Should Deval Patrick Change The Rules?

Pretend for a moment that corrupt liberal Democrats actually give a flip about what the people think. Can you blame them? There are rarely any consequences given a dishonest media unwilling to report their corruption. Imagine if Bill Richardson were a Republican and walked, as he just did, under Bush. We'd be reading about that one for a month.

In any event, pretend they actually do care for a moment. Should Patrick change the rules with the passing of an old Senate drunk? He will, no matter what, but I think it's at least worth some discussion.

As has been noted elsewhere, this is disgusting on a number of levels. First, Kennedy was the driving force behind the current law, which was enacted for the sole reason of denying Mitt Romney the opportunity to select a replacement for Senator Kerry, should he have been elected President in 2004. Second, we are only in this current “crisis” of not having two D-MA senators during the health care fight because Kennedy decided to stay in the senate until, literally, his dying day. Third, there’s a sickening sense of entitlement among the political class here that they have to get this seat filled now; when it comes to inter-democratic politics in Massachusetts, we citizens are just along for the ride.

Comments

[WBestPresidentEver]

If that legislation in that disgusting state allows the law to be changed one again, this country should be outraged. You cahnge the laws when it in your best interest when a republican is governor and then you change it back when a democrat is governor. WHAT KIND OF *HIT is that ?
Disgusting corruptness. WHAT THE HELL IS OUR COUNTRY BECOMING ?

[smitty]

Let me come at it from a different angle: have we mocked Massachusetts enough?
The state that produced Samuel Adams and helped foment the Revolutionary War has foisted this many decades of Kerry and Kennedy on the rest of the country? Barney Frank? Is this really a "once-in-a-generation opening"? [Wow, I just thought of a really rude joke about a prominent female public figure...]

Wake the Foul Unlawful Carnal Knowledge up, America: "Camelot" is a sad, mythical attempt at destroying our country and replacing it with an aristocracy.

Should Deval Patrick change the rules? He should undergo a total personality transplant, and come back as a Constitutional, American patriot. Everything else is details.

[smitty]

My links died. Try:
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/08/technology-and-politics.html

[Plumpplumber(balding)]

Actually, observant folks are gonna notice the rank hypocrisy. But not in Boston, no, not in Barney Franks universe. You know, if this kind of thing is allowed to fester, it's gonna be real hard to try to get folks to respect the government and not break out in open rebellion. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? However, the last straw is coming, but we won't know which is it until the poor beast founders. At some point, reasonable people are going to conclude that secession is the only way to save ourselves. What leftist's don't get is that we would rather be dead than be like them. So if they push us too far, then we really don't have anything left to say. This is how civil wars get started, and I honestly don't see any way to avoid it.

[Rich K]

Smitty. Are you aware that a survey was done that asked the populace of Massachusetts who Sam Adams was and 80% said the 'Beer Guy' and the other 20% said the new gay mayor of Portland Oregon.
As to the contemt of this thread its just business as usual in the state of the KK, as in Kennedy Kerry every time all the time.And as I said in the 'Drunk Dead Ted Thread'( boy thats a mouthful), they need to leave a spot for Caroline and Patrick.LEGACY!!!

[mark l.]

they did it with toricelli, and won the seat with the cadaver-frank lautenberg, in nj.

they should just go ahead and do it. it is their fiefdom-they no linger have a state constitution so much as they have the strength of the majority.

rules no longer should restrict these guys.

[joyMc]

What snot nose Kennedy spawn is up for the job?

[WAHOO WILLIE]

I've got a huge scoop on the decision for picking an interim senator to replace Flipper: A source very close to an unnamed insider tells me that Tina Turner is on her way to Boston together with a FX crew from Australia. That's right Mel Gibson fans it's time for THUNDER DOME!! "Two go in, one comes out" As you know the tolerant and fairness loving libs insist on a level playing field. So to keep things fair and equitable, ACORN and the Teamsters have banded together to hold a lottery. That's right, every nursing home in Mass is being pressed into service to find just the right "right wing terrier" to face off with "some young Kennedy". As a double insurance that everyone gets there fair share, no right wing contender who can stand on his own feet will be allowed to purchase a lottery ticket. That's right! SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY get your tickets for the second Boston Massacre!!

[ck]

Might as well. Mass. would elect Saddam or Pol Pot if they were avaliable.

[WBestPresidentEver]

Why not just bring that little sawed off elf from North Korea over here and let him fill Kennedy's seat.

[WBestPresidentEver]

FOR THOSE OF YOU INTERESTED...
AUGUST 28TH, 2009..WATCH SPACE SHUTTLE DISCOVERY ON THE NET LIVE HERE SET TO GO @ 11:59:37 http://www.nasa.gov/multime... .ALL CLEAR 2 LAUNCH

[WBestPresidentEver]

By the way. Teddy is still dead.

[Bob]

"At some point, reasonable people are going to conclude that secession is the only way to save ourselves. What leftist's don't get is that we would rather be dead than be like them."

Pull yourself together, you traitorous whiner. Real Americans don't talk like that.

[DaveinPhoenix]

After living in Massachusetts for a total of 10 years of my life, I moved out in '96. The freaking state is a national disgrace, a monument to alcoholism, drug abuse, all types of sexual perversion, graft, corruption, political payoffs, and public serfdom to a criminal political class. And the state legislature is the most well known corrupt group of creeps ever assembled. What a sad story from the state which was at the center of the American Revolution 230 years ago. The revolution against exactly the same things which it has now become. Sheep. Baaaaaaaaaaa.

[Darth Venomous]

"Pull yourself together, you traitorous whiner. Real Americans don't talk like that."

_Real_ Americans are gonna start kicking your skanky asses pretty soon, Roberta. I'd start looking for a hiding place if I were you.

[Philip McDaniel]

"Pull yourself together, you traitorous whiner. Real Americans don't talk like that."
Ever heard of Thomas Paine? "A little matter will move a party, but it must be something great that moves a nation."
We are fast approaching that point whether you like it or not. You need to ask yourself just who the real traitors are.

[joyMc]

traitors are those who seek to make a nation of men and not of laws. Men it seems change direction as it suits them at the time.

[Plumpplumber(balding)]

"Traitorous whiner"? Bob, America is threatened. You are a well known troll. We ain't leftist marxist communists. The second amendment was written to "control" situations such as what confronts true Americans today. Obama is a red diaper marxist, and is out to destroy our way of life. We aren't going to help him. As for you, Bob, today you enjoy the freedom to express yourself. A lot of people were killed to maintain that freedom. And, yes, some of them have been communists of various types. Because, Bob, as history has shown, if a people desires to remain free, they have to be willing to fight and die to be free. It's kinda funny, Bob, there have been folks like you throughout history. If you don't appreciate your freedom here, it's a plain fact that you don't deserve to live here. Ever think of Europe, Bob? You might like it better there.

[meep]

Given who the "great" state of Mass. decided to elect over and over again, I just say serves them right.

Democratic hypocrisy never seemed to bother the Mass. electorate before. If they weren't ashamed of voting in Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy, why they would discover shame now is beyond me.

[pingme]

One thing learned from Bush v Gore is that you can't constitutionally change the rules of the game after the game is started. A MA conservative ought to put his/her name on the ballot now under the existing rules in order to give himself/herself standing should MA decide to attempt to repeal that law.

[Bob]

"We are fast approaching that point whether you like it or not. You need to ask yourself just who the real traitors are."

Yes, Philip, it's the people who are making childish threats of political violence right now because they lost a bunch of free and fair elections recently and can't handle real democracy when it goes against their wishes: aka "wing nuts." It's not YOUR country any more than it is mine or any other American citizen's country. Your political agenda is only legitimate to the extent that you can achieve it through democratic means. Threatening other Americans with violence if they don't go along with you is nothing BUT treason.

[Bob]

"After living in Massachusetts for a total of 10 years of my life, I moved out in '96. The freaking state is a national disgrace, a monument to alcoholism, drug abuse, all types of sexual perversion . . ."

I'm not from Massachusetts, but I lived there for a couple of years and thought it was a pretty nice place. I especially like the sense of history there, so much of it connected with the revolutionary era. One of the cooler things I got to do there was go up into the steeple of the Old North Church and see some of the giant bells that I believe have been there for hundreds of years. Funny that wing nuts are now talking about good old MA with the same snide contempt they hold for the France, who was one of our most important allies during the Revolution.

But just because it's always fun to fact-check the claims that wing nuts make about others while throwing one of their political temper-tantrums, I thought I'd check DaveinPhoenix's slander about drug and alcohol abuse in Massachusetts. Since we can assume that Dave lives in Arizona, it makes the results particularly hilarious.

http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2009/06/11/substance-abuse-varies-widely-from-state-to-state.htm

For overall drug abuse, Massachusetts is at #12, behind states like Rhode Island, Colorado, Montana and Kentucky. Doesn't seem to be any clear trend there. For alcohol abuse, Massachusetts is only at #31 in the ranking, behind -- you guessed it -- Arizona at #20. Wing nuts should stick to unprovable assertions when they start spouting their prejudices. Otherwise it's too easy to prove them wrong.

[Rich K]

Well Everyone,Bob has convinsed me so why dont we all go over to the daily kos and huff po and see what solid truths can be found on the other side of the conversations. Im sure they are fair and balanced and fact checked for accuracy just like how Bob has helped us out here.And if anything we can just say HI to all those really smart ,know better than us types who truly should rule the country to save us from ourselves.
God that was funny writing all that without upchucking my coffee.

[Philip McDaniel]

Bob, your full of it. Take a deep breath, hold it and strain. It might all come out.

[Bob]

"And if anything we can just say HI to all those really smart ,know better than us types who truly should rule the country to save us from ourselves.
God that was funny writing all that without upchucking my coffee."

They're not your enemies, Rich. They're just people with different opinions who've been right about a lot of things over the past several years. Whether or not you happen to agree with them, you'd be smart to at least take their opinions seriously and respect them as legitimate opinions, being as they are more often than not based on facts and logic.

[Philip McDaniel]

"as they are more often than not based on facts and logic."
Only in your fevered dreams, Bob-o.

[Bob]

"Only in your fevered dreams, Bob-o."

Most liberals were saying that Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMDs back before the invasion. They based it on the facts of the UN weapons inspectors' results. Of course we now know that they were 100% correct. They also said that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was part of the 9/11 conspiracy. Time has proven them correct over and over again.

And right now, we have yet another case in point where Dick Cheney made a claim that is not supported by the evidence. He said that the evidence would prove that torture of terrorism detainees produced valuable intelligence. The recently released CIA documents support no such claim. Dick Cheney is a liar.

Time after time the right wingers have been shown to be intellectually dishonest and to engage in deceitful rhetoric to accomplish what they wanted. On the most important issues of the past 10 years, the liberals have been right about almost all of it. The right wingers have been wrong, but they still got to do what they wanted in many cases, for which our country will be paying through the nose for years.

Like I said, you don't have to agree with liberals (even though you're foolish not to) but you can't dispute the fact that liberals have been right about a lot of things over the past several years, and they deserve to at least be respected for having well-founded opinions. Not that you will, of course -- your dishonest world view depends on blaming the people who were right when you were wrong. Up is down in wingnut world, after all.

[Bob]

Here's a liberal -- from Massachusetts, no less -- you all might be familiar with, using facts and logic in the course of being 100% correct:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/alterman_wmds.html

"Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), in September 2002: “[I]nformation from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction."

[mark l.]

"the fact that liberals have been right about a lot of things"

nice phrasing. it avoids omniscience.

since you accept that liberals have been wrong on matters...
name one. it shouldn't embarass you to admit their errors, since they are right so often.

[mark l.]

let me help you...

for the moment, we'll accept the liberal mantra that there were no wmds.
The discussion was 2002.

2007?
"Kennedy fights 'immense new mistake' of troop surge"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/09/democrats.iraq.funding/index.html

in your world, bob, kennedy wasn't wrong here, was he?

[Bob]

"since you accept that liberals have been wrong on matters...
name one. it shouldn't embarass you to admit their errors, since they are right so often."

OK, fair enough. I think the mistakes they've made have fallen into certain larger categories. I think that the general notion of what came to be known as "identity politics" proved to be mistaken. If taken to its logical conclusion, it could weaken the idea that we should all be working together to achieve a common destiny. In other words, it shouldn't matter so much what ethnic group you're from; we should still share most of the same set of concerns and have the same shared vision for the common good. I'd have to note, though, that conservatives seem to be adopting a sort of identity politics of their own in recent years, where they see themselves (and often their Christian faith) as having unique interests that supercede those of the democratic (small-d) majority.

On the other hand, I think that Democrats have been mistaken in trying to be too wishy-washy about what it really means to be a liberal. Why, for example, were prominent Democrats advocating the deregulation of the financial industry back during the Clinton years? Why have Obama and his advisors like Geithner and Summers not been more forceful in demanding concessions from the financial industry in exchange for bailing them out? Excessive financial deregulation was obviously a mistake, and companies who continue to put pressure for continued weak regulations should be put in their place, especially when they're currently operating on the public dole.

I could think of other examples, but that ought to give you an idea of what I mean.

[Bob]

"in your world, bob, kennedy wasn't wrong here, was he?"

I never tried to say that Kennedy was never wrong. But in any case, he was right about Iraq more often than not. The case you mention about supporting the troop surge is a complicated question. If you read the article, Kennedy was just calling for more Congressional input, such as a vote to renew authorization on the Iraq operations. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, especially considering how badly the Bush administration mismanged the early phases of the occuptation.

From what I know, it's simplistic to say that the troop surge in and of itself is what improved the situation in Iraq. It was part of an overall strategy that included other significant changes that General Petraeus was largely responislb for, like the so-called Awakening Councils that started to co-opt some elements of the Sunni resistance. Since it's still an open question to what extent the troop surge itself contributed to the improved situation, then I think Kennedy was right to follow his gut and distrust the escalation.

But speaking of "General Betray-us," and speaking of examples where liberals have been wrong, I do think that some elements of the anti-war movement did him a disservice. He really does seem to have pulled off a remarkable turnaround in Iraq, and he deserves a lot of credit for that. Of course, he had a lot of help, notably from Lieutenant Colonel (ret.) John Nagl, who devised a lot of the counter-insurgency strategy that Petraeus used.

[mark l.]

sorry bob, but you are pointing to genral sentiments, and trying to ascribe their 'nobleness' to liberals.

my question was meant to be fielded in a larger sense...

I'm asking where you think liberal policy is wrong, not where an indivivual liberal deviates from liberal beliefs.

I'm sure many libs were excited over bush's low apporval numbers, and used it as an indictment of conservatism.

forget obama's apporval numbers, for now, (while they are over 50% ;)...)

the individual ideas that he is pushing, which are liberal, are unpopular with this country's citzens.
no majority support of the country for the cia prosecutions, no majority support for the public option, no majority support for cap and trade, no majority support for massive spending and expansion of the debt...these are four huge liberal policies which the country does not care for.

are any of these "mistakes"?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Here's a liberal -- from Massachusetts, no less -- you all might be familiar with, using facts and logic in the course of being 100% correct:"

So let's see; Teddy Kennedy shrieked and screamed that Saddam did not have and was not developing WMDs.

Unfortunately:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

– Senator Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002

http://www.politicalquote.net/2007/08/09/ted-kennedy-on-iraq/

So by what logic, babbling Bob, did Ted Kennedy shriek and scream that Saddam never had WMDs and that Saddam was never seeking or developing WMDs -- while stating that the United States had known for years that Saddam Hussein was seeking and developing WMDs?

And then the babbling Bob tries this one:

"Whether or not you happen to agree with them, you'd be smart to at least take their opinions seriously and respect them as legitimate opinions, being as they are more often than not based on facts and logic."

Of course, this is what the babbling Bob and his leaders like Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama consider to be "legitimate opinions".

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1919099,00.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/23/maxine-waters-obama-needs_n_266450.html

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/race_baiter_democrat_rep_diane_watson_praises_cuban/

[Bob]

So you're saying that Obama should base all of his policy decisions on poll numbers? But I'm not even sure I accept your statement that these various issues are "unpopular with this country's citizens." Public opinion evolves over time as situations and perceptions change. Nobody said it was going to be easy to be president during an unprecedented economic near-collapse. To me, Obama did the right thing overall with his economic stimulus, and knowledgeable commentators say that it kept us out of another Great Depression:

http://www.post-trib.com/business/1708829,Economist-811.article
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/business/economy/23view.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

As far as other matters go, again, honest principles should be more important than snapshot public opinion polls. Doing what's right is what counts. Here's what I think:

CIA prosecutions: I think it's a mistake to focus on the underlings, although there's little doubt that some of these people broke the law. But the investigations should focus instead on the higher-ups like Cheney and his lackeys who created those inhumane policies in the first place. I have no doubt that Cheney is a war criminal, and he's a liar to boot.

Public Option: Again, Obama is making a mistake if he gives in to industry pressure to abandon this. It's the only way to have any possible control over rising healthcare costs. We haven't yet seen the final bill, so it's too soon to say which way he'll go.

Cap and Trade: This is a modest first-step in trying to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming denialists have proven themselves to be scientifically ignorant industry shills, and they should be ignored to whatever extent possible. They're not debating the issue in good faith.

Federal budget debt: Again, anybody who made it through the Bush years without complaining has no moral authority to make a peep about it now.

[Philip McDaniel]

“Most liberals were saying that Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMDs back before the invasion” because they did not want to believe it was possible. Notwithstanding the fact that Saddam Hussein was doing everything he could to make it seem that he did have WMD’s. He threw out the nuclear inspectors. He even went so far as to bury strike air units in the desert. He purchased and prepositioned chemical and biological warfare suits at strategic places in his country. Even his own generals thought he had WMD’s! Prior to the war a number of trucks were monitored from satellites moving in convoy to Syria. Even the Israelis – the best intelligence service in the world – thought they had WMD’s. There were other elements in on the ground who thought he had WMD’s. (Personally, I still think they’re out there on the desert somewhere. So many documents were lost and so many not translated.)
And you want to tell me that the ‘liberals’ in the United States knew it wasn’t so? You’re so full of SH*** it is worthless to even discuss this with you. As for Al Qaeda’s connection with Iraq I can tell you that you don’t know what you are talking about. Saddam had a special terrorist school set up with a complete body of a commercial jet for practice in taking it over from inside. Saddam was an opportunist who worked with whatever group furthered interest in common with his – even though he would keep them at arm’s length. As far as liberals being right about a lot of things over the past few years, don’t make me laugh. You morons never get it right. From the Viet Nam war to the war in Iraq and now Afghanistan. The real tragedy in all of this is that the REAL Democratic Party is long gone. Dead! Truman’s party no longer exists. What exists instead is a gutless bunch of ignorant leftists who’s only solution to all problems is to gather around a bunch of trees, hugging each other and singing kumbaya. Oh, and to blame conservatives when they don’t get it right. Get a life!

[mark l.]

"As far as other matters go, again, honest principles should be more important than snapshot public opinion polls."

what you are advocating is even comparable to the "tyranny of a majority", which bush did actually operate from. The invasion of iraq was in the high 50's minimum. the resolution was also passed by a democratic senate, garnering 27-21 vicotry among dems.

waht yo are advoating isn't even the tryanny of a majority, but the tyranny of a minority, trying to function as a majority.

I saw the word secession set you off earlier, but secession is occurring as we speak. The libs are driving people away from them, for pushing very unpopular ideas.

"Federal budget debt: Again, anybody who made it through the Bush years without complaining has no moral authority to make a peep about it now."

you find equivalance between the two? if bush alarmed you then, you are silent now?
an honest discussion of the spending habits of the two admins, couldn't hope to find equivalence in rates and amounts.

obama increased the spending for the federal by 16% in his first ANNUAL budget.
bush increased it by 18.9% in his first term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

[mark l.]

short overview of your defense of liberal policies?
the american public doesn't know what is good for them.

(an irony in that you would readily point to the 53% of americans who voted for obama to demonstrate his mandate. how is that different from a poll?
[q1-would you show up to vote? q-2who would you vote for?]

[mark l.]

pretending I were an objective sort of person...

what distinction could be made between the belief that the neocons, functioning without a true majority, hijacked a majority politcal party, and subverted it?

now we have liberals subverting a majority political party, without holding a true majority, and avoiding the prerequisite support that the neocons acteed from?

for a time, the neocons at least sought and gained public approval. i would imagine that the argument the libs would use to defend their advocacy of the causes, is very similar to the neocons.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Public Option: Again, Obama is making a mistake if he gives in to industry pressure to abandon this. It's the only way to have any possible control over rising healthcare costs.

Which is, of course, why the CBO has stated emphatically that it will INCREASE health care costs.

"Conrad: Dr. Elmendorf, I am going to really put you on the spot because we are in the middle of this health care debate, but it is critically important that we get this right. Everyone has said, virtually everyone, that bending the cost curve over time is critically important and one of the key goals of this entire effort. From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?

Elmendorf: No, Mr. Chairman. In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html

The key word in babbling Bob's statement is "control". The Obama Party wants to control American health care. They want to get their hands on the trillions of dollars that Americans pay annually so that they can "redistribute" it to whomever they choose based on ideology and obedience to the Obama Party.

Cost savings will come from three areas:

-- Tort reform; as has already been shown, it reduces health care costs directly and has drastically decelerated the cost of malpractice insurance, a major expense, for health care providers

law.usc.edu/academics/assets/docs/schanzenbach.pdf

-- Repeal of mandates; rather than forcing people through legislation to pay for expensive options that they are highly unlikely to use such as heroin detoxification and sex-change surgery, allow people to purchase only the coverage they need and want. This would drastically improve access to catastrophic-only and move health insurance back to being for extreme situations, not for everyday occurrences.

-- Elimination of state barriers to competition. Allow insurance companies to freely sell policies in every state, rather than creating the monopolized or oligarchic situations that currently exist in most states.

-- Allowing health insurance companies to charge different rates based on behavior. Laws that force non-smokers to pay the same rate as smokers are fundamentally unfair and result in drastically-increased costs for everyone.

But of course, none of these things channel money through the Federal government, and thus are completely antithetical to what Barack Obama and babbling Bob want. Neither Bob or Barack Obama has any interest in any solution or cost reduction that does not increase the power of the Federal government. They are not arguing in good faith since they adamantly refuse to consider anything other than nationalization of the US health care industry, the destruction of private insurance, and the imposition of rationed government care that punishes the responsible and rewards the irresponsible.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Four areas, that is.

[Ad rem]

"Bob's Big List of Liberal Shortcomings"....

1. We care and we feel too much.
2. We just can't seem to move left fast enough.
3. We love and respect out enemies too much.
3. We tend to ignore silly poll numbers, preferring to do "what is right".
4. We often can't spend taxpayer money fast enough.
5. We didn't take away ALL the guns sooner.

[Bob]

“Most liberals were saying that Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMDs back before the invasion” because they did not want to believe it was possible. Notwithstanding the fact that Saddam Hussein was doing everything he could to make it seem that he did have WMD’s."

He didn't seem to have fooled the very same UN inspectors that he threw out -- people like Hans Blix and Scott Ritter -- who reported that they saw no evidence of WMDs. I remember an interview with Blix from around the time of the U.S. invasion in which he seemed incredulous that we were actually going to war over the WMD charge, which he knew was likely to be a bogus accusation on our part.

"what you are advocating is even comparable to the "tyranny of a majority", which bush did actually operate from."

No, I'm saying that voters get a chance to weigh-in on the job their elected officials are doing at regular intervals. While any politician in his/her right mind is mindful of public opinion, it's ludicrous to suggest that public opinion should be the single most important factor to consider. Wasn't that the charge that wing nuts were always making up to criticize Bill Clinton -- that he consulted polls too often? And to say that "the american public doesn't know what is good for them" is supposed to represent a liberal attitude is bullshit. Don't insult me with stupid comments like that.

"now we have liberals subverting a majority political party, without holding a true majority, and avoiding the prerequisite support that the neocons acteed from?"

What the hell are you talking about? The Democratic Party IS the "liberal" party. How can liberals subvert their own party? God, you make such bizarre comments sometimes.

"Bob's Big List of Liberal Shortcomings...."

Fool, surprise me with an intelligent statement sometime and maybe I'll bother to respond seriously. Otherwise, I'm happy to let you look ignorant and juvenile all by yourself.

There, that ought to be enough red meat to fuel your hatred for another round. Have at it.

[Ad rem]

Roberta,

The fool you see is in the mirror. You and your ilk deserve to be treated with nothing less than complete derision.

[Bob]

"You and your ilk." What a typical phrase that a putz like you might use.

[Ad rem]

"Putz"?........always the highbrow! ;-D

[North Dallas Thirty]

But that is your ilk, Bob. After all, you have stated that the Obama Party represents all liberals and that all liberals are representative of the Obama Party.

"The Democratic Party IS the "liberal" party. How can liberals subvert their own party?"

As a result, here's what you believe, endorse, and support.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1919099,00.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/23/maxine-waters-obama-needs_n_266450.html

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/race_baiter_democrat_rep_diane_watson_praises_cuban/

[Rich K]

Well shame on me. I go and say something to bob that fuels an extended conversation about lib vs con thinking. And as an aside he says I somehow consider libs 'enemies' although I never inferred or implied such a thing. I like reading lib talking points on occasion just as much as the Sunday Funnies. It all goes well with that coffee I spoke of.Keep those hits coming bob, we love ya!

[Bob]

"Keep those hits coming bob, we love ya!"

That's the spirit, Rich. You listen to some people around here and you'd think that a person was committing a harmful act by dropping in and expressing a contrary opinion. Or that being for a heinous concept like universal health care makes a person an enemy of freedom and a murderer of old people. So sorry if I mistakenly put you in that group. I applaud your freedom to upchuck in coffee if that's what you're into, as long as it's your own coffee.

[mark l.]

rich-there really is nothing new...
bob has been pointing out how wonderful and popular liberalism is...

glancing around rassmussen-

***trust obama on an economic crisis at 27%.

***Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. 21% would be willing to pay more than 100 dollars a year.

***Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters disagree with the Justice Department’s decision to investigate the treatment and possible torture of terrorists during the Bush administration, 36% support.

***Sixty-two percent (62%) of Americans say it’s always better to cut taxes than increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their own money. 20% disagree.

***Seventy percent (70%) of likely voters now favor a government that offers fewer services and imposes lower taxes over one that provides more services with higher taxes, 19% disagree.

He's been explaining how his being a member of the 27% who have faith in obama's economic ability, the 21% that is willing to pay for cap and trade, the 36% who favor a cia prosecution, the 20% who would rather see govt grow, rather than cut taxes, and the 19% who want more taxes so he can get more govt services, is 'actually' quite popular.

It's early, how many times can obama touch the hot plate and get burned, without learning anything?