Max

Anti-Mormon bigotry rears its ugly head from Cher (an individual who is a proud member of the 99%, and can totally relate to their economic struggles):

http://www.hollywood...nderwear-343651

Clearly, it's only the Romney supporters who say crazy and hateful things that poison the country's political discourse.

Joe Trippi, who lost all relevance after destroying Howard Dean's campaign and bumbling through several other campaigns

I think what destroyed Dean's campaign was his scream in Iowa heard round the world. Unless Trippi instructed Dean to do that, I don't see how he can be responsible for Dean's spectacular collapse.

Since presidential elections have always been personal popularity contests, I fully expect Obama to win re-election. Still, it is usually the losing side of a Supreme Court battle that is more fired up over the outcome (and obsesses over the ruling for a longer period of time) than the winning side (see Bush v. Gore and Citizens United).

Despite what everyone on FOX was saying, I had thought this law might be upheld (which is why I never once predicted otherwise). Nobody on the left can demonize Chief Justice Roberts as some right-wing wacko. Ironically, Obama (along with Hillary and any other Senate Democrat who was considering running for president in 2008) voted against Roberts' confirmation so as to not offend their party's left-wing base (who would be rabidly opposed to almost anyone Bush appointed to SCOUTS). I can certainly understand why Democrats would vote against Alito's confirmation (because he is very conservative); Roberts, however, attracted bi-partisan support (as half the Senate Democrats voted for his confirmation), and those presidential hopefuls who voted against him were merely pandering.

No other Republican would dare say this, but I am sick of the near-Obama-like hype that is now happening with Marco Rubio (who just wrote an autobiography). Some will probably say this is "racist," but the fact of the matter is that almost nobody would give a s#it about the life story of a white male who is in his second year in the Senate. I know that Rubio is a great public speaker with an inspiring life-story, but he is grossly unqualified to be president (or even VP). Haven't we learned anything from the Obama presidency?

Although so much media speculation centers on Rubio being the VP nominee, I'm almost certain it won't happen. (His goal is to run for president later, and--since Romney could lose--he fears that being on a losing ticket could hurt his future prospects.) Aside from FOX (who is having a collective boner with Rubio mania), I personally believe others in the media are promoting these fasle Rubio-VP rumors so they can then point out how pathetic Romney's actual VP choice is. I'm pretty pissed at Rubio as well, because (by releasing this book now and making the media rounds) he is deliberately upstaging Romney and whomever actually is the 2012 GOP VP nominee (which appears that, at the moment, is likely to be Pawlenty). Then again, I think that Rubio wants Romney to lose, so he can run himself in 2016. (And Democrats, don't kid yourselves: if he runs for president, he will be such a formidable candidate because of his smooth talk and because he will attract a much larger share of the hispanic vote than any other Republican ever could.)

I don't think it's right that people vote on the basis of group solidarity while overlooking significant factors. However, people do just that. There's a difference between acknowledging that it occurs and finding it an acceptable practice.

I think I agree with you on this point. I don't find it to be an acceptable practice to vote for somebody based on group solidarity, but it is totally naive for anybody to deny that this type of voting doesn't exist.

It also doesn't negate the fact that black people are always depicted as doing things simply because they are black and for no other reason. No one is adamant that black voters voted for other Democrats who ran for office on the basis of race so it speaks volumes about racialism and this not being anywhere near a post-racial society that this is seen as the only reason a voter who happens to be black would vote for Barack Obama.

Clearly, the fact that Obama got such a huge percentage of the black vote in the general election doesn't prove anything, since all Democrats enjoy the same numbers. However, race/solidarity certainly played a major role in the fact that he got such a lopsided share of the African American vote in the Democratic primaries. (Of course, as I explained before, race was not the only reason for his success; for instance, several lily-white states had caucuses, which--by their very nature--helped candidates aligned with the party's liberal base.)

I am no fan of politicians but Barack Obama cannot beat Bill Clinton in the sleaze department. Both he and Hilary Clinton vehemently denied that he had an affair with Genefer (sp?) Flowers and basically painted her as the worst kind of liar when they were the ones lying. Monica Lewinsky and the countless others make him it for me. Eliot Spitzer is running slightly behind and John Edwards is right up there too. We clearly have a different view on sleaze.

I also agree that Clinton is a much more evil human being than Obama. I should clarify that my definition of "sleaze" is merely breaking campaign promises, pandering, being opportunistic, etc. (things that Obama and many other politicians have done). What the Clintons engaged in was corruption, which is obviously far worse. The only positive the Clintons have over Obama is at least they are competent, but a choice between incompetence vs. corruption is a most dreadful decision one could make.

Wales, thank you so much for your well-thought out response. I sincerely apologize if I gave you the incorrect impression that I thought you were some partisan hack.

I don't think it's stupidity, I think it's voting for who you can identify with. I think every person in the country does that, unless the candidate is blatantly against your best interest. That's why all the rich waspy snobs will vote for Romney, why all the Bubbas voted for Bill Clinton, why all the military brats and "glory of war" war freaks voted for Mccain. It's just birds of a feather flocking together.

Alphanguy, thanks for pointing this out. Though what you said is an obvious truth, few are willing to repeat such sentiments because doing so is very politically incorrect.

Though I am in the vast minority on this matter, I personally believe that it is just as wrong to vote for somebody because of membership in some group/minority (e.g., voting for Romney because he is a Mormon, voting for Obama because he is black) than it is to vote against somebody because he is part of some group/minority.

Barack Obama is no more contemptible than some of those other politicians so the level of animosity directed towards him is disturbing as well as the level of disrespect towards his office.

I seem to recall a lot of disrespect shown towards Bush when he was president. Certainly, his critics didn't let respect for the office of the presidency get in the way of trashing him personally.

While I feel that Obama is horrendously incompetent, I don't believe that he's any sleazier/contemptible than most other opportunistic politicans out there. I think the reason why a lot of people dislike him is because he was hyped up as somebody who would be completely different, when--in reality--he represents politics as usual. His presidency would be in a lot better shape if these absurdly high expectations never existed in the first place.

It's the two-year anniversary of the "Recovery Summer":

http://news.investor...mulus-claim.htm

More broken promises and failed policies from Barry:

Big Spending, Small Growth

Overall, stimulus results have been lackluster. To date, $840 billion has been spent on everything from grants to industry, infrastructure projects, payments to state and local governments and tax incentives for businesses. Yet the economy remains sluggish.

The economy had grown by a 3.8% annual rate in Q2 2010 as stimulus funding kicked in, but it didn't last. GDP growth slowed to 2.5% in Q3 2010 and 2.4% in Q4. It averaged 1.7% in 2011 and rose at a 1.9% pace in Q1 2012.

Average annual U.S. growth from 1947 to 2007 was 3.4%.

Unemployment has fallen from 9.7% in June 2010 to 8.2% in May, but the administration had predicted it would be below 6% by now. The true picture is even worse, because the jobless rate excludes the huge number of people who have left the workforce. Actual employment rates are near multi-decade lows.

John Edwards. He didn't get the nomination, but he was seen as a serious contender. I guess you could say it was five years, not two, but it was still first term, and he had less of a political background than Obama.

Edwards did spend more time as Senator, as you indicated. But, I also agree with you that it was outrageous that Edwards was considered such a serious contender.

Thankfully, Edwards did very poorly, and not just in 2008. I don't think that most people know this, but Edwards only won one primary in 2004: the SC primary. He was hyped up endlessly by the media, but his huge lack of experience (I believe) resulted in him getting so few delegates; in Obama's case, he got the nomination.

Race--in ways that were both negative and positive for Obama--played a big role in many Democratic primaries. For those who doubt this, consider that Obama lost in states like PA, OH, and WV, where a lot of small-town Americans "cling to their guns and bibles." Conversely, Obama won landslide victories in states where African Americans made up a huge percentage of the Democratic primary electorate: VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, and MS. (Like I said earier, race was not the only reason for Obama's victory. For instance, the fact that moderates tend to abstain from caucuses really helped Obama pull of wins in lily-white states that had caucuses.) On the whole, I certainly feel that race helped Obama more than it hurt him.

Qfan is most definately NOT a racist. I really commend him for bravely going against the popular opinion here.

I also believe that race played a role in Obama getting where he was. How many white males would be considered serious contenders for the presidency after launching a campaign two short years upon becoming senator? In such a politically correct world, these things are not popular to say, but such unpopularity doesn't make such statements false. (If Obama wanted to, he could have put his country over his own ambitions by waiting until he accumulated more time in the Senate. He didn't do that because he knows an important truth in politics: the longer you are in Congress, the more unelectable you become, since opponents can cherry-pick your voting record and distort things.)

Aside from the push that electing Obama would be "making history," there were--of course--other reasons that led to his becoming president. There's no doubt that he ran a brilliant campaign (which wasn't saddled with the huge baggage that Sharpton or Jackson had), whereby he gave lofty speeches about "hope and change" and was consequently able to dupe millions into voting for him. The other major factor that led to his nomination (which in 2008 was tantamount to victory in the general election) was that the far-left had a conniption fit over the fact that Hillary voted for "Bush's War," and were unable to forgive her for that "sin." (Almost nobody knew who Obama was at the time of the war vote, so it was neither a risky nor unpopular thing to come out against the war in Chicago Democratic circles; nevertheless, his supporters praised him for his "courage" in doing this once he ran for president.) Thus, race, slick and misleading rhetoric, and anti-war sentiment all combined to elevate a dangerously unqualified man to the White House. (And the stock market crash in September 2008 ensured a McCain defeat, so--like I indicated earlier--all the critical action in 2008 occurred in the primary.)

Most of what I read was that Rothman would win and if he hurt himself it was by his own mistakes, not any of his opponent's strengths.

Carl, I do think that Rothman was hurt by the fact that he looked so opportunistic by running in another district. (And he never adequately explained why he was doing this, other than to say that defeating Garrett would be a hopeless undertaking; he just attacked Pascrell for not being "progressive" enough.) Pascrell isn't the best politician in the world, but I was very impressed with the way he was able to get out the vote in Passaic County.

Even though Garrett's district is solidly Republican, I think that Rothman could have made the general election competitive (given that Garrett is so far to the right). I wonder if Rothman regrets his choice, as things couldn't have ended any worse for him. (He even stated that he doesn't expect to run for public office again.)

As for Clinton, he has a long history of saying the wrong thing. Even his aides were baffled.

I honestly do believe that Clinton has a legitimate policy disagreement with Obama. That being said, I am not naive enough to believe that's the only factor at play: he obviously wants Obama to lose as well. Clinton is walking a fine line, because he can't openly cheer for a Romney victory. Instead, he has to go through the motions of supporting the president all the while dropping comments that undermine his re-election (such as his support for the Bush tax cuts as well as his statement that he believes Romney is qualified to be president).

What I don't understand is why few, if any, Democrats aren't openly pushing for Obama to drop his re-election bid and hand his delegates--and, by extension, the Democratic nomination--to Hillary Clinton. I'll be perfectly honest and say that this is something that would bother the hell out of me, given the underhanded nature of such a tactic. That being said, swing voters could care less, and the end result would be a Clinton landslide over Romney. Given the hatred that Democrats have for Romney, the choice seems clear for them: stick with Obama and risk a 50% chance of losing, or nominate Clinton and have a 100% chance of winning.

I don't see how it's an upset if you win in the district you've represented for years.

It's an upset because one would expect the more liberal candidate to win a Democratic primary, because no pre-election polls showed Pascrell crushing Rothman, and because most of the political analysis I read predicted a Rothman victory. (Also, not all of the new district was previously represented by Pascrell. But, it upset a lot of people that Rothman's home was not in the district whereas Pascrell's was. If Rothman wanted to, he could have challenged an extremely conservative Republican--Scott Garrett--who will represent the town that Rothman resides in. However, he opted not to do that and instead took the easier option of challenging Pascrell.)

I'm not going to say much about the botched recall effort by Democrats in WI, other than the fact that it represented an embarrassing defeat for the far-left and big labor. However, I am not somebody who was jumping for joy at the result, for the simple reason that it really won't affect the presidential race in that state. (I still expect Obama to win WI, though he will have to spend more resources than originally planned to defend it. On the flip side, I worry that Romney will spend too much time and money trying to win a liberal state that even Michael Dukakis won.)

I'm thankful that there are some voices of moderation within the Democratic Party. For example, President Clinton felt it was wise to extend the Bush tax cuts until the economy gets better. (Not surprisingly, he seemed to backtrack his original statements after the MSNBC wing of the party had a hissy fit.)

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ITwoqtlQDIs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The moderates prevailed again in a New Jersey Democratic primary that pitted two incumbent Congressman against each other. (Such a race occurred because NJ lost a House seat due to its below average population growth in the last decade.) In a move that was purely opportunistic, Steve Rothman chose not to run against a Republican incumbent in the fall but instead chose to represent a Congressional District that isn't his home district. He challenged Bill Pascrell (whose home was in the district) and trashed him for "siding with polluters" and not being supportive enough of gay marriage (even though Pascrell "evolved" on the issue before Obama did). In a major upset, the Clinton-backed Pascrell got over 60% of the vote against the Obama-supported Rothman.

Considering that Romney is still using birther surrogates, you can't be surprised if people blame racism, can you?

I highly doubt that Donald Trump's support will be helpful to Romney. It's likely to do a lot more harm than good. Even George Will cannot see any upside for Romney choosing Trump as a surrogate.

I wonder if the media will be as outraged over this as they were with Edwards.

I wouldn't think so, given that Kirk was never hyped up to anywhere near the extent Edwards was.

A shitty jobs report today, which is par for the course in the Obama economy. Barry, in a display of extraordinary leadership skills, absolves himself and blames Congress (apparenty, the president doesn't realize that the Democrats control one-half of Congress):

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/president-obama-blames-congress-weak-jobs-report-190622529.html

The number of jobs created in April has also been revised downward, and the Dow had its worst day of the year (closing down some 274 points). Of course, when Obama loses, the far-left will say the real reasons for his defeat were SuperPACs (which Obama also uses), "racism," and "homophobia."

In other news, Michael Bloomberg will ban all super-sized sodas in New York City. If this isn't nanny state politics, I don't know what is!

http://news.yahoo.com/york-mayor-ban-super-size-sodas-185400967.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CZoQslPNVMAeNbQtDMD

There's a YouTube user by the name of "robertannafan" who has posted so many great clips of vintage GH. He actually has loads of videos for different "topics." My favorite topic that he has covered is "Duke and the Mob" (1988), which contains 200 videos! Here is a wonderful video--which I don't believe has been posted here before--of when Duke cheats on Anna and sleeps with Olivia:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9o0l-RRSugk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Obama has several paths to victory, Romney really only has 1.

Wingwalker, I actually agree with you on this matter, which is why I don't understand why Democrats are so panicked. Assuming that there are no unforseen major changes in the election, Romney starts out with a floor of 206 electoral votes: the 22 states McCain won plus IN (11), NC (15), and that one Congressional District from NE. (All of these were places Obama barely won. This time, only NC is considered "swing," and I disagree with that assessment.) Then, Romney has to win three big states where Obama had his weakest showings (outside of IN, NC, and the CD in NE): FL (29), OH (18), and VA (13). Unfortunately, this still gives the former MA governor only 266 electoral votes. Thus--and this is where it becomes most challenging--Romney will need to win one of the small states that GWB carried at least once: NV (6), CO (9), IA (6), NH (4), or NM (5). (I listed these states in order from most to least favorable for Romney.)

I strongly doubt that Romney will win a state that GWB lost twice. This means that I don't consider MI, PA, or WI to be swing states (despite what the conventional wisdom says).

If you see Booker as being the same as Obama then why are you defending him?

Both Obama and Romney are serial panderers. I certainly don't see Booker anywhere near that league. (The only time I recall him pandering was when he retracted his statement on Meet the Press.)

If Obama actually was this great post-partisan politician that he camapigned as, then such statements in 2008 couldn't be classified as pandering. Booker, however, has a record of putting people over party, such as when he challenged the views of the Sharpe James-led Newark Democratic establishment, and the productive working relationship he has with Chris Christie (whom he may challenge for governor in 2013).

The problem with what Booker said is that there is nothing "nauseating" about the Bain Capital ads, there were no lies or distortions in them

Actually, the Obama campaign recently ran an ad where Bain was blamed for the closure of a steel company. However, the problem was that Romney wasn't even the head of Bain when that company went out of business. Thankfully, CNN's Ashleigh Banfield pointed out to viewers the disgusting nature of the highly misleading ad:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eoTYnnGV-ZM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Given that Obama has been such a "highly successful" president anyway, I really don't understand the Democratic need to resort to these type of scare tactics.

Some have already stated that Bain and Jeremiah Wright are not comparable with each other. I agree. Obama is using attack ads on Bain to scare voters, wheres Romney (despite all his flaws) has disavowed efforts by others to play the Wright race card:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/romney-repudiates-jeremiah-wright-plan-123737.html

Republicans stepped up the partisanship the minute Obama was elected. Why aren't they expected to stop partisanship?

I'm guessing the reason why a different standard exists is because the GOP leaders--unlike Obama--did not go parading themselves around as the most honorable politicians in generations.

Booker is a typical panderer, one who cowers to the Beltway by talking about "both sides."

Obama's never done any pandering? His whole 2008 campaign was about how he would rise above partisanship and be an entirely different type of politican. (He also pandered to the anti-war left when he said he would close Gitmo, and pandered to the popular opinion of the day when he said he was opposed to gay marriage.)

I'd venture to guess that among people of all ideological stripes, Booker is a lot more respected than Obama is. And the man is hardly some Zell Miller-type DINO. Mayor Booker has also returned the once disgraced city of Newark to respectability. For instance, crime has dropped dramatically. (So much so that March 2010 was Newark's first murder-free month in over forty years.) He has also doubled the amount of the city's affordable housing.

It really pisses me off how the honorable Cory Booker was crucified by liberals after he blasted the nauseating negative attacks employed by both sides. After being trashed by liberals for defending Bain, Booker was forced to make an about-face.

I thought that Obama was supposed to be the guy who would bring an end to petty partisanship. So much for that. Booker--who has been a great mayor and who also recently saved somebody's life in a building that was being consumed by fire--is actually the politican who lives up to all the hype liberals had for Obama.

Ten years ago today, Live Week began on OLTL. I was a little 13 year old seventh grader at the time and I loved every minute of that week. Where did all the time go?

I thought that was a worthwhile concept. How did OLTL perform in the ratings that week, compared to the rest of that season?

Ugh. Another joke libertarian. Hate first.

What never made any sense to me is that a lot of liberals who hate Rand seem to adore Ron. (Yes, they love his anti-war views, but they disregard his views on most everything else.)

Gays always get the blame anyway. They did in 2004, as very prominent Democrats blamed gay marriage for the loss, instead of the lousy campaign of John Kerry and the national party. This actually gives Democrats an easy way out if Obama loses - they won't have to address any of their failings.

That was always so unfair to blame gay marriage as the reason for Kerry's defeat. The real reason, as you stated, was the fact that he ran a terrible campaign.

The one thing that makes this particularly interesting (to me, at least) is that the DNC this year is being held in Charlotte, whose state just upheld an amendment banning same sex marriage.

NC (which Obama doesn't need anyway) is the only (one-time) swing state where being in favor of gay marriage will likely doom his chances. Romney still faces a big uphill climb in accumulating 270 electoral votes.

I guess this is the time when President Obama is hailed as a "hero." Of course, he actually first supported gay marriage in 1996, but he flip-flopped (sorry, "evolved" is the proper term when it comes to him) when it came to pursuing his own national advancement. (This is similar to how Romney was originally a social conservative, then became a social liberal after moving to MA, and is now a social conservative again.)

I'll at least give him credit for flip-flopping now instead of after the election. Because he was getting hammered for playing both sides of the fence (see below), it just made sense for him to make this statement.

http://www.mediaite....iage-evolution/

On Tuesday night, Jon Stewart delved in to the twilight zone that is Washington D.C. to discuss an issue dominating the news this week: gay marriage. Tracing the chronology — from Joe Biden‘s remark on Sunday, to the reaction that followed, to the subsequent reassessing of President Obama‘s “evolution” on the issue — The Daily Show looked at how far the president has come in terms of supporting marriage equality. He has evolved: from openly supporting gay marriage to becoming, well, a political candidate.

Stewart noted Biden’s “moment of candor” before taking a look at the rather contradictory response that followed. Biden, immediately after making the remarks, said he was speaking personally, for himself, and not for the president. Meanwhile, David Axelrod tweeted that Biden’s sentiment was aligned with the president’s. And then there’s White House Press Secretary Jay Carney‘s scrambling to answer questions — reminding us of the president’s “evolution,” and adding, “it is as it was.”

To further dissect Obama’s stance on gay marriage, Stewart turned to White House correspondent Jon Oliver. The two pondered the effect of television on Obama’s views (turns out, while Biden was watching Will & Grace, Obama was paying more attention to Raymond and how everybody loves him). Circling back from a brief tangent about Modern Family (it’s the writing and the acting), Oliver provided a look at how far Obama’s views have come.

In a 1996 questionnaire, filled out and signed by Obama, who was running for the Illinois state Senate, Obama wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

“That’s full-on support,” Stewart said.

“Absolutely unequivocally supported it, Jon,” Oliver said. “Then he evolved.”

“Into what?” Stewart asked.

Oliver replied, “A candidate, Jon.”

The sad thing is that if Obama loses, it will be blamed on gay marriage, when the actual reason for such a loss will be the economy.

I will say that if he had just said this some time ago he would have saved himself a big headache, because now it seems like politics. I also expect this will cause a drop in support of gay marriage, because the media will spin this very negatively, and it will become a more polarized issue. It comes across as too little, too late, when it didn't have to be this way.

Given the size of his 2008 victory, he could have been shown some real bravery and supported it then (and still won). Certainly, that's what one would expect from a candidate who was hailed as a different type of politician.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, huh?

This is so true!

The whole reason Lieberman was put into office was because of conservatism. The right loathed Lowell Weicker and trusted Lieberman.

I wouldn't say that Lieberman was a Ronald Reagan-type darling of the right back in 1988. However, conservatives preferred a moderate over the liberal Weicker.

I do remember criticism of him in 2000, especially his friendly debate with Dick Cheney.

I could be mistaken on this, but I seem to recall that most of the criticism actually centered around the fact that Lieberman sucked in that debate (as opposed to him being too conservative). I think most political experts expected Cheney to lose the debate.

Tell that to Anita Hill. He almost lost in 1992 for that reason.

Carl, you've got me on this one! I definately misspoke when I stated that Specter was always hailed by Democrats as a "model Republican." It was only around 2000 when he began to be hailed by Democrats and members of the mainstream media as an ideal/moderate Republican. (I had forgotten just how despised he was back in the early-90s.)

That was a whole different time for the GOP, before the anger at the establishment. The legislation which President Bush passed in those years and which was seen as such a huge boon for the party, like the Medicare changes and NCLB, would not be passed today.

Besides, Pat Toomey is an acquired taste. He barely even won PA last year, in a hugely successful year for the GOP, against an abrasive, underfunded Democrat.

The GOP certainly has moved further to the right since 2004. Even back then, however, it was portrayed as a party that was too far to the right. (Which is why so many bemoaned the fact that another "ideal" Republican--John McCain--lost the 2000 primary to George W. Bush.)

However, I definately believe that Pat Toomey is very likely to be a one-term senator. PA is a solidly Democratic state, and conservative Republicans basically only win statewide elections there in "wave" GOP years. (I have no idea on how Santorum managed to win a second term in 2000, especially when Gore won the state that same year.)