SuperJerk

Most people couldn't give two shits about economic ideology. They want someone to try something that's going to work. Fiscal conservatism didn't prevent the Great Depression, and Keynesian micro-management didn't prevent 1970s stagflation. There's no perfect economic ideology. And most people neither know nor care enough about the particulars of economic policy to be concerned with anything but the results: Are unemployment, inflation, taxes, and interest rates down? Can we borrow money when we need it? Are jobs being created? Results are what people care about, not ideology. I get pissed off when people worship at the alter of Reaganomics, because it NEVER worked the way it was supposed to. People credit supply-side theory instead of deficit spending for pumping up the GNP, and it was an interest rate hike that ended stagflation. Reagan never proposed anything that would reduce the size of government, and his tax cuts lowered revenues, not increased them (which is why taxes were raised in 1983). Reagan didn't do what he said he was doing, but the results he got were enough to satisfy most people. People need to quit rewriting history, because the result is you convince ignorant or gullible people that didn't work the first time should be tried again.

Ahem. That's right. People like real fiscal conservatism. What we saw on Tuesday was a rebuke of Sir Spend-a-Lot. So, you're argument is: "Let's show those damn free-spenders Bush and McCain that we hate his free-spending ways by electing a guy promising even more government spending." WRONG. Bush and the Republicans were rejected because the results of their economic policies weren't good enough, not because they "weren't conservative enough." McCain was promising cutting government spending at a time when people want MORE government involvement in the economy, not less. But, please go ahead and keep thinking that, conservatives, so you all can keep losing.

I CALLED IT. (And so did anyone else who thought about it for more than a half of a second, because this is what they ALWAYS do, and is part of the reason they suck so bad.) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/con...tion/index.html I absolutely cannot think of a snarky enough comment to do this stupidity justice. Conservative economics have been soundly rejected, and this harkening back to Reagan is pure revisionist history. For those of you who either just don't or are too young to remember, President Ronald Reagan was the visionary leader that spent the last 6 years of his presidency trying to undo most the damage he did in the first 2. So, yes, please shut the fuck up about Reagan already.

Go ahead and name one policy the Democratic Congress, in office since January of 2007, was able to enact that LED TO this problem. Name ONE. The same context wasn't applied to McCain's voting record, was it? Yes it was. McCain was OFTEN criticized for his vote to authorize the Iraq War, against investigations into the problems associated with the response to Hurricane Katrina, his votes in favor of deregulation, his vote against the Bush tax cut he now supports.

Has anyone seen this?

Well, it took 20 years before the public trusted the G.O.P. again after the Great Depression started, so we shall see. Just saying, my friends.

I can't wait to see the 2012 campaign when Republicans REALLY can't use the "he has no experience argument." Unless you nominate Zombie Teddy Roosevelt, you're probably going to have to find a new schtick.

What the fuck ever. Before people try to judge Obama entirely by his voting record, they need to keep in mind that he was in the minority most of the time he has been in the Senate, and still got bipartisan bills passed with Lugar and Coburn. Are you sure you are really looking at his actual voting record, and not just the percentage of times he voted with his party or against the Bush Administration? If you want to bitch about Obama's "liberal" voting record, please cite some examples of votes you disagreed with and explain why you disagreed.

O'Reilly's excuses for Palin are pretty sad, especially the one about Palin not wanting to be prepped for the Couric interview and the way he words things to make it sound like it was just supposed to be a friendly chat instead of a nationally televised news interview. I can understand not needing to know that stuff if you are, say, working the midnight shift at 7-11, but for the chief executive of a state to be this ignorant of social studies in what is essentially a SOCIAL STUDIES JOB is like trying excuse a physicist for not eing able to solve a long division problem. _______________________ Here are links to the absolutely appalling stuff Newsweek is reporting: http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/1 http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/2 (Apalling because it might be true, not because Newsweek is reporting it.) Especially disturbing: This is also bothersome... I actually have a little more respect for McCain now, because apparently his team was keeping him in the dark about a lot of this. Still, that's no way to let a campaign be run and I'm glad these people won't be allowed to run the executive branch. On McCain and Hillary... Some of the stuff they did use wasn't nearly as bad as what they almost did... Last but not least...

U.S. Senators have higher national profiles than governors do. Senators are consulted in presidential appointments, the passage of treaties, and can get intrecately involved in foreign relations. They get to hold hearings on an assortment of national issues. Each Senator has equal voting power, so it doesn't matter if you are from a big state or a small state. Senators also don't have term limits like most governors do.

This is absolutely surreal. I don't think Fox News, of all places, would be reporting on this if there weren't some damn good sources. It is absolutely FRIGHTENING how close this woman got to being president of the United States. I want to say that McCain staffers were just spreading these stories so they wouldn't have to take the blame for the botched interviews, but doesn't this just make them look worse?

More random, self-contradictory nonsense from Sarah Palin regarding her thoughts on 2012 and returning to Alaska. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/....palin.diva.cnn

A governor, in this case Sarah Palin, can appoint who ever they want until a special election is held, and that election might not be for another 2 years. There would be a special election, but depending on state law, those usually don't happen until the next congressional election. For example, when Sen. Frank Murkowski was elected governor of Alaska in 2002, he appointed his daughter Lisa Murkowski to replace him in the U.S. Senate, and didn't face election until 2004, when she was elected to a full term. In Missouri, the then-acting governor appointed Jean Carnahan to serve in the U.S. Senate when her late husband, Gov. Mel Carnahan, was elected to the Senate in 2000. She served until 2002 when a special election was held, and Jim Talent was elected served the remainder of the unexpired term until the 2006 election.

John McCain was screwed from the beginning. His campaign was in a perpetual Catch-22. No matter what he did, he would have lost someone's support for doing it. What we have to remember is that, for this moment, the Republican base is so at odds with what the rest of the country wants, there was no possible way he could form any kind of winning coalition. If he moved to address the middle, the base would scream bloody murder; if he moved to address the base, the middle lose interest. A perfect example of this would be his economic message. If he stuck to conservative economic philosophy, which is to let the market work itself out, he'd be seen as negligent and it'd be a death blow. So he moved for government intervention, and fell flat on his face because he took credit for a deal that didn't happen and he complete rewrote his campaign's own economic message on the fly. Even if he'd handled the details of the crisis better, I don't think he'd have faired much better on election day, because the course he chose to take (intervention) ran so totally contrary to everything he, and his entire party, been saying up to that point. McCain, or any other Republican, was an anti-regulation and pro-war candidate at a time when the mainstream of the country wanted nothing to do with either of those positions. Yes, the day to day details of the campaign, and the management of its message could have been a LOT better, but this just wasn't a Republican year.

Not a particularly useful clip, but fascinating for its train-wreck qualities. Gore Vidal vs. the BBC over the election...

Speaking of Bush...4 years ago, the Bush team gloated about this, but as of now, it is Barack Obama who has recieved more votes than any one else in American history. With 52% of the vote, no one can argue he is not the people's choice. Rahm Emanuel is rumored to be the new White House Chief of Staff. Any ideas on who will be appointed to serve the rest of Obama's senate term?

Because Alaskans favor smaller government. I hope I'm wrong about this, but what will probably happen is he'll get re-elected, resign, then Palin will appoint herself senator. And what definitely won't happen is that his Democratic challenger will emerge victorious. I'd bet money on this, but only because I'd rather give up the small sum of cash and have the country be better off than be right about this.

After Obama was declared the winner, Rove started acting like an expert with detailed analytical insights instead of a partisan hack.

Wolf Blitzer is such a dork.

I stayed home sick from work because I've been running a fever. So, you could either say I'm literally sick of this election, or that I've got voting fever!

I'm watching election coverage on Fox News, because I don't want to get to overly excited. They're being really...muted. Plus, they're running all kinds of fun election facts at the bottom of the screen.

Karl Rove is in the tank for Obama. Damn liberal media.

I love that one of the ad men that apporoaches Homer looked just like Roger Sterling.

I tried to get y'all to make your own predictions a couple of days ago, but nobody went for it. I'm sticking by these, by the way.