates.us and participate in the discussion.
By PanamaJohn
May 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
He’s the defender of the Constitution. See more at http://johnmccain.dominates.us and participate in the discussion.
By jbmlaw
May 8, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
Dear Shar @ 1:06, you ask a series of valid questions. I apolgize for slow response, busy afternoon. I do not challenge your personal decency when I question your ambivalent political principles. I agree with your antipathy toward partisanship, although my ideology leads me to vote with Republicans most of the time. I do not agree with your premise of “party ideology” – both major parties seem to me to ideologically impure. The split between our democrat friends is perhaps more visible at this moment – that leftism vs. pragmatism chasm existed before my birth, and I suppose will go on after I am a mere memory. The republicans are little different, except the better term may be ideological splinters (by my count: libertarians, deficit hawk, morals voters, pragmatists, anti-immigrants – maybe more.)
“Is it Mr. Limbaugh’s opinion that a voter with an open mind has no legitimate voice in the primary process?” I think that would be a fair summary of Rush’s view. He would surely suggest an analogy: if you favored opening the Baptist Church clergy to females, but you usually attend a Methodist Church, is it appropriate for you to attempt to shape the policies of the Baptist Church by attending their voting session? You admittedly have no interest in the well-being of either the institution of the Republican party or of the Democrat party; why should you choose their standard-bearer?
As to “disenfranchising” the ditherers, nobody is taking away your vote. You still have a vote in November. If each parties chose its candidate in a smoke-filled room, then presented the offering to the electorate, you would have no argument of disenfranchisement. Neither is a closed-primary “disenfranchisement.”
I think you overcredit moderates for the failure of the Tancredo and Brownback campaigns. To my knowledge neither ever ranked among the top five with voters. Worse, I blame moderates exclusively for the early (Iowa) success of the faux-conservative from Arkansas, as he was never seriously considered by those of us with some interest in the Republican party’s efforts. Only conservatives late uniting behind our fourth choice, McCain, kept Huckabee at bay.
The “resounding” criticism arises only within the vacuum of leftist brains. Any who would accuse the Bush administration of not listening evidently does not remember the slow walk to war (remember that it took more than one year to initiate hostilities after 9/11, only due to political considerations), the agriculture bill of 2002, the education bill of 2002, the steel import quotas. Had Bush listened to Republicans in each of those, the invasion of the Middle East would have begun 12/1/2001, There would have been no education bill, no agricultural bill, and no import quotas if Bush had listened to Republicans. The only less of “resounding criticism” is that only a foolish “conservative” would ever work a deal with leftists.
“Choosing a candidate based on perceived adherence to unbending party principles is a recipe for defeat in a general election.” Explain “Reagan 2004,” please.
By Taxpayer
May 8, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
How the heck does a “Republican” claim that his party’s 4th choice is McCain. If McCain is the last man standing after the primaries, then McCain is the “party’s” first choice.
By michael
May 8, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten,
Though I am sure you are well intentioned in your skewed and agenda filled commentaries, I ask that you pay close attention to the type of positive responses your column has recieved today. It seems as though you have given “hate speech” a home here on your blog. If this crowd of xenophiles and racists is your desired audience then kudos to you. Otherwise, the right thinking you claim to be doing is only inciting division and the mass perpetuation of ignorance. As an African American male of conservative leanings, your musings and those of your adherents are proof as to why there is no home for us in the Republican Party. Thus we are left to languish within the Democratic Party to choose the lesser of the evils offered. Thanks!
By jbmlaw
May 8, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
Dear Shar, a correction, my argument should have read “The only LESSON of “resounding criticism” is that only a foolish “conservative” would ever work a deal with leftists.”
By catlady
May 8, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
Seeing this blog reminds me of an outrageous quote from our Secretary of State, who says that identity verification is not needed for absentee ballots because you can see that more Democrats vote absentee than Republicans. If only she’d open her eyes and see you can’t consider the number who vote absentee in a partisan race to be indicative of how many are ACTUALLY Republican or Democrat. I mean, how stupid does she think we are? And in the general election, you don’t have to declare your party affiliation. With crossover voting on both sides (I have done it, too) you sure can’t tell who votes more often as absentee. Stupid or naive, which one?
By Wavy Gravy
May 8, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
Wow - some people talk some real serious sh-t here, man. Hot smoke and sassafras. Peace on the hog farm is what it’s all about, dude. Stay cool.
By catlady
May 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw or someone else: can you tell me why, after I voted ONE TIME as a crossover to the other party, I have been innundated with requests from that party for my input on terribly worded questions about my views on certain subjects? I mean, I thought the ballot box was sacrosanct, so how did they get my name as one of THEM?
By @@
May 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this
And if I can’t have the candiate that I think would be best for America, I’d at least like to have the second-best.
which is exactly why I voted for Hillary in the primary Jim so quit scolding!!! Everybody knows that democrats cast their votes based on emotion. Logic has no place in their decisions.
Rasmussen polled me yesterday via telephone. I was a black man voting for Obama - dressing him up only to leave him nekkid in the general.
“Poles” are only good for stringing barbedwire. They wanna separate the herds? let ‘em pay the price for having done so.
With each primary it becomes more evident that this election among the “oh so progressive” dems is all about race. Obama couldn’t even get that right….or wright….
Whatever!
By jbmlaw
May 8, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this
Dear Catlady @ 3:14, I cannot even explain why the state funds political primaries. It seems to me those expenses should be paid by the parties in toto. My best guess in answer to your question, is that parties are able to access identity of those who vote in their primaries. I think the “assurance of privacy” of your vote only prevents anyone other than you from knowing the name you wrote on the ballot.
By Jackie
May 8, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
Every one of you smells bad. So there.
By Curious Observer
May 8, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
Who cares that you Southern voters are going to vote for McCain? As another gomer, Gomer Pyle, would say, “Surprise, surprise!” You’ve been fighting the Civil War for 148 years and devoting the last half of it to finding polite ways to avoid using the N-word.
Nobody in the Democratic party is counting on the South for anything. The rest of us will elect Obama without you. Then you can continue to wallow in your culturally deprived backwater.
By dirty harry
May 8, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this
Rep. Vito Fossella (R- FAMILY VALUES) of New York acknowledged on Thursday that he fathered a child from an extramarital affair, answering questions that arose from his arrest on drunken driving charges last week.
The party of family values just keeps on giving!
By Glenn
May 8, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this
Wait. Wot? Wait.
Wot? So yer like. Wait. Whoaoooooooooo…
See ya later, Wavy ~~~
Peace.
By Thor
May 8, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
Over $1 billion in contributions for this Presidential campaign. Businesses don’t give this much money unless they expect a return on their investment.
America is for sale. When is the last time Washington did anything for US?
By Blind Homer
May 8, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
jbm - Why not list the really pathetic bills the Republicans wanted and got? The Patriot Act and the tax bills of 2001 and 2003 are prime examples of horrendous Republican legislation. In total they’re right up there with the Reagan legacy, tax cuts for the rich, amnesty for illegal aliens, and massive deficit spending.
By jbmlaw
May 8, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
Dear Homer @ 3:50, Shar incorrectly affirmed that Bush refused to listen to any but Republicans. That was why I left off the good bills, although two of the three items you cite required passage by a democrat-controlled senate.
By JP
May 8, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
But Woot, why should Republicans begin acting within the bounds of ethics? WHY START NOW?
By Shar
May 8, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this
Dear jbmlaw @ 2:54: Thank you for your considered reply to my questions. I won’t argue the points you made, as they represent Mr. Limbaugh’s opinions and not yours, except to say that I think your Baptist/Methodist analogy is flawed. I have had that precise conversation with my sister-in-law, a Baptist who unaccountably supports the rules subordinating women in the church and the home, and while it grieves me that a charming, competant woman buys into second class status it does not affect me as a sometime Methodist. The selection of a President, on the other hand, affects me deeply and directly, and therefore I believe I should do my best to nominate the most capable candidate regardless of party.
I did appreciate your ‘dot’ analogy, however, and agree with it entirely. I also think your account of the splintering of the Republican base is interesting, although I’d add more factions on the Democratic side.
I have been out in the sun today, and perhaps I am slightly fried and so fail to grasp your injunction to “Explain ‘Reagan 2004’”. He died halfway through the year.
And fried or not, I do not have a vaccuum in my brain. President Bush has alienated even his own party members in his stubborn insistence on having his very own way, or at least Mr. Cheney’s. He does not negotiate or compromise, he tramples and/or covers up. It is, perhaps, his least attractive characteristic among a bouquet of choices.
By George Washington
May 8, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this
Ok, here is a serious question for Everyone: Why were both Democratic Presidential candidates required to pledge on Nation TV their undying loyalty to Israel, but not to any other country? I am of Irish, French, English, and German blood, as are more than half of all Americans, yet no pledge of undying loyality was required to Ireland or Germany…Why?
By Blind Homer
May 8, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
jbm - That’s always the Republican explanation for the poor legislation passed in the Reagan years. Truth is he was a popular but weak President that did little good. He ran with a balanced budget plank but never submitted one and signed all of those bills I mentioned into law without veto. Conversely, he doesn’t deserve credit for anything you might think was good, because it was that same Democratic Congress that actually passed that legislation! You can’t have it both ways, and give him credit without the blame.
By George Washington
May 8, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
Smells like Patritism to me…oh, that’s just the napalm burning that ugly brown vietnamese flesh….
By George Washington
May 8, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this
Remember, you idiots who worship that third rate actor, the savings and loan crisis was a direct result of Reagan’s stupidiy….Ah felt sure that Neil and Jeb ‘s theft would doom the chimp family politically, but ah handn’t reckoned with the stupidity of the american public, or the neocon money machine…..Too bad, the world would be a better place today with out the chimp in power
By Dusty
May 8, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this
WHAT???
jbmlaw posts @2:54 to Shar: I do not challenge your….ambivalent political principles.
What ambivalent political principles? Shar tries to cover her 100% liberal decisions with a coat of silky pretense disguised as one of great indiscriminate thinking.
If I may be so “folksy”, you can put a skunk in a silk bag but it still smells. Maybe “pretentious” sounds better.
By Thor
May 8, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this
The Jewish lobby is one of the most powerful on capitol hill. Very dangerous to cross them. We also provide Egypt and Israel each with over $5 billion a year in aid.
The Jewish lobby is very powerful; this is why that question was asked during the debates.
By George Washington
May 8, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
or England or France, or to America for that matter.
By i am not a crook
May 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this
Wake up conservatives, the sweeping conservative movement from the mid 90’s is dead, dead, dead. You can probably thank George W Bush for killing the conservative movement in this country as the Republican party has slowly been moving away from him and is suffering a bit of an identity crisis right now. The days of bloviating about your faux outrage over every issue and red faced hatred of anything left of center and actually having an effect are over.
By Blind Homer
May 8, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
Republicans who worship Reagan can’t be true conservatives. Reagan authorized providing arms to the enemy (Iran Contra) without any Congressional involvement. Simply stated, that is treason. He should have been tried and hung.
By George Washington
May 8, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this
CAN WE DIG UP THE CORPSE OF THE SENILE OLD COOT AND HANG IT? IF NOT, EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD VISIT THE GRAVE SITE, AND RELIEVE THEMSELVES IN THE MOST BASIC OF WAYS….
By MomCat
May 8, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this
By @@ May 8, 2008 3:14 PM And if I can’t have the candiate that I think would be best for America, I’d at least like to have the second-best. which is exactly why I voted for Hillary in the primary Jim so quit scolding!!!
but-but-but-but @@ — go bck to your numerous posts where you stated you voted for Obama….just kiddin huh???? just havin fun???? My bet is you voted for Obama as did many other republicans. Something should definitely be done about this primary business.
By jbmlaw
May 8, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
Dear Shar @ 4:20, I am embarrassed, you are not the brain-fried one, I am. I meant “Reagan 1984” as counterpoint to your affirmation, “Choosing a candidate based on perceived adherence to unbending party principles is a recipe for defeat in a general election.”
I respectfully disagree with your assertion, “The selection of a President, on the other hand, affects me deeply and directly…” I think the selection of a president affects you indirectly, as when the president attempts to enlarge Leviathan at, of course, your expense. Realistically, the presidential election is little more than a sideshow for our collective entertainment. President Obama will no more destroy my life than President Bush has destroyed yours (no hyperbole, please!) Our friend Homer @ 4:23 inadvertently makes this point. The power of the president is the power of a bully pulpit. Although I cite Reagan as the only competent president since Roosevelt, I have to acknowledge Homer’s legislative argument. Other than the tax cuts that Reagan pushed through, and his generally excellent judicial nominations, his only legacy (which I do not diminish) is his successful psychological war against communism, conducted despite the opposition of his state department and despite the monkey wrenches thrown by congressional democrats. My distaste for Obama is not that I do not know how he will use the bully pulpit, but my fear that I do.
By jbmlaw
May 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
Dear Homer @ 4:51, I think you do not know the definition of “treason.” (Unless, of course, you define “protection of communist tyranny” as a state interest of the government of the United States, which I suppose you might.) We would agree that congressional democrats did everything they could legislatively to protect the communists throughout the world, for which I am certain you owe a great debt.
By Just Nasty and Mean
May 8, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
Has anybody else noticed to total absence, the void, the vacuum of discussion of 90% of blacks voting for Obama.
Folks, this is racist in the 1st degree. It shows that a majority of of blacks DON”T CARE what the content of the other candidate has to offer, the fact that Obama is black is the overwhelming reason for voting for him.
These people are voting for Obama BECAUSE of Rev. Wright because Wright says what they believe, and they are voting that Obama feels the same way.
How come NOBODY in mainstream media, nobody in talk radio, nobody in cable media, and nobody in the print press has the ba*ls to even state the fact?
Obama wants to talk about race, huh. How come he doesn’t want to talk about bold faced racism voting him as the Democrat candidate?
Huh?
By dirty harry
May 8, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
I hate to tell you..but I think jbmlaw has found a new love….
The cavaet’s between him and shar are flowing like beer on St. Paddy’s day.
Time for some chili?
By The surge is working...?
May 8, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this
that’s right, jbm. Dubya hasn’t destroyed my life, only the lives of the 4000+ soldiers who have died in the mess that is Iraq.
By Taxpayer
May 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this
If you spend enough on ads, you can convince people that their vote counts. You can even convince them that our elected officials care about something other than money and/or power. You may even convince them that our elected officials are not bought and sold like stock or real estate. Actually, a few of them are genuine statesmen — very few. Vote Ron Paul for president — vote for a real statesman.
By jasper
May 8, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this
Ode to Change: Obama’s got you excited, Oh Boy! The prospect of change brings such joy! But in Chicago the killing, Has gone through the cilling, So how’s the Change working out for Illinois?
By Dusty
May 8, 2008 5:20 PM | Link to this
George Washout,4:55
The best you can do is dig up the dead and then defile them? Reagan served his country well. Your “dirt” make YOU look dirty, not Reagan. Why don’t you take a hike? A long one.
Crooked crook@4:48
So the conservative movement is dead?? Enjoy your ignorance while you can. You are in for a big surprise. McCain is the only sensible candidate and he will win. Americans like the real thing, not a pie in the sky perpetuator..
By dirty harry
May 8, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this
By jasper
May 8, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this
Japser, I told you earlier today that you’re two bottles short of a six pack!
Knock it off you blog like a retard!
By catlady
May 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw—so how does either party get the list of who voted in what primary? Is there a mole at the voting precinct making money off selling these things? Does the state sell these lists (it would have to be coordinated with my address as well)?
I mean, if I give money to some group that is usually associated with right or left wing politics, I can see how a national political party could get my name and address. But to get it from my VOTING RECORD???
By Taxpayer
May 8, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this
Some people even think that McCain is a Republican. Those Democrats can fool some of the voters all of the time.
By Dusty
May 8, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this
dirty harry @5:05
You make ny day. I hope jbmlaw finds love everyday ‘cause love can’t be beat. I know ‘cause I have love right beside me.
How about you? Still looking and losing?
By jasper
May 8, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this
I beg your pardon, I consider myself an original tard.
By i am not a crook
May 8, 2008 5:30 PM | Link to this
By Dusty
May 8, 2008 5:20 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
“People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook. I’ve earned everything I’ve got.”
Are you calling me a crook..Dusty?
Well I’m not.
“I’m not a crook!”
“I’m not a crook!”
“I’m not a crook!”
Please believe me I am not a crook!”
By Taxpayer
May 8, 2008 5:35 PM | Link to this
It really does not matter if Obama or Clinton wins the other spot in the primary. McCain and the other Democrat contender will probably have a series of love fests disguised as debates. Heck, they might even end up tossing the presidency back and forth — You take, no you take, you deserve it more than me. No you take it, you earned it. Group hug.
By dirty harry
May 8, 2008 5:35 PM | Link to this
By Dusty
May 8, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this
dirty harry @5:05
You make ny day. I hope jbmlaw finds love everyday ‘cause love can’t be beat. I know ‘cause I have love right beside me.
What’s that a large bowl of chili, and a bag of Frito’s?
Hey! Everyone has their own definition of love! ENJOY.
By jasper
May 8, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this
By the way Smelly Harry, How has the change concept worked out in O’s home state. Quote me the stat’s on improved crime rates, education scores, jobs, anything at all.
Last time I checked, Hope was not a viable strategy nor Change a definitive goal. Give me something real like a corporate tax rate cut, so that we can compete in a global market place. US corp.,tax rate and labor unions have crippled this country’s workforce, and you want to elect a man who wants to raise it. Like I said, moving headquarters off shore. Grand Caymans sound nice>
By Glenn
May 8, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this
Now Dusty, jbmlaw has said some mighty sharp things about our Commander in Chief, yet I don’t see you taking after him as a “pseudo-conservative” plant for badmouthing a President who calls himself a Republican and therefore and perforce a true conservative. I demand your expulsion of jbm at once!
Why, he’s even colluded with a known moderate in identifying flaws and compromises in, for example, our President’s happy implementation of Mr. Kennedy’s legislative priorities.
If you don’t find and denounce such people as jbm, Dusty, who will? It’s a lonely vigilance, yours, but as proud a one as any ever shouldered by a shivering sentry in the Continental Army of old. You are our last line of defence, Dusty. I urge you: go over to the attack!
By Frederick Douglass
May 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this
To Just Nasty and Mean @ 5:01, I guess blacks vote for blacks for the same reason stupid people vote for stupid people, which brings to mind our current situation@ 1600 Penn. Ave.
By dirty harry
May 8, 2008 5:50 PM | Link to this
By jasper
May 8, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this
you said this:
“and you want to elect a man who wants to raise it.”
Jasper can you find anywhere on anyone of my posts where I endorsed or said I wanted Obama elected as president…
I’m waiting!
By Dusty
May 8, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this
Glenn5:40
Poor baby, are you still seething ‘cause you sound like a liberal sometimes? I’m sorry. But you sound like a liberal sometimes. More so than jbmlaw, dear heart.
Well, there are a few of us holding the fort 100%. I mean more than enough to elect McCain. But you can come to the inauguration and have some refreshments and shake the hand of Bush for the good sense job he has done. McCain will continue the fine work.
For those with no foresight, go cry in your beer with Obama and Michele, if they haven’t left for some other country they probably prefer. Your happy sentry,
Dusty..and good nite to you all or y’all if you prefer.
By Anikitos
May 8, 2008 6:13 PM | Link to this
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/thinkingright/entries/2008/05/08/onthedayafter.html#comment-59575703 by “Anyone but Hillary” And what makes you think that anyone believes a word you are saying now is truth? You are probably a Limbaugh’s drone trying to get Hillary to go against McCain. Not happening Obama is going to to whip some geriatric a*.
By @@
May 8, 2008 6:15 PM | Link to this
MomCat@4:56:
My bet is you voted for Obama as did many other republicans.
You’d be wrong to place that wager.
Voted for Hillary in the primary.
Played around with Obama’s numbers in a Rasmussen Poll last night.
I always misled pollsters. They and the media have far to much influence in our elections.
Obama will be stripped bare in the general. His resume is already pretty skimpy. The tease is over. It’s bumps and grinds from here on out.
Sit back and enjoy!