Astroturf
Yeah, they’re still up to it.
Ellie Light sure gets around.
In recent weeks, Light has published virtually identical “Letters to the Editor” in support of President Barack Obama in more than a dozen newspapers.Every letter claimed a different residence for Light that happened to be in the newspaper’s circulation area.
They’ve nailed her.
http://connect.cleveland.com/user/piperbaye/index.html
Her name is Samantha Power and a big O insider. Interesting to read how one of her political tactics is to infiltrate blog comments.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 1705 hrs
This sort of stuff makes me sick.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 1808 hrs
They are paid. The spouse did a volunteer stint for about 3 months last year as a moderator on another national blog. They gave him a tool to get the IP addresses for suspected paid trolls and astroturfers. You would be amazed at the number of them that came from inside government agencies like the DoJ and NASA. After a while, he could pick them out easily.
The entire practice is disgusting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 2023 hrs
More nauseating lies and deception from the Voldemort administration. I suppose it’s no surprise that the people who tried to brand the tea party activists as astroturf are actually astroturf themselves.
In BHO’s defense though, it’s getting harder and harder to find anyone who has something spontaneously nice to say about the current resident of the White House.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2010 at 2349 hrs
Because if there’s one thing that would never escape your notice it’s a president self-destructing before our eyes.
Posted by scott on January 23, 2010 at 2353 hrs
It must be very cathartic for you to finally admit that about your president.
I was critical of President Bush when he went liberal, I was also critical when he spent liberal. I thought he learned far too slowly that, no matter how much you try to engage them diplomatically, your enemies will still be your enemies, and they will use the weakness of your entreaties against you… and so the Democrat Party did.
Overall, he was a decent wartime President, though he left too much of his domestic agenda on the cutting room floor. He was no Reagan, but there was no self destruction. Try not to confuse partisan hatred and a compromised media for failure.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 0034 hrs
Fascinating. What pray tell was Bush’s great domestic agenda that was left undone?
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 0039 hrs
scott, the left want to roll back the Bush tax cuts. That’s really their main goal. They hated the tax cuts and so many, including Obama want to get rid of them. And guess what, they don’t have to do anything and the tax cuts will be elimanated and just about everyone will have their taxes raised.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 0351 hrs
-
Don’t these newspapers check the validity of their LTE writers? Our paper usually calls to verify within about 5 min of getting a LTE.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 0510 hrs
scott - Obama is self-destructing because he was a fraud.
He called himself a “blank screen” on which everyone could reflect what they wanted him to be (from his book The Audacity of Hope). He promised everything to everybody, but the perma-campaign isn’t actually governing.
What we find is him trying to copy his Illinois State Senate gig and vote “Present” quite a bit.
He campaigned as a centrist, but is pushing a Progressive agenda. The public has been literally and figuratively screaming at him to stop the cap & trade and healthcare crap and focus on economic policy, but he and the Dem leadership in Congress have/are/probably will continue to ignore it. Good luck in November if that keeps up.
Not to mention all of that “post partisan” (“I won”) and “post racial” (we don’t like his policies because we are all raaaaacists - and “The police acted stupidly”)
In other words - he’s just a POS politician like almost all of them. And very, very human.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1009 hrs
He campaigned as a centrist, but is pushing a Progressive agenda.
And you think you know what’s really going on? You have your finger on the pulse of American politics, do you? Can you name one thing that “progressives” have gotten out of the Obama administration?
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 1040 hrs
Who said anything about accomplishments? I said “pushing”.
Like trying for Global governance built on the “Climate Change” agenda.
Exhibit B - Universal Healthcare has been the Holy Grail of the Progressives since FDR. Obama and Congress have spent almost an entire year on the issue even though the public has been begging/pleading/screaming at them to stop. But in true Progressive fashion - they push forward because they simply know better what is good for all of us because they are smarter than we are. Read what Obama said in his first interview after the Brown win last week:
If there’s one thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values
Read that carefully - speaking to the American people about what their core values are… Not with the people, not asking the people. No, he will tell us what our core values are and then set up the institutions accordingly.
Arrogant and tone deaf
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1100 hrs
Obama never “pushed” for a progressive health care wish list.
To, with? He campaigned on the exact reforms that were eventually made into bills. People voted him into office. If that’s not “asking” I don’t know what is.
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 1102 hrs
Something else on that connection of her being married to Cass Sunstein….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1105 hrs
Yes, he got elected. But then the economy continued to tank, unemployment continued to rise. By mid-year, all the polls indicated that addressing the economy should have been the highest priority. Instead of pivoting when they had a chance in June, they kept pushing healthcare and climate change. Now they have spent so much political capital they will keep pushing forward even thought a Gallup poll this week showed 55% wanting them to drop it (61% at Rassmussen).
btw - the people aren’t buying that the Healthcare reform bill will do anything to shore up the economy either. Loser on all fronts.
Ergo - self-destruction.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1111 hrs
I don’t know *why* people like Scott are pushing “this is what he campaigned on”. Obama *clearly* campaigned on two things. 1) He claimed to be the anti-Bush. That’s not working out so well for him, since he’s had to keep a lot of the same policies around.
2) He campaigned, and won, on the economy. Where’s the economics genius that’s turned things around. Since he’s been in office, unemployment has *spiked* not just gone up, but *spiked*. He has added 4 times as much debt to this country in his first year as president as Bush did in all 8 of his years (and that was while fighting two wars).On top of all this, pay attention to HOW Scott Brown actually won in Massachusetts. Pay extra attention to the chants of “41! 41! 41!” the crowds celebrating his win were chanting. You think that just maybe they were happy that they could STOP the obamacare fiasco? I mean, Mr. Brown did campaign explicitly as the vote that would stop it.
But you keep right on doing what you’re doing Scott. Let’s see how that works out for you. Don’t be too surprised though, when you, along with your commie politicians are covered in tar and feathers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1141 hrs
Fascinating. What pray tell was Bush’s great domestic agenda that was left undone?
@Scott: President Bush had hardly begun to govern when he got blind-sided by an intelligence disaster on 9-11 that had been 8 years in the making. He was forced to drop everything to deal with security at home and abroad… as well as dealing with an economy that had just taken a body blow from the air. Some of the things he was interested in were No Child Left Behind (supported heavily by your OWI Lion of the Senate) and creating a method for young people to have a way to save for retirement to get out of the bankrupt and soon to fail Social Security system. And before you make some typically ignorant remark about investing in a risky scheme, all the proposed investments were quite secure, and ALL of them have done more than twice as well as Social Security has in the interim. He wanted permanent tax cuts across the board. I can say personally that his temporary tax plan allowed us to adopt two children by offering us a huge credit for doing so.
Your president has done nothing right so far at all. BHO alienated half the nation by walking arrogantly into the White House and declaring that he had won and everyone on the losing side should shut the hell up and bend over. That set the tone for his time in the White House. BHO proceeded to nationalize our banks, and our automobile industry, spend trillions that we don’t have promising lower unemployment that actually wound up worse than if he had done nothing (by his own estimates). President Voldemort has threatened the health security of all Americans with Obamacare, and he continues to hold the Cap and Trade sword threatening over what few industrial jobs we have left. Now, is is having a go at cap-sizing the banking industry. He has failed miserably in every foreign policy endeavor… we are so disrespected internationally that the Chinese are lecturing us on capitalism and the Russians have opted for a massive arms build-up, all the while helping Iran to develop nuclear weapons… and we stand mute.
Your president has been a miserable disaster so far, and we can likely expect more failure from the Obamateur… and perhaps more glowing and excuse filled editorials from Ellie Light.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1303 hrs
Is she related to Jeff Gannon?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1330 hrs
Again, I’m moved to marvel: Eight years of the Bush presidency, grumble, nitpick. Immediate verdict on Obama presidency, “miserable failure,” incredible hyperbolic, volcanic hatred. Only a true ideologue could possibly read the last few years this way. Self-evidently.
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 1356 hrs
Immediate verdict? He has been screwing things up for a whole year, and the country is in free-fall right now. How is that immediate? You and Ellie Light seem to be the last two to get the message.
How can you be so obtuse as to ignore what is all around you. The man predicted 7.2% unemployment by now….dropping to 6% by the end of the year… and he threw away trillions of dollars to make it happen. Trillions (about $7,000 for every man woman and child in the US). He caused the exact opposite to occur, and it’s not going down, it’s going up. Some are predicting inflation and a double dip recession by the end of 2010… I tend to agree.
Is anyone better off now than a year ago? Has BHO done anything he promised? Have any of his predictions on the effects of his policies come true? Has he had any foreign policy victories… even after all the bowing, kow-towing, and apologizing? Any? What is it that you seem to think I am missing Scott? What are the bright spots?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1438 hrs
Immediate verdict?
Yes.
http://scottfeldstein.net/blog/?p=2245
and he threw away trillions of dollars to make it happen.
The CBO seems to think that the stimulus money did in fact have a positive impact on jobs. But I’m sure you know that—and have some reason to dismiss it utterly. My opinion is that the stimulus was never large enough, thanks to the political realities of dealing with people like you.
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 1442 hrs
Come on Scott. Keep pushing for the populist pap agenda that’s failed. Keep on keepin’ on bro! It won’t completely destroy the democrats in November! Trust me!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1504 hrs
@Scott: While I love when you cross post to your own blog to support your assertions (No, actually it’s a cheesy move to cite yourself), I don’t see how a link to your blog that links to the comedy channel does much to prove that I rendered an immediate verdict… or anyone else for that matter. Would Keith Olberman’s recent anti-Brown rant prove that Scott Feldstein had gone off the deep end? Or the rest of the party of the Democratics for that matter? Don’t be silly Scott.
See for yourself:
http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/01/22/jon-stewarts-special-comment-on-keith-olbermann/
The CBO seems to think that the stimulus money did in fact have a positive impact on jobs.
Oddly enough, despite whatever you might think the CBO says, the economy is terrible and unemployment is on the rise at over 10%, not the Obama 7.2%. Yes, I’m sure that some few jobs must have been created by wasting 2 trillion dollars… but they pale in comparison to the additional jobs that were lost as a result of Obama’s attack on our economy. Really Scott, the man told us that the Stimulus would do X, and it has done the inverse of X. We wasted trillions on his schemes. How is it possible that you haven’t gotten word of this yet?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1610 hrs
The CBO seems to think that the stimulus money did in fact have a positive impact on jobs.
Evidently Obama’s own top advisors can’t quite get their story straight…
White House advisers appearing on the Sunday talk shows gave three different estimates of how many jobs could be credited to President Obama’s Recovery Act.
...
Valerie Jarrett had the most conservative count, saying “the Recovery Act saved thousands and thousands of jobs,” while David Axelrod gave the bill the most credit, saying it has “created more than – or saved more than 2 million jobs.” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs came in between them, saying the plan had “saved or created 1.5 million jobs.”And since the number of employed has fallen every month this year except for a minor up-tick for temporary seasonal workers in November… I find these numbers…. laughable. The only safe jobs out there are government jobs. Which now outnumber private sector jobs. So you now have a single employee in the private sector employing more than one employee in the government.
Yeah - that’s sustainable… (sarc)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1645 hrs
I wish you guys would stop trying to talk sense to scott. He and those like him provide the greatest opportunity to rid ourselves of democrat control in 2010 and take back the Presidency in 2012. Keep pushing that socia….um…progressive…agenda, baby. Say it with me scott. Yes we can!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1713 hrs
My Schadenfreude moment will come when they realize : No, we couldn’t. Of course, it will come at the expense of much suffering, but I suppose that is the dark side of Schadenfreude.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1716 hrs
Don’t worry tark.
From all accounts listening to Team Obama all over the media this weekend their view is “Damn the Torpedos! Full Speed Ahead!”
You know, because we all really WANT all of his Progressive agenda items, they just haven’t talked to us enough to explain it well enough.
November? Bring it on!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1722 hrs
Back to the original topic of astroturfing…. Seems Team Obama is very prolific. After Ellie Light.. well, came to light, the right roots have been pretty good little investigators..
No wonder they called the Tea Parties astroturf. Seems that’s all they know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1743 hrs
@Scott: While I love when you cross post to your own blog to support your assertions (No, actually it’s a cheesy move to cite yourself),
You never, ever miss an opportunity to make this shit personal. And then you deny it when I say that you don’t like me.
Would Keith Olberman’s recent anti-Brown rant prove that Scott Feldstein had gone off the deep end? Or the rest of the party of the Democratics for that matter?
Well, no TFG. Because that’s one example. The clip I referenced has many. See the difference?
despite whatever you might think the CBO says
What do they say, TFG? Set me straight. What did the CBO say about the stimulus and job creation?
He and those like him provide the greatest opportunity to rid ourselves of democrat control in 2010 and take back the Presidency in 2012.
Heh. Do you know what “regression toward the mean” is? We kicked your ASS last election. Every which way but loose. It’s inevitable that you’re going to gain some of those seats back. Plus—I’ll admit it—the unemployment situation is going to make a lot of disgruntled voters listen to challengers promising better things. We’re going to lose ground because of that phenomenon. But take the presidency? Next you’re going to tell me that you’ll have both houses of congress, too. Dream. On.
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 1752 hrs
Yeah…silly disgruntled voters who want jobs and stuff! Who do they think they are, anyway? Two terms? What use would that be when his first term is already over?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1834 hrs
You never, ever miss an opportunity to make this shit personal. And then you deny it when I say that you don’t like me.
Here we go, Scott playing the victim card again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1925 hrs
TFG playing the total jerk card again. Glad you’re on top of that, brainstew9157. Frankly, I could not possibly care less that TFG is so angry and bitter and obviously dislikes me. What bugs me is that he so obviously makes it part of the debate and then denies that it’s true in the first place. Whatever. Y’all can go figure out your strategy for next election.
Posted by scott on January 24, 2010 at 1936 hrs
I’m increasingly fascinated by the phenomenon of G. W. Bush, though. Really I am. After watching this smirking chimp of a president, this Alfred E. Neuman of a leader on television last night I am stunned afresh at his seemingly-unsinkable popularity. He has everything going against him: a sputtering economy, high unemployment, corporate scandal, biggest surplus in history turned biggest deficit in history, alienated international allies, most Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction, and an unnecessary war that isn’t going very well. Yet his reelection campaign is, as Tim Russert put it, defying gravity. This complete failure, this buffoon, this small-minded, mean-spirited, ex-frat boy, anti-intellectual, cowboy wannabe is still riding high in the polls of public opinion. Why?
Again, I’m moved to marvel: Eight years of the Bush presidency, grumble, nitpick. Immediate verdict on Obama presidency, “miserable failure,” incredible hyperbolic, volcanic hatred. Only a true ideologue could possibly read the last few years this way. Self-evidently
When things go badly for Mr. Bush there is sometimes a part of me that is glad. This is because I think he is an awful president whose policies are wrong-headed, mean-spirited, destructive to our country and antithetical to my values. Mind you, I would rather Bush get re-elected by a landslide if it would spare the lives of our men and women in Iraq, but regarding other matters I greet his failures as a president with at least a little bit of satisfaction.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1945 hrs
#20
“Is anyone better off now than a year ago?”I am.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 1949 hrs
Fascinating. What pray tell was Bush’s great domestic agenda that was left undone?
Social Security Reform. Period, the end. The only real reason I voted for him is 2004… (other than the fact that John Kerry was a joke of a candidate)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 2027 hrs
#20
“Is anyone better off now than a year ago?”I am.
Me too, but if anything it is despite the policies of this administration, and pure luck that they have failed so miserably at pushing through any of their business crushing “good for the whole” garbage policy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 2030 hrs
You never, ever miss an opportunity to make this shit personal. And then you deny it when I say that you don’t like me…
TFG playing the total jerk card again.He may well have done that in the past - generally I’ve not been around here long enough or paid close enough attention to know (or care much) about the personal stuff between posters.
But when you try to support a point by linking to your own blog - that contains nothing more than a Comedy Central video to which you have added nothing - sorry but you deserve to get called out on that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 2120 hrs
You never, ever miss an opportunity to make this shit personal. And then you deny it when I say that you don’t like me.
I don’t dislike you personally Scott. We are discussing ideas here, not your personality or your home life. Politically, I think you are way off the tracks. Personally, I actually think, from what little I know, that you seem to be pretty decent sort.
I will say that I’m not a big fan of linking to my own blog. I never, ever do it… though I occasionally attach the url to my name if that is permitted on the blog. I’ve always been taught that it is not, perhaps, the best manners on a blog to do so. You take traffic and discussion (hits) from one blog and redirect them to another. I believe I mentioned that to you the last time you did it. I’m guessing it was not meant to be nefarious, but I thought I’d mention it again. Perhaps I’m wrong on that issue, and you may feel free to educate me otherwise if you wish. If that somehow hurt your feelings, I apologize… it was not my intent to do so, but I’m more of a rugby blogger than a metrosexual one. Again, I don’t hate you personally… it’s just your politics that I’m not partial to.
Can we not have this conversation anymore if I stipulate to the whole blogosphere that Scott is a nice guy in real life and any remarks I have made or will make do not constitute hatred or any implication that you are in any way less than a scholar and a gentleman? If yes, then I so stipulate. The defense rests.
The clip I referenced has many. See the difference?
I could find an hours worth of Brown bashing just between Maddow, Olberman, and Schultz, not counting Obama and Coakley. Nor did I see in your example any quote or reference to anything I ever said. So no, no difference. Your example of using comedy central to prove a point is weak.
We’re going to lose ground because of that phenomenon.
Phenomenon??? You mean Obamas failure, total and complete, to spend trillions of dollars and have unemployment go the exact opposite direction of the one he PROMISED? That phenomenon? Nice word for destruction of a nations economy. Phenomenon.
Yes, I believe that just a voter or two might see that everything the Democrat Party sold them in 2008 was lies. Yes, you folks were elected in a landslide. But as Will Ferrell’s character Buddy said in Elf: “You sit on a throne of lies.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 2322 hrs
@brainstew8157 Ok, I got Scott’s recent quote (the middle one in #33). Where did the other two quotes come from? They sound like the lead in to the last 8 years of the NBC nightly newscasts…heh.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 2329 hrs
TFG, I think you can guess. Just did some digging on a link posted on this thread.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2010 at 2338 hrs
Hm, I suppose that should have been obvious if I had simply thought about it for a moment. My bad.
Well done, though I’m guessing that thread is at an end. lol.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 0036 hrs
“Next you’re going to tell me that you’ll have both houses of congress, too. Dream. On. “
I just love quotes like this. I heard and read a bunch of similar ones in early January when people raised the possibility of Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts.
November is a long way off, and a lot can happen between now and then to change the political dynamics, but I think winning back the House is a better than 60-40 propostion at this point with over 45 seats being held by Dems in districts won by McCain in ‘08. Anyone who doesn’t think the Senate is in play isn’t looking closely enough at the polls in individual states ... Right now, states that were considered untouchable in the past (like Mass.) are in play ... New York (Gillibrand Seat), Illinois (Burris), Delaware (Biden), and quite possibly California (Boxer) to go along with the seats considered to be at risk for the Dems long before Scott Brown even drew close in his race. Those states are North Dakota, Nevada, Arkansas, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. If Pence gets in against Bayh in Indiana, and Feingold gets a real challenger, you can add two more to the count of seats in play.
That’s up to 11 seats in play ... and Lieberman poised to be the Democrats version of Arlen Specter.
Long shot ... maybe ... A dream?? About as big a Dream as Republican winning the Senate seat in Massachusetts I suppose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 0924 hrs
TD, take a gander at this (if you haven’t already):
If Republicans run as strongly as Brown, only 103 House Dems are safe
————————————————————————————-
Anyway, there’s a pattern here: Coakley carries districts where Obama got 65% or more of the vote and runs essentially even in the district where he got 64%, and Scott Brown runs ahead in districts where Obama got less than 64% of the vote.Let’s extrapolate those numbers to the nation as a whole and assume that a district that voted 64% or more for Obama is safe for Democrats even under the most dire of circumstances. How many such districts are there? Answer, according to this source: 103. The other 332 districts voted 63% or less for Obama. Interestingly, there are more 64%+ Obama districts in the West (36) than in the East (27) and more in the South (21) than in the Midwest (19).
——————————————————————————————
So that means that 101 of the 256 House Democrats represent 64%+ Obama districts and that 155 House Democrats represent districts which might, according to the Massachusetts metric, be vulnerable in some circumstances to Republican capturePosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 1009 hrs
I saw that. It obviously paints the best case scenario portrait for Republicans in November. I tend to think that even if Obama doesn’t moderate, and move back to the middle, many of those Dems in seats that are vulnerable, are going to start becoming very public in distancing themselves from him ... and probably will stave off some of the carnage. They will insulate themselves a bit, and by killing his agenda, probably help the party as a whole. I think there is something to this theory that Brown’s win was actually a blessing for the Dems in the long run, because it gave them the shot across the bow they didn’t get in ‘94. Given that assumption, I see a minimum 35+ seat gain in the house, and 6+ seat gain in the Senate. Well beyond a standard regression to the mean.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 1309 hrs
Gotta love this:
Rep. Marion Berry’s parting shot, published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [no link, subscription only] offers a warning to moderate Democrats and border state moderates — warning of a midterm bloodbath comparable to the 54-seat D-to-R swing in 1994.
But the jaw-dropper is Berry’s claim that President Obama personally dismissed any comparison between Democrats now and under Bill Clinton 16 years ago — by saying his personal popularity would bail everybody out.
“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now
Dude is delusional and/or a moron.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2010 at 1358 hrs
I just wonder what Obama meant when he said “You’ve got me”.
With Clinton, the country was getting a known quantity with executive experience. We could look at his record in Arkansas and say with clarity that we could predict how he would behave in the Oval Office (sexual misgivings notwithstanding). With Barack Obama, extreme left wing democrats and Chicago machine politicians coalesced to create a candidate where previously there was none. Barack Obama was a backbench freshman senator, in terms of qualifications to run for the office of the President of The United States, he was a vapor. However, his bi-racial genetics, and compelling family story (single mom, etc.) was irresistible to democrat types, and when they heard his soaring (teleprompted) speeches, they were hooked like rainbow trout…
Which brings me to my point, where does Barack Obama’s ego come from? Ego is usually exhibited by those who achieve something, and Barack Obama, on his own could not have achieved anything. He is a product of chance, a lottery winner. What does a lottery winner do when they have spent all their capital (political in this case)? They get desperate, and these Ellie Light letters are a perfect exhibition of desperation. Democrats (particularly the organized type) are trying to steal political capital however they can, every scintilla of goodwill they can scrape up is necessary, because they are watching the administration that they fabricated disintegrate.
Liberals can go on and on about the conservative meme, and the ideologue rantings of everyone on this site all they want. The evidence of this administration falling apart is everywhere around them, they are welcome to bury their heads in the sand and ignore it all they want. Denial has become the theme of leftis politics, until they can admit that the American people simply do not want “change they can believe in”, and that the popularity of Barack Obama was the thing to do in a nation of people searching for the next best thing.
Nancy Pelosi can go on and on about the outcry of the tea party movement being astroturf. The reality of the thing is, and the Ellie Light letters are just further evidence of it, that the entire election and Presidency of Barack Obama is astroturf.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0917 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134021
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 12:07 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 122
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 12:47 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).