Barack Obama's Inauguration

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Right...but as I said...someone in that party needs a new idea.

 

McCain didn't have one...and it cost him this election.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

If people actually voted against the party in power when they didnt like what was happening, they at least wouldnt have voted to put more Democrats in Congress, especially after their "common sense plan" to lower gas prices was an epic failure (Gas prices doubled over the two years Dems had control).

 

But wait, Gas prices miraculously dropped back to 2006 levels in 2 months just in time for the election to make gas prices a non issue...weird

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Maybe I misinterpreted his posts, but does 909 not realize that we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression? Things have already tanked. Badly.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

He's saying that when things get worse (still due to the Bush administration) that American's aren't smart enough to realize that and will blame whoever happens to be in power at the time.

 

And that's likely true.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Whats going to make things worse is, I think the worst of it has happened to the banks, but now businesses are suffering due to consumer spending falling of dramatically. Layoffs will inevitably happen bringing the pain the banks were feeling 2 months ago straight home when people are laid off. I dont think a lot of that will happen before the holidays due to the holidays, but after the new year is in its probably going to get ugly.

 

And then the people who saw the government give about a trillion dollars to the banks will get mad when theres no money to help them out.

 

 

 

 

[panthermatt7 0]

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?

 

The same context wasn't applied to McCain's voting record, was it?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

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?

 

The same context wasn't applied to McCain's voting record, was it?

 

I thought McCain was really Bush in disquise?

[SuperJerk 0]

If people actually voted against the party in power when they didnt like what was happening, they at least wouldnt have voted to put more Democrats in Congress, especially after their "common sense plan" to lower gas prices was an epic failure (Gas prices doubled over the two years Dems had control).

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

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.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

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?

 

The same context wasn't applied to McCain's voting record, was it?

 

Panthermatt still rarely posts anything other than tu quoques.

[Guest]

He's saying that when things get worse (still due to the Bush administration) that American's aren't smart enough to realize that and will blame whoever happens to be in power at the time.

 

And that's likely true.

That's right.

[panthermatt7 0]

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?

 

The same context wasn't applied to McCain's voting record, was it?

 

Panthermatt still rarely posts anything other than tu quoques.

 

I know. I'm disagreeing, so I'm obviously intellectually inferior.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

He's saying that when things get worse (still due to the Bush administration) that American's aren't smart enough to realize that and will blame whoever happens to be in power at the time.

 

And that's likely true.

They are certainly capable of it even if it isn't the entire truth.

[panthermatt7 0]

He's saying that when things get worse (still due to the Bush administration) that American's aren't smart enough to realize that and will blame whoever happens to be in power at the time.

 

And that's likely true.

They are certainly capable of it even if it isn't the entire truth.

 

If you're inferring that people should blame Bush for the economic slide, but would blame Obama instead, I disagree. It's vogue to blame Bush; people will still follow that along.

[Nightwing 0]

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?

 

The same context wasn't applied to McCain's voting record, was it?

 

Panthermatt still rarely posts anything other than tu quoques.

 

I know. I'm disagreeing, so I'm obviously intellectually inferior.

 

Way to prove him right, man. Wow.

[Perfxion 0]

This article sums up one thing I am happy about with Obama being the 44th President. Al Sharpton, Dust off Your Résume.

[snuffbox 0]

Gary Bauer? Seriously?

[SuperJerk 0]

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.)

 

Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader says

 

• NEW: Conservative argues GOP must again become party of smaller government
• Family Research Council official says conservatives always beat moderates
• GOP should champion conservative values like those of Ronald Reagan, he says
• Conservatives trying to rebuild movement in all 50 states

A conservative leader Friday laid the Republican Party's poor showing at the polls at the feet of moderates who, he argues, led the party away from its core principles.

 

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told CNN that conservatives need to take back control of the GOP if the party is to return to its winning ways.

 

"Moderates never beat conservatives. We've seen that in past elections," he said.

 

Rejecting suggestions that the conservative movement was viewed as being out of touch with the electorate, Perkins says the Republican Party needs to go back to basics.

 

"It's a return to fundamental conservative principles that Ronald Reagan showed work and that people can be attracted to," Perkins said.

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.

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

Bauer represents a pretty crappy slice of the Republican Party, but banishing Jesse Jackson and his progeny to the ends of the earth should be a bipartisan cause.

 

Jerk: who are "they" that always do "this"? The person you quoted is obviously from some far-right group; of COURSE he's going to say the moderates are to blame. He's not speaking on behalf of the whole party.

[snuffbox 0]

What we saw under Bush Jr wasn't conservatism. Not even close.

[At Home 0]

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?

 

The same context wasn't applied to McCain's voting record, was it?

 

Panthermatt still rarely posts anything other than tu quoques.

 

I know. I'm disagreeing, so I'm obviously intellectually inferior.

 

Way to prove him right, man. Wow.

 

Ha ha!

[Guest]

What we saw under Bush Jr wasn't conservatism. Not even close.

That's right.

 

People like real fiscal conservatism. What we saw on Tuesday was a rebuke of Sir Spend-a-Lot.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

I believe that government will never be small. Once a program is created it never ends and it just sucks up money.

[At Home 0]

I'm in favor of a government that spends its money wisely instead of not at all. I don't mind paying taxes.

[Guest Vitamin X]

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

People like the idea of real fiscal conservatism.

 

EFA

 

Seriously.

 

The question of what's going to happen with the Republican Party came up in my National Security Policy class Wednesday. My take was that, while I would prefer to see the Republican Party become a socially moderate to liberal, fiscally conservative libertarian type party (since I loathe social conservatism, but am at least sympathetic to fiscal conservatism), I simply don't think that's going to happen. The party is becoming increasingly Southern and increasingly hard right. The only region of the country that McCain won was the South--Obama easily won the Northeast obviously, but also pretty handily won the West and Midwest--and the South is not the place where a libertarian message is going to be successful. Furthermore, most GOP moderates in Congress have been picked off by Democrats in the last two elections.

 

So I see the party moving further to a more Mike Huckabee-esque direction as I don't think there's much of a market for fiscal conservatism. People may like the idea of low government spending in the abstract, but when you talk about actually cutting entitlements or the military budget, the two biggest components of federal spending, you're generally not going to get very far.

[At Home 0]

Well, of course, the only republicans that the democrats replaced this month were moderate conservatives, not the crazy ones.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Also,

 

 

 

[Perfxion 0]

Its sad, I can understand more words in that track than in Lil Wayne's "A Milli".

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Two other random comments about this election:

 

1) The polls were pretty much dead on. Only exception was Alaska (President, Senate, & Congress all seemed to have been off there for some reason).

 

2) Obama actually won the rich vote (over $200K/yr.).

[SuperJerk 0]

Jerk: who are "they" that always do "this"?

 

Ahem.

 

What we saw under Bush Jr wasn't conservatism. Not even close.

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.