Friday, November 9, 2012

Reality Wins!

"Don't tell me the old, old story
Tell me the truth this time"
Billy Bragg

Yeah my 'side' won on November sixth but more importantly truth won out! While politicians are slippery with the truth by their very nature, the politicians of the Republican Party has become completely disconnected from reality. As they did with the climate change debate, they believed with enough lies and money they could dictate reality. But they can't: ocean levels rise up and so do disrespected voters. Watching the Karl Rove melt-down on Fox News on that earth-shaking Tuesday evening, was final proof of the party's utter disconnect from the world as it is. This party need to dump their delusionals and get its house in order. (For the cleverer version of this point, do yourself a favour and read Charles P. Pierce's take). And I say that as somebody who believes that a healthy opposition is crucial for a democracy. In fact, that sentiment, has been echoed across the left(ish) side of the internet, rather then rubbing Republicans noses in thier devastating loss. People like Rachel Maddow have offered a hard-headed but fair-minded defense of a saner Republican Party.  Even if you don't like her, she makes her case rationally:

Another thoughtful and hard-hitting take on this phenomenon was written yesterday by  John Heilemann:

What all of this signifies is that the Republicans now find themselves facing a moment similar to the one that Democrats met in the wake of the 1988 election, when the party found itself markedly out of step with the country — shackled to a retograde base, in the grip of an assortment of fads and factions, wedded to a pre-modern policy agenda. And so, like the Ds back then, the Rs today must undertake a wholesale modernization of their party, starting with, but not limited to, making real inroads with those ascendant elements of the electorate. Doing so will be a Herculean task, and one that will require not just institutional resolve but individual leadership; it will require, that is to say, that the Republicans find their own version of Bill Clinton circa 1990. But daunting as the task may be, what last night indicated is that the party has no choice but to undertake the assignment — because to forgo it would be to risk not just irrelevance but extinction.


  1. Financial responsibility & a solid commitment to national security (two traits sorely lacking in BHO & the majority of Democrats) are NEVER "out of step". Decades of indoctrination & Kool-Aid Konsumption have obviously clouded your judgement (other substances may be a contributing factor as well).

    The "free birth control" offered to the female electorate was little more than the candy samples that the stranger driving the windowless van offers to the local children.

    The headline that we should've seen in all national newspapers" Lunatics Vote To Retain Control Of The Asylum"

    1. "Financial responsibility"
      You have been sold a bill of goods, my Rev.
      Clinton created a surplus.
      Bush destroyed it!
      The lies have to stop now!

    2. Actually, you've overlooked a couple of historical footnotes that might clarify the conventional wisdom:

      1) Clinton did not gain a surplus until he cut the capital gain tax (obviously he doesn't ever mention that). Where did THAT idea come from? His opposition in Congress. Even Republicans liked Clinton personally because HE WAS WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM. The skinny man in the White House could learn something from Uncle Bill.

      2) It's SO fun to pin the recession on George W. That redneck cowboy with the big ears and weird drawl! But you are overlooking two details:

      A) The financial collapse was caused by Congress, under the leadership of House Finance Committee Chair Barney Frank (Oh, thank heavens he's gone) forcing banks to subsidize high-risk loans. And guess what? People started defaulting! Many Republicans went along, so they too were to blame, but it would be fare more accurate to call the recession the Barney Frank Recession (or as he would say, "Da Bawney Fwank We-session").

      B) George W. Bush did not like being confrontational. If Congress passed something, he almost always approved it. He only vetoed one bill during his entire presidency. Even his war policies may have been expensive, but he initially had Bi-partisan support. To completely fault Bush is sort of like a teenager spending his parents' bank account until it's gone and then complaining that they did nothing to stop him.

      Just for the record.


      Just for the record- several Republicans stated that their only objective was to ensure Obama's defeat in 2012. Have you conveniently forgotten the propaganda campaign of lies and negativity that started almost the day of Obama's inauguration? So much for working together.

      "Even his war policies may have been expensive, but he initially had Bi-partisan support."

      The Bush/Cheney administration got their bi-partisan support by lying about "weapons of mass destruction" and Nigerian uranium shipments.

      Odd that you're the only one here mocking people's appearance and speech.

    4. You're probably referring to Mitch McConnell.

      Look, I won't deny that extreme partisanship exists on BOTH SIDES of the aisle and that's a huge part of the problem. In fact, it's part of the problem on this page. We can't seem to disagree with each other without being disagreeable. Liberalism isn't going away and neither is conservatism. The smartest thing all of us could do is learn to get along with each other.

      My point is that George W. Bush and Wm. J. Clinton spent time with their opponents and developed relationships with them. Obama seems to be cut from an entire clothe entirely.

    5. I'm also referring to this meeting the night President Obama was inaugurated:

      So much for working together and developing relationships. Ronald Reagan wouldn't have a place in today's Republican party, and that's a greater problem than Obama. Please read the section "Obstructing Recovery" here:

    6. 1. Cutting the capital gains tax created the surplus.
      I can't tell you exactly what created the surplus but I am sure that it was not that alone.

      2. " Even Republicans liked Clinton personally"
      Again this historical dishonesty the right are engaged in to cover up their shameful behaviour during the Clinton era is execrable.

      If impeachment is what you get for co-operation perhaps Obama's distance from the Republicans is smarter than I thought.

    7. A) 'The financial collapse was caused by Congress, under the leadership of House Finance Committee Chair Barney Frank'

      A right-wing talking point with little to no basis in reality:

      It's not tht the Dem's are blameless in this affair but it amazing when President Clinton created a surplus you claim it's Republicans who did it and when President Bush created a deficit, you claim it's Democrats who did it.
      Remind me, where does the buck stop again?

    8. B) 'George W. Bush did not like being confrontational.'



      George 'Bring It On' Bush knew all about confrontational but you're claiming he was a wimp is the weirdest right-wing revisionism I've hear this year.

  2. Reality is a combination of views from BOTH sides, until one considers both sides, then they are ignorant, biased, whatever else, etc. There is plenty of BS on both sides. It is all a marketing game and BHO did a better job of THAT. They are both rich guys catering to rich guys. Proof of that is all the money wasted on commercials and we have the EXACT same thing as before the election.

    1. "Reality is a combination of views from BOTH sides."
      No it is not.
      If one side says that bleeding sick people with leeches is the best solution to a disease and the other side offers tested medical options, like surgery or medication then reality is a NOT combination of views from both sides.
      If one side says we need to pay down our debt, balance the tax code and rationalize our military expenditures while not ignoring the needs of the poor and middle class and the other side says cut taxes on the rich and raise military spending at the expense of the majority of their countrymen then reality is NOT a combination of views from both sides.
      If one side isn't using facts but in fact deliberate evasion in it's analysis of a problem that side is to be ignored not placated.

    2. The biggest need of the poor an middle class is JOBS.

      It is a matter of historical record that raising taxes kills jobs.

      It is also a matter of historical record (and a bit of a paradox) that every time the highest tax rates are cut, THE TREASURY ENDS UP COLLECTING MORE MONEY! So when someone asks, "How do you propose to pay for that tax cut?" The question is irrelevant. It is more relevant to ask, "How do you intend to pay for this tax hike?" Because if taxes are raised, it will only result in less revenue and higher unemployment. But hey, it's important to punish the rich. And now we know that anyone who makes $25)K or more a year is "rich" (even if it's his small business) and THAT PERSON MUST BE PUNISHED. After all, our hunger for justice against (who was it Karl Marx was so mad at?)--uh THOSE GUYS--yeah, that's it. We've got to show them. Even if it means we don't get any more jobs.

      Good luck with that.

  3. "healthy opposition is crucial for a democracy"

    There are a couple of problems with this.
    1. In the USofA people get to choose between a douch and a turd.(watch the south park episode if you dont get the reference)
    2. There is propaganda and media-control on such a stunning level that the few people who do vote are misled and uninformed.

    1. God i wish I had an argument against this but I've got nothing except a flickering hope that things are changing.

  4. Stick to music. You are too easily misled.
    what's been your favorite? (a) the destructive and deceptive obamacare that WILL result in lower quality, less choice, less privacy and more overall cost. (b) Fast & Furious intended to turn public opinion on the second amendment of the constitution resulting in deaths of innocents. (c) Ignoring 13 warnings on Benghazi, ignorigng them all, then lying, then cover-up. (d) retardedly bad, or intentionally bad, economic policies resulting in unprecedented unemployment and deficits that will result in further inflation and layoffs.

    1. Dear Maria
      Your belligerent, unthinking recitation of facts the right-wing-media has fed to you (for their own profit!) was one of my inspirations to turn my writing towards politics.
      If you think you're going to tell me what do do on my own blog, then you're playing a losing game,
      But you're used to losing now, aren't you?

  5. ... And, many of the comments on this post lead me to believe that the GOP will again double-down on the crazy rather than joining the rest of us in the 21st century.

    1. I fear you're right but hope you are wrong!

  6. Now c'mon Jeffen. Even being an acknowledged Karl Rove-hater, that wasn't any melt-down.

    You're too clear-eyed to resort to hyperbole.

    1. Thanks for the good words.
      I stand by that choice of words, though you're not the first person to question it.
      Rove's lies we're shown to be wrong and he threw a tantrum, made the cast go and show him how wrong he was and then got schooled by his FOX co-anchor.
      That to me is a total meltdown.
      I don't mean that he screamed and threw shit just that his core melted away right in front of us.
      Maybe there's another word for that but I haven't heard it yet...

    2. Asking questions is a tantrum?

      For heaven's sake your side won. Can't you show a little class instead of looking for any reason to mock and deride the supporters of the candidate who lost?

      When the Super Bowl is over, the winning players always congratulate the other side for a well-fought game. All I see here is vainglorious victors spewing hatred on their opponents for daring to exist.

      So much for open-mindedness.

    3. Do you know nothing of Karl Rove's history? That miserable bastard deserves all the mocking and derision thrown at him! He pissed away $390 million, then claimed that Obama won because he "suppressed the vote", Hurricane Sandy "interrupted Romney's momentum", and because "we had some very, very weak candidates"! I've yet to hear the Super Bowl losers make so many excuses.

      "Show a little class"?? What about the hatred spewed at President Obama for the last three years? The birth certificate, college transcripts, he's a Muslim, he doesn't salute the flag, screaming "liar" at the State Of The Union address… The man has constantly risen above the hatred and lies. Did you not hear Obama's victory speech where he said he'd sit down with Romney and discuss America's future?

      Did you not read the dissenting comments on this blog? So much for the pot calling the kettle black.

    4. "That miserable bastard deserves all the mocking and derision thrown at him!"

      Nice. I'm sure you'll persuade all kinds of people using that kind of charm.

    5. Karl Rove spent millions of dollars trying ro get "very, very weak candidates" elected. Should I thank him for trying to ruin my country? Do some research and see what else he's been doing for about 20 years. That too should persuade people.

    6. 1) I would not be so quick to equate the attempt to weaken a political party with attempting to ruin one's country.

      2) Do you honestly believe that none of the consultants and operatives for Democrats do the same thing? Really?

      My point is simply that vilifying people for their political views or worse, making hateful statements about some of these figures is fruitless and isn't going to change anyone's mind. I have very strong feelings about Obama and many of the people who voted for him, however, I am careful not to express those feelings publicly and, when giving my opinions, I try to civilize them with a bit of restraint. I am of the minority school that believed no Obama voter was going to change his mind because of telling him he was stupid to vote for Obama or asking him if he was embarrassed yet. All that does is put people on the defensive.

      Calling someone a miserable bastard might make you feel better, but it doesn't help anyone and only inflames the positions people already hold on both sides. It doesn't tell me half as much about Rove as it does about you. I want to think that you are better than that and I think you can be. No Democrat or Republican is going to change his mind by reading or listening to vitriol.

    7. Look arguing against vitriol is pretty fair but that said Karl Rove (and his mentor Lee Atwater) have turned too many Americans against each other to benefit their political to be left alone.

      If I can ask you one favour, please read this interview before claiming that modern-era Democrats and Republicans are the same when it come to campaign rhetoric.

    8. 1) I don't think there's much of a difference. The Republicans may have found stronger, better candidates if they didn't take such a hard turn to the far right. Two strong parties make for better choices for the voters. What if these "very, very weak candidates" had actually been elected? That wouldn't help the country.

      2) I have no doubt the Democrats are doing some of the same things, but not to the extent and longevity as Karl Rove. Political dirty tricks and smear campaigns are his speciality. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to learn that he was involved in the voter ID scam, it reeks of his influence. Have you seen the movie or read the book "Bush's Brain"? He's been doing this for years, and here's a possible reason why the Republicans were so surprised when Obama won Ohio:

      Deceitful and despicable are very accurate for Karl Rove; "miserable bastard" is probably a better description of Donald Trump. Just Google "Karl Rove's lies" and "Karl Rove's smear campaigns" for more info.

  7. I'm not very optimistic for any great reworking of the Republican party because Obama's victory margin wasn't large enough to force them to make wholesale changes. If he had won by at least 8%, then we might see the end of the reign of Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, and the other assorted extremists. These people are firmly entrenched and aren't going away any time soon. The moderates have been forced out, there's no single person who looks like a contender for the next election. Ronald Reagan wouldn't have a place in the new Republican Party.

    I'm hoping that they realize their constant campaign of lies, negative propaganda, and a refusal to compromise has been detrimental to themselves AND the country. The fact that Romney, Rove, and others were stunned by their defeat should serve as a wake up call. Or maybe not, Rove's article in the Wall Street Journal says Obama's campaign "was unprecedented in its negativity and ugliness". Takes one to know one, I suppose. Rachel Maddow's piece should be required viewing.

  8. where the hell is obama and why is he not helping the sandy victims en masse? he is probably eating dinner at some celebration. why is there no outcry for this to happen?

    1. Unknown
      Fuck your phoney outrage.

    2. Someone pointed out that this reply seemed belligerent and perhaps they're right.

      This admission should not be confused with my believing that the original statement has any merit.

  9. Well Sir, I happened upon your blog by accident linking from another blog. I certainly wouldn't dream of telling you what to do with your blog, but since you've decided to go political, you can't expect everyone to simply agree with you and march in lockstep.

    I would caution you that accusing people of being brainwashed by Republican "talking points" of the right wing media (you probably mean the only media left that dares question Democrats)....but I digress...many of us could just as easily accuse you of being brainwashed by leftist college professors (pardon my redundancy--since to be a college professor IS to be a leftist) or MSNBC or what have you...

    Anyway, I write as a former Democrat and former liberal who fancied himself as "so enlightened..." that was two waist sizes ago, I'll admit. My point is, you're not going to get anywhere demonizing people who disagree with you or writing defiant obscenities. It might make you feel better, but as Ben Franklin once observed, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

    Now I could go on and rebut many of your assertions point by point, but in the interest of ending this all-too-long email, I'll simply point one thing out: IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to run a campaign for president and be 100 percent consistent and never reverse something they've said. And the truth? BOTH candidates had their share of, shall we say, "honesty shortages" from time to time, However, one particular lie was more appalling to me than any other, and it was never mentioned in the campaign:

    Obama ran as a "post partisan" yet he forced through his health insurance bill without a Republican vote and no regard for Republican input. If that was not enough, he repeatedly told the media that it was not a tax and no new taxes would follow to fund it. So then what does he do? HE INSTRUCTS HIS ATTORNEYS TO ARGUE IN FRONT OF THE US SUPREME COURT THAT OBAMACARE'S MANDATE FOR EVERYONE BEING INSURED IS, IN FACT A TAX, AND, THEREFORE CONSTITUTIONAL.

    I'm sorry, but that's way too duplicitous for my liking. I've been in both parties and I believe both have something to offer each other, if they'd stop focusing so much on trying to discredit their opponents and win at all costs.

    Obama has no mandate, just a slimmer margin of the popular vote than what elected him the first time--he's the only president in history to win re-election by a smaller vote margin. But then again, in Clinton's second term, no real bad things happened, because he was held in check by oppostion majorities he helped create in both houses. So, gridlock CAN be a good thing.

    Anyway, enjoy your liberal youth. It's still "cool" and "hip" to be liberal and I know how important that is to young people. And if you disagreed with the liberal agenda, your friends would probably shun you. Fitting in is important too. Just consider me an "uncool" reader of your blog who's been there.

    1. 1) Who said everyone had to agree, I'm always hoping for people to have something thoughtful; to say, pro or con.

      2) You can attempt to lionize FOX but they convinced themselves and their viewers of a lie ('Romney was going to win") which give evidence of how they deliberately mislead their viewers for profit and partisan gain.
      And this is 'to be a college professor IS to be a leftist' is crude and small-minded over-generalization.

      3) Have you read anything I wrote above? The post in question has no 'demonizing' and where I attempt to cast blame it is almost always upon the members of The Republican party or it's corporate sponsors. I did say 'fuck you phony outrage' to a commenter but my obscenities are pretty few and far between here.

      3) "honesty shortages"
      Romney's camp said things that were factually incorrect over and over (i.e. the Chrysler charge, The Apology Tour etc.) Obama has his own sins to account but they are not in the same league.
      Um, you're missing the fact that Republicans decided to act in lockstep despite the fact that Democrats chose a Republican idea from the 90's as they're health care model.

      "Obama has no mandate, just a slimmer margin of the popular vote than what elected him the first time--he's the only president in history to win re-election by a smaller vote margin."
      Now this is what we call "Math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better"
      Here you are definitely reciting a blatant Fox Talking Point.
      No Republican cared about Bush's 'mandates' even when he LOST the popular vote the first time out!

      50.6% vs. 47.8% is not close and 332 EV vs. 206 EV is a landslide. You need to come around and deal with it.

      I love reading this attempt to slam me, knowing you're going to realize you're wrong and then, rather then admitting your error, you're just going to try to slam me another way.

  10. Just looked at your photo. Let me restate: Enjoy your liberal middle age. At least it might help you feel youthful! (Vitamin B is what I use, but to each his own).

    1. And now the cowardice of anonymity is revealed in all its glory.

  11. Dear Mr. J:

    I am not attempting to "slam" you. I humbly apologize for what I thought was my sense of humor, but apparently is only offensive to you. I have chosen to remain anonymous for a number of reasons which I will keep to myself. If you choose to call me a coward, so be it. I simply sense a lot of anger on this page and most of the "conversation" on this page seems more focused on proving, "I'm right and you're wrong so there!" and I don't think that is productive. Winners in civilized societies are supposed to be gracious, not rubbing their opponents noses in their loss. I also think we need to acknowledge that we all have to get along and work together, because politics has grown decidedly nastier in the last 20 years or so. Now before you retort that "It's all the Republican's fault" all I want to say is that it doesn't have to be this way. If you cannot acknowledge that BOTH sides of the aisle have coarsened what passes for "debate" than I see no further point in commenting. If Democrats and Republicans don't stop this schoolyard stuff, it's only going to get worse. The only consistent polling I've noticed that never changes is that Americans are increasingly turned off by Washington politics.

    As a final note, I give you this observation: I have watched the Republicans AND the Democrats win huge victories with the media speculating that they had finally, somehow, "decimated" or "destroyed" their opponents for years to come--only to watch the other side come roaring back. All victory is fleeting. When either side thinks they have won "complete control" circumstances beyond their control tend to take over.

    A bit of humility would behoove us all, myself included.

    Again, I apologize for the offense I gave you. If it's any comfort, I'm still probably older than you.

    1. I accept your apology, in the heat of debate we all say things that come out wrong.

      However I still challenge this assertion " I simply sense a lot of anger on this page and most of the "conversation" on this page seems more focused on proving, "I'm right and you're wrong so there!" and I don't think that is productive.

      I mean have you read the comments? I get hate-filled, CAPS-LOCKED screeds even for my mildest posts (see here if you are skeptical
      And yet I say over and over again I blame the upper reaches of The Republican Party not the people.

      And we are having a debate, sir, so I intend to say my point that I think that Republicans owe a much larger share of the blame for government dysfunction that Democrats (whose blame is more about passivity then active blundering) over the last twenty years.
      You're welcome to assert the contrary here, with facts, but I intend to rebut every point, civilly where possible, because I believe that by reducing it to 'they're both at fault' we play into the hands of those that would harm the country strictly for profit and power.

      While I can't speak for everyone who share my views, I never said the republicans we're 'destroyed', only that they were soundly beaten in this election - and that much is factual.

      We all need a bit of humility, eh? Fair enough, I can't argue that point at all!

  12. I have been busy all day and most of this evening, but returning to this “discussion”...

    Who is “lionizing” Fox News? It appears that anyone who makes a point in favor of the conservative position here is immediately labeled a Fox News junkie. There are plenty of other news outlets than Fox News. They are simply the only major network that even so much as questions the liberal party line that is virtually parroted on every other network. I wish I had the time to watch Fox News more often. Most of us get our news from the internet today and the sources are myriad. Perhaps you can specify how Fox is misleading their viewers (and I KNOW you can’t resist that one). If Fox is so inane and stupid, those who disagree with Fox sure seem to treat Fox News as a threat. If Americans so soundly reject conservatism as is suggested here, Fox News is hardly a threat, but, again, the way Fox is relentlessly criticized…

    Where I felt that you demonized people was with such intemperate remarks as the assumption that Republicans will “double down on crazy” or accusing Maria of being “unthinking” (don’t you think she might find that a bit, well, belligerent?) And who could ignore your warm, friendly, “F___K YOU”, even if it is addressed to someone’s outrage--and how could you possibly know whether it was phony or not? You might disagree with his outrage, but he may very well be feeling authentic outrage. Perhaps I should take you to task more for attempting to mind-read.

    Romney may not have had the facts straight on the Chrysler ad, but is that even HALF as egregious as Obama’s lie about Obamacare not being a tax and his deliberate behind-our-backs maneuver in the U.S. Supreme Court—arguing that it IS a tax? On one hand we have an ad about the auto industry that is at best misinformed and at worse, a misleading falsehood. On the other hand, we have the POTUS deliberately lying and proving so by having his attorneys say the exact opposite of what he pitched to us to win in court. I don’t think there’s any comparison. And Obama’s lie is one that will completely change the U.S. economy and be a part of every American’s life in the coming years.

    Obama’s apology tour was certainly not a lie. The fundamentalist Democrat may assert that he never specifically apologized, but what he did in the Middle East was the moral equivalent of apologizing, making repeated mea culpas about America to “win respect” from the Middle East. They don’t respect us one iota more now than then, as current events clearly indicate.

    Less than 3 percentage points is not even close? Really?

    I don’t feel any better about losing an election because of a narrow margin. I am simply looking at the numbers and trying to figure out what they mean. I am also closely watching the snowballing (and suppressed) reports of voter fraud that continue to come in. Go ahead and laugh if you like, but it is almost statistically impossible for any precinct to deliver 100 percent of the vote to one single candidate, yet, 59 precincts in Philadelphia did just that. At the very least, such numbers should arouse suspicion. Even Mayor Daley’s Chicago machine of generations past was not THAT effective.

    I am not attempting to slam you Mr. J. I am simply arguing what I believe is a very different set of answers to some the things you seem so certain about. Perhaps neither of us is entirely correct, but I will say again, I USED TO BE A DEMOCRAT. I left the party for a number of reasons—some which I might share later—but mostly because I became convinced that the way they operated simply did not work. I cannot name any nation that ever taxed itself into prosperity. And treating people who work hard to be successful as if they are the enemy is self-defeating. It is also extremely unfair to assume all wealthy people are completely disconnected from the rest of us.

    1. This is gonna take awhile.

      Re: Lionizing Fox News.

      Exhibit one: " you probably mean the only media left that dares question Democrats"

      Exhibit two "They are simply the only major network that even so much as questions the liberal party line that is virtually parroted on every other network. "

      This is trying to act as if it's heroic that Fox and other such media outlets act as an arm of the Republican party (check the number of pundits who've run for the presidential nomination they have had work there over the years).

      While I'm well aware of the many sources of right-wing news on-line (NR, Hot Air, Daily Caller et al), as Fox is both best known and the most influential of these it is an acceptable short-hand for 'news that is created by and for Republicans".

      Of course Fox is a threat it roils up false controversies ("Death panels") that limits debate on the the greatest issues of the day.

      Um, I'm not sure if you're right-wing news sources showed you this but FOX news' myriad predictions that Romney would win were proved laughably false. Hell even Megan Kelly called it "math you so a s a Republican to make yourselves feel better". They, especially Karl Rove, were publicly humiliated and if you can't see that I'm not sure if you're arguing in good faith.

    2. Those few stray comments are not even CLOSE to 'demonizing', though I'll admit the 'fuck your phony outrage' was too over-the top.

      And as for Maria, are you even reading my replies to you or her comments for that manner????
      She starts off by insulting me and that's the mildest of her curses in her time 'reading here'
      Seriously, follow the link I gave you to prove my point that she is belligerent.

    3. "moral equivalent of apologizing,"
      The lying has to stop.
      There is no apology tour.
      You can try to stick in weasel-words like 'moral equivalent' but they don;t change the facts, there was no apology tour. Full stop.

    4. 3% (and 332 EV vs. 206 EV ) is a lot less close then Bush v. Kerry and Bush bragged that he 'earned political capital' and I didn't hear any Republicans disagree. So they best hold there peace now, especially after such a decisive loss.

    5. "I am also closely watching the snowballing (and suppressed) reports of voter fraud that continue to come in"

      Then give this a read:

      I think if you're a dedicated Republican these results may be shocking but if you saw that 47% tape with open eyes you should marvel that anyone would vote for the man who spoke those hateful words about them, their friends, their neighbours and their loved ones.

    6. I'm not taking what you say as a slam(and I hope you are doing the same) and furthermore I hope you are not offended when I take up error I see.
      That's the spirit of debate!

      That said I have no idea what " I cannot name any nation that ever taxed itself into prosperity" means.
      Can this be proved or disproved? Am I missing something?

      "And treating people who work hard to be successful as if they are the enemy is self-defeating"
      I agree.
      What I disagree with is that the modern-day Democratic party, who want to return tax rates to the Clinton era are doing anything remotely like that.


    Take the latest target liberals love to hate—Mitt Romney—gave away MILLIONS to charities. In fact, it’s interesting to compare his tax returns to Obama’s. They begged and demanded and cajoled for those returns. And what did they find when they were finally released? Romney donated more than 4 million to charity.
    I know a few rich people (and yes, I hope to be one of them one day—no apologies) and it’s been my experience that most of them prefer to give and not blow their horn about it. They don’t want their name inscribed on a wall or published. Perhaps that was Romney’s reason for holding out on releasing his returns.

    I really wanted to believe that the liberal argument was irrefutable. The only problem is that the reality I face every day refutes it. Not completely. There are good arguments on some issues that the liberals hold. There are good arguments on the issues that conservatives make. They (we) need to work WITH each other.

    That’s all—for now.

  14. "They begged and demanded and cajoled for those returns. And what did they find when they were finally released? "
    You NEED to broaden your reading base.
    Of course he gave millions, it's a requirement of his church, what he was hiding was his tax rate and his off-shore holdings et al. (Both he and Anne was pretty forthcoming on THAT front in interviews:

    I agree we need to work together but until The Republican Party (NOT to be confused with people who hold conservative views) is willing to update its views, as the Democrats did in the 1990's, I fear compromise will be difficult.

    1. This might be another reason why Romney didn't want to release his tax returns:


Thanks for clicking the COMMENTS link.
Now that you're here,I should mentions that
without reader feedback blogs slowly wither and die