Electoral Math, 101
February 11th, 2008 at 02:18pm Mark Noonan
In the end, it is all about getting to 270 electoral votes - and John Fund points out that while the Democrats have the wind at their backs heading into the general election, the facts on the ground indicate that it likely will be a close fought race, and a narrow win for whomever comes out on top. Why? Here’s why:
In some ways Mr. McCain resembles Nicolas Sarkozy, the French conservative who won last year’s presidential election even though the retiring president, Jacques Chirac, was unpopular and a member of his own party. “Like Sarko, who was of Chirac’s party but not of Chirac, America’s swing voters have intuited over the years that there is little love lost between McCain and George Bush,” says the blog Race42008.
Mr. Sarkozy was able to convince a majority of French voters that he represented real change that would improve conditions, while his socialist rival, Segolene Royal, represented risky change that could make matters worse. That is precisely the challenge Mr. McCain faces this year against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
When you hear that the demise of the Republicans is a foregone conclusion, remember that when the campaign is joined this fall and voters will have to make real choices about the direction of the country, the result is likely to be close. Recall that pundits were ready to crown Michael Dukakis the winner of the 1988 election after he opened up a 17-point edge over George H.W. Bush. In 2000, they declared the race over around Labor Day after Al Gore opened up a clear lead over George W. Bush.
Given that polls show Mr. McCain is currently in a dead heat against either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton, it would be wise for the pundits to show a little humility this year. The Democratic strategists I talk to believe the race will be hard-fought and close, regardless of the direction the economy or the war in Iraq takes.
As Fund points out, Democratic victory could hinge on taking Ohio - where the name of the GOP is currently mud; voila!, Demcorats win 272-266…but if New Hampshire swings back GOP (and Kerry only very, very narrowly won it in 2004), then its GOP by 270-268. And McCain could win Ohio. And Pennsylvania. And Connecticut. And Minnesota. And Michigan. And California (polls show a statistical tie between Hillary and McCain in California) Of course, McCain could also lose New Mexico. And Nevada. And Colorado. And Iowa. But the main thing to remember - for a Democrat to win, they have to hold on to ALL of the States Kerry won in 2004, and take away States President Bush won in 2004. Not an impossible task, but not an easy one, either. Any State which McCain takes from the Kerry ‘04 collumn vastly complicates Democratic efforts to get to 270 electoral votes - and even if Democrats have to fight hard for Kerry States (as is going to be likely in places like pro-life but moderate Pennsylvania), that in and of itself will make poaching difficult.
It ain’t over ’till its over, boys and girls. Sure, Democrats could roll on to a blowout, landslide victory in November. Polling doesn’t indicate this will be the case, but anything is possible in politics. Even a GOP victory. My advice to you Democrats, however, is to assume that you’ve already won and just keep talking to each other in your echo chamber about how great it will be to have the anti-Bush in the White House.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
73 Comments
1. NeoClown | February 11th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Even if McCain wins it’s still a victory for Democrats.
2. John Ryan | February 11th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
The Democrats are WAY ahead on the political futures boards where people must put up actual money.
Intrade.com
2006 showed that the Republican Century was not going to last.
Kerry was not a good candidate, both Clinton and Obama will be stronger and running against a non incumbent who must continue to support an unpopular war and a bad economy.
3. LiberalMind | February 11th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Let’s hope that Democrats prevent the GOP from stealing elections and disenfranchising voters.
Republicans actually dispatched foot soldiers to challenge people, usually of color, on their eligibility to vote.
You see Republican reduce the number of eligible voters in Democratic leaning areas through purging voter rolls, spreading rumors and intimidation. They “steal” elections before, not after, election day.
So the “election” is really only a dog and pony show because Republican’s know that they have rigged elections before the first vote is cast.
They were not successful in 2006, as the margins were too great to overcome with their usual corruption.
Democrats must remember that they are dealing with well organized criminal elements and act accordingly to protect the rights of Americans at the polls.
4. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
NeoClown | February 11th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Even if McCain wins it’s still a victory for Democrats.
+1
Mark,
Something you do not realize. ALOT of Democrats like John McCain. ALOT of Independents like John McCain.
The only people that dont seem to like John McCain are…Republicans.
You and I both heard the boo’s at CPAC when McCain was speaking. I didnt hear any boo’s for Romney.
What is so ironic about Republicans hating McCain is the reason they hate him…he thinks with an independent mind. He does what he thinks is right and doesnt listen to poll numbers…
Does this remind you of someone? GW. The only difference with McCain is what he think is right for the country is different than what you think is right for the country.
Most Democrats and independents will be happy if McCain wins the election…too bad ya cant say the same thing about Republicans….
To paraphrase Mark….its a good day to be a moderate.
5. SteaM | February 11th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Brett,
No they won’t. What gave you that idea?
Not that they wouldn’t like him in comparison with Bush but next to Hillary or Obama? Yeah right.
6. keefer | February 11th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
More mindless tripe from MindlessLibgressive. I could list all the corrupt voting practices of the Donkaroaches, without citing proof, and we’d be even.
But then, we’d both be liars, and I ain’t into lyin’.
Brett, rock on with your moderate stance. Moderates are merely libs who are embarrassed to admit they’re libs…
7. keefer | February 11th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
ALOT of Democrats like John McCain. ALOT of Independents like John McCain.
Yeah, and so do a lot of the drive-by media. But who are they gonna support once the candidates are named?
Not McLame.
Tomorrow’s the MD primary. Mitt Romney’s still on the ballot. At least I can cast a vote…
8. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
OK, post #3 from LiberalMindless belongs in the Hall of Fame for deluded, paranoid liberal conspiracy minded thinking. Mark, please archive that post. We can have much fun with it later.
9. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Keefer,
So I suppose you wont vote for McCain then.
I saw you repeat over and over again that McCain was not a conservative.
If he is not a conservative then he can only be a moderate or a liberal.
Either way….the ONLY people that hate McCain are neocons such as yourself.
So a win for McCain is a win for Democrats.
It is killing you guys that your man Romney was bitch slapped in the primaries. hahahahahaha!
Go on to the UK. Ive never understood Americans that are willing to leave this great country to work overseas. Have fun supporting their economy.
10. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
keefer | February 11th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
ALOT of Democrats like John McCain. ALOT of Independents like John McCain.
Yeah, and so do a lot of the drive-by media. But who are they gonna support once the candidates are named?
I know quite a few that are definitely voting for McCain is Hillary gets the nomination. If Obama gets the nomination their vote is still up in the air.
How does it feel Keefer…that your party bitch slapped your man Romney? Jeez..the man spent $40mil of his own money and still didnt get more delegates then Huckabee….
lol!
11. Concerned Citizen | February 11th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I think alot of you misunderstand the dissatisfaction with McCain. To say that Republicans do not like McCain is not entirely accurate. Republicans like him just fine. He has gotten some strong endorsements from the Republican Party and key Republican governors. Those who find fault with many of McCains beliefs are conservatives.
While McCain is fiscally conservative and has a strong outlook on foriegn policy that many share, he falls short in many key areas that are causing concern for traditional consevative voters.
Many conservatives see his championing of McCain / Fiengold to be an abridgment of free speech by attempting to silence political opposition close to an election.
Many find his support of amnesty for illegal aliens and his failure to propose a immigration bill that first and foremost secured our borders as a major black mark on his record in the form of McCain / Kennedy.
Other issues such as his failure to make permanent the Bush tax cuts, what is seen by some as a weakness on interrogation and issues involving environmental legislation cause great concerns among traditional conservatives. He knows he is in a precarious position, that is why he has been reaching out to the conservative base of the Republican party and trying to assure them of his conservative roots. He has gone so far as to highlight his ties to the Reagan administration on more than a few occassions labeling himself as a footsoldier of the conservative movement who came of age under the Reagan administration.
In my opinion, if McCain wants to present a real challenge to whomever emerges as the Democratic nominee, he needs to partner with a strong conservative running mate as a counter ballance to his liberal tendancies. If chosen carefully, this could rally the Republican base around his campaign.
Here is a thought… What is Codi doing for the next four years? Bringing on a intelligent, politically strong conservative such as Rice whom conservatives generally approve of, could forment a strong ticket to contend with. Rice is poweful politically, well versed in manners of foriegn and domestic policy and is well liked among traditional conservatives. She is intelligent, engaging and has powerful political presence.
A choice such as her or another conservative of her political calibur, my be the only way McCain can garner the support he needs from his own Party in the general election.
12. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
keefer | February 11th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Moderates are merely libs who are embarrassed to admit they’re libs…
Hmmm I suppose the same is true for independents correct?
They are Dems that are too embarrassed to admit they are Dems?
13. keefer | February 11th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
So I suppose you wont vote for McCain then.
No, I won’t; and learn how to punctuate, a**hat.
It is killing you guys that your man Romney was bitch slapped in the primaries. hahahahahaha!
He wasn’t “my man;” he was the lesser of four evils. hahahahaha!!!
Go on to the UK. Ive never understood Americans that are willing to leave this great country to work overseas. Have fun supporting their economy.
Uh, Earth to dumbass–some people have government jobs that send them overseas. The UK is an ally of ours; I’ll be glad to support their economy. You support China’s, fool, so big whoop. Moron…
14. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Concerned Citizen | February 11th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
his failure to propose a immigration bill that first and foremost secured our borders as a major black mark on his record in the form of McCain / Kennedy.
This part I dont get…why do we need a ‘bill’ to secure our borders? This is a complete copout by politicians in general.
The security of our borders is a matter of national security correct? Who is in charge of our national security? The President.
All it takes is ONE phone call and the president can call up the national guard and the military and send 1 million soldiers down to the Mexican and up to the Canadian border (Yes people we do have two boarders…unless its just little brown people you dont want crossing the border illegally).
Case closed. If an army of mexican nationals were invading this country do you think the president would wait for a ‘bill’ to secure the border? Of course not.
The borders will never be secured because agricultural, manufacturing and construction are addicted to cheap labor. American consumers are addicted to cheap products.
Anyone that blames McCain for border security is misguided at best.
15. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
keefer | February 11th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Uh, Earth to dumbass–some people have government jobs that send them overseas. The UK is an ally of ours; I’ll be glad to support their economy. You support China’s, fool..
Ah so you are one of those fat lazy government workers that my tax dollars are wasted on.
I see you posting on here during business hours. Nice to see my taxes dollars are being wasted.
ps: I buy American made products and haven’t shopped at Wal-mart in over 10 yrs.
Unlike you, I choose to buy the more expensive ‘Made in America’ product. You dont.
Get back to work you bureaucrat and stop wasting my tax dollars when you should be working.
16. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
And anyone who claims that it’s just “little brown people” that we don’t want crossing is a racist. What a disgusting statement from people who sensationalize issues to drive their agenda.
Bush has been miserable on the border as has every politican. It is time to secure the southern border first because that is where the problem is, do you understand that little Bretty? And it does take more than a phone call by the President unless you don’t believe in states rights. Which wouldn’t surprise me being a Democrat and all.
17. Mark Noonan | February 11th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
LiberalMind,
Man, have you got it wrong - but, no surprise, as your comments tend towards the obtuse on all issues.
Really, though, wake up - and understand, among other things, that every four years the DNC goes to this retired Federal judge who conveniently enters a judicial order preventing the national GOP from challenging illegal votes at the polls…even if our desire was to intimidate, we’re not allowed to do it.
But we’re going to get you on this one - we’re going to get those laws passed which require someone to show a photo ID for voting…no more precincts having 100% turnout and 99% of their votes going for the Democrat! The Democrats will actually have to run a campaign, some day, where they are prevented from ballot-box stuffing.
18. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
keefer | February 11th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
No, I won’t; and learn how to punctuate, a**hat.
The irony in your statement comes right here:
You support China’s, fool, so big whoop.
Would you care to give us a punctuation/grammar lesson with that sentence?
lol!
19. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Keefer,
You can post on my tax dollar all you want. Especially when you feel the need to bitch slap Bretty.
20. Mark Noonan | February 11th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Brett,
Who knows? But McCain is conservative as Obama and Hillary are not; if McCain appeals to moderates, then that is ok by me…but I will always battle for the most conservative candidate, all else being equal.
21. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
And anyone who claims that it’s just “little brown people” that we don’t want crossing is a racist. What a disgusting statement from people who sensationalize issues to drive their agenda.
Ok, so you are all for building a fence across the Canadian border?
We do have illegal immigration coming across both borders.
Oddly enough I never have ONCE heard a proposal to build a fence on the Canadian border. Not from you Neocon, nor have I heard it from any politician.
Why not?
Isnt that odd?
That is sorta like putting a lock on your back door but leaving the front door open.
22. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Mark,
Oh I agree McCain is alot more conservative than Hillary or Obama.
I happen to think he would make a great president.
23. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Bretty,
You obviously don’t understand the issue nor the facts behind the issue. So go do some homework and then come back when you can speak intelligently on the issue without being racist.
24. SteaM | February 11th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Brett,
How do you feel about McCain’s war hawkishness? Do you agree we should just hop into Iran and go to war with them?
25. keefer | February 11th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Ah so you are one of those fat lazy government workers that my tax dollars are wasted on.
No, Brenda, I’m not. My wife is the government employee; I’m just going along for the ride.
Unlike you, I choose to buy the more expensive ‘Made in America’ product. You dont.
Yeah, okay–whatever you say, Brenda. And learn how to punctuate, moron…
26. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Keefer,
You can post on my tax dollar all you want.
Spoken like a closet liberal. Myself…if I found out who he worked for I would notify the government agency responsible for waste and fraud.
Glad to know you condone the the waste government money.
27. Concerned Citizen | February 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Brett, I agree with you on principal about the border issue. Enforcement of the existing law is the simplist solution, but the President cannot simply call up the National Guard without the permission of the states. When Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act in late 2006, all fifty governors protested the expanded rights the bill gave the President the right to call up the National Guard in times of civil strife, insurrection, terrorism and attack by weapons of mass destruction without state approval. The State’s demanded that the wording be removed from the bill and some claimed that they would not recognize such a blatanly unconstitutional attempt to ‘wrest control of the guard units from the governors’. The language was finally removed.
Not to mention the fact that you DO NOT want the military operating on domestic soil in anything more than a support capacity. The military is designed and trained to blow shit up and kill people, not serve as domestic law enforcement. As a temporary solution, I agree this is a logical course of action that I belive many states would support, but it is not a long term fix.
I also agree that both borders need to be secure, but to argue that the southern one not the major problem is to be intentionally obtuse. The south-western states are suffering immesely from the stresses of unchecked immigration and while we are not by any means alone, we are bleeding badly because of it. I have no problem, as you alluded to, with immigrants of any particular race, creed or religion. However, unchecked Mexican immigration costs the southern states billions each year. An army of Mexican national is invading this country. Time to put a stop to it.
No one blames McCain for border security, they blame him for failing to act and proposing a bill that focused more on granting legal status to the illegals here, than stopping the flow of illegal immigration. To note: most conservatives also blame President Bush for the same thing.
28. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
SteaM,
Look, I was against the invasion of Iraq. I think Rumsfeld was a complete disgrace to our military.
However, since Petraeus has taken over he has turned things around.
The fact that McCain knows first hand what the horrors of combat are, I trust his judgment. He maybe hawkish, but at the same time I dont believe he would invade a country half-assed like we did in Iraq.
With any luck, he would make Powell SecDef. Then we would be guaranteed to not have a debacle like we initially experienced.
29. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Bretty,
You are afflicted with typical liberal myopic brain damage, finding perfectly ok to throw $360 billion plus at wasteful, ineffective government entitlement programs but become incensed at possibly wasting a few hours of someones time at approx $25 per hour. Brilliant.
You also have decided to focus on our northern border security where less than 1% of the overall illegal immigration problem originates diverting attention away from the real problem. Once again, brilliant.
And you wonder why we think you’re stupid.
30. Ricorun | February 11th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Brett: The security of our borders is a matter of national security correct? Who is in charge of our national security? The President.
All it takes is ONE phone call and the president can call up the national guard and the military and send 1 million soldiers down to the Mexican and up to the Canadian border
Actually, the President did pick up the phone, and he did send thousands of NG troops to the border. The southern one. It started in summer 2006, and as far as I know they’re still there.
31. keefer | February 11th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Glad to know you condone the the waste government money.
More brilliant writing, Brenda. You need tutoring.
Once again, Brenda–I don’t work for the government, and I don’t have internet access at work. I’m on my home computer, just as you’re on your mommy’s. Moron…
32. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
>>The military is designed and trained to blow sh** up and kill people, - CC<<
Explain then the militarys noble and heroic efforts in Indonesia following the Tsunami and more recently in Iraq supporting the ISF.
33. Concerned Citizen | February 11th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Yes, Ricorun, they are, but they are still massively overwhelmed with the task at hand. They are also operating in a support only tasking, providing logistical and surveilience support to civilian agencies. They are NOT actively engaged in security enfocement and NO ONE should want them to be.
34. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Citizen,
You can build a fence from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic.
ANY Mexican can get a tourist visa for $100…cross thru an official gate and never return to Mexico.
Thats why I dont blame McCain for his bill.
Look, the reason we have an influx of illegal immigrants: JOBS. Big business is addicted to cheap labor. Heck when you look back…we have always been addicted to cheap labor…
first it was the black slaves
Then it was Chinese indentured servants..
Then it was the Irish…
Then it was the Italians…
During the course of our country we have always been dependent on cheap labor.
There is postively nothing we can do to stop the flow of illegal immigration….unless you send about 30 CEO’s to prison for 20yrs…but with big business being a huge GOP donor…its never been done.
Why do think GW has NEVER done anything about immigration?
35. Concerned Citizen | February 11th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Indonesia -
Short term temporary aid. Not civilian law enforcement.
Iraq-
Active combat and instructional role. Military law enfocement and marshall law of foreign soil.
You DO NOT want the military operating as a long term law enforcement solution on domestic soil. They cannot legally do so except under marshal law and there is a very good reason for that.
36. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Bretty,
finding perfectly ok to throw $360 billion plus at wasteful, ineffective government entitlement programs..
Once again Neocon, you presume to know me. How do you know I think its perfectly ok to throw $360bil….
Have I ever made a post to that effect?
And once again you start with the name calling. I have ALWAYS treated you with respect.
Please return the favor.
37. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Bretty,
Probably for the same reason Clinton never did anything. I enjoy your sensationalistically racist comments that are unfounded and purely agenda driven. The transparency of them, and the idiocy within them is laughable.
I would suggest seperating yourself from the pre-approved reading material you are given and learn a thing or two.
38. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
You also have decided to focus on our northern border security where less than 1% of the overall illegal immigration problem originates diverting attention away from the real problem. Once again, brilliant.
Ok, so you do not care about securing our northern border from terrorists?
We should build a wall down by Mexico…but leave the land completely open for any terrorist to freely walk across up north?
I view securing our borders as a national security issue. I dont mean to secure to the borders to solve illegal immigration. I am talking about securing our borders to keep terrorist out.
You are focusing on mexicans. I am focusing on terrorists.
I visited relatives in Minn recently. Do you know the CPS shuts down at 2 different border crossings at 6pm in Minn?
There is a little gate that you lower and raise and you fill out a form and put it in the drop box.
Now that is security. Its only a matter of time before a terrorist exploits that.
In the mean time you were worried about building a wall to keep out mexicans…Im worried about keeping out terrorists.
39. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Respect is earned, never given and I don’t have any respect for you. I have found your recent posts to be nothing more than brain dead propaganda.
Sorry.
40. Concerned Citizen | February 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
That is why ICE has been cracking down on business as well as illegals.
Don’t say there is nothing you can do about it. Arizona has been shutting business down and jailing business owners caught employing illegals. Suddenly, there has been a massive exodus of illegals out of Arizona as the jobs start drying up.
I am not opposed to issuing work visa and I do not propose rounding up millions in massive sweeps and sending them home. However, if you are contacted by law enforcement and you are illegal then off you go. If you employ illegals without work visas then to jail you go. We must enforce the laws of this country. A nation who cannot control its own borders cannot control its own fate. A million Mexicans want to move here? Fine, do so legally and participate in this society like anyone else. Otherwise, go home. It is not that hard. It is not an issue of hate or racism. It is an issue of equality, law and order.
41. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Bretty,
Probably for the same reason Clinton never did anything.
And what reason is that? I have no clue myself. Perhaps he was beholden to big business himself. It would surprise me..he was a politician.
Also bro, you really need to chill. I have never once insulted you, call you stupid, a retard, and idiot. Yet you do that to me every chance you get.
Its a blog. I treat you with respect. All I ask is that you do the same for me.
42. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
CC,
Securing our national borders is job 1 of the military and they should be there. This is not strictly a law enforcement issue, it’s a national security issue.
And you really dodged the rebuttal that our military is trained in quite a bit more than your baseless assertion of just shooting and killing people. How ridiculous.
43. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Respect is earned, never given and I don’t have any respect for you. I have found your recent posts to be nothing more than brain dead propaganda.
I always respect people I do not know.
I genuinely feel sorry for you.
If it makes you feel better to call me name and such…have at it.
peace.
44. keefer | February 11th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Its a blog. I treat you with respect. All I ask is that you do the same for me.
Go to a lefty blog if you want respect, troll. All you come here for is to slam anything GOP.
That’s why we have no respect for you, Brenda…
45. FmeMarine | February 11th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
bretty
I wondered how long it would take to throw out the RACE CARD, we know you are black.
Cant you people ever get past this BULL S#!T?
Im sick of hearing it in every freeking conversation i have with a “minority”, really LET IT GO!!
NOBODY i mean NOBODY is FLOODING across the Canadian border so knock off the CRAP!
46. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
keefer | February 11th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Go to a lefty blog if you want respect, troll. All you come here for is to slam anything GOP.
That’s why we have no respect for you, Brenda…
again..
I always respect people I do not know, even if I disagree with their opinion.
I genuinely feel sorry for you.
If it makes you feel better to call me names and such…have at it.
Sometimes this leads one to ask: WWJD?
47. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Brett,
You don’t know Bush, yet you disrespect him every chance you get. Why?
Peace.
48. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Brett,
You don’t know Bush, yet you disrespect him every chance you get. Why?
Disagreeing with policies is not disrespect.
Please post the link to any post that I made where I called our President a derogatory name.
49. keefer | February 11th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
You come here, Brett, to slam anything GOP, when your candidates have nothing to offer but socialism. You’re a lemming, a parrot, a nobody. Go away…
50. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Well, without having the time to comb the threads, the following is certainly disrespectful towards Romney, whom I am assuming you have never met.
It is killing you guys that your man Romney was bitch slapped in the primaries. hahahahahaha!
51. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Look,
I will save you the time. There are no posts where I have called our President stupid, idiot, asshat, etc. I disagree with people that do call our President names.
You are right, I do not know our President. I only know him via the persona via press conferences, State of the Union, etc.
I strongly disagree with some of his policies, but he is our President and I respect him.
Maybe I am just old school. Unless someone actively disrespects me or my family or church or commits some act against society, I give them them respect.
I quite honestly cannot imagine living my life demanding that everyone in my church, workplace, etc to earn my respect before I were to give them respect.
52. David.B.Schmidt | February 11th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
53. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I get it,
So saying that Romney was bitch slapped in the primaries is showing respect towards Romney and his family. Good to know.
54. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
David,
Thank you for the completely irrelevant post.
Next.
55. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Neocon,
Actually I have met Romney in Vermot at Stowe Ski resort. He is a phenomenal skier. He is actually a decent guy.
Romney was bitch slapped in the primaries.
Would I have made that statement to his face? Absolute not. So that statement is disrespectful and if I ever ran into him again in Stowe or elsewhere I would be compelled to apologize to him.
56. Brett Michaels | February 11th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Neocon,
No it’s not showing respect to him and his family.
Thats why I would apologize if I ever saw him again.
57. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Brett,
That’s a stand up answer.
58. neocon | February 11th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
You’ve earned a little respect.
59. FmrMarine | February 11th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
bret
>>>>I strongly disagree with some of his policies<<<
What policies?
Why?
and just WHAT policies of mcLame do you favor so much?.
Maybe some of us here feel the same about your guy mcLame!
60. David.B.Schmidt | February 11th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Okay, for those of you that are not aware of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, it basically states the “regular army” now being composed of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard (I believe) are not allowed to be employed within the United States in a law enforcement role without specific proclamation from the President and DoD. No boarder patrol, no drug enforcement, etc.
It has been used in specific circumstances like the McDuffie Riots of 1980 in Miami, Fl & the L.A. riots later on; however, these are the exceptions and not the rule. There was a congressional argument made in 1998 and an ongoing argument as to whether DoD assets can be used on the “War on Drugs” or boarder enforcement but the law still stands as written.
61. William Teach | February 11th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
an interesting sidebar to this is that Dems are once again counting on the “youth vote.” I caught a story about this on the news while cruising with my PDA earlier.
But, can the Dems, particularly Obama, really count on the under 25 crowd, particularly those under 21? Sure, they are excited now, but, will they still be come November? Didn’t really help Kerry that much. Hell, it didn’t help Obama Girl, who did not vote in the primary.
62. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 11th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Liberal Mindless USEFUL IDIOT again has diarrhea of the mouth…….
“Let’s hope that Democrats prevent the GOP from stealing elections and disenfranchising voters.”
Uh, who successfully got military votes rejected during the Florida recount?
What party has ignored their delegates in Florida and Michigan?
What party did a city councilman’s son get arrested for vandalizing vehicles belonging to Republican organizations to bring people to the polls who could not make it on their own?
The rest of your post is liberal propaganda BS and is not worthy of response, mindless stupidity at best.
Lemming, your ignorance and stupidity is getting tiresome. I suggest you seek mental health for your severely advanced case of NLDS (Non-liberal Derangement Syndrome).
How can you repeatedly embarrass yourself?
63. Herman | February 11th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
“My advice to you Democrats, however, is to assume that you’ve already won…” — Mark Noonan
Okay, Mark, I’ll take your advice, and examine just exactly what we Democrats have won. REGARDLESS OF WHO WINS IN NOVEMBER, this is what we Democrats have to look forward to:
1. To “tax cuts for the rich,” (John McCain’s words) we say “Bye-bye!!!”
2. Drilling in ANWR? Forget it! You conservatives will have to learn to not be selfishly self-indulgent, you’ll have to learn how to “conserve.” Conserve conservatives, okay?
3. Bans on stem cell research – kiss them goodbye, as they’ll be history in January. Take your primitive religious beliefs elsewhere, conservatives; this country will move forward with using scientific advances to improve human health.
4. We all better start learning Spanish, as we’ll be needing it to converse with our new immigrant neighbors! I don’t quite see them voting Republican though, do you?
5. You conservative sadists will have to get your jollies some other way – with the new presidential administration, Americans will no longer have to be deeply ashamed that their federal government tortures people. Unlike Bush, McCain hates torture, and so do the Democrats!
6. And if you conservatives find yourself getting hot-headed by some of the things our president will be doing, remember that it will become in January official U.S. policy to reduce human causes of global warming, so put some snow or ice on your face, buddy!
64. Concerned Citizen | February 12th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Hey neocon,
It would help if you would read my comments before running off at the mouth. I acknowledged that I agree in principal that this is definitely a national security issue and that using the National Guard to as a temporary solution is fine, but that it is not a good idea as a long term plan.
I tend to agree with you on most of your points, however snapping off at people when you do not fully read their comments is never constructive. I did not dodge any rebutal, when ask to explain their relief effort in the Tsunami and their support of the ISF in Iraq, I did so. Asking them to police domestically is vastly different from asking them to do so militarily in a warzone. Besides, it is illegal for our military to opperate in such a capacity unless a declaration of martial law exists. We DO NOT want that to happen.
Do not mistake my comments as anti-military in anyway. You will find that I am in no way one of the Code Pinko nutsacks who want our military to sit on their haunches here at home waiting for us to be invaded or attacked again. Our military has its job laid before it already. The LAST thing we want is to ask combat veterans to try and police civilians domestically and abide by all the pansy ass restrictions that doing so would place on them. You are asking for a very uncomftable situation in which problems are likely to occur.
Our military is designed to defend this nation by taking the fight to our enemies, not by pansy footing around a billion laws that would prevent them from doing the job they were meant to do in the first place. Unless you declare martial law along our entire border, they are bound by civilian law while operating within our borders.
65. Concerned Citizen | February 12th, 2008 at 12:35 am
I won’t respond to the entire stupidity of Herman’s comments… Just this one:
5. You conservative sadists will have to get your jollies some other way – with the new presidential administration, Americans will no longer have to be deeply ashamed that their federal government tortures people. Unlike Bush, McCain hates torture, and so do the Democrats!
Did you happen to ask David Duke about that?
66. Xango Annie | February 12th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Brett:
Glad you think Mitt is a decent guy and a good skier..you and I will meet back here on Nov. 2012..and you will say hello, President Romney.
67. Math Resources Blog &raqu&hellip | February 12th, 2008 at 4:01 am
[…] unknown: […]
68. keefer | February 12th, 2008 at 5:40 am
CC, too bad you’re not an informed citizen. There is no ban on stem cell research, only a ban on federal funding. Of course, with a socialist government led by Hillbama, your tax dollars–if you even have a job–will be used to fund this and everything else your leaders choose to fund.
Why are you kook trolls so bent on socialism? Too stupid to do well for yourselves? Have to depend on the nannies in Washington?
What a bunch of pansies…
69. Brett Michaels | February 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
FmeMarine | February 11th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Im sick of hearing it in every freeking conversation i have with a “minority”, really LET IT GO!!
So I guess you mean you do not have any minorities as friends?
Its odd. In every discussion I have with friends in person, I cant recall anyone mentioning race.
Race comes up in every conversation you have with a minority?
How exactly do you have a conversation with a ‘minority’?
You should really let go of the anger you have towards minorities.
BTW: I didnt mention I was black, so I have no idea why you brought that fact up in this thread.
If you have an issue with my race, I suggest you take it up with me personally in another forum besides a blog.
70. Concerned Citizen | February 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Keefer,
What the hell are you talking about? I never said anything about stem cell research and the LAST thing in this world I want is more socialist bullshit.
You must have me mistake with a liberal poster on here. People have lost teeth for that before.
It is too bad that you are not informed, since you obviously have not been reading MY post.
71. Ricorun | February 12th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
neocon and keefer, you’re whistling up the wrong drainpipe in your criticisms of Concerned Citizen. CC is one of the more conservative bloggers on this site. You’re just not understaning what he’s saying.
72. Brett Michaels | February 12th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
CC,
You are experiencing what many people on here experience…blah, blah, blah, an inability to hijack threads…
73. Concerned Citizen | February 13th, 2008 at 1:04 am
No, Brett, you obtuse moron. They address me and started talking about stem cell research and accusing me of desiring socialism.
Unlike you, I read post and respond back to the content of the post, not with some stupid childish comment that displays my ignorance and irrelevance.
If you do not have something constructive to say or cannot forment an acutal intelligent thought to post, how about you stop trying to make youself feel more important than you are by making a feeble attempt at mockery? It only servers to highlight the mental inadequacy (or possibly other physical ones) that you are trying to hide.
Ricorun,
Thank you sir. I appreciate the defense.