Max

Specter switched parties a year or so before the primary, so he wasn't much of a Democratic moderate. Lieberman hasn't been a moderate ever.

Among many Americans, Lieberman is perceived as a moderate. He's only conservative when it comes to Middle Eastern foreign policy, moderate (like Clinton) when it comes to economic matters, and liberal on social issues (aside from censorship on TV and video games). If he was always perceived as a conservative, then how come there were virtually no Democratic complaints when Al Gore chose him as his running mate? (In any event, Lieberman's voting record is considerably more liberal than Lugar's is, so I have no idea how the latter can be called a moderate while the former is called a conservative?)

I'll never understand why being a party switcher was a sufficient reason for liberals to turn on Specter in 2010? (Republicans never did that to Richard Shelby or Ben Nighthorse Campbell.) Back when he was on the other side, Specter was always halied by Democrats as a "model Republican," and so many were begging him to switch parties in 2009. Ironically, Arlen won a GOP primary over Pat Toomey in 2004, but was booted out of the "party of tolerance" six years later as a "reward" for joining them (and giving them that crucial 60th Senate seat).

Sadly, Lugar will be going down to defeat in tomorrow's primary. (It's a shame, because he is such a good public servant.) What perplexes me, however, is how both liberals and conservatives think that he's some sort of RINO. After all, this is a man who is pro-life, voted in favor of the Iraq War, and even voted against repealing DADT. (And when he was mayor of Indianapolis, he was known as "Richard Nixon's favorite mayor.") I think that people just choose to concentrate on Lugar's personal friendship with Obama and Biden, and disregard his actual political positions.

Lugar's defeat may not be as great a piece as news as the Democrats are hoping for, because the super-conservative Mourdock actually has a decent chance of winning a statewide election in IN. Of course, Lugar's defeat will provide the Democrat's with "bragging rights," though they usually seem to forget that they also have purged their moderates (like Lieberman and Specter) in Senate primaries.

Furthermore, not all Tea Party fringe candidates have been successful in knocking out GOP incumbents. In 2010, McCain crushed J.D. Hayworth in the AZ primary, and Hatch is favored to win his primary this year.

I really don't think many Americans view Bin Laden's death as a tragedy.

Obviously, his death was related to the 9/11 tragedy, and that was part of the point I was trying to make. (Do you think his death would have been earth-breaking news if 9/11 didn't happen? Prior to us being attacked, relatively few Americans--sadly--even cared about terrorism.)

I don't begrudge President Obama for reminding voters about Osama bin Laden's killing. However, there needs to be some consistency. Back when Mayor Giuliani reminded voters about his highly acclaimed handling of 9/11, liberals were complaining that he was exploiting the tragedy for political gain; Obama touting his killing of bin Laden is kind of the same thing, yet few Democrats (Arianna Huffington is one) slam him for exploting a tragedy for political gain. Either both Obama and Giuliani can tout 9/11-related accomplishments, or neither of them can; it's completely unfair for one to be able to do so while the other cannot. (I acknolwedge that many Republicans are also hypocritical on this matter as well, because they had no problem when Giuliani did it but are now crying foul.)

This is not a GH clip, but here is a 1985 Plymouth Duster commercial featuring Finola Hughes:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1ZGwGFpjFxI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Only in the 80s would people be dancing in excitement over a compact car.

When did the quality of this soap start to fall?

I think some is racism, some is ignorance, some is fear. Some is honest opposition of policy.

Alphanguy, I really appreciate your having the courage to make such statements. While there is zero doubt that some Republicans hate black people, it is refreshing to hear somebody not lump all Obama opponents into the racist category.

You brushed it off by saying "oh it won't be on 99 percent of Conservative's cars anyway", but if situation was reversed I doubt you would be singing that tune.

That's not brushing it off, but instead making an observation that almost certainly will be true. I felt I had to make that statement because--while that bumper sticker itself was absolutely awful--it was Obama supporters that seemed to be suggesting that such sentiments were commonplace among Republicans (much like you suggested I was a Gingrich or Santorum supporter just because I oppose Obama's re-election).

To the best of my recollection, I believe that Alphanguy was the only liberal here who has ever said that racism is not what motivates all of Obama's opponents. My apologies if I left out somebody else who actually said that.

You've got to be kidding me. You are willing to criticize anything Obama does but you want to brush off those racist bumper stickers. And I am late to the party but how do you feel on the comments Gingrich and Santorum made about blacks? Would love to hear your response on that.

When exactly did I "brush off" that racist bumper sticker? And because you are indeed "late to the party," you obviously are unaware that I don't support either Santorum or Gingrich for president. (In fact, my first choice for president was Huntsman, who was the one candidate a lot of Democrats seemed to heap token praise on. After he dropped out, I shifted my support to Romney.)

Rapper Cee Lo Green sings "F*ck You" at an Obama fundraiser:

http://news.yahoo.co...--abc-news.html

I am a little surprised that such vulgar language would come from a wealthy and prominent supporter of a candidate who has pledged to return civility to politics. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney apparently did not condemn Cee Lo, but did say that the president was a fan of his.

Not being illegal doesn't make it less wrong. A draft dodger attacking the personal character of a veteran is wrong.

As for New Jersey, the court ruled the Democratic Party could field a replacement, so it was settled in law and there was no illegality.

Redd, I am not at all condemning anybody for thinking what happened in GA was worse than what occurred in NJ (which is why I originally used the phrase "one could argue" that what happened in GA was worse). I am merely stating my own opinion that what happened in NJ was worse, but I was highly condemned (not by you, but by someone else) for holding that viewpoint. (Regarding court decisions involving elections, I seem to recall that Democrats trashed the Bush v. Gore U.S. Supreme Court decision, but--ironically--had no problems when a state supreme court ruled in their favor two years later in New Jersey.)

I don't understand why there just can't be some things about which folks can agree to disagree.

If decent conservatives really don't agree with stuff like this bumper sticker then why don't they stand up and renounce it? With all due respect Max, do you call out your fellow conservatives for their hate? Or do you just accept it and then turn around and blame liberals for thinking conservatives are racist?

I've already indicated how I feel about that racist bumper sticker. That birther s#it--which was a lot more common than racist bumper stickers--was really terrible. In addition to the racism and anti-Muslim sentiment involved, that movement deeply damaged the credibility of conservatives and gave the Democrats plenty of ammunition to suggest that virtually all conservatives were bigots who were opposed to Obama primarily because of racial prejudice.

That's kind of how the cookie crumbles in politics. There are no free rides in election, so what if Democrats got another candidate, that is not equal to attacking a veteran's character.

One could argue? Are you serious? They are oil and water issues. Unbelievably different. The only thing they have in common is they highlight how terrible American politics is and how little care is paid to issues that affect voters directly and who the best people are for the job.

Actually, as despicable as those Cleland attacks were, they were not illegal. On the other hand, switching a candidate at the last minute was a direct violation of the existing election law in place (and was something that I don't believe was ever done before, aside from instances where a candidate died or became medically incapacitated). So, ONE COULD CERTAINLY ARGUE (DaytimeFan) that what happened in NJ in 2002 was even worse than what happened in GA that same year (since the former act was illegal, while the latter act was still legal, albeit highly immoral). (If Democrats wanted another candidate, then why didn't they pressure Torricelli to drop out before the deadline had passed? Or, why did they not advocate for a write-in campaign for Lautenberg, which would still have been legal?)

I would hope anyone would call that bumper sticker racist.

I never suggested that it wasn't. But that bumper sticker certainly is not commonplace, and I would bet you anyting that it won't be plastered on the back of 99% of conservatives' cars.

Going back to the importance of needing to have respect for the office (and not launching into personal attacks of the president), I guess I can assume that if Willard gets elected, he won't be demonized as homophobe in chief. Furtermore, if Chris Christie becomes president, there will be zero liberal criticism regarding his weight.

What I'd like to know is how many of those same people would have said if you insulted the last president, then you hated America.

Carl, that is indeed what they were saying. They were also saying that insulting the man was the equivalent to having no respect for the institution of the presidency (much like Roman now suggests is the case with Obama haters). But, I seem to recall liberals calling the president an election stealer, idiot, deserter, and murderer.

When liberals tore into Bush, conservatives responded by saying that such people were unpatriotic. When conservatives tear into Obama, liberals respond by saying such people are racist (witness Marceline's comment above). It seems as if nobody respects the office when the opposition pary is in control, while everyone demands respect for the office when their own party occupies the White House.

Honestly, that is possible. It is just very sad that no politician, party, interest group, or ideology wants to put a stop to this bullshit.

Much of the Obama attack ads against McCain are no longer accessible on YouTube. However, I certainly was able to find instances where Obama's supporters gladly did the dirty work.

Here's one ad questioning his temperment: (The not so subtle message is that McCain is emotionally unstable, stemming back to his days as a POW.)

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Tx6DEBd171s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's another one directly playing into fear about his age: (The dire warnings in this video never came to fruition.)

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

Here's an add paid by the S.E.I.U. (a union that is very active in Democratic politics) saying that McCain will be even worse than Bush (whom many liberals honestly believe to be a war criminal):

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Tk92H4M-sOk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Another scare ad tying McCain and Bush at the tip (The ad also ties McCain and Falwell at the hip, and even suggests McCain supports torture; a clear falsehood, given that McCain has always condemned torture):

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-lamm7ilwQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I don't have any problems with people critizing McCain's views on Iraq (though I am a bit perplexed as to why he received as much heat for his views as Bush did, since liberals intially seemed to be most pissed at the "chicken-hawks" who never served in the military). But if liberals can do that, then conservatives can certainly criticize the homeland security voting record of Cleland (the only horrendous things about that ad were the pictures of Bin Laden, Hussein, and the other terrorists, as well as the suggestion that Cleland didn't care about the country). People just can't go around condemning vicious attacks against some war heros while attacking others.

One could argue? Are you serious? They are oil and water issues. Unbelievably different. The only thing they have in common is they highlight how terrible American politics is and how little care is paid to issues that affect voters directly and who the best people are for the job.

Let's not pretend that Democrats never dished out character assassinations to disabled war heros. Do you remember when John McCain was trashed by the liberals for being a war monger, an old fart, a racist (Congressman John Lewis compared McCain to George Wallace), a homphobe, and a clone of George Bush? I discintly remember back in 2002 that Democrats compared the horrendous treatment Cleland received to that McCain got from Bush two years earlier. (And in 2004, John Kerry himself blasted any hardball criticism of war heros, and then mentioned that McCain--who by the way was his first choice for VP--and Cleland were his friends.) Yet, once the Arizona senator was no longer every liberal's favorite Republican, they attacked him just as viciously as they did "draft dodgers" Bush and Cheney. And what about Bob Dole, who was also ruthlessly attacked for his old age (with liberals laughing their asses off everytime a clip of him falling off that stage was shown), for being a Gingrich clone, for trying to rob seniors of their Social Security and Medicare, and (as Clinton put it) wanting to "build a bridge to the past."

You're right that they're not exactly the same thing, although they both were dirty tricks that party bosses approved of in order to gain control of the Senate. One could certainly argue that a vicious character assination of a triple-amputee war hero was worse than a ballot switcheroo. However, it is debateable if Cleland would have won re-election even if those ads handn't been run (given that his voting record was less conservative than most white GA Democrats, combined with the fact that GA was a lot more Republican in 2002 than in 1996). On the other hand, the last minute ballot switch very likely robbed the GOP of a senate seat (although I don't believe for one second that Torricelli would have actually lost by 15 points in such a Democratic state).

I thought those anti-Max Cleland ads were some of the worst stuff I have ever seen. Yet, the Republicans weren't the only ones playing dirty tricks in 2002. That year, scandal-plagued NJ Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli was also seeking re-election. All throughout his term, allegations of unethical behavior had been plaguing him, but no Democrat even dared to challenge him in the primary. Because NJ is a heavily Democratic state, Republicans can only win statewide elections if they are running against highly unpopular incumbents; throughout most of the campaign, Torricelli was neck-and-neck with his unknown GOP opponent, businessman Douglas Forrester. (None of the polls would have even been close if Torricelli didn't have so many ethical problems.)

With less than a month to go before the election, WNBC-TV aired a very damaging series of stories implicating the NJ senator. After this bad press, Torricelli was 15 points down in the polls, and only then did he face immense pressure from state and national Democrats to drop out of the race. Torricelli agreed to do this, and was replaced by Frank Lautenberg (who had retired from the Senate just two years earlier), who won the general election easily. Unfortunately, Torricelli dropped out so late in the process that the law did not allow for new ballots to be printed with Lautenberg's name on them. (He would have had to have dropped out at least 30 days before the election. Legally and ethically, Lautenberg could have run as a write-in candidate, but the Democratic party knew that such a proposition was too risky given the lack of intelligence many voters possess.) So, the Democrats were able to stand before a very liberal state supreme court to get the law changed, and then proceeded to reimburse the state the $800,000 charge it cost to print the new ballots.

Again, for all but the last couple of weeks of the campaign, Democrats were pushing Torricelli as somebody who was completely fit to serve in the Senate. Only when public support dramatically turned against him did they demand Torricelli drop out, completely disregarding the election law that was in place at the time. And this was done all in the name of attempting to retain control of the Senate (the Democrats had a one-seat majority going into the election, but wound up with a net loss of two seats despite using underhanded tactics to keep NJ in the party's column).

I always found it interesting (back in 2002) that whenever liberals (rightly) bitched and moaned about the way Cleland was treated, they had no problems whatsoever with the Lautenberg/Torricelli switcheroo.

Max the only ones who instigate class warfare are the republicans, who cynically cut taxes knowing it will break the bank, and then when the bank is broken they say "oh look, we have no money, we can no longer afford programs for the poor". Meanwhile the millionaires become billionaires. That's class warfare, that is attacking the poor. Mandatory drug testing social programs to humiliate and degrade recipients even though there is no statistical reason for doing so, that is class warfare. Cutting school aid while tuition rise but you can afford it because Bush gave you a tax break, that is class warfare. That's all republicans know, is class warfare. It is always about the other with republicans: the non-christian, the non-white, the godless liberals, the northeast, the atheist, the gays, the blacks, the women who dare to want sex, the college educated, the spanish speaking, and on and on and on. Just ask Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and all the other real americans from the so-called heartland.

Qfan, I actually believe that both parties engage in class warfare. Conservatives certainly attack the groups you listed, but other groups--like evangelicals, "dumb" Southerners, corporate executives, and poor, rural whites who "cling to their guns and religion"--come under attack from liberals. The fact that liberals attack these groups is no excuse for conservatives to attack those other groups; trying to attack any one group of people is wrong no matter who does it.

Regarding college tuition, neither party has done a damn thing to stop these outrageous costs from rising. Colleges seem to be free to charge whatever fees they want, and nobody from the government is stepping in to force price controls. (This is one of those minority of times when I believe that government intervention is necessary, and I honestly hope the Democrats would act accordingly.) A lot of college tuition is for frivolous things, like construction for new student centers, six figure salaries for college presidents, or to get some "big name" professor on staff who only teaches a course or two a semester (while devoting most of his time to research, which really is of little benefit to students).

Wasn't "compassionate conservative" codeword for wanting to help the poor?

To an extent it was, so Bush can be criticized somewhat. (The other purpose of the phrase was to let people know/think he wasn't a Santorum-type social conservative.) However, it was not the type of phrase that pitted the rich against the poor, so the hypocrisy is much more glaring in Obama's case. And even with that phrase, Bush actively campaigned as a supporter of tax cuts for the rich (so nobody believed that Bush was to the left of Gore on economic policy). And unlike Obama, I don't recall Bush pledging to end politics as usual (and politics as usual includes rewarding your wealthy donors with special "privileges" or "gifts").

You know, when it comes to the oil situation..... if I were Obama, you know what I would do? I would announce to the GOP and the oil companies that you can build that keystone pipeline, you can drill to your heart's content.... providing that not ONE DROP of oil harvested in this country ever LEAVES this country. I wonder what the reaction would be.

Alphanguy, I would love for this to happen as well. Though politically it would be a big help for him to do so (since it would take his most vulnerable issue off the table, much like Clinton did when he signed Welfare Reform into law), he just doesn't seem to have the spine to stand up to the environmental fringe (though he has little problem standing up to the LGBT community).

Considering the republican con-artists, hacks, shills and bestowers of presidencies that sit on the supreme court allowed the billionaires to fund republican candidates without limit so republicans specifically be elected, are you seriously trying to say Obama is wrong to seek campaign funding?

He can seek as much campaign funding as he wants, just not from the 1%. It's beyond hypocritical to instigate class warfare and then collect campaign cash from the wealthiest of Americans.

Regarding decisions such as Citizens United and Bush v. Gore, liberals have every right to hate them and complain that they overturned the will of the people. Yet, when courts overturn bans on gay marriage and don't do what the people want, judges are hailed as heroes instead of being demonized. You can't have it both ways and only accept court opinions that you agree with.

Don't remember you saying any of this when GWB was in office. Oh wait. those rules don't apply to any Republican. LOL That party is really funny, better than SNL.

That's right, I never complained about this with Bush, since he never demonized the wealthy or pledged to be a champion of the poor. For a politican who claims to have "progressive" economic policies, a much higher standard applies (much like a higher standard applies when it comes to the married life of a religious conservative).

And while The president has dinner with his doners, Romney was having dinner with his multi-millionare friends at the Ritz carlton in NYC. One is bad, the and other one doesn't get mentioned. That's Republican values for you.

Nice try, Roman. The fact that "Willard does it too" is not a valid excuse because he has never demonized the wealthy and professed how much he "cares" about the poor. When Barry does something like this, it smacks of hypocrisy, since he is running as the champion of the 99%.

Again, a higher standard applies to Obama (compared to other politicians) on just about everything because he's the one who promised to be different and branded himself as a statesman who is completely above politics.

The champion of the 99% invites his filthy-rich donors to a White House State Dinner, and the Occupy Wall Street folks are silent as usual:

http://news.yahoo.com/top-obama-fundraisers-among-state-dinner-guests-023138061.html

Since Barry has always walked the walk, I fully expect that the next four years will bring about a great resurgence for the shrinking middle-class.

I agree...me too. Between this and the Rush Limbaugh mess, I am just loving how the Republicans are just so screwed up right now. If I were Obama, I would just go ahead and start thinking about any possible renovations that are needed in the White House, because it is looking more and more like he'll be there another 4 years.

I have little doubt that Obama will win re-election, given the GOP's incompetence. However, I am perplexed as to what you think Barry will accomplish in his next four years. I suspect that some believe that his second term will see a return to the sizzling economy of the 90s and make gay marriage the law of the land. However, I would strongly caution against such pie-in-the-sky expectations, given that the president failed miserably when it came to the following that he promised for his first term: closing Gitmo, healing the red state/blue state divide, reducing the deficit, signing into law a health care plan with a "public option," and always placing principle above politics. And, history has almost always--if not always--shown that a president's second term is far inferior to the first.