After the voters' drubbing of McLoser/failin' with a baseball bat-and sending a bunch of other idiots home with their tails tucked between their legs-I don't see how it could be construed any other way..

Now-after the '04 election-dumbass declared HE had a mandate-but I tried real hard to correct it.

I wrote it as a "Man-date-probably with Jeff Gannon"....

Time will tell if they have a mandate.

I believe that people were voting against Bush more than they were endorsing the radical policies of the left.

If they pass the radical stuff I believe people will not put up with it and in 2011 Obama will be working with a republican congress.

If they stay in the middle, they should be fine.

Raising taxes, making energy and gas more expensive, etc. These things will cost people their jobs and will get these guys voted out.

The House Plant decided that he had a mandate with a near thing.

The Democrats have far more than a little lead and that is by my definition of a mandate. What they do with it will set the tone for politics for more than just one Presidential term.

Change we needed in a huge way even if TAKEITEZ would disagree. But then he is way gone down the roan of dementia.

The last person Obama needs to be listnin to is pelosi, the lazy do nothin democrat leader.

pelosi doesn't care about America unless it effects her political agenda her way.

I was really hoping that the Democrats wouldn't use this term...

Now mind you, they do have a better reason to use it than GWBush did four years ago. A damn-sight better reason, considering the electoral vote trouncing that McCain took.

But still, mandate? If they are not very, very careful, saying that will bite them in the ass four years hence, if not sooner.

Ah, time to get ready for work.

Here is your mandate. Fix the economy. The Dems are firmly in control. They need to get busy and get this fixed. It will be interesting to see whether they spend their efforts trying to blame Bush and the repub for all this or whether they spend their energy trying to solve the problem. Asigning blame is a losing position, solving the problem is a winning position and shows leadership.

Sawdust,

For the good of the country I sincerely hope the Democrats learn from the mistakes made by the Republican party after 2000. The Republicans had control of the WH and both houses and governed irresponsibly, borderline criminally. Look how quickly things turned around! Heck, in 2004 Bush won re-election and the Republicans picked up seats in both houses. In 4 short years since they got their asses absolutely handed to them, and for good reason.

Obama was touted by his supporters for having superior judgement. I think the first 2 years of his presidency will be very interesting.

"I think the first 2 years of his presidency will be very interesting."

That's why Murrah building continues to fascinate...Clinton was down 12% after 2 years & never had to look back after blaming the radicals instead of the usual obvious suspects...

Now-after the '04 election-dumbass declared HE had a mandate-but I tried real hard to correct it.

I wrote it as a "Man-date-probably with Jeff Gannon"....

#1 | Posted by frankf55

Bush had 51% of the vote in '04

The Democrats said that this is not a mandate.

Obama had 52% of the vote in '08

Now, the Democrats say that this is a mandate.

The difference a point makes.

Here is your mandate. Fix the economy. The Dems are firmly in control. They need to get busy and get this fixed. It will be interesting to see whether they spend their efforts trying to blame Bush and the repub for all this or whether they spend their energy trying to solve the problem. Asigning blame is a losing position, solving the problem is a winning position and shows leadership.

#6 | Posted by sawdust

Sawdust,

I don't think the Democrats know how to fix the economy. I haven't heard anything from them to suggest that they will be doing that.

Ending the wars! would be a good start, but Obama is adding 67000 soldiers.

"The difference a point makes."

And 200 electoral votes.

"The difference a point makes."

That's the point, Eddie.

"The difference a point makes."

And 200 electoral votes.

#11 | Posted by Danforth

Oh, electoral votes are Good this time.

LOL...

It's funny to watch the opinions change.

Doc,

In case you missed the obvious (like always)

51% is not a mandate but 52% is a mandate

it was 52 when they said it, before you go off on a word twisting tirade. "But you said... and then you lied... but but but, that's BULLSHIT!!! (you and Danforth) LOL" damn fools.

Ha, the real point in the 51% or 52% mandate is that all the dems have to do is piss off about 4% or 5% of the people and this thing will swing just the opposite way.

They are in control.. Their destiny is in their own hands (all jokes aside)... Time will tell whether they are up to the task.

"51% is not a mandate but 52% is a mandate "

More like, a 35-electoral vote victory is not a mandate, but a 200-electoral vote victory is.

Eddie, how long before you're eligible to vote?

Were the Republicans to have won by such a large margin, you can be sure they'd be claiming a mandate. So it's hard to begrudge the Dems for doing the same.

The question begs itself, though: which Obama was elected? Does anyone even know?

A mandate...wow...I really think the dem-socialists need to go for it. ASAP!

"The question begs itself, though: which Obama was elected?"

Why The One who connected with the American people vs. the one you keep trying to manufacture, of course!

I don't like them using the term "mandate" either. They just need to show up to work every day and get the job done.

Why The One who connected with the American people vs. the one you keep trying to manufacture, of course!

#20 | Posted by Redneckville
* * * *

Oh. Well in that case we should be fine. The Obama of November 4 was a lot more moderate than the Obama of January 4. Now he's all for offshore drilling, FISA, the Patriot Act, finishing the job in Iraq. He's even moved away from big tax increases on capital gains, for now.
In fact, he's been so busy huffin' and a puffin' in his run back to the center, maybe he'll overshoot?

One can hope.

The most important thing for Obama to do is to REPRESENT AMERICA.

The constitution makes no mention of presidential leadership. It requires him to represent the will of the people.

(That is why Cheney's retort of "so?" to the question of the nation's lack of acceptance of W's
approval rating was so wrong)

Obama has a mandate to represent the people.

Bush chose to lead us down the road to ruin.
He had no intention or desire to represent us.

And he did not.

He really did think he was elected King.

And 200 electoral votes.

#11 | Posted by Danforth

Ah, but I am thankful that after almost a year of reading postings here, I have cmoe to agree with you Dems that popular vote is what counts, and electorlas are an archaic artifice. Or has that rule changed now that it does not work in favor of declaring a mandate?

Mandate. What a loaded word, and one that leaves a sour after-taste. I wonder how Obama feels about Reid -- who has jack squat during his 2 year stingt in the Dem leadership -- dropping the term. I suspect Obama would never have chosen to use it, since he, unlike Reid, actually has a clue as to the divided nature of the nation at this point.

"The question begs itself, though: which Obama was elected?"

My father in-law, an Italian who is loyal republican voted early for McCain. He told me that he now regrets not being part of this historic moment and is now saying how happy he is that we have a Sicilian in the WH!
I find this an Awesome tell of where this country is going and the monumental shift that's now occurring! I suspect there are many more just like him out there who held their nose and voted for McCain and now deeply regret doing so (wrong side of history)!

The days of rove and hannitys high school machinations are numbered. I believe that their anti intellectualism and their mean spirited rumoring is going to be turned on them in such a savage way that the mauling they are going to receive from the rational and educated public is going to be the fatal blow to their brand of "conservatism"!

Elections have Consequences!!!

A mandate...wow...I really think the dem-socialists need to go for it. ASAP!

Kerrin, has that pesky African Press International letter shown up yet?Or the hate whitey video.

After being palyed as badly as you were, maybe you shouldn't use big words like "socialist" for a while.

saying how happy he is that we have a Sicilian in the WH!

Well, it IS a short swim.

The Obama of November 4 was a lot more moderate than the Obama of January 4

"Moderate"

Why that's strange, I seem to recall all the way up thru Election Day he was being defined as a Socialist, a Marxists and a Muslim?
Where does "moderate" fit in that?

police and fire departments, roads and schools are are socialism you moronic free marketeers. The purpose of Conservative Think Tanks is to wage class warfare on the working class. They've proven for thirty years, there's a sucker born every minute. The media is the massage.

Lets let the oligarchy take charge, privatize everything and charge double, like they've done for electricity, gasoline, health care, military personell and operations. Its a super capitalistic plan. Plus, the more they fuck up the more money they make.

Obama and the Dems were elected to CHANGE things in America. Being too timid is the last thing President Obama should do, we have real problems which require real solutions. We need to bring Fair Trade not Free Trade, we need tax relief for working poor and tax increases for the wealthy, we need to end outsourcing and illegal immigration, we have lots of things to do and worrying about pissing off a small portion of the electorate will prevent pleasing the vast majority. If he is successful he will be reelected and he can only be successful by actually tackling the problems head on.

T"he Obama of November 4 was a lot more moderate than the Obama of January 4"

But im not surprised by this statement ---- we have known for sometime now that the Party of Personal Responsibility has to blame their loss on someone or something other than themselves.

Yup, the guy who was a Socialist Marxist Muslim Won because he ran as a moderate and it had nothing to do with the apposing party having no ideas and no agenda other than beating democrats (instead of governing)!

I don't believe that having a mandate or not makes a real difference with the Dems. I know they won't agree on what any mandate would entail.

But it is now up to the Dems to deal with the problems of our country. I think a big change the Dems need to make is in Congress. I give Nancy Pelosi huge credit for what she accomplished, becoming majority leader. Takes a lot to win that kind of in-fighting. Especially being a woman. However, she is not a leader. Dems in Congress have a history of fighting among themselves, going their own way. Normally that makes me happy. At this point in time, though, something must be done to reverse the disastrous course we are on. That will take some real changes, actions which will not be to the liking of many. The Dems need someone who can herd them in whatever direction is needed. I think this also applies to Harry Reid.

Yep, we definetely will have an interesting four years ahead of us.

Republicans were given a mandate to filibuster everything the libs dream up, starting with stealing out 401k's and giving houses to people.

" starting with stealing out 401k's and giving houses to people."

Too funny, coming from the party who already turned them into 201(k)s, and who's nominee wanted to buy up all the bad mortgages.

Something tells me Reid doesn't understand that part of the mandate was to imprison him and Pelosi for complicity in DubyaCo's criminal acts.

They don't have one, but they are as close to having one as one can be without actually having one. I am not sure if the Democrat's vision was embraced so much as the Republican's vision was rejected. When Reagan beat Mondale, that was a mandate. Clinton got one when he beat Dole, but Bush never got one and neither have the Dems.

The last person Obama needs to be listnin to is pelosi, the lazy do nothin democrat leader.

pelosi doesn't care about America unless it effects her political agenda her way.
posted by MoneyWar

From an electoral standpoint, I guess there's a pretty clear mandate. But from a popular vote perspective, not so clear... unless we're willing to accept Bush's definition of mandate, and I know that no honest person could ever do that.

I just think that making claims about any "mandate" winds up being offensive to a big number of people who didn't vote for the person or party making the claim.

I think one thing that is certainly considered part of the Democratic mandate is to de-politicize the Justice Dept. and conduct fair and impatial investigations of some of the events and people involved during the past 8 years starting with enforcing Congressional subpoenas.

Good starting ground for a discussion about what constitutes a mandate.

#39 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Looks like Obama will have the 4th, and potentially the 3rd largest popular vote margin in the last 40 years.

I think I agree with HAGBARD, using the term "mandate" is unnecessary and offensive to a large part of the electorate. Why use it?? What benefit is there in being divisive?

And yes, I do realize I just used it myself but that was before I read his post. I think I will avoid the term from now on.

"I think one thing that is certainly considered part of the Democratic mandate is to de-politicize the Justice Dept. and conduct fair and impartial investigations of some of the events and people involved during the past 8 years starting with enforcing Congressional subpoenas."

Damn straight, Danni.

I think one thing that is certainly considered part of the Democratic mandate is to de-politicize the Justice Dept. and conduct fair and impatial investigations of some of the events and people involved during the past 8 years starting with enforcing Congressional subpoenas.

#40 | Posted by danni

The election doesn't provide the mandate for that, the law does.

Got ninja'd by Danni. I was just about to say the Dems were pulling a Biden by saying this, even if it were true, because this nation is still very divided and statements like this will only serve to move the divide from a line in the sand to one in cement.

"saying how happy he is that we have a Sicilian in the WH! "

Ah, like this....

Democrats can call it whatever they want. The real point is that in two short months, they will have all of the power. It's time for them to start producing ideas, pushing them through, and being held accountable for them. No more sitting on the sidelines and blaming Bush for everything. Let's see what Democrats want to do for America and whether the citizens like what they see.

HC, if Obama really wants to live up to his claims that he's a bipartisan President and that he doesn't believe in "red states" vs. "blue states", he's going to have to try to distance himself from the whole "Democratic mandate" thing that Reid is putting forth here. Otherwise people will dismiss him as nothing more than a partisan hack (and rightly so!)

I actually don't want to see the Democrats get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. We've spent the last 8 years with an ineffective Senate due to partisan politics. Having the Democrats gain complete control of the Senate and giving a great big "fuck you" to the Republican senators isn't the way to fix this country's problems.

" It's time for (the Dems) to start producing ideas, pushing them through, and being held accountable for them."

Absolutely. Electing them wasn't enough; we need to hold their feet to the fire.

I am one of those who believes the DNC betrayed my vote in 2006 when we elected them to end a war that we are still very much a part of two years later; a war they even voted to surge. I am so happy they don't have teh 61 they need, but I hope the RNC remember the things they said about filibusters during the Roberts confirmation.

"Absolutely. Electing them wasn't enough; we need to hold their feet to the fire."

Starting with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I don't want to hear any excuses out of them.

"The election doesn't provide the mandate for that, the law does."

And how's that been going so far under Bush?

Pelosi the republiwhore telling me that she wants bipartisanship means more of the same national fascist shit.

Very interesting link, Yav.

I actually don't want to see the Democrats get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. We've spent the last 8 years with an ineffective Senate due to partisan politics. Having the Democrats gain complete control of the Senate and giving a great big "fuck you" to the Republican senators isn't the way to fix this country's problems.

#49 | Posted by Kinger

I don't know... I guess I agree, to a degree. I'm not sure if the GOP has any intention of cooperating in the next two years. So maybe they actually needed that supermajority to get anything accomplished. We'll have to see.

And how's that been going so far under Bush?

#53 | Posted by Danforth

Just because you have a mandate doesn't necessarily mean you are going to follow that mandate. Does it mean you should? Of course, but how'd that go with our Democratic congress and senate the last two years? We told them what they were voted in for and they went ahead and told us what we voted them in for.... the two versions didn't come even close to being similar.

We told them what they were voted in for and they went ahead and told us what we voted them in for.... the two versions didn't come even close to being similar.

#58 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-11-07 01:54 PM

Which is why Sheehan ended up running.

but I hope the RNC remember the things they said about filibusters during the Roberts confirmation.

Huh???? haven't you been watching them lately?

In the fall of 2007, the 110th Congress' 1st session broke the record, for filibuster cloture votes, topping 70 as of Nov 15, 2007. It is on track to triple the number of such votes in 2008's 2nd session. [13]

Republicans in the Senate have filibustered more than 70 pieces of legislation (73) in the current session of Congress. Not all of these attempts have ended in success. Bills have passed. But the modern rate of obstructionism has been historic, far surpassing the previous record of 62 cloture votes.

"51% is not a mandate but 52% is a mandate "

More like, a 35-electoral vote victory is not a mandate, but a 200-electoral vote victory is.

#16 | Posted by Danforth

Thanks Danforth.

You exposed another Democrat's hypocrisy. When the Electoral College is against them, it's a bad idea.

But, now you think it's a good idea.

Wow! just took that bat from you and knocked you out of the park. Do you like getting bitch-slapped with your own retorts? (I'm just using you self-declaring victory techniques you also). Ouch! You should back off from now on.

Many,
I actually have not been paying that close of attention to them lately...policial fatigue. Perhaps they will take this election as a sign that we, the nation, are sick of politics as usual and, if it continues, will just have to vote more and more encumbants out.

Sorry for the bad spelling, hope it doesn't kill my point.

Which is why Sheehan ended up running.

#59 | Posted by kanrei

Exactly.

Republicans in the Senate have filibustered more than 70 pieces of legislation (73) in the current session of Congress. Not all of these attempts have ended in success. Bills have passed. But the modern rate of obstructionism has been historic, far surpassing the previous record of 62 cloture votes.

#60 | Posted by Manypaths

Are you saying to get rid of it or should we keep it as part of the system of checks and balances?

Are you saying to get rid of it or should we keep it as part of the system of checks and balances?

#64 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-11-07 02:02 PM

It is a very important tool of the minority that has become a weapon and misued by both sides at every chance. We, as a nation, need to demand it to stop and to stop re-electing those fools on both sides who place party above country!

Click on "Voting Shifts."

#54 | Posted by yav

That's a great link, Yav.

"Are you saying to get rid of it or should we keep it as part of the system of checks and balances?"

If the Republicans use it too much I think we should follow their lead....Nuclear Option. Too much is at stake for us to allow them to obstruct bills intended to repair the damage they have caused.

MAN! there are some crazy MFs on this site.

Wow, I didn't realize NeoCons had such thin skin or were so dramatic. Well, this is the drudge site, and drudgey loves him some soap operas and it must be a magnet for soap opera queens, Oooops, I guess that includes me!

Ouch, have to go spank myself.

Are you saying to get rid of it or should we keep it as part of the system of checks and balances?

#64 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-11-07 02:02 PM

It is a very important tool of the minority that has become a weapon and misued by both sides at every chance. We, as a nation, need to demand it to stop and to stop re-electing those fools on both sides who place party above country!

#65 | Posted by kanrei

If you say it that way, then I insist on the Republicans to stop using the filibuster and let the Democrats move on with their aganda. The phrase "give them enough rope" comes to mind.

"Are you saying to get rid of it or should we keep it as part of the system of checks and balances?"

If the Republicans use it too much I think we should follow their lead....Nuclear Option. Too much is at stake for us to allow them to obstruct bills intended to repair the damage they have caused.

#67 | Posted by danni

LOL! Name one objective that the Democrats have aimed at "repairing the damage"

Everything the Democrats are talking about now are to become more socialist.

Sometimes, Danni, you need to stick your head out this hate bubble you're in and take a fresh breath of air.

Eddie,
The Republicans owe it to the country to use it, but only when it is needed. The popular vote once again shows a country that does not fully trust either side with their future, so we really depend on the party out of power to keep the party in power from going insane. The Dems screwing up will not only hurt the DNC, but also every person in the country and probably the world, so "give them enough rope" will only serve to cause mass suicide on all of our parts.

Wow, I didn't realize NeoCons had such thin skin or were so dramatic.
#68 | Posted by NeoConsLost

NeoConsLost,

What's a neocon? Do you know? I want to hear your definition.

Obama is a good person who will listen to both sides...I just pray he is smart enough to see past Harry and Nancy and remember it is we the people who are his bosses, and not the DNC, the RNC, or the Illuminati....

The Dems screwing up will not only hurt the DNC, but also every person in the country and probably the world, so "give them enough rope" will only serve to cause mass suicide on all of our parts.

#71 | Posted by kanrei

Ok, Kanrei, but I didn't know you had a serious side.

Can I define Neocon? Please?

A Neo-con is someone who believes in the new conservatism; one based on the bible and enforcement of morality over tradition and conservation. A Neo-con is more like a liberal with narrow field of visison: they demand change, but only of those things which offend them. A Neo-con sees opposition as a direct threat to them rather than a simple disagreement. The Rovrat is the Liberal version- a Rovian Democrat.

Ok, Kanrei, but I didn't know you had a serious side.

I try really hard to hide it, but it sneaks past my guards every now and then.

"Everything the Democrats are talking about now are to become more socialist."

As long as it fits the need, I have no problem with that.

"Sometimes, Danni, you need to stick your head out this hate bubble you're in and take a fresh breath of air."

Spoken by someone who puts hate into nearly every post. I guess I understand though, you're still angry about losing the election. Oh well, better get used to it Eddie, President Obama will be residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next four years and most likley four more after that.
Gosh...just contemplating the CHANGES makes me giddy.

"You exposed another Democrat's hypocrisy. When the Electoral College is against them, it's a bad idea. But, now you think it's a good idea. "

Lifelong Independent. And you're an idiot, I've always pointed toward the Electoral College. Now remind me, what were the EC margins for Bush's two wins?

" but how'd that go with our Democratic congress and senate the last two years? "

Give me 41+ Senators and a President who's finally found his veto pen and lets blame you for what I do.

Mandate, shmandate.

However, to deny this is NOT a significant shift/change is beyond ludicrous.

BOX SCORE:

2008: Sen. Obama Sen. McCain
Votes: 65,132,315 57,185,359
% 53.25% 46.75% Spread = 6.50%
EV's 364 163 (11 still undecided)

2004: Pres. Bush Sen. Kerry
Votes: 62,040,610 59,028,444
% 51.24% 48.76% Spread = 2.49%
286 251

Couple observations:
1. Sen. Obama: 3 Million more votes, 2% more percentage (and that of a greater number of total votes), 4% greater spread, and nearly 80 more EV's.

2. Even Sen. Kerry got nearly 2 Million more votes and more than 80 EV's than Sen. McCain.

While this is no "total blow out", when these reults are combined with corresponding Democrat increases in other races (House, Senate, and Governors), the implication SHOULD be obvious.

Spin/ignore as you see fit.

Lifelong Independent. And you're an idiot, I've always pointed toward the Electoral College. Now remind me, what were the EC margins for Bush's two wins?

#79 | Posted by Danforth

Dude. relax. Have a beer, wine, toke?

Here's what i would like to see the Mandate "change"

1. End the wars
2. Publish 10 year plan to close all the military bases around the world AND DO IT!
3. Repeal Patriot Act
4. Nationalize the Federal Reserve
5. Obey the Consitution!!! Many issues
6. Erase the border between Mexico and US or enforce it.

.
.
.
taking a breath

Danforth has been at it all day.

And the vitriol?) is nothing new for him.
He also thinks that this whole damn site is about him, and that we should all recognize a lot of his personal beliefs and values that he has mentioned in the past.

He always used to tag team with fellow butt pirate MONTECORE, but now I think he has been ass tagging Doc lately.

Also Eddie what is with that fucked up wish list.

Also Eddie what is with that fucked up wish list.

#84 | Posted by Fredo_C

I don't know. I'm just tired of America being the bully. (short answer)

Amen, EDDIE

We've been a beacon of hope and a shining example of what's best about America when we've engaged in 'soft' diplomacy - providing medical care, food, shelter, education, wells, etc to the huddled masses in the forgotten corners of the Earth.

Heal a man's uncle, save a grandchild's life, feed a family, and you'll have 100 members of and extended family who also view the U.S. in a different, more positive light.

dont close the Goddam military bases.

let's not get crazy.

"dont close the Goddam military bases.

let's not get crazy."

Why? Do you work on one of them?

dude man what the fuck do you care .....shut up n play yer guitar

"#89 | Posted by Fredo_C at 2008-11-07 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Sore Loser

"dude man what the fuck do you care .....shut up n play yer guitar"

I'll take that as a yes. Loser.

"shut up n play yer guitar"

www.youtube.com

#92 | Posted by Zatoichi

Zat beat me to it.

"Danforth has been at it all day."

Stop the stupid, and I'll stop the corrections.

they dont have a mandate....they have a congress full of democrats who THE LAST THING they are interested in is reaching across the aisle

CAN WE ADD THAT TO THE IRRITATING PHRASE THREAD.......

last thing they are about is bipartisanship and again...the selection of rhombo is a testement to that...............

"Danforth has been at it all day."

Stop the stupid, and I'll stop the corrections.

#94 | Posted by Danforth

LOL!!! you don't correct shit! You pick words out and twist them. You don't know it, but everyone else does. A first, it considered it a challenge, but when you are proven wrong, you won't admit it! It's not worth the effort with you.

"when you are proven wrong, you won't admit it!"

Link?

THE LAST THING they are interested in is reaching across the aisle
#95 | Posted by bushlovertwo

BL2, The Democrats MUST be more bipartisan if they are smart.

The Democrats got elected because the economy is not going well and people are tired of the war and the fact that we haven't been attacked in 7 years, people think that there isn't a boogy man. In fact, if those pictures and videos of 911 didn't exist, people would doubt it ever happened.

Do you really think that people voted for the Democrats so that they could get free money, a free mortgage, free health care from the government and it be good. I mean health care is a comodoty and who cares who provides it.

Oh shit, BL2, we are headed toward being a socialist country. The Libs on this blog are still in denial that they are really just socialistthey are so afraid of that word.

"when you are proven wrong, you won't admit it!"

Link?

#97 | Posted by Danforth

I think you are right on target eddie

but the real proof of how right you are will be just how savagely you are attacked in the next few posts.............that usually means that you are on to the truth and the left here

CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH

OH SHIT>........another phrase to add to that thread............

Eddie,

Your link was to the Drudge Retort front page, doofus. Is that all you've got?

and here is a perfect place to put this

the thread about palin not knowing where africa is and all that

LOOK AT campbell browns web site and you will see that even this LIBERAL MEDIA MEMBER shos that and other things from the left
WERE NOT TRUE
and there was even an official apology given.........not to palin but to the writer of the article from the source..............

Eddie,

Your link was to the Drudge Retort front page, doofus. Is that all you've got?

#101 | Posted by Danforth

LOL!!!

that's right. Now figure it out.

It doesn't matter if that's all I got, I really don't care about what you say anymore. You had your chance.

"that's right. Now figure it out."

There goes Eddie again: sending others on wild-goose chases when he gets caught posting out his ass. Link or stink, liar.

Also Eddie what is with that fucked up wish list.

#84 | Posted by Fredo_C

Fredo,

I could add to the list, but I think that hese things should be addressed in addition to the economy. In fact, most of the llist has to do with getting the economy and fiscal responsibility back on track.

1. End the wars
2. Publish 10 year plan to close all the military bases around the world AND DO IT!
3. Repeal Patriot Act
4. Nationalize the Federal Reserve
5. Obey the Consitution!!! Many issues
6. Erase the border between Mexico and US or enforce it.

well eddie as to your last suggestion....keep the erase comment to yourself because obama would certainly be in favor of that

and remember my quote from the ex foreign secretary of mexico who said that the electon of obama meant new and better things for mexico and he wasnt talking about helping them with thier economy, he was talking about the border being even more pourous

and here is our mandate for the new republican party

OBAMA 08.
ONE aND DONE

well eddie as to your last suggestion....keep the erase comment to yourself because obama would certainly be in favor of that

#106 | Posted by bushlovertwo

So, the North American Union is a real possibility?

The dems didn't declare a mandate---the people declared a mandate.

Bush declared he had a mandate with a 2 EV win. Reps need to STFU about mandates.

I think thats always a possibility but what I meant was that a liberal immigration policy will only cost us more money..................

bob...I was referring to a mandate in the sense of all of us being inline with what he wants to do

its true that he got more votes than any candidate lately but that doesnt mean that the entire country is behind him

The dems didn't declare a mandate---the people declared a mandate.

Bush declared he had a mandate with a 2 EV win. Reps need to STFU about mandates.

#109 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

In 2004, the Democrats said that 51% was not a mandate.

In 2008, the Democrats said that 52% is a mandate.

What a difference a point makes.

"In 2008, the Democrats said that 52% is a mandate."

2004: Bush 286 EVs, Kerry 251 EVs

2008: Obama 365 EVs, McCain 173 EVs

What a difference 79 EVs make.

Hans

In 2000 and 2004 Democrats were bitching and moaning about how the Electoral College is unfair and is a bad idea.

Now, it's just peachy.

Hmmmm.

"In 2000 and 2004 Democrats were bitching and moaning about how the Electoral College is unfair and is a bad idea...Now, it's just peachy...Hmmmm."

Eddie:

This election, Obama won not only on electoral votes, but he won the popular vote by a very comfortable margin; the electoral and popular votes were in accordance. For the '00 election, there remains a dark suspicion that the electoral vote was rigged so as to give Bush the win he did not achieve on popular votes; the electoral votes and popular votes were at variance with each other. For the '04 election, Bush did win the popular vote, but claims of irregularities in Ohio persist to this day; Kerry and Howard Dean still consider the hinky stuff in Ohio as the factor that cost Kerry the Presidency. In addition, one electoral vote in Minnesota that should have been Kerry's went to John Edwards, because one elector did as he damned well pleased instead of giving that electoral vote as pledged - perfectly legal under the Electoral College system, but surely one of that system's most glaring flaws. If you can't figure out the difference in these scenarios, at least have the self-respect to conceal your dumb-assery from the rest of us.

If you can't figure out the difference in these scenarios, at least have the self-respect to conceal your dumb-assery from the rest of us.

#114 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

You had a good argument till you said dumb-assery. Really, is that a word? LOL

However, the facts you claim above are made up and maintained by leading Democrats even today.

The New York Times did a recount in Florida and Bush still won.

Finally, my point is that if you remove the loud-mouthed "leaders" of the Democrats complaining about the two elections being stolen, precisely the entirety of your retort., then it comes down to the difference of 51% and 52%.

What makes me a dumb-assery in your eyes is that I take what an irresponsible and partisan and so-called leader says as fact. That would be foolish.

face it. 52% is one point more than 51%.

Ed-dee:

There is no gainsaying the fact that Bush lost the popular vote to Gore in '00 but won on electoral votes, no matter what you may or may not believe about that recount in Florida. Our Electoral College system gave the '00 election to a man the people of this nation did not want in office, based on their popular vote. You could bring Johnnie Cochran back from the dead, and you could not explain that away.

If you want to talk about how slender the Democrats' margin of the popular vote was as far as you're concerned - well okay, let's talk. Obama won by something like eight million votes in '08 (there are still some vote counts going on out there, I believe). In '00, Bush lost the popular vote by around half a million votes, and in '04, he won it by only three million votes or so. His popular vote margin - even in '04, where he is supposed to have won the popular vote - was less than half Obama's.

If you get into electoral votes (and how I wish we didn't have to, but that's the system we have), then the spread is even bigger. In '00, Bush's EV's came to a total of 271. In '04, he got a whopping 286. In '08, Obama has something like 365. Now, you can talk about your 51% to 52% all day long, but what you're not taking into account is the population of the United States is so large that one percentage point represents a hell of a lot of voters, whose hearts and minds take a lot of doing to win.

You lost, Eddie, and you lost big, mmkay? You folks will have a chance again in '12, if Obama screws up only about 10% as much as you guys say he will - and if your party will see to it that Sarah Palin is never allowed anywhere near a Presidential race again. You hope for the first thing, and I'll hope for the second.

"then it comes down to the difference of 51% and 52%."

Actually, it comes down to this:

"5 million more votes (4,970,058)"

Correction: 3,300,002 more votes, not 4,970,058.

Hans

In other words, where Bush earned "political capital" in 2004, Obama earned a landslide in 2008.

Hans

#117 | Posted by Hans

you're saying that. But the Democrats would really be stepping in it if they came out and said it was a landslide.

Han's, better stick to the Democrats stretching out a "Mandate" comment.

I think that's bold enough.

You lost, Eddie, and you lost big, mmkay? You folks will have a chance again in '12, if Obama screws up only about 10% as much as you guys say he will
#116 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

I hope it makes you feel better to say I lost...

But claiming victory on the Retort is a sign of weakness. You really aren't sure of your argument are you.

And when you say, you guys, You are, I'm sure, referring to the Republican Party? I won't be voting Republican for a long time. I don't see them cleaning up for a long time.

From my point of view, Palin and Obama in leadership and experience. You hate her because represents Conservative values.

From Bill Maher:

Bush came out the other day and had a tearful farewell to his staff in the Rose Garden, and it turns out he's shopping his memoirs...it's called "The Audacity of Huh?. He apparently isn't being offered enough money for them either. They asked him to write an autobiography and he said he didn't know that much about cars.

Expect Rush and Hannity to spout, "Obama's dog hangs out with terriers".

No more special prosecutors. If Republicans want to look into something they should try a mirror.

"You hate her because represents Conservative values."

Stupidity is a "Conservative value"?

Interesting.

Hans

"But the Democrats would really be stepping in it if they came out and said it was a landslide."

Eddie:

This is why your side lost. You FOX-following folks have an incredible propensity to seize upon the smallest tidbit and stretch it, squeeze it, twist it and mold it to suit your agenda, when any dolt can see the truth of whatever matter is under discussion. Everybody's sick of it. Your fifteen minutes are up, mmkay?

People wanted Barack Obama in office real bad, giving him an extremely healthy margin of the popular vote, and more than double the number of EV's garnered by McCain. Yet you guys yammer on about 51% vs. 52%, as if some insignificant number of wild-eyed idiots put Obama in the White House. The truth is that the population of the United States is so huge that one percentage point indicates an very large number of people who were persuaded that Obama was better for the country than your guy, not that it was very hard to do.

You got your butts whipped. Deal with it. And don't forget, neither Palin nor Romney is going to be of much use to you in '12.

"But the Democrats would really be stepping in it if they came out and said it was a landslide."

Indiana...blue.

North Carolina...blue

Virginia...blue

Check out the last time they were blue. Speaks volumes.

Hans

"You hate her (Palin) because she represents conservative values...."

What values were those? I think they fell out of your pants pockets and between the couch cushions between 2002-2006.

This is why your side lost.
#123 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

This is why you lost the argument. You don't read my posts. You don't know which is my side.

"You don't read my posts.
...
#126 | Posted by Eydie

Who does?

Maybe I don't know what your side is. But if you think Palin has any side but her own, ye be daft.

Barry Goldwater spins in his grave. In fact, he's been doing that for so long now his corpse may bore its way out.

"But the Democrats would really be stepping in it if they came out and said it was a landslide."

Indiana...blue.

North Carolina...blue

Virginia...blue

Check out the last time they were blue. Speaks volumes.

Hans

#124 | Posted by Hans

I hear ya, Hans.

But, not quite a landslide.

Remember the original statement, "Mandate"

I didn't believe Bush had "Political Capital" in 2004 the same way i believe there is no Mandate.

Ultimately, 47% of the votes were against the Democrats, so there's not much to play with there. I don't see a landslide or a mandate. I see Obama working hard to keep the ship in the lane.

I believe he can do it.

"From my point of view, Palin and Obama in leadership and experience. You hate her because represents Conservative values."

No, I detest Palin because she hasn't got a clue what being a conservative is. She thinks it's got something to do with shoving her narrow-minded Creationist agenda up the asses of the entire country, unlubed, when it's actually about treating the electorate as adults fully capable of managing their own affairs and making up their own minds.

I also detest Palin because she is incompetent at the level she aspires to. She was inadequately prepared for network interviews with both Charlie Gibson (the Mister Rogers of network journalism) and Katie Couric - if you can't look professional and competent next to Couric, you've got a problem. She did not supervise her staff adequately, as evidenced by both the excessive clothing purchases (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming other people in the campaign overbought on her behalf, as she claims), and her falling hook, line and sinker, fur, fins and feathers for that prank "Sarkozy" call.

If a candidate cannot gather staffers capable of vetting a phone call purporting to be from the President of France, and cannot ride herd on her people well enough to see to it that hundreds of thousands of donor dollars didn't get squandered on unneeded clothing purchases, then I don't want that person anywhere near the wheels of our Federal government.

"You don't read my posts.
...
#126 | Posted by Eydie

Who does?

#127 | Posted by nullifidian

You do, for one.

#130 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Wow. feel better?

I wonder how much of that is true.

You know, if you spent your time on more positive, more productive things, you wouldn't be so pissy all the time.

Why, do the women attack her when I to but the Palin thing in perspective?

MaryTylerWhore,

What do you think of Gov Blanco of Lousiana. She was far more incomptetent than you say that Palin is.

"She was far more incomptetent than you say that Palin is."

#133 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-11-08 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag: Self Retorting Retort

"She was far more incomptetent than you say that Palin is."

#133 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-11-08 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag: Self Retorting Retort

#134 | Posted by Hans

How so? Read a little closer Hans

I took her comments and applied it to a Liberal Governor (who the Libs protected).

How is it self-retorting, Captain Keyboard :)

"I wonder how much of that is true."

As Ronald Reagan once said, "There you go again."

If you will read what I actually wrote, instead of filtering it through your own agenda, you will see that I stuck to incontrovertible facts in my words about Palin. I gave her the benefit of my very considerable doubt on the issue of the clothing purchases, conceding that she may well have not wished for so much to be bought in her behalf. Her poor performance in her Gibson and Couric segments is a matter of record (and I'm only talking about the edited versions we saw on-air, not the rumored unedited Couric footage). So is the call from the Montreal radio comics. All of that is a matter of record, not perception.

Palin could have avoided all of this. She could have devoted herself to better preparation. She could have told the first staffer who showed up with armloads of Neiman-Marcus stuff, "Take that back this minute - I said three suits!" She could have gotten McCain to draw on the resources of the White House to vet that call from the madcaps in Montreal. She did none of these things.

Now for my opinion. Sarah Palin is absolutely toxic for the Republican Party, a train wreck who caused McCain's campaign to jump the shark the moment she foomfled that answer to Gibson's Bush Doctrine question. Anyone wanting to get ahead in national politics would be well advised to leave a lot of distance between themselves and the Wonder of Wasilla.

"How so? Read a little closer Hans"

#136 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Ok. Wow. I hope you feel better.

I just don't see it that way. I'm very curious to see why women hate some women and not others. You say that Palin is incompetent. But the last time a Democrat was tested in an executive role, she didn't do so well, and she was protected from the fall-out, but still ran for re-election.

"How so? Read a little closer Hans"

Bold. Observe the bold in my comment.

Hans (Captain Keyboard)

#137 | Posted by Hans

Oh, I see. I misspelled the word. HA. I get it.

Oh boy. *slapped forhead*

"What do you think of Gov Blanco of Lousiana. She was far more incomptetent than you say that Palin is."

Eddie:

You are correct. She was incompetent. And she is gone, as she damned well should be.

You obviously don't know me very well. When something is right in my estimation, I say so. When something is wrong in my estimation, I say so. Obama is not perfect - he failed miserably, and I think on purpose, to answer a direct question about whether the wealthy would see a tax increase in yesterday's news conference. Clinton was not perfect - he did run the country decently well, but he lied under oath, which is an absolutely unacceptable thing for a President to do. Had there been more time, he might have had to stand trial in the Senate in addition to his impeachment, and I got news for you, sports fans - that would have been as it should have been, given the gravity of the offense.

So get off my back about my supposed canonizing of one side and demonizing another - I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and I usually sees 'em pretty plain, no matter which party you're talking about.

Anyone wanting to get ahead in national politics would be well advised to leave a lot of distance between themselves and the Wonder of Wasilla.

#136 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Actually, I think she'll be running for Senate in the future. I don't think she'll be running for President or VP.

"But the last time a Democrat was tested in an executive role"

Might want to run that by Governor-elect Bev Perdue.

Or re-elected Governor Chris Gregoire

Or Governor Janet Napolitano

Or Governor Ruth Ann Minner

Or Governor Kathleen Sebelius

Or Governor Jennifer Granholm

You also might want to acknowledge the obvious: When in a hole the first rule is, stop digging.

Hans

So get off my back about my supposed canonizing of one side and demonizing another - I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and I usually sees 'em pretty plain, no matter which party you're talking about.

#140 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

You're the one claiming victory and you vitiously attack Sarah Palin.

I don't think I'm on your back.

However, I am demonizing the Left on this one. They went too far and continue to so.

They felt that Palin was a threat and they went too far making up crap. And you seem to put a lot of weight on things that really don't matter that much, like not being ready for Couric's interview. If Couric did that to Obama, She'd be a racist. But it's ok, if a woman does it to another woman.

Anyway, that's your opinion and you want me to respect it. Well, I do respect it as you opinion, but you have to realize that 46% of the country disagrees with you (so you are still in the majority)

"What do you think of Gov Blanco of Lousiana. She was far more incomptetent than you say that Palin is."

Okay, Eddie, now we get to the matter of my opinion - I'm not citing facts here, just my gut feeling, okay?

I think there was so much smoke during the McCain campaign that a lot of fire is going to be showing up over the next few months. I personally do hold the opinion that she behaved badly on the matter of the clothing purchases, and I do think she's the undereducated, overprivileged, vengeful person that McCain staffers are now painting her as being.

Once these things are established in the mainstream media (not gossip rags or supermarket tabloids), attributed to credible sources, then it's my opinion that Miz Moosie will be joining the likes of Jesse Ventura as a one-term gubernatorial wonder who has since disappeared from the scene.

"But the last time a Democrat was tested in an executive role"

You also might want to acknowledge the obvious: When in a hole the first rule is, stop digging.

Hans

#142 | Posted by Hans

Uh Hans? you awake? Gov Blanco was in office during Katrina. Just in case you didn't know that.

:)

You say I'm in a hole but you are throwing yourself off a cliff :)

Keep bringing out those wonderful facts.

"They felt that Palin was a threat..."

White House? Democratic, check
US Senate? Still Democratic since 2006, with even more seats, check.
US House? Still Democratic since 2006, with even more seats, check.
Governors? Still more Democrats than Republicans, check.

No doubt everyone would call that a "threat".

;0)

Hans

Hey it wasn't Governor Blanco who fuicked it that was Dubya. After He called a national emergency during Hurricane Katrina the PRIMARY Responsibility rested with the FEDERAL Government Hellloooooooooooooooo did You fall off the turnip truck Yesterday??

Larry

"Keep bringing out those wonderful facts."

Okay:

Governor-elect Bev Perdue.
Governor Chris Gregoire
Governor Janet Napolitano
Governor Ruth Ann Minner
Governor Kathleen Sebelius
Governor Jennifer Granholm

You're welcome.

Hans

And the last time a Republican was tested in an executive role?

"I am demonizing the Left on this one. They went too far and continue to so."

Eddie:

What the bloody hell do you expect? The left has been treated like shit for eight years, and America turned into a gulag. People's rights have been abrogated from hell to breakfast, their jobs destroyed by the right's insistence on elimination of economic regulation, their pensions and savings decimated, America turned into a laughingstock abroad. Give me a break. People are angry for a reason. If their anger is turned on the right - well, it ain't the Dems that did all of this to America. I would agree that there was some complicity on the Dem side; I personally think Pelosi and Reid should be ousted for not actively seeking Bush's impeachment and trial in the Senate. But the direction of this country for the past eight years came from the White House, which has been in the right-est of right hands. You cannot abuse people and expect them not to resent it, and you cannot expect resentment not to surface in the form of angry words.

Once these things are established in the mainstream media (not gossip rags or supermarket tabloids), attributed to credible sources, then it's my opinion that Miz Moosie will be joining the likes of Jesse Ventura as a one-term gubernatorial wonder who has since disappeared from the scene.

#144 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

I have to admit that I did not watch Sarah Palin as closely as you did. If someone was reporting on her, I turned it off as quickly as I turn off Nancy Grace or Heraldo or Limbaugh. So, I don't have the same perspective as you do. They started attacking her from say one. I'm beginning to think that a small group from inside the republican party was leaking info out combined with the Democrats being afraid of her. One poll has McCain gaining 18 points because of her. This is something I heard on a local radio talk show, which is very much middle of the road (You can't trust any sources for facts)

"One poll has McCain gaining 18 points because of her."

That would certainly explain this:

Obama: 65,340,608 (53%) 365 EVs
McCain: 57,358,053 (46%) 173 EVs

Yep. Gaining "18 points."

I would hate to think what the results would be without her!

ROTFLMAO!

;0)

Hans

"One poll has McCain gaining 18 points because of her."

[citation needed]

If their anger is turned on the right - well, it ain't the Dems that did all of this to America.

#150 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Your rage is misplaced. I don't mean to patronize, but you can't blame the Republicans for people losing their pensions. You can't blame the Republicans for what George Bush did by starting the war. There were Democrats in there too. I blame the 2-party system.

Got news for you. Corporations are going to offshore jobs no matter who is in office. If it gets too bad, the entire corporation will move out of the country and take all the jobs AND still sell us the product.

Mexicans are going to continue to cross the border after Obama is President. Maybe more, maybe less.

Obama may invade Iran or Northern Pakistan. He has no plan to end the occupation of Iraq or to close the 700+ bases around the World.

Obama has no plan to nationalize the Federal Reserve and stop printing money out of thin air. This is the real reason that jobs are going overseas, that we have inflation, that the trade-deficit is so great.

I don't mean to petronize, but what you see happenign now would have happened no matter who was in charge.

But how do you explain my daughter coming home with 14 lbs of candy after 2 hours of trick or treat. She couldn't pick it up.

What I'm trying to say is today is a good day. But at the same time, I see a dark future as I've seen for the last eight years.

And the last time a Republican was tested in an executive role?

PRESIDENT BUSH Overall Job Rating

The first rule when in a hole: stop digging.

Hans

#149 | Posted by Hans at 2008-11-08 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Deflection

When all else fails, DEFLECT!

"One poll has McCain gaining 18 points because of her."

[citation needed]

#153 | Posted by Zatoichi

As I said in the post you got it from.

"And the last time a Republican was tested in an executive role?"

Then we can all agree: George W. Bush is no executive.

Hans

"As I said in the post you got it from."

Posted by Eddie

Some citation.

Post a link to the poll or STFU.

"Post a link to the poll or STFU."

We should all be so lucky.

Hans

"And the last time a Republican was tested in an executive role?"

Then we can all agree: George W. Bush is no executive.

Hans

#157 | Posted by Hans

Yes, I agree

But, Blanco was tested and failed. That was the point.

Still need to see what you were talking about when you posted the other Democrat Govs.

Were they tested with a Katrina-type disaster?

Governor Blanco wasn't at fault Eddie please get more educated upon the subject matter at hand. Dubya declared a National State of Emergency which placed the Primary Responsibility upon FEMA. Governor Blanco did Her part by sending out the letter asking for help even though the Robert Stafford Act specifically declares that the President can enter into any area under the jurisdiction of the United States when a National Emergency happens. Get a fucking clue next time.

Larry

"Post a link to the poll or STFU."

We should all be so lucky.

Hans

#159 | Posted by Hans

hans, why lucky? Do I annoy you?

"Still need to see what you were talking about when you posted the other Democrat Govs."

Get a fucking clue next time.

Larry

#162 | Posted by LarryMohr

Larry, relax. Blanco screwed the pooch. Louisiana spoke and kicked her out. The Lousianians were the ones in the storm and the ones who actually know. You don't.

"Do I annoy you?"

"Still need to see what you were talking about when you posted the other Democrat Govs."

But the last time a Democrat was tested in an executive role.

#138 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-11-08 07:26 PM

You're welcome.

Hans

#164 | Posted by Hans

Ok, give me a clue here.

Blanco was not the last Democrat to be tested in an executive role? Who else? Any clues?

"You are an obvious ignorant fuck."

Good call, Larry (Res ipsa loquitur.)

Hans

You are an obvious ignorant fuck. Why don't You do some research and then get back to Me. THANK YOU.

Larry

#167 | Posted by LarryMohr

Ok, then. Why wasn't she re-elected?

"You are an obvious ignorant fuck."

Good call, Larry (Res ipsa loquitur.)

Hans

#169 | Posted by Hans

Hans. Stop making fun of him. Larry is pretty clueless, but you don't have to make fun of him.

"Who else? Any clues?"

Hans,

Why wasn't Blanco reelected?

Thanks Hans and Glad you are back posting again.

Larry

"hans, why lucky? Do I annoy you?

#163 | Posted by Eddie "

You annoy everybody, loser.

Ok, then. Why wasn't she re-elected?

#170 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-11-08 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

They wanted new blood. Oh and if You think Blanco was at fault why was Nagan re hired. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Larry

"Who else? Any clues?"

Hint: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

You're welcome.

Hans

#172 | Posted by Hans

Hans,

Again,

What other Democrats were in an executive role?

Can you answer it?

you started to, but then you realized that you were wrong and then stopped. Are you just going to leave it like that?

"Thanks Hans and Glad you are back posting again."

You're welcome, my friend.

Hans

"What other Democrats were in an executive role?"

Okay:

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano
Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter
Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich
Iowa Governor Chet Culver
Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius
Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear
Maine Governor John Baldacci
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer
New Hampshire Governor John Lynch
New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine
New Mexico Governor Bill Richards
New York Governor David Paterson
North Carolina Governor Mike Easley
Ohio Governor Ted Strickland
Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski
Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell
Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine
Washington Governor Chris Gregoire
West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin III
Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle
Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal

You're welcome.

Hans

Still no one can tell me the name of a Democrat in an executive role who was tested in much the same way that Blanco was.

Blanco was not re-elected

"hans, why lucky? Do I annoy you?

#163 | Posted by Eddie "

You annoy everybody, loser.

#175 | Posted by nullifidian

Then why are you hanging around, stalking me?

Still no one can tell me the name of a Democrat in an executive role who was tested in much the same way that Blanco was.

Blanco was not re-elected

Posted by Eddie at 2008-11-08 08:43 PM | Reply

Kansas Governor Kathlene Sebelius May 04 2007 Greensberg Tornado. You dig THAT Eddie. bwhahahahahahahahaha You suck

Larry

They wanted new blood. Oh and if You think Blanco was at fault why was Nagan re hired. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Larry

#176 | Posted by LarryMohr

Why did 90% of blacks vote for Obama. You tell me why Nagin was re-elected?

Kansas Governor Kathlene Sebelius May 04 2007 Greensberg Tornado. You dig THAT Eddie. bwhahahahahahahahaha You suck

Larry

#182 | Posted by LarryMohr

I have never seen someone concede so gracefully. It's like wathing someone say something to dis you and then walk into a poll.

#181 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-11-08 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag: Loooooooooooser

What did I concede?? NOTHING Trool. God damned dumbass.

Larry

What did I concede?? NOTHING Trool. God damned dumbass.

Larry

#186 | Posted by LarryMohr

I was joking, Larry. Relax.

I give up this is really dumb. Laterz

#181 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-11-08 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag: Loooooooooooser

#185 | Posted by nullifidian

You can search the Retort and Null had spammed this same retort over 350 times in the last few days.

Did your football team win?

"#189 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-11-08 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag"

Sheesh. You sure are a loser, Eydie.

I give up this is really dumb. Laterz

#188 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-08 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Concede

I am a joke, Larry. Relax.

#187 | Posted by Eddie

am a joke, Larry. Relax.

#192 | Posted by nullifidian at 2008-11-08 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Looooooser

Sheesh. You sure are a loser, Eydie.

#190 | Posted by nullifidian

Why? Because you can't refute my claims?

I'd really like to you try Null.

I've looked in you profile.

The only answer you have to posts are

"Flag: Looooser "

LOL!

What a Los... oh nevermind.

But finally, after all the discussion, there is no mandate, just like Bush did not have any Political Capital in 2004. I think Bush used up all his political capital when he said that.

Hey, you know who we haven't heard from in a while? Barney Frank.

It's not my fault that you're such a loser, Eydie.

"Got news for you. Corporations are going to offshore jobs no matter who is in office. If it gets too bad, the entire corporation will move out of the country and take all the jobs AND still sell us the product.

Eddie:

Like many another young person, you seem not to understand that the last twenty years are not typical of this nation's history. We have been in a period where some very necessary and sensible rules were thrown out the window because younger people didn't know any better. NAFTA was an example, and our free trade agreements with China another. Anyone who'd been around longer than five minutes would have known that allowing Chinese manufacturers to "compete" with American ones wasn't going to end well for America.

We are going to have to change a lot of the changes that have been made in the past two decades, to re-strengthen America. We will need to redesign our trade agreements once again, and we will need tax law with some teeth to provide incentive to keep companies, factories and jobs on our shores. Just because we have not done those things recently doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be done. It is not that things cannot be turned around, it is that the idiocy of our current system has gone on for so long, far too many people have begun to think that that idiocy is the way things are supposed to be.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada declared that the American electorate gave the Democratic Party a "mandate"

Yeah, I'll bank on that like I banked on the "war is lost"

About now rightwingers sound like whiny criminals who never expected to get caught, and now have just spent their first servicing "Bubba" in county lock-up. Deal with it losers. Obama has got a mandate.

Obama has got a mandate.

#200 | Posted by moder8 at 2008-11-08 11:39 PM

Dream on, Why do you think Obama selected Rohm for his of chief of staff?

He's got a bigger fight with the dems on the left than the center/right dems.

First the financial sector KAPUT! Now the Big Three in Detroit KAPUT! Fat, lazy American workers producing garbage products and raising kids that lose to Ukraine on science and math skills tests. You really think Obama or Mccain could reverse this cultural rot? Idiot Republicans or Fascist Democrats, won't make an iota of difference. Asia will be the new king of the block within a decade.

Hi, Vermin.

Is that the Verminator, calculating no one will recognize him?

Taking a break from his kow-tow lessons.

"Raising kids that lose to Ukraine in science...."

To the extent anti-intellectualism is "cultural rot", I recall seeing it all of my life, since I was kid in fact. To be precise, even when the USA was undisputed king of the hill.

"Line I banked on the war is lost...."

Pretty much case in point. Iraq was never a light switch with just two alternatives, win or lose. The extent people were happily suckered into such a mind-set astounds me.

Iraq, like a lot of things, has multiple intermediate states. So it's quite possible we won't "lose" Iraq, but we'll find some hell there even worse.

Democracy will fail, always has. That is because people like to vote for access to the national treasury. They will impose more government on themselves.

Democrats will only speed things up.

Dems Declare a Mandate

Mandate

Not in the male Republican politician's sense - with a pause between first and second syllables