Racism is pretty commonplace in criticism of Obama. More than once I've gotten e-mails which compare Michelle Obama to Cheetah.

A federal judge sent out an e-mail to people which said Obama's mother had sex with a dog.

If Romney has a long record against gay rights, then I'd think he would be proud to be called a homophobe. He seems fine with working with a man who put up billboards attacking PBS for showing a pro-gay special.

LOL...

Iowa Republican congressional candidate Dan Dolan gives speech to local Democrats after mixup

The mixup occurred after the Republicans moved their convention, but neglected to notify Dolan

Read more: http://www.nydailyne...7#ixzz1pJsEBaPE

Racism is pretty commonplace in criticism of Obama. More than once I've gotten e-mails which compare Michelle Obama to Cheetah.

A federal judge sent out an e-mail to people which said Obama's mother had sex with a dog.

If Romney has a long record against gay rights, then I'd think he would be proud to be called a homophobe. He seems fine with working with a man who put up billboards attacking PBS for showing a pro-gay special.

And not commonplace.

Love those who know every single thing going on with 365 million Americans.

I don't understand how commonplace means 365 million Americans. Of 365 million, many support Obama, many don't care. We weren't even talking about them. Of those who oppose Obama, I do think racial attacks are common in criticism of Obama. Not everyone bases their view of him on race, but many do. It has been a constant presence for his entire term, from the birther stuff, to the secret Muslim stuff, to "food stamp President," to the ugly e-mails and jokes and bumper stickers.

Edited March 16, 201213 yr by CarlD2

I don't understand how commonplace means 365 million Americans. Of 365 million, many support Obama, many don't care. We weren't even talking about them. Of those who oppose Obama, I do think racial attacks are common in criticism of Obama. Not everyone bases their view of him on race, but many do. It has been a constant presence for his entire term, from the birther stuff, to the secret Muslim stuff, to "food stamp President," to the ugly e-mails and jokes and bumper stickers.

I was talking about them. Ok?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/rick-santorum-war-on-porn_n_1353383.html?ref=politics

This will REALLY bring the jobs back.

Wow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/kansas-redistricting-brenda-landwehr-primarily-caucasian_n_1349425.html?ref=politics

Sorry - I thought you were replying to me, since you quoted me.

Nope was agreeing with you Carl.

LMAO....this guy needs to get laid by a man already....lol

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/porn-titans-not-worried-rick-santorum-banning-business-192050828.html

The stupidity of all of this is that if people believe in abstinence only, then many who are trying to abstain will be drawn to porn. I think the next stap is that the true believers will also say, "No porn, and no masturbation."

Oh Santorum, where's the (self) love?

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.

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.

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.

That particular bumper sticker doesn't have to be commonplace because it has plenty of company: the birthers, the people who call Obama a Muslim, Joe Wilson screaming "You lie!" during the SOTU, Jan Brewer shaking her finger in the president's face like she was ordering him to bust up a chiffarobe, the insane Fox News meltsown when Common visited the White House...it all comes from the belief that the office of the President doesn't deserve respect as long as that uppity boy is in it.

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? Decent, thinking, intelligent conservatives would serve their cause a lot better by publicly pushing back against the hate speech but they don't because in the end conservatives, care more about power than principles because in the end they know that all the ideals in the world mean nothing if you don't have the power to execute them. I only wish my fellow liberals would understand that concept. We'd get a lot more accomplished.

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?)

Edited March 17, 201213 yr by Max