Comments on: New Political Openings for GOP in Age of Obama

By: Derek

Derek — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:42:24 +0000

Obama got 51 percent of the vote in that district. Citing stats from what the democrat incumbent got is kind of nonsensical. Murphy is currently ahead by 83 votes anyways as of Monday April 6th. So perhaps this article title should be changed to “New Wasted Opportunities for the GOP in the age of Obama”

By: Walworth

Walworth — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:13:07 +0000

Steve P.

I’m waiting for you to respond to #58, Jeff Sulman.

By: Samizdat

Samizdat — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 04:08:55 +0000

Jeff Sulman,
You are right. We had to endure the Articles of Confederacy and then find out what our Constitution meant. Evolution doesn’t occur overnight and it goes in fits and starts.
I am pretty certain that human governance works best when some form of legitimate sufferage is involved. Republics trend towards peace, while totalitarian governments gain sustenance from menacing others. It matters not if they are dictatorships or “communist” they feed on instability and conflict.
I have struggled for a long time to understand the attraction of socialism, nazism and communism. There are some very intelligent people out there who find the order that flows from these forms of government to be intellectually sound and beneficial, in spite of the evidence that repeatedly shows inevitable atrophy. I just don’t understand their motivation. There is bankruptcy in the belief that a demonstrably slow acting and tone deaf government will act more beneficialy for individuals than they can act for themselves, that somehow the state can forecast and react to circumstance better than they can. You have to be able to accept human under achievment if you really believe that Marx, Hitler and Clement Atlee were right. There is some serious intellectual poverty in this thinking. It is demonstrated by the “first amoung equals” treatment that the intelligencia and ruling elite carve out for themselves when they create utopia. It becomes inconvenient to them to live by the rules they create. Oh well!

By: John

John — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:16:37 +0000

I think the DEMs see this playing out a lot like the 30s and 40s. It will be Bushs fault no matter how bad it gets or long it takes or how much Obama puts us in the hole. Both Bush and Hoover left themselves open to it by their poor judgement under the pressure of recession, corporate excess and lurching left. Keep in mind who controls the media, government and education establishment to spin the information. Keep in mind who do most people still associate the depression with Hoover or FDR and how many times FDR got elected. There is really no incentive for the DEMs to want this to end from a political point of view.

To bad Bush did not start out by proposing to suspend income, capital gain and corporate taxes, going after corporate and government bad guys/policy or some combination instead of come up with massive goverment bail outs. If the debate would have been lets limit or get angry about the amount of tax cut rather than the amount of loan the Government should take out in our name, the results would have been way better for the economy and the REPs right now.

By: WJA

WJA — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:59:14 +0000

58 Jeff:
Great research. Pity MSM doesn’t do likewise.

By: piscivorous

piscivorous — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 05:14:49 +0000

They need to do more than just “concentrate on a message of fiscal responsibility.”; they need to start practicing it.

By: Jeff Sulman

Jeff Sulman — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:31:38 +0000

50. good post Samizdat one point on the comment:
“Their government is not perfect, it is corrupt and factionalized, and riven with inexperience. It will not look like our government”

Sounds like our government from 1792-1812. Iraq will make it just like us. People who refer to the problems of the Iraq govt as evidence against the invasion are ignorant of American history.

By: Jeff Sulman

Jeff Sulman — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:26:26 +0000

Here you go Steve P. What do all these quotes have in common? They are all given by demos.

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

By: Tex Taylor

Tex Taylor — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:08:42 +0000

Patience, patience…

Mullah Obama’s nebulous message is wearing thin. Cult of personality only gets you so far before bread on the table becomes a little more important than an Obama bobble head and an autograph.

When America sees about 11% unemployment, or some American city gets dusted because of Pres_ent Obama’s gullibility, even the rubes will see through the paid Obama hacks and other Marxist media shills that like to post on this board.

Rubes won’t give a damn about some nebulous message of hope and change; Iraq will be an after thought and war which we won; Obama a fruitless goon with Clinton rejects running the show.

I sense a world class ass kicking coming in about 20 months. Until then, I suggest we hold our water and let the Obama parrots continue the spin. But let’s make sure these maggots stay on the defensive.

Pile on Obama in a “civilized” manner every chance you get.

By: Weaver

Weaver — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:58:36 +0000

So what? If Tedisco wins in this republican district against a lesser known opponent, who cares? What is the value of this seat anyway? The real question is whether there will be a sore loser in this election who keeps seeking appeal.