Max

Members
  • Content count

    2,274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Max

  • Rank
    Veteran
  • Birthday
  1. I would never in a million years expect liberals here to think that the GOP was right all along. I will give you credit for at least admitting that Obama holds responsibility for the country's malaise. This is honestly the first time that I have read such a harsh criticism of him on your part. Yes, you have criticized him for not being liberal enough, but all people in the MSNBC wing of the party seem to do that, only to sing his praises and be his biggest cheerleaders whenever he needs his base the most. (Obama's already been our most liberal president since LBJ, and I have little doubt that he would govern further to the left if it were realistically possible. Given the makeup of even the Democrats in Congress, not even a President Liz Warren could deliver single-payer health care, a guaranteed $15/hour minimum wage, and all the other items found on the progressive wish list.) There are certainly some Republicans who have wanted to see Obama fail from the beginning, but every president has always had to deal with such enemies. This type of spin that Obama has reached out and bent over backwards to accommodate the GOP has been constantly repeated (not just by Democrats, but by the media as well), but even a liberal Republican Senator like Olympia Snowe has refuted this: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/frustrated-senator-olympia-snowe-gives-obama-f-101657433.html You (along one other poster who has not posted in a while), in particular, have been gushing with praise for President Obama and his policies such as the ACA. That's why I'm surprised that your post seemed to give the impression that you have been disenchanted with him for quite some time (notwithstanding your criticisms made from time to time that he isn't liberal enough or that he is "too nice" when dealing with the Republicans). If anything, however, I see the fact that you are less than enthused with the president as progress, even if it is for the usual reasons the people at the left-wing blogs give. (And just for the record, I don't hold Obama single-handedly responsible for the country's condition. But I do feel, that as the most powerful official in the land for the past six years, he deserves more blame than anyone else. And I would say that it's only fair for people hold him to a much higher standard than your typical president, because of the superhuman hype that accompanied his 2008 campaign.) I actually gave you credit when you admitted Obama does have some of the blame for the malaise (albeit not for the reasons on which we would agree). But now you revert back into your zealous, "Obama is so wonderful" mode. Additionally, your hypocrisy is truly amazing, Marceline! You just attacked me for not reading others' posts carefully enough, yet if you went back a few pages you would have already seen my response to these so called awesome accomplishments on the president's part: Thank you so much, Brian! It was a great election night, but winning in 2016 is absolutely imperative. It's such a pleasure to see you on this forum! I am always so interested in anything that you have to say. I too am really grateful there are some liberal folks--such as DRW, Qfan, and Prince--that tolerate my presence here. That is such a testament to their maturity. I enjoy healthy debate, and always look forward to what these particular posters say.
  2. While I applaud Andrew Cuomo for being one of the few center-left Democrats remaining, it's pathetic that he's blaming his entire limp re-election performance on Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/nyregion/cuomo-blames-frustration-with-obama-for-new-york-democrats-poor-performance.html?_r=0 In many states, it is indeed true that Obama was a huge albatross around the Democrats' necks. But NY is as liberal as it gets. Obama deserves some of the blame, but Cuomo completely took it for granted that he was going to win by a near-historic margin. He totally discounted the fact that his party's base despises him, and appeared not to appreciate the benefit he received from a little known opponent who was publicly written off by Chris Christie. (In another case of typical Christie opportunism, the NJ Governor said that he wouldn't help the GOP candidate in NY because he had no chance of winning. While that was obviously true, Christie spent resources on behalf of Republican candidates in CA and PA, even though they too had zero chance. The real reason why Christie didn't come to help Cuomo's opponent was because of the good working relationship he enjoys with Cuomo.)
  3. Amy, I can totally imagine Bo and Viki together, but I too am shocked that the two of them never had any romantic relationship. Had Alex and Bo started a long-term relationship (years after Alex returned from the nuthouse), I honestly think that Bo could have turned Alex into somebody good. AW's Rachel and Felicia were evil at first, but love saved them.
  4. I'm really baffled on how some can think that modern day Democrats are Michael Dukakis-type pussies. (Perhaps this is true in the select case of Jon Stewart, as I rarely watch.) Over the past several years, I have seen extraordinary nastiness on the part of Democrats, including these examples: *As mentioned earlier, race-bating signs placed in black neighborhoods that say things like "Prevent Another Ferguson in Their Future" *Harry Reid's endless ranting on how the Koch Brothers are responsible for every bit of government dysfunction *An ad suggesting that Mitt Romney was responsible for a woman's death from cancer *Accusations from Harry Reid and David Letterman that Mitt Romney is a tax felon *Ads that show a Paul Ryan likeness throwing granny over the cliff *Personally holding the entire GOP responsible for "pro-rape" comments made by Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock It's one thing to employ these vicious campaign tactics, but it's quite another to say with a straight face that Democrats are pussies. I would hate to see what Democrats are like when they are nasty.
  5. DRW, I read that Politico article as well. I was a bit perplexed at the article's assertion that Hillary never before had a bogeyman to run against, because Obama, the Democrats, and the mainstream media had been demonizing Congress for the past for years despite the fact that the GOP only controlled the House. (I believe that these attacks were effective because many ignorant people were under the impression that the GOP controlled all of Congress.) Additionally, she also had another bogeyman with the Tea Party. I know you'll disagree, but I have long believed Politico to have a left-wing bias; plus, not all former Bush staffers (e.g., Nicole Wallace) are supporters of the modern day Republican Party. The Scott Walker thing is a very good point; yet, I still feel that Christie was the biggest winner of the night even when you take that into account. A lot of Republicans--including myself--abhor the part of Christie that is so self-serving, but giving token support to Walker (because he is competition in the GOP primary) is hardly the first time Christie has thrown another member of his own party under the bus when it suits him. He did it when he gave the 2012 Keynote Address at the RNC (when he made the speech all about him and barely mentioned Romney), and most famously did it when he hugged and gave over-the-top praise to Obama regarding Sandy one week before the 2012 election. But since he's not a crook, and because his policies are in the GOP mainstream, a lot of people will support him in the primaries because Republicans are so desperate for a winner. It would be great if a nice guy could be elected president, but it unfortunately seems necessary to nominate a ruthless SOB to successfully fight against the Axelrod/Clinton tactics that the Democrats use. Obviously, Christie will have a difficult time winning the nomination because the establishment will be split among four strong candidates: in addition to Christie, there will be Bush, Walker, and Kasich. Walker was also a big winner on Tuesday, and unlike the other men I just mentioned, he has appeal among the far right as well. Because John Kasich's monster win was expected, he hasn't been talked about much, but he has been one of the year's brightest political stars. Yes, it's true that he ran against a candidate who ran the worst race of anybody in 2014, but Kasich was going to handily win regardless; that's why serious Democrats like Ted Strickland and Betty Sutton were too afraid to run against him.
  6. This isn't going to be a popular thing to say, but Chris Christie was the biggest winner on Tuesday night: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-big-winner-is-christie/article/2555835 He managed the GOP's enormously successful efforts in the gubernatorial races. And in sharp contrast to what took place in the Senate, the competitive governor's races took place mostly on blue turf. I am most definitely not his biggest fan, but I can't help but admire his political brilliance. And almost everybody seems to "misunderestimate" (to use my favorite "Bushism") him; for instance, just remember how all the "experts" said that Christie was politically dead after those now discredited Bridgegate charges first came out. If he gets the nomination, I honestly believe that he will defeat Hillary (despite how pessimistic I otherwise feel about 2016). And speaking about the Clintons, they had an awful night, because almost all of the candidates they stumped for lost badly. To be fair, the major reason why those candidates lost had nothing to do with the Clintons. (They lost because of Obama's miserable approval rating.) But Tuesday's results do show that any supposed "greatness" that the Clintons have as campaign surrogates is long gone.
  7. They did about as well in the Senate as I thought they would. However, after initially thinking that Nunn would defeat Purdue, my final prediction was that the race wouldn't be decided until a runoff. Although Tillis' small margin of victory was expected, he should have won by a much larger margin given the fact that NC was the only purple state Romney won. (Given the lackluster campaign he ran, I am guessing that he will be a one-term Senator.) And while I never once doubted that McConnell and Cotton would win, I have no idea why the polls failed so miserably when it came to predicting their landslide margins of victory. But the biggest shock of any Senate race was the extremely poor showing on the part of Mark Warner. No serious political analyst of which I am aware seemed to think he would be in any danger against a GOP hack such as Ed Gillespie. I think that the House and gubernatorial results took everybody, myself included, by surprise. It appears that the GOP will have its biggest House majority since the first two years of the Hoover presidency. After "fangate," I thought that Rick Scott would lose for sure (but I give you a lot of credit for correctly predicting that he would win). While the Maine gubernatorial race was always competitive, Paul LePage was seldom, if ever, ahead in the polls. Scott Walker seemed to be in serious trouble for the past six months, but I thought he would squeak by in the end. Given the fact that Wisconsin is a lot more blue than purple, I have no idea how he managed to win so handily. As I mentioned earlier, I got my prediction for CT wrong. I was almost wrong about MA as well, and was surprised that Martha Coakley did better than most though she would. I felt Illinois was my riskiest prediction; I thought that Bruce Rauner would win despite being behind in most polls simply because Pat Quinn was so unpopular. Finally, I was shocked that Wendy Davis tanked so badly in Texas. Although that race's outcome was never in doubt, she received such glowing national media attention back in 2013, and Texas is also a state (I believe) in which non-Hispanic whites are in the minority. Thus, there really is no excuse for her horrendous performance. I would be most interested to know which results surprised you the most.
  8. That's a great article. At least Martha Coakley can take comfort in knowing that she wasn't the worst politician of the year. I am still surprised that Dan Malloy won in CT. Although it's one of the country's most Democratic states, I have no idea why Tom Foley couldn't pull out a win in this climate.
  9. Jane, the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates of any country in the industrialized world (so they are still paying a lot in taxes even with those tax breaks to which alluded). Unlike with individuals, you really can't penalize a corporation with a high tax bill, since they are better equipped to save money elsewhere. Given the selfishness of corporations (which is a liberal belief I actually concur with), it should be no surprise that they will try to regain the money they lose through taxation by outsourcing, by raising prices on consumers, or perhaps by doing something as extreme as what Burger King did, which was to acquire Tim Hortons and relocate its corporate headquarters to Canada. I personally don't believe that supply-side economics is a panacea, and we recently have seen some Republicans (such as Jeb Bush) who have been willing to fight this Grover Norquist type of mentality. On the other hand, President Obama--in a lame attempt to appear bi-partisan--appointed the well-respected Simpson-Bowles Commission, which recommended revenue increases along with cuts in entitlements as the necessary solution to balance the budget. Yet either because he wanted to appease the far-left or because that advice went against his own rigid ideological beliefs, the president refused to go along with the commission's recommendations regarding entitlement reforms.
  10. It's really sad that despite being president for six years, there is no admission by anyone here that Obama has any responsibility for the county's current malaise. First, note that while the "deficit" may have been cut in half, the debt has gone up 99.8% during Obama's presidency: http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/obamas-numbers-april-2014-update/ For those who like to brag about the unemployment numbers, you also might want to keep in mind the fact that participation in the labor market is at it's lowest level since the Carter Administration. And many of those who have found new jobs have had to settle for less pay than what they had in their old ones. Not everything about ObamaCare is bad, but the public hated being lied to by the president when he promised that people could keep their plans if they wanted to. They also despised the fact that a leader as cold as Nancy Pelosi made a statement to the effect that health care reform legislation had to be passed as soon as possible, so there was no time to read the bill or debate it until after ObamaCare became law. While I am glad that some new people are getting health insurance, a lot of people--myself included--are now paying a lot more for health care than before. And some of those who enrolled in ObamaCare exchanges have only done so because their companies (such as Wal-Mart or Home Depot) dropped coverage for certain employees. Yes, we are not in a depression, but this has been such a painfully slow recovery in terms of the things that really matter (despite the fact that the Obama machine and their media allies have been breathless spinning the "Recovery Summer" bullshit ever since 2010). In terms of the idiotic pie-in-the-sky hype that tens of millions of Americans (and billions worldwide) were duped into believing back in 2008, Mr. Obama falls far short of his own standards for presidential greatness. (Just to clarify, I don't think that everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 was duped into drinking the Kool-Aid, as obviously a lot of his support was the result of loyal Democrats--including Hillary supporters--voting the party line or the result of swing voters wanting to repudiate Bush and the Republicans or the result of swing voters not wanting to put McCain and particularly Palin in power. But I don't think that I exaggerated when I stated that tens of millions of Americans--and billions of people all around the world--bought into the incredibly absurd hype that Obama would be some sort of savior. While I understand the pride and historical importance involved in electing the first African-American president, I will personally never understand how anyone could think that the election of any one person, particularly somebody as inexperienced as Obama, was going to be the answer to our problems.)
  11. Given that the GOP did so much better than anyone predicted, Brown's narrow defeat was still incredibly embarrassing. Yet, as the only Republican incumbent (of which I am aware) to be defeated, Tom Corbett must feel like the biggest loser. However, in a sign of just how badly the polls understated GOP support, Corbett lost by "only" ten points (when I believe that he was behind by as much as twice that amount at certain points in the campaign). Also, Corbett may be the only governor of Pennsylvania to ever lose re-election. Prince, the result in the MD governor's race ranks right up there with Eric Cantor's primary defeat when it comes to being the biggest upset of the year. But as for O'Malley, he never even had a minute chance of winning the presidency to begin with.
  12. Considering that the nearly dead NY State GOP fielded a total unknown for an opponent, Andrew Cuomo's performance leaved much to be desired. With 98% percent reporting, he wins 53.9% to 40.6%. I guess so many liberals in his party who hate him just chose not to vote.
  13. The GOP lacks any clear front-runner for the nomination, and there's no spinning the fact that the GOP primary will be murky free-for-all. But the Democrats are in a weaker position for 2016 than most of them are willing to admit. Much has already been discussed about Hillary's problems (including her tendency for gaffes and the fact that many in the far left do not trust her). But if the Democrats are supposedly so strong when it comes to presidential elections, then why is Hillary the only Democrat with any chance of winning in two years? The logical thing to conclude is that it is because everybody knows that a Biden, Warren, or O'Malley nomination would be disastrous for the party, even with their much envied demographic advantage.
  14. Nobody likes a sore winner--which, IMO, is far worse than a sore loser--and I'll never forget all the nasty, obnoxious gloating some on the left chose to engage in back when they emerged victorious in previous elections. Politics is always cyclical. On a scale of one to ten, this only means a four in terms of importance to me. While it's great that that the reprehensible Harry Reid is no longer Majority Leader, I am tired of the GOP always doing so well in midterms, only to fall short two years later (see 1994 and 2010; this problem even happened all the way back after the GOP triumphed in the 1946 election). But I do think that the Democrats are underestimating just how much of a liability President Obama could be on Secretary Clinton's presidential chances in 2016. Hillary needs to be far more skillful at separating herself from the president--without alienating the progressive base in the process--than the Democrats were this year.
  15. I am going to take back my earlier prediction of the GA Senate race (in which I predicted a Nunn victory); with that race, the only thing I feel I can predict at this point is that a runoff will occur. All my other Senate predictions remain unchanged. (If I didn't state earlier, the GOP will win in LA, though I believe that race will also go to a runoff.) A race-by-race analysis for the House is impossible, but my best guess is that the Republicans will have at least 240 seats, though less than the post-1930 peak of 246 seats achieved after the 1946 election. I also believe that GOP House candidates will win more votes than Democratic House candidates. The gubernatorial races are very hard to predict, but I believe that the following states will experience changes: *AK will have an Independent governor. *Democrats will gain governorships in FL, ME, and PA. *Republicans will gain governorships in AR, CT, IL, and MA.