Grothman Weighs In on Burkee
Here’s a letter that Senator Glenn Grothman asked me to publish on his behalf.
I’d like to address the issue of the Jim Burkee candidacy to my conservative friends who read this blog. I am supporting Jim Sensenbrenner. The Shepherd’s Express article a week ago implies Burkee cannot figure out why elected Republicans are backing Sensenbrenner other than a “circle the wagons” mentality.
I first met Burkee about five months ago. He purported to be a straight conservative who believed Republicans had a bad election in 2006 because they strayed from their conservative principles. He talked almost exclusively about too much government spending. I discouraged him from running because I felt he would not win (or even get close.) I also told him that he would send the message that conservative Republicans who stuck their neck out – be it on spending (against the Katrina package, transportation bill, etc.) or Bush’s lax immigration policy, would get challenged for being controversial. Sensenbrenner is the most conservative of our eight Congressmen. I also felt a primary would take Sensenbrenner from what should be his main focus – other races – helping Alberta Darling, John Gard, and John McCain.
Since then, Burkee has become much worse. As I understand it, some of my conservative/libertarian friends might vote for him. Here are five things that should give you concern in supporting a Burkee candidacy:
First, Burkee appears to tell different people different things. John Torinus wrote an article in the West Bend Daily News. I like John Torinus a lot, but in the article (see link) Torinus argues that we need Burkee because he is a centrist and the Republicans lost the majority by being too conservative. In other words, the Burkee trying to sell himself to Glenn Grothman was almost the exact opposite of the Burkee selling himself to John Torinus. In a related anecdote, Burkee filled out his Pro-Life Wisconsin questionnaire as 100% opposed to embryonic stem cell research. In the Torinus article, he reveals himself for stem cell research. I suppose all politicians color their comments for their audience, but Burkee seems to take this to extremes.
Second, in his own article in the Daily News, Burkee says to vote for him because our Congressman should be funneling more money to Wisconsin – in particular education dollars. The Burkee who I met painted himself as an across the board fiscal conservative. Burkee now comes across as pandering to spending constituencies. I don’t think most education spending is even constitutional.
Third, I never met a politician who more brazenly tries to win a Republican primary with Democratic voters. He’s relying on Bryan Kennedy, the UW-M professor, who ran against Sensenbrenner in 2004 and 2006 for help in fundraising and voter turnout. Burkee wants to compare himself to Reagan by reaching out to Reagan Democrats. But, Kennedy is no conservative Democrat – he is a stock left-wing professor. No wonder Burkee wants to bring more education dollars to Wisconsin. If Burkee would win, he will owe the election to a big government Democrat and voters who believe he will not be the fighter Sensenbrenner is on their fiscal issues.
Fourth, Burkee’s race is irritatingly self righteous. In an early lit piece Burkee vowed to “not run negative ads or engage in personal attacks.” In the same lit piece he called Sensenbrenner a “Washington politician who has been consumed by Washington lobbyists in a city of corruption” and a man who “cares more about lobbyist cash than the needs of his constituents.” In the debate, he said the election was about honesty – therefore implying that Sensenbrenner was both corrupt and dishonest. I’m somewhat of a political junkie who has talked to people of all political stripes for many years. I’ve heard people be critical of Sensenbrenner for a variety of reasons. Jim Burkee – Mr. Change for a Better America – is the first person I’ve heard imply Sensenbrenner was either corrupt or dishonest.
Fifth, I was offended by Burkee’s implying that Sensenbrenner’s immigration stance was not Christian. I believe the United States allows more people to enter this country than all other countries combined. All countries have immigration laws. Unless you want no standards, some people will be left out or asked to leave. It is an insult to all people opposed to illegal immigration to call enforcement anti-Christian. It is not anti-Christian if illegal immigrants who have a child in this country takes that child home with them.
I met one Jim Burkee several months ago. While he shouldn’t have run, I assume that is the Burkee who caused some of my conservative/libertarian friends to support him. Please re-think your position. The Bryan Kennedy/Shepherd’s Express/Journal Sentinel candidate is not the breath of fresh air you are looking for. Jim Burkee clearly presents a different side to different audiences. At the end of his election, he is relying on big government Democrats to get him across the finish line. Furthermore, his attacks on Sensenbrenner’s integrity say he does not have the temperament to raise the level of debate in Washington.
Oh, now this is really interesting. I mentioned Burkee’s run to Glenn when I saw him several months ago, well into Burkee’s candidacy, and Glenn didn’t say any of this. It was clear he was backing FJS, like most of the establishment in the GOP, but none of this came up. Now, he imbues us with these revelations the day of the election? Beautiful.
Posted by on September 09, 2008 at 0729 hrsGrothman has been saying this stuff for the last couple of months. Grothman only met Burkee 5 months ago, so it makes sense that he didn’t know any of this when you met him several months ago.
Posted by Owen on September 09, 2008 at 0741 hrsOwen,
Mark Belling read off a list of RINOs that are backing Burkee on his show yesterday. Blue-blood, country-clubbers, elitist lefties. You seriously have to wonder if he’s a stealth candidate being put up by liberals in a bid to upset Sensenbrenner by taking advantage of light turnout only to have him take a dive to the other half of the Tweedledee/Tweedledum pair in the general election.
Posted by Peter on September 09, 2008 at 0851 hrsVery enlightening.
Especially that “un-Christian” crap. Pope JPII carefully outlined RC teaching on the topic of immigration, and while the teaching is clearly weighted in favor of immigration, (as was JPII personally,) the Pope made CLEAR that ‘...the laws of the country must be obeyed...’ (That is, that one should not sneak into the USA.)
I’ll be happy to argue that a 10k/year quota for Mexicans is ludicrously low. But that’s still the law--which the Church teaches MUST be obeyed.
Posted by dad29 on September 09, 2008 at 0914 hrsIt’s peripheral, I know, but I still can’t get over these kinds of comments:
who believed Republicans had a bad election in 2006 because they strayed from their conservative principles.
You guys got your asses handed to you in 2006 because of the war, not because you weren’t far enough to the right. It’s unbelievable to me that you still don’t get this.
Posted by scott on September 09, 2008 at 0915 hrsJim Sensenbrenner is a good man and a good representative of our district. Perhaps he has made some enemies in the many years that he has been here but he also has many supporters, which I am very happy to be one.
People can make up all the stories they want but I know nothing that Sensenbrenner has done or not done that would make me vote for someone else.
Posted by on September 09, 2008 at 1053 hrs"You guys got your asses handed to you in 2006 because of the war, not because you weren’t far enough to the right. It’s unbelievable to me that you still don’t get this. “
Scott,
What most people do get, is that the Dem’s have done nothing since they took over. The agenda set by MOVEON.ORG, didnt get done either, and that we are on the verge of winning the war in IRAQ..
So its the war stupid! The one that Dems have said over and over that is lost, but most people now see that we will win.
How will the Dem’s spin this to their advantage.
And they will.
Posted by on September 09, 2008 at 1113 hrsVoted for Sensenbrenner this morning. If Burke was elected he wouldn’t get anything done as freshman in the house - versus Sensenbrenner who was a commitee chairman when the Repubs held the majority. Plus Sensenbrenner is a much more conservative guy than Burke. Anyone endorsed by the J/S isn’t getting my vote.
As for the 2006 election - I agree with Scott (could be a first) people were unhappy with the war - which at that time seemed to be going nowhere and just dragging on.
However - this is a different time now. The war is either won or close to being won (depending on how you look at it) and even O says he would put more troops into Afganistan (probably the only thing I agree with him on as well). So the anti-war nuts have no one to vote for, and the general population isn’t focusing on Iraq as much as it did in ‘06.
The focus in this election will be the economy and by indirect correlation - fuel prices.
Posted by on September 09, 2008 at 1134 hrsAlso curious: Grothmann says Burkee SAYS he filled out his PLW questionnaire...100% opposed to ESCR
But PLW’s final endorsement list does NOT include Burkee.
It’s possible that Burkee didn’t meet the other qualifiers on the survey, I suppose…
Posted by dad29 on September 09, 2008 at 1134 hrsWhat most people do get, is that the Dem’s have done nothing since they took over.
Which is why they’ve had such a low approval rating--something else that you righties often mischaracterize. They were in the dog house precisely because they failed to reign in your failed policies!
we are on the verge of winning the war in IRAQ
I just don’t know where to go with you on this. You want to talk about the surge? Sure it worked--militarily, anyway. But it failed to facilitate the political progress necessary to bring peace to the country. So it’s a pretty hollow success we’re reaping.
“Winning”? We’ve been winning since day one--militarily. And whose surprised? Our military is the best, bar none. Who predicted that the Iraqi army or that insurgents would “win” an armed struggle against them? C’mon. But I need something more than battlefield victories. I need peace in Iraq. That victory is just as elusive today as it was years ago--and you seem not to notice.\
I notice, too, that you don’t even bother to refute my claim that you lost big in 2006 because of the war, not because you abandoned Reaganomics. (Seriously, it makes me chuckle every time you guys say it.)
Posted by scott on September 09, 2008 at 1135 hrsBurkee=Pure RINO. End of what you need to know.
Posted by The Asian Badger on September 09, 2008 at 1145 hrsI notice, too, that you don’t even bother to refute my claim that you lost big in 2006 because of the war, not because you abandoned Reaganomics. (Seriously, it makes me chuckle every time you guys say it.)
Think so? Maybe I am the only one in America, but I would vote Republican if they were fiscally conservative. Yes, there is irony there too as the war has been a big drain on our economy, but if Republicans were still for fighting waste and corruption, were against pork and defifcit spending, I would vote for them every time despite the war in 2006 and now.
The war at least has a lofty goal of striving to free a population of tyranny and bring Democracy. It is unlikely to happen in a lasting way and I disagree with no exit strategy etc., but that has never been my reason for not voting for republicans. It is because they abandoned their principles and moved right along with the Democrats further and further left when it comes to spending money. They stay only far enough right to say they are the right.
Go ahead and chuckle, but I believe I am part of a majority of people in the US that favors a less interfering smaller Government.
Posted by on September 09, 2008 at 1436 hrsWhat is interesting is the notion that Jim Sensenbrenner should essentially be allowed to keep his office for life. The problem with Congress is that once someone gets elected they tend to make a career out of this job. Sensenbrenner has been in office since 1979 and likely has a hard time relating to running a business or issues facing a small business owner like myself because he’s been out of the real world for 30 years.
I agree with most of Sensenbrenner’s votes, but sometimes you need some new blood in there to get some things done.
Posted by on September 09, 2008 at 1754 hrs"That victory is just as elusive today as it was years ago--and you seem not to notice”
So tell us great one what would define victory.
Cutting and running which is what your side won the 2006 election on.
Thats not what we did is it?
The big “B” even admits it now..
The Surge did work…
Who Knew.
And tell us great one exactly what has the do nothing congress done since they were given power?
You guys carp about Bush’s approval rating, but what is congresses approval rating? How about Pelosi’s?
MoveOn.org elected the do nothing congress. The American public knows it, and will vote accordingly, because MOVEON.ORG isn’t as powerful as it hoped it would be.
Posted by on September 09, 2008 at 1807 hrsGrothman said,
“Second, in his own article in the Daily News, Burkee says to vote for him because our Congressman should be funneling more money to Wisconsin”
So what? Palin did that and the base has stars in their eyes.
Paging Esenberg on hypocrisy…
Posted by on September 09, 2008 at 2142 hrsThe problem with Congress is that once someone gets elected they tend to make a career out of this job.
I wholeheartedly agree!! If we could get term limits passed for all, it would be a great thing; however, you can’t have only one side playing by the rules. A lot of good people (including one of my favorites, John Kasich), who took office under the Contract with America in 1994 stuck to that promise...and the GOP was the worse for it.
If Burkee really wanted to improve Congress...and get rid of someone who’s been there too long..,and spends too much money...he would move to northwest Wisconsin and take on David Obey.
Posted by on September 09, 2008 at 2327 hrs>>> What has our “do nothing congress done since they were given power?”
Give me a break. The Dems haven’t any power when you have guys like Mitch McConnell with the power of the filibuster. Yes, Pelosi and Reid have to go, but so must McConnell.
Posted by Jack Lohman on September 10, 2008 at 0148 hrsAlso curious: Grothmann says Burkee SAYS he filled out his PLW questionnaire...100% opposed to ESCR
But PLW’s final endorsement list does NOT include Burkee.
It’s possible that Burkee didn’t meet the other qualifiers on the survey, I suppose…
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 0254 hrs
Gul urges Baku to dialogue with Yerevan
kurtlar vadisi pusu 41 sezon finali izleSo tell us great one what would define victory.
Stop being such an asshole. What would define victory? I guess it depends on whether you mean militarily or something more than that. For me, I’d like to see a stable, peaceful Iraq and all (or almost all) of our armed forces personnel back home. I’m pretty sure you have a similar idea. The real question is this: what’s the most likely course of action to get there? Or even, what course of action will give us the greatest odds for the best of outcomes? I tend not to trust those who thought the war was good idea and who still say it was. I’m sorry, but it was a grave, grave mistake. Anyone who can’t see that gets a big fat zero in my book with regard to foreign policy. If you can’t answer correctly a multiple choice question with regard to what will probably be regarded as the greatest American foreign policy blunder in history, you fail my test. So that rules out almost all Republicans right off. But what do the Democrats offer? Their idea seems to be that we have achieved much of what we can accomplish there already and that the last extremely positive thing we can achieve there is a stable politics in Iraq so that it can move forward peacefully without us. They believe that the course of action most likely to pull this off is to pressure Iraqi leadership by giving a timetable for withdrawal, letting them know that they’re going to be on their own shortly. I don’t know if this really will work, but I think it’s clear that what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked at all, military gains notwithstanding.
Sorry if I bored you with such a lengthy response. I hope you can read it and hear something other than “Scott is a defeatist who wants our troops to lose and who wants to legislate defeat.” I think it deserves a much more thoughtful response than that.
You guys carp about Bush’s approval rating, but what is congresses approval rating? How about Pelosi’s?
It’s my contention that the chief reason for that approval rating is that they have failed to reign in president Bush’s lawlessness and blank-check war making. I’m not really sure what you think the issue is--perhaps they’re just too gosh darned liberal and that people hate this or something--but that’s my take on it. Add that Democratic dissatisfaction to the ~50% of Republican opinion (negative by definition), and you have a very unpopular congress.
Posted by scott on September 10, 2008 at 0825 hrsScott,
Sorry but Im a professional asshole, and am always learning from the master.. you..
“but I think it’s clear that what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked at all, military gains notwithstanding.”
So wiping out the isurgancy, and reaching now 16 out of 18 benchmarks is “hasnt worked at all”.
and this one is beautiful..
“It’s my contention that the chief reason for that approval rating is that they have failed to reign in president Bush’s lawlessness and blank-check war making”
Do some simple research, the American people have such a low opinion of congress, because all they have done since they took over 2 years ago, is have hearings on this, and hearings on that. And what exactly was accomplished by all these back to back to back hearings.
NOTHING>>> Name something !!! What has this congress done. Nancy and Harry are a joke, that the American people want gone. Even your own party wants them gone.
From one Asshole to the biggest asshole on the planet, Have a great day..
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1032 hrsYou stepped over my comment above: “The Dems haven’t any power when you have guys like Mitch McConnell with the power of the filibuster. Yes, Pelosi and Reid have to go, but so must McConnell.”
I’m a McCain Republican, but even I can’t blame the Dems for not getting anything done in congress. The R’s are constantly standing in the way with their filibuster power. The Dems won’t even submit bills if they don’t think they can muster 60 votes.
They need a 60-vote margin in November, then we can start blaming them for lack of progress. Not until then.
Posted by Jack Lohman on September 10, 2008 at 1040 hrsJack,
Didnt mean to “Step over” you or your comments.
What exactly is a “McCain Republican”?
And
What exactly is it that they are standing in the way of?
McConnell is the head of the minority party in the Senate, how will replacing him help? Do you seriously think Harry Reid will work with a true Repulican or are your hoping for a RINO, that will bend to Harry’s wishes?
Again sorry for stepping over you.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1101 hrsDo some simple research, the American people have such a low opinion of congress, because all they have done since they took over 2 years ago, is have hearings on this, and hearings on that.
Since it’s so simple, why don’t you share this “research” with us?
Anyway, at least the Democrats raised the minimum wage and passed legislation for the negotiation of drug prices in the new medicare part b program. Here’s a few other things they did in their first 100 hours:
http://www.dccc.org/pages/100hours
All of which you hate, naturally. But that’s what they did. I maintain that their unpopularity (among Democrats) is their failure to end the war and their failure to reign in Bush domestically.
Posted by scott on September 10, 2008 at 1106 hrsA McCain Republican is a moderate Republican, not a far righter. McConnell is the head of the minority party, and the majority party cannot do anything that he doesn’t want unless they have 60 or more votes. Thus he has to be replaced with a Democrat before we can start blaming the D’s for inaction. And at this point I’m fed up with the far-right-wing and would be tickled pink if the left took over congress in November.
What has he blocked? How about the McCain-Feingold bill which was good going in but was gutted by McConnell-DeLay?
Nothing is going to get fixed in Washington until we get private bribes out of our public electoral system. And I’m surprised that the “values” crowd continues to support the corruption that has tarnished both sides of the isle.
Posted by Jack Lohman on September 10, 2008 at 1129 hrsIt was pretty simple wasnt it..
Ok so you pointed out what they have done the first 100 hours. What have they done since?
So they cost small businesses more money. They promoted their you should be able to raise a family on minimum wage montra. (Can you say wealth redistribution). They put a bandaid on a 15 inch gash, regarding medicare.
WOW. Image what they could have done if we handnt stood in their way.
Nice try Scott.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1134 hrsJack,
How pray tell can you replace the minority leader with a Democrat? If the Democrats are the Majority, how would they also get the Minority leader to be a Democrat?
Is this your dream world.
Also “moderate Republican” = RINO Republican in name only.. (Democrat in hiding), any others that I missed.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1138 hrsI’m still fascinated by what I shall charitably call “your logic” above, overataxed. I’m waiting for the grand finale: where you introduce us all to that “simple research” which shows that the Democratic congress approval rating isn’t due to their inability to reign in Bush and end the war.
Posted by scott on September 10, 2008 at 1143 hrs"what I shall charitably call “your logic”
Wow thanks Scott. Can I take communion from you too? Can you walk all the way across lake Michigan?
Show me “simple research” to show that it was Bush and the War, are the reason. Goes both ways. Instead of a grand finale, I’ll wait for your carnival side show.
The grand finale will be the day after the election when I come to this blog, to see how you’re going to spin the fact the “B” didn’t win.
And then going over to your site, (if its up), to see the ranting on their on why “B” didn’t win.
It will be fun..
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1155 hrsOh by the way this thread was started regarding “Jim Burkee”
who is another RINO.How did he do yesterday?
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1206 hrsShow me “simple research” to show that it was Bush and the War, are the reason. Goes both ways.
it really doesn’t go both ways. I expressed this notion as an opinion. You state that this notion can be easily refuted by a little research. I’m asking you what that research is. I guess you don’t have any after all, “simple” though it might be. So there we are: I believe their popularity is due to one reason, you believe it’s another.
“moderate Republican” = RINO Republican in name only
So you’re an extremist. Someone who rejects political moderation.
WOW. Image what they could have done if we handnt stood in their way.
That’s my reaction, too--only without the sarcasm.
The grand finale will be the day after the election
You want to gloat after your victory, is that it? What if McCain loses? What will you be doing then?
Posted by scott on September 10, 2008 at 1219 hrsOk oh great one!!!
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/congress-approval-rat ing-ties-lowest-gallup-records.aspx
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3242551
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/07/congress-o bama.html
Pretty simple..
What you call political moderation, I call being a liberal.
“You want to gloat after your victory, is that it? What if McCain loses? What will you be doing then? “
No I want to make sure the country isnt turned into a socialist state, which is what it will be if Barry gets in.
And if McCain loses, I will be moving to Costa Rica..
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1234 hrsWell, your first two links merely indicate that congress’ approval rating is low, not why it is low. Your third link--the ABC one--actually proves my contention, not yours: it’s due to their failure to put the brakes on the Iraq war. The fourth link indicates that the reason for the unpopularity is that most people think Republicans control congress.
Posted by scott on September 10, 2008 at 1251 hrsWhatever.
Let me know when you turn water into wine, and I can take communion..
No comment on the Burkee thing?
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1254 hrs"Whatever”?
I would like a little something more than that. Either admit that i am right, or at least have the decency to refrain from further comment about it.
Posted by scott on September 10, 2008 at 1257 hrs"I would like a little something more than that. “
And what gives you the idea I give a shit what you want?
Do you own this blog?
Go back to your own little world where you can get the answers you want, when the site is up.
Man you sure are full of yourself.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1303 hrsSo in other words, I was right and you were wrong.
Posted by scott on September 10, 2008 at 1314 hrs>>> “How pray tell can you replace the minority leader with a Democrat?”
When he is up for election, you vote in a Democrat?
Call me a RINO if you like. I’m voting for McCain-Palin.
Posted by Jack Lohman on September 10, 2008 at 1414 hrs"So in other words, I was right and you were wrong”
In your little mind, in your little world.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1423 hrsLooks like your little world is down again.
What a joke..
Dude, you need a new hosting service.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1424 hrsWhen he is up for election, you vote in a Democrat?
You sir, in your ignorance, should not be allowed to vote. I’m sorry, but there’s no denying it, you lack even a fundamental understanding of this Country’s government.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1425 hrsLook, OT. Let me recap what’s transpired here.
1. I offered the opinion that congress’ low popularity was due to their inability to halt Bush and end the war.
2. YOU said that anyone could do “simple research” to show that this was not true.
3. I asked you for that research. You provided a series of links, half of which offered no explanation of the low approval, two of which took MY side in it.
4. I pointed this out to you.
5. You got nasty and started whining about my web site.
So you see, that kind of makes me, well, the winner of that argument and you are, you know...the loser.
Posted by scott on September 10, 2008 at 1430 hrsSo in other words, I was right and you were wrong.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102706/Americans-Widely-Disa ppointed-Democrats-Congress.aspx
According to this poll, admittedly it’s almost a year old, it seems to me that there’s a number of reasons for the low approval ratings by Democrats. Iraq is one of several, the economy, immigration, healthcare, the budget deficit, and government reform are others that are close.
The author goes on to lump in the choices, which I disagree with, to spin Iraq as the biggest reason. It’s still by a very narrow margin, and in my opinion doesn’t support your contention that it’s the “Chief” reason. I disagree with the author lumping in Pleased and Neutral. The two are sufficiently different to not be looked at together as a positive meaning. Disappointed and Angry are two that I could see being closer in meaning.
Anyway, in my opinion, you’re acting like a childish boor in this thread, prove me wrong. Nah Nah Nah Nah.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1433 hrsIt gets more interesting if you look at the raw tables at the end of the article in #42.
Democrats rated “Pleased in this order"…
Budget Deficit - 13%
Immigration - 14%
The Economy - 17%
Government Reform - 19%
Iraq - 20%
Healthcare 20%
Terrorism 23%Seems to be very near the bottom of the list from least “Pleased” results. According to this poll, one should surmise that since only 13% are “Pleased” with the job done on the Budget Deficit, it is the chief reason for the overall low ratings.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1441 hrsScott,
Who the hell do you think you are?
The supreme blogger of the world.
Your a little man, with a really crappy website, who’s opion means less to me that what just came out of my Golden Retrievers butt.
Get over yourself. Do you have a scoreboard there with you.
I can picture it now guys. Hey I’m winning....
Look my scoreboard says Im winning.
What a idiot.
Do you get off by telling the people on this blog that your right and I was wrong?
Dude, you need to get a life.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1447 hrsJason,
Thanks for the backup, but It doesnt matter what you tell the supreme blogger. Thats what everyone here should refer to him from now on as.
Go check out his website. Its been down 4 times in the last 5 days, and when it is up, he has it formatted so crappy, that his hyperlinks are overlayed with the blogging entries.
But when your the supreme blogger, I guess that doesnt matter. Whats the score oh supreme blogger..
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1452 hrsJason, the link you just provided says:
“...reflecting not only the degree to which Iraq is seen as the nation’s top problem today, but also the thinking that a new Democratic-controlled Congress would have been more effective in changing course in Iraq.”
Which is exactly what I’m saying. Isn’t it?
It’s also interesting to note that one of the links provided earlier indicated that more than 40% of respondents thought Republicans still controlled congress, leading one to think that at least some of the disapproval might be directed at Republican officials in general.
I’m being accused of being childish? Sometimes I can be, but aside from one instance where I called OT an asshole because he was acting like one, I defy any fair-minded person to read this thread and conclude that I’m not the more adult participant.
Perhaps OT would like to explain is comments about the photos of my fiance before he accuses me of being the jerky one.
It really, really made me sad when nobody--not one of the dozen people following that thread--had the integrity to chime in and say it was over the line. Very sad.
Posted by scott on September 10, 2008 at 1458 hrsScott,
I pointed out to you that when you post pictures to the net and dont protect them anyone can take them and do what ever they want to to them.
Look at my past posts. I suggested you lock them down, and also told you if you needed help doing so to let me know.
You need to make sure the things that are posted to the net are protected. Not alot of people do.
My point being your not the tech-no-savie guy you think you are.
And your ego is the size of Texas.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1511 hrs"It really, really made me sad when nobody--not one of the dozen people following that thread--had the integrity to chime in and say it was over the line. Very sad.”
Tnen maybe DailyKos would make you happier..
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1516 hrsWhy, because people there have the character to call out someone who sinks so low as to start bringing in the other guy’s girlfriend? I thought some of the people here were at least that standup. I said to myself perhaps Owen sent you a private email telling you to cut it out, but I suspect nobody said a thing--except for the private email I sent you.
Posted by scott on September 10, 2008 at 1519 hrs“...reflecting not only the degree to which Iraq is seen as the nation’s top problem today, but also the thinking that a new Democratic-controlled Congress would have been more effective in changing course in Iraq.”
I saw that and addressed it. It seems to be bias to me the way the author is lumping together results from response choices. Want to talk about that?
Perhaps OT would like to explain is comments about the photos of my fiance before he accuses me of being the jerky one.
Haven’t seen that, or photos of your fiance. I don’t read every post here. OT does also seem to be acting childish in this thread. Feel better? Now, what about those facts. Don’t read what the author has opined… look at the facts.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1528 hrsOther than telling you that you shouldn’t post pictures of loved ones without protecting them, how is that sinking so low.
Your the idiot that posted things to the internet without protecting them.
You bring yourself off as this high as might tech-no-savvy guy who cant keep his website up more that 10 minutes, and who is stupid enough to not only post unprotected content, but then come to an open blog and ask people to go look at it.
And the fact that if you dont win every argument that there is some grand conspiracy. Dude get over yourself. And go protect your content. Its not that hard.
Again if you want help let me know.
But get over yourself your not that impressive.
I never got any private message from you either.
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1529 hrsYes, I’m sure you were just legitimately concerned about the sanctity of my “content.” Trust me, I know just how to protect it. Come near my “content” and I’ll tell you about it.
You spend an awful lot of time talking about my photos and my web server and my blog template. Here’s an idea. Why don’t you leave those topics alone since they have nothing--absolutely nothing--to do with anything that we discuss here?
Posted by scott on September 10, 2008 at 1532 hrsBe carefull, remember what happen to the last guy that made a threats on this blog.
So since this thread is about Burkee, what about it.
He got spanked yesterday..
Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1542 hrs
Ol' Army
