The role of women in the past election

[AKC]

Strong women may very well have held substantial sway in this past federal election, but what’s surprising is the difference variety of “strong” women in the eye of the hurricane. After reading some of the campaign accounts of both camps it strikes me that Bush probably gained 5 or 6 points among women by surrounding himself with strong, intelligent women like Karen Hughes, Condoleeza and his nationally adored wife while Kerry was apparently subjugated by a different strong woman, a wife who can accurately be characterized as a bit loony. There was also talk of bringing Kerry’s first wife into the campaign but wiser heads seem to have prevailed in keeping a woman who apparently been in “seclusion” since ’88 suffering from mental health issues below the radar. I’ve got to believe that this difference in the candidates own choices of the types of women they choose to surround themselves with was hardly lost on the female voters around our country, an area the Dems hoped to exploit but fell well short of pre-election expectations.

 

While traditionally not much weight is given to the influence of the First Lady on voter tallies, it may well have been a big part in the outcome of this past election. Democrats may do well to rethink their own vetting process in the next cycle by looking at the totality of their candidate’s assets and liabilities.

[CoachChuckDickerson]

Soccer Moms became Security Moms. Had nothing to do with who Bush surrounded himself with. It was on factor. Fear.

[Mickey]

Strong women may very well have held substantial sway in this past federal election, but what’s surprising is the difference variety of “strong” women in the eye of the hurricane. After reading some of the campaign accounts of both camps it strikes me that Bush probably gained 5 or 6 points among women by surrounding himself with strong, intelligent women like Karen Hughes, Condoleeza and his nationally adored wife while Kerry was apparently subjugated by a different strong woman, a wife who can accurately be characterized as a bit loony. There was also talk of bringing Kerry’s first wife into the campaign but wiser heads seem to have prevailed in keeping a woman who apparently been in “seclusion” since ’88 suffering from mental health issues below the radar. I’ve got to believe that this difference in the candidates own choices of the types of women they choose to surround themselves with was hardly lost on the female voters around our country, an area the Dems hoped to exploit but fell well short of pre-election expectations.

 

While traditionally not much weight is given to the influence of the First Lady on voter tallies, it may well have been a big part in the outcome of this past election. Democrats may do well to rethink their own vetting process in the next cycle by looking at the totality of their candidate’s assets and liabilities.

150391[/snapback]

 

How surprising. You find that Mrs Bush is "nationally adored" while Kerry's first wife and second wife are both lunatics. How clearly objective. I also think women would appreciate your point that they cast their votes based on what they thought of each candidates spouse rather than the actual candidates and their policies.

 

Kerry did far better among women than did Bush. Why not conclude that therefore woman found him to be the better candidate because they weren't impressed with the "nationally adored" Mrs. Bush or Condoleeza or the brought out of retirement just before the election Karen Hughes?

[AKC]

How surprising.  You find that Mrs Bush is "nationally adored" while Kerry's first wife and second wife are both lunatics.  How clearly objective.  I also think women would appreciate your point that they cast their votes based on what they thought of each candidates spouse rather than the actual candidates and their policies.

 

Kerry did far better among women than did Bush.  Why not conclude that therefore woman found him to be the better candidate because they weren't impressed with the "nationally adored" Mrs. Bush or Condoleeza or the brought out of retirement just before the election Karen Hughes?

150559[/snapback]

 

You can hide from the truth, it's become a way of life for the left, but national polls show that Laura Bush is one of the most adored first ladies since numbers began to be taken for them (I assume you adore Jackie O, who had similar numbers?). One does not have to admire Karen Hughes and Dr. Rice to realize they are strong, stable and intelligent, not the kind of women who would prescribe gin soaked raisins for the arthritic!

 

But hey, if you submit a resume early Shrum may have some openings for partisans in blinders like yourself- Good luck in '08!

[blzrul]

As I woman I can honestly say I NEVER consider a candidate's spouse. Never. It's immaterial and a non-issue. It's a judgement based on superficialities, no different than judging by the candidate's hair color, cut or suit or personal mannerisms.

 

I don't adore Mrs. Bush and I don't hate her. I never think of her just like I never thought of Pat Nixon, Lady Bird Johnson, Nancy Reagan, Roslyn Carter, Barbara Bush, Hillary, etc.

 

I likewise don't adore either Karen Hughes or Condi Rice. They are both smart women, no doubt about it, but I wouldn't want to be like either one of them.

 

And by the you'd find that anyone who ever met me, and quite a few who haven't, consider me to be a VERY strong woman. So I guess I am in a better position to judge than some.

[Mickey]

You can hide from the truth, it's become a way of life for the left, but national polls show that Laura Bush is one of the most adored first ladies since numbers began to be taken for them (I assume you adore Jackie O, who had similar numbers?). One does not have to admire Karen Hughes and Dr. Rice to realize they are strong, stable and intelligent, not the kind of women who would prescribe gin soaked raisins for the arthritic!

 

But hey, if you submit a resume early Shrum may have some openings for partisans in blinders like yourself- Good luck in '08!

150587[/snapback]

Do national polls indicate that both of Kerry's wives are lunatics?

As for the "nationally adored" one, is that what the polls said, that people "adored" her or is that your spin on a poll that simply said people had a "favorable view" of her or "liked" her?

[DC Tom]

As I woman I can honestly say I NEVER consider a candidate's spouse. Never.  It's immaterial and a non-issue.  It's a judgement based on superficialities, no different than judging by the candidate's hair color, cut or suit or personal mannerisms.

 

I don't adore Mrs. Bush and I don't hate her.  I never think of her just like I never thought of Pat Nixon, Lady Bird Johnson, Nancy Reagan, Roslyn Carter, Barbara Bush, Hillary, etc. 

 

I likewise don't adore either Karen Hughes or Condi Rice.  They are both smart women, no doubt about it, but I wouldn't want to be like either one of them.

 

And by the you'd find that anyone who ever me met, and quite a few who haven't, consider me to be a VERY strong woman.  So I guess I am in a better position to judge than some.

150681[/snapback]

 

Not judging, but...

 

Even Hillary Clinton? I know a lot of people who supported Bill Clinton's campaign in part because they thought his wife's professional background and abilities would be a decided asset to his presidency. Events didn't necessarily turn out that way (though not for lack of trying, really), but I could certainly understand their point of view.

 

Making a judgement based on Teresa Heinz-Kerry's abrasive personality or Jackie Kennedy's taste in hats is pretty obviously a stupid way to back a candidate, but do you really think that if a potential first lady brings real skills to the table she still should bear no consideration?

[Chef Jim]

As I woman I can honestly say I NEVER consider a candidate's spouse. Never.  It's immaterial and a non-issue.  It's a judgement based on superficialities, no different than judging by the candidate's hair color, cut or suit or personal mannerisms.

 

I don't adore Mrs. Bush and I don't hate her.  I never think of her just like I never thought of Pat Nixon, Lady Bird Johnson, Nancy Reagan, Roslyn Carter, Barbara Bush, Hillary, etc. 

 

I likewise don't adore either Karen Hughes or Condi Rice.  They are both smart women, no doubt about it, but I wouldn't want to be like either one of them.

 

And by the you'd find that anyone who ever met me, and quite a few who haven't, consider me to be a VERY strong woman.  So I guess I am in a better position to judge than some.

150681[/snapback]

 

Do you really think that any first lady has no say in a President's decision making process. Most husbands, me included, trust our wives opinion enough to ask what they think of certain things. You must have a pretty low opinion of woman if you think that none of the First Ladies are capable of an influential opinion.

[blzrul]

Do you really think that any first lady has no say in a President's decision making process.  Most husbands, me included, trust our wives opinion enough to ask what they think of certain things.  You must have a pretty low opinion of woman if you think that none of the First Ladies are capable of an influential opinion.

150775[/snapback]

Would you please point out to me where I said ANY OF THAT in my post?!

 

Unlike you, I do not PRESUME. Certainly I believe that husbands and wives talk. But as an outsider who doesn't know EITHER person or the dynamics of their relationship outside what they feed to the public through the press, making a decision based on a spouse would be a very shallow judgement indeed.

 

If that's part of your judgement process, that's you, not me.

[DC Tom]

Would you please point out to me where I said ANY OF THAT in my post?!

 

Unlike you, I do not PRESUME.  Certainly I believe that husbands and wives talk.  But as an outsider who doesn't know EITHER person or the dynamics of their relationship outside what they feed to the public through the press, making a decision based on a spouse would be a very shallow judgement indeed.

 

If that's part of your judgement process, that's you, not me.

150802[/snapback]

 

You could have just responded to my post. I think I said generally the same thing...but I was much nicer about it.

[blzrul]

You could have just responded to my post.  I think I said generally the same thing...but I was much nicer about it.  

150815[/snapback]

Actually I didn't see your post, sorry. And no I never paid much attention to Hillary either. I never heard of Clinton until he ran for President, I don't pay attention to Arkansas and never will, and didn't care who he married or anything else.

 

I know people who know Hillary, now, and who like her.

 

If I don't give a rat's ass what after shave a celebrity wears, or what car he/she drives, why would I care about the spouse of a politician?

 

The sad fact is these days Eleanor Roosevelt would be put on an ice floe.

 

And you were nicer but I don't have to be nice to CJ because he is always just looking to attack anything I say.

[Chef Jim]

Would you please point out to me where I said ANY OF THAT in my post?!

 

Unlike you, I do not PRESUME.  Certainly I believe that husbands and wives talk.  But as an outsider who doesn't know EITHER person or the dynamics of their relationship outside what they feed to the public through the press, making a decision based on a spouse would be a very shallow judgement indeed.

 

If that's part of your judgement process, that's you, not me.

150802[/snapback]

 

It sure is easy to torque your wingnut. And if you don't ever consider the candidate's spouse, maybe you should. If memory serves me correctly didn't one come close to drafting a government policy on healthcare that was a disaster?

 

And I do believe calling a spouse of a candidate superficial is pretty much the same as saying their opinions are not influential?

[AKC]

Do national polls indicate that both of Kerry's wives are lunatics?

As for the "nationally adored" one, is that what the polls said, that people "adored" her or is that your spin on a poll that simply said people had a "favorable view" of her or "liked" her?

150687[/snapback]

 

Run and hide if you can't face facts- it does nothing to save the diminishing significance of the Democratic Party.

 

Try this poll from Seattle- last I checked hardly a bastion of right leaning politics:

 

http://www.kgnw.com/poll/viewall.asp?ID=2863

 

As far as his first wife, I understand she was institutionalized and continues to suffer from mental health disorders. Here's the dictionary version to answer your question:

 

lunacy

 

\Lu"na*cy\, n.; pl. Lunacies. [see Lunatic.] 1. Insanity or madness; properly, the kind of insanity which is broken by intervals of reason, -- formerly supposed to be influenced by the changes of the moon; any form of unsoundness of mind, except idiocy; mental derangement or alienation.

 

I think it's fair to say either of his wives pictures could appear after the definition!

[blzrul]

Run and hide if you can't face facts- it does nothing to save the diminishing significance of the Democratic Party.

 

Try this poll from Seattle- last I checked hardly a bastion of right leaning politics:

 

http://www.kgnw.com/poll/viewall.asp?ID=2863

 

As far as his first wife, I understand she was institutionalized and continues to suffer from mental health disorders.  Here's the dictionary version to answer your question:

 

lunacy

 

\Lu"na*cy\, n.; pl. Lunacies. [see Lunatic.] 1. Insanity or madness; properly, the kind of insanity which is broken by intervals of reason, -- formerly supposed to be influenced by the changes of the moon; any form of unsoundness of mind, except idiocy; mental derangement or alienation.

 

I think it's fair to say either of his wives pictures could appear after the definition!

150904[/snapback]

 

So what? Who cares?

[blzrul]

It sure is easy to torque your wingnut.    And if you don't ever consider the candidate's spouse, maybe you should.  If memory serves me correctly didn't one come close to drafting a government policy on healthcare that was a disaster? 

 

And I do believe calling a spouse of a candidate superficial is pretty much the same as saying their opinions are not influential?

150858[/snapback]

You have no knowledge (1) how informed the spouse is (2) what the spouses's REAL opinions are (3) what the spouse actually SAYS (4) how receptive the candidate is to the spouses's opinions.

 

That being the case why would ANYONE weight a spouse heavily one way or another?

 

One doesn't know how influential - or not - the spouse's opinions are. So if you want to ASSUME, well go right ahead.

[Mickey]

Run and hide if you can't face facts- it does nothing to save the diminishing significance of the Democratic Party.

 

Try this poll from Seattle- last I checked hardly a bastion of right leaning politics:

 

http://www.kgnw.com/poll/viewall.asp?ID=2863

 

As far as his first wife, I understand she was institutionalized and continues to suffer from mental health disorders.  Here's the dictionary version to answer your question:

 

lunacy

 

\Lu"na*cy\, n.; pl. Lunacies. [see Lunatic.] 1. Insanity or madness; properly, the kind of insanity which is broken by intervals of reason, -- formerly supposed to be influenced by the changes of the moon; any form of unsoundness of mind, except idiocy; mental derangement or alienation.

 

I think it's fair to say either of his wives pictures could appear after the definition!

150904[/snapback]

I am still waiting for an answer to the questions I posed. All you have done is present an undated local radio station poll where the respondents indicated they thought Theresa was hurting Kerry's chances. You go from that to concluding that she is a lunatic? I wonder, did you know of that poll before your assertion that she was a lunatic or did you dig it up afterward in an attempt to justify the conclusions you already reached with no research beyond the last Limbaugh rant you listened to?

 

So, it is your "understanding" that she was institutionalized? Do you have anything better than your "understanding" by way of proof? Forgive me if I am reluctant to slur a total stranger based on your "understanding".

 

Again, I await your links to polls showing that Mrs. Bush is nationally "adored" as opposed to "liked", "respected", etc. 51 million people voted against her husband so apparently not everyone "adores" her or is stupid enough to cast their vote based on their personal like or dislike for the candidates spouse.

[AKC]

I am still waiting for an answer to the questions I posed.  All you have done is present an undated local radio station poll where the respondents indicated they thought Theresa was hurting Kerry's chances.  You go from that to concluding that she is a lunatic?  I wonder, did you know of that poll before your assertion that she was a lunatic or did you dig it up afterward in an attempt to justify the conclusions you already reached with no research beyond the last Limbaugh rant you listened to?

 

So, it is your "understanding" that she was institutionalized?  Do you have anything better than your "understanding" by way of proof?  Forgive me if I am reluctant to slur a total stranger based on your "understanding". 

 

Again, I await your links to polls showing that Mrs. Bush is nationally "adored" as opposed to "liked", "respected", etc.  51 million people voted against her husband so apparently not everyone "adores" her or is stupid enough to cast their vote based on their personal like or dislike for the candidates spouse.

151117[/snapback]

 

There is little more unAmerican or gutless than making broad challenges to the intelligence of Americans based upon their voting for someone they believe would better protect the liberal bastions of America.

 

Proportionately the red states are overepresented in the body bags returned from all our modern conflicts. In the current conflict we face, one clearly against a religious culture centered in the Middle East, it is not the Tastee Freeze in Oldham, Alabama that is threatened, nor the Civil War Statue in Wickham, Kansas. What is threatened are the same cowardly liberals in our big cities who will hold their children out of serving in the military.

 

How ironic that the finest among us, those who would go to protect the liberal cities like New York, could be attacked by those same gutless liberals for protecting them! You truly should reexamine your own inability to exhibit appreciation for this wonderful country we live in by showing- if not respect for those who would die for your right to whine- at least the self-control of not calling into question the intelligence level of those same heroes.

 

One measure of Patriotism is showing the restraint to avoid insulting those in the military with more balls than you have yourself. If you excercised that a tenth as often as you do your right to B word about the unfairness of the failures of your political party of choice you might just begin to understand the reason why the proudest Americans live in those Red States you hate so much.

[Terry Tate]

While traditionally not much weight is given to the influence of the First Lady on voter tallies, it may well have been a big part in the outcome of this past election. Democrats may do well to rethink their own vetting process in the next cycle by looking at the totality of their candidate’s assets and liabilities.

150391[/snapback]

If votes are influenced by First Ladies' assets, I'd recommend Democrats nominate Carl Dean next time around. He's married to Dolly Parton.

[DC Tom]

If votes are influenced by First Ladies' assets, I'd recommend Democrats nominate Carl Dean next time around. He's married to Dolly Parton.

151154[/snapback]

 

First Lady Dolly Parton.

 

Well...given that there doesn't seem to be a single politician capable of doing the job, we may as well vote on the comedy value of first ladies. Dolly Parton in the White House would be a hoot...

[VabeachBledsoefan]

You can hide from the truth, it's become a way of life for the left, but national polls show that Laura Bush is one of the most adored first ladies since numbers began to be taken for them (I assume you adore Jackie O, who had similar numbers?). One does not have to admire Karen Hughes and Dr. Rice to realize they are strong, stable and intelligent, not the kind of women who would prescribe gin soaked raisins for the arthritic!

 

But hey, if you submit a resume early Shrum may have some openings for partisans in blinders like yourself- Good luck in '08!

150587[/snapback]

Please be real, Laura Bush is not even in the picture. If anything she is a Stepford first lady. Hillary and Barbara Bush were more in the forefront. I'm sorry but the everyday American is not mentioning her as "adored", Jackie O was adored.

[Alaska Darin]

How surprising.  You find that Mrs Bush is "nationally adored" while Kerry's first wife and second wife are both lunatics.  How clearly objective.  I also think women would appreciate your point that they cast their votes based on what they thought of each candidates spouse rather than the actual candidates and their policies.

 

Kerry did far better among women than did Bush.  Why not conclude that therefore woman found him to be the better candidate because they weren't impressed with the "nationally adored" Mrs. Bush or Condoleeza or the brought out of retirement just before the election Karen Hughes?

150559[/snapback]

Yeah, you're right. THK is perfectly normal and Mrs. Bush is a lunatic.

[AKC]

Please be real, Laura Bush is not even in the picture.  If anything she is a Stepford first lady.  Hillary and Barbara Bush were more in the forefront.  I'm sorry but the everyday American is not mentioning her as "adored", Jackie O was adored.

151186[/snapback]

 

If you'd like polls that support exactly the supposition I posed in the opening post, drop to "First Lady Preferences" on this link.

 

FYI, Laura Bush in a Harris Poll has 81% of Americans saying she has "improved the role of the First Lady". I'm sure you understand the implication of that, but don't explain it to Mickey; if he understood what the polled actually meant it could lead to his burning the wet T-Shirt clad Hillary poster on his ceiling!

 

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=512

[DC Tom]

If you'd like polls that support exactly the supposition I posed in the opening post, drop to "First Lady Preferences" on this link.

 

FYI, Laura Bush in a Harris Poll has 81% of Americans saying she has "improved the role of the First Lady". I'm sure you understand the implication of that, but don't explain it to Mickey; if he understood what the polled actually meant it could lead to his burning the wet T-Shirt clad Hillary poster on his ceiling!

 

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=512

151232[/snapback]

 

Hell, I don't understand the implication of that. I doubt the 81% who said that understand the implication of that. How many of those 81% do you think can actually define the role of the First Lady?

[Mickey]

Yeah, you're right.  THK is perfectly normal and Mrs. Bush is a lunatic. 

151225[/snapback]

I never claimed that there is anything wrong at all with Mrs. Bush. I am not the one here making over the top claims about political wives. AKC is the one who went from "nationally adored" for his team, and pack of "lunatics" for everyone else. If I had posted that in reverse, you would have been all over it. In fact, your on my case anyway for simply pointing out the obviously partisan motivated hyperbole. I was just doing your job. Lazy.

[Mickey]

If you'd like polls that support exactly the supposition I posed in the opening post, drop to "First Lady Preferences" on this link.

 

FYI, Laura Bush in a Harris Poll has 81% of Americans saying she has "improved the role of the First Lady". I'm sure you understand the implication of that, but don't explain it to Mickey; if he understood what the polled actually meant it could lead to his burning the wet T-Shirt clad Hillary poster on his ceiling!

 

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=512

151232[/snapback]

I didn't see "nationally adored" or "lunatic" mentioned in any of the polls reported in the linked article. As I suspected, your partisan internal translator converted "favorable view" to "nationally adored" for your side and "unfavorable view" to "lunatic" for the other. That is what is commonly referred to as "SPIN". People who clean up after livestock have a different word for it.

[AKC]

Hell, I don't understand the implication of that.  I doubt the 81% who said that understand the implication of that.  How many of those 81% do you think can actually define the role of the First Lady?

151294[/snapback]

 

 

The string is veering away from my original conclusion, which was "While traditionally not much weight is given to the influence of the First Lady on voter tallies, it may well have been a big part in the outcome of this past election." It is that that the polls cited seem to clearly support.

 

On the implication of the Harris poll it might be helpful to know that Hillary Clinton never cracked 50% with the exact same question asked. The darling of the Dems '08 chances looks to be exactly the type of unpopular pol that's killing the left.

[Alaska Darin]

I never claimed that there is anything wrong at all with Mrs. Bush.  I am not the one here making over the top claims about political wives.  AKC is the one who went from "nationally adored" for his team, and pack of "lunatics" for everyone else.  If I had posted that in reverse, you would have been all over it.  In fact, your on my case anyway for simply pointing out the obviously partisan motivated hyperbole.  I was just doing your job.  Lazy.

151934[/snapback]

The choice between Laura Bush and THK for "nationally adored" is an obvious no contest. Hard to disagree with that. About the only reason people don't like Mrs. Bush is because she's married to Mr. Oh, and an occasional nutbar who posts things about her being a killer.

 

Thanks for speaking for me.

[AKC]

I never claimed that there is anything wrong at all with Mrs. Bush.  I am not the one here making over the top claims about political wives.  AKC is the one who went from "nationally adored" for his team, and pack of "lunatics" for everyone else.  If I had posted that in reverse, you would have been all over it.  In fact, your on my case anyway for simply pointing out the obviously partisan motivated hyperbole.  I was just doing your job.  Lazy.

151934[/snapback]

 

The problem with your postion is that I'm a down the center American voter, without an allegience to any political party. You're the participant in the conversation with a cross to bear, and from the middle of the political arena it appears to this centrist that you suffer from exactly the type of hypocritical blindness that has turned so many of us in the center away from supporting the left. Let me give you an example of your hypocrisy- you have the audacity to question the intelligence of the voters who re-elected Bush while your own party offers free doughnuts, bus rides and crack cocaine to convince your "base" to simply show up at the polls. Your "base" in this past election was provided with "instructional" demonstrations to explain how to use different voting apparatus on their way into the polls. Your own party apparently believes your "base" is a bunch of knuckleheads, slackers, and drug addicts yet you dare to question the intelligence of the red state voters? Hypocrisy at its purest IMO.

[Mickey]

There is little more unAmerican or gutless than making broad challenges to the intelligence of Americans based upon their voting for someone they believe would better protect the liberal bastions of America.

 

Proportionately the red states are overepresented in the body bags returned from all our modern conflicts. In the current conflict we face, one clearly against a religious culture centered in the Middle East, it is not the Tastee Freeze in Oldham, Alabama that is threatened, nor the Civil War Statue in Wickham, Kansas. What is threatened are the same cowardly liberals in our big cities who will hold their children out of serving in the military.

 

How ironic that the finest among us, those who would go to protect the liberal cities like New York, could be attacked by those same gutless liberals for protecting them! You truly should reexamine your own inability to exhibit appreciation for this wonderful country we live in by showing- if not respect for those who would die for your right to whine- at least the self-control of not calling into question the intelligence level of those same heroes.

 

One measure of Patriotism is showing the restraint to avoid insulting those in the military with more balls than you have yourself. If you excercised that a tenth as often as you do your right to B word about the unfairness of the failures of your political party of choice you might just begin to understand the reason why the proudest Americans live in those Red States you hate so much.

151142[/snapback]

Your post has nothing at all to do with the language of mine you quoted in what I assume was for the purpose of letting people read the comments you were addressing. I don't know how your fevered mind jumped from your crap about adored and lunatic political spouses to a rant about liberal bastions and body bags. It does seem characteristic though of your posts that are always, always, always an expression of rage and anger at the evil left that has been imagined for you by the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world.

 

Since that is where you want to go, fine. I accept your surrender on the issue we were actually discussing and will move on to the new fight you want to pick.

 

You accuse me of "...insulting those in the military..." please provide an example of such an insult by me or have the decency to withdraw the charge. Please point out where it is that I have questioned the intelligence of soldiers?

 

I can't think of anything more ridiculous, more divisive and more hateful than comparing deaths of soldiers on a blue state by red state basis. That was your meanspirited, rage inspired trick. Since that is where you want to go, take a look at this link which shows that your crazy, lunatic assumption that liberal states are somehow not represented among the dead is an insult to more heroes than I would have thought possible: Casualties by State

 

A sampling of the sacrifices you so nastily denigrate:

 

California: 150 dead

Pennsylvania: 64

New York: 60

Illinois: 55

Michigan 36

Wash: 29

NJ: 28

Mass: 24

 

Utah: 6

Wyoming: 5

 

Does this mean that California is more American than Utah? By your logic perhaps, not by mine. I think of these sacrifices as those of Americans, not those of gutless liberals on one side and demonic conservatives on the other with a tote board to see who is the "real America". I'll leave that kind of dark rage and twisted hate to you.

 

You really do believe every one of the worst lies ever told about "liberals" by the hate machines from Limbaugh to Coulter don't you?

[Mickey]

The problem with your postion is that I'm a down the center American voter, without an allegience to any political party. You're the participant in the conversation with a cross to bear, and from the middle of the political arena it appears to this centrist that you suffer from exactly the type of hypocritical blindness that has turned so many of us in the center away from supporting the left. Let me give you an example of your hypocrisy- you have the audacity to question the intelligence of the voters who re-elected Bush while your own party offers free doughnuts, bus rides and crack cocaine to convince your "base" to simply show up at the polls. Your "base" in this past election was provided with "instructional" demonstrations to explain how to use different voting apparatus on their way into the polls. Your own party apparently believes your "base" is a bunch of knuckleheads, slackers, and drug addicts yet you dare to question the intelligence of the red state voters? Hypocrisy at its purest IMO.

152026[/snapback]

Yeah, your down the middle all right, keep telling yourself that your an "independent". Label yourself whatever makes you feel good. Your posts here are relentlessly sycophantish to the right and critical, in the extreme, of everyone else. Really, "favorable view" = "nationally adored" and "unfavorable view" = "lunatic". Do you really think that was spinless objectivity?

[AKC]

Your post has nothing at all to do with the language of mine you quoted in what I assume was for the purpose of letting people read the comments you were addressing.  I don't know how your fevered mind jumped from your crap about adored and lunatic political spouses to a rant about liberal bastions and body bags.  It does seem characteristic though of your posts that are always, always, always an expression of rage and anger at the evil left that has been imagined for you by the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world. 

 

Since that is where you want to go, fine.  I accept your surrender on the issue we were actually discussing and will move on to the new fight you want to pick.

 

You accuse me of "...insulting those in the military..." please provide an example of such an insult by me or have the decency to withdraw the charge.  Please point out where it is that I have questioned the intelligence of soldiers?

 

I can't think of anything more ridiculous, more divisive and more hateful than comparing deaths of soldiers on a blue state by red state basis.  That was your meanspirited, rage inspired trick.  Since that is where you want to go, take a look at this link which shows that your crazy, lunatic assumption that liberal states are somehow not represented among the dead is an insult to more heroes than I would have thought possible:  Casualties by State

 

A sampling of the sacrifices you so nastily denigrate:

 

California: 150 dead

Pennsylvania: 64

New York: 60

Illinois: 55

Michigan 36

Wash: 29

NJ: 28

Mass: 24

 

Utah: 6

Wyoming: 5

 

Does this mean that California is more American than Utah?  By your logic perhaps, not by mine.  I think of these sacrifices as those of Americans, not those of gutless liberals on one side and demonic conservatives on the other with a tote board to see who is the "real America".  I'll leave that kind of dark rage and twisted hate to you. 

 

You really do believe every one of the worst lies ever told about "liberals" by the hate machines from Limbaugh to Coulter don't you?

152043[/snapback]

 

The word "proportionately" is in the dictionary. Let me know if you'd like me to pick you one up for Christmas- er, excuse me- "The Holidays"!

[AKC]

Yeah, your down the middle all right, keep telling yourself that your an "independent".  Label yourself whatever makes you feel good.  Your posts here are relentlessly sycophantish to the right and critical, in the extreme, of everyone else.  Really, "favorable view" = "nationally adored" and "unfavorable view" = "lunatic".  Do you really think that was spinless objectivity?

152050[/snapback]

 

Sure there's the 20 percent of Americans like you and Michael Moore who passionately hate Bush and everything about him, but the balance of America is proud to have a wonderful mother and outstanding person like Laura Bush as First Lady. And you're welcome as an American to believe that THK is a perfectly stable and normal holistic foul-mouthed gin-soaked raisin eater who would have made us all proud as our First Lady- after all, it is called "The American Dream"!

 

As a centrist the most lilely poitical show to regularly be selected in my household would be hosted by Tim Russert or Chris Matthews-are they also part of that Right Wing conspiracy that so threatens you?

[blzrul]

Sure there's the 20 percent of Americans like you and Michael Moore who hate Bush and everything about him, but the balance of America is proud to have a wonderful mother and outstanding person like Laura Bush as First Lady.

 

As a centrist the most lilely poitical show to regularly be selected in my household would be hosted by Tim Russert or Chris Matthews-are they also part of that Right Wing conspiracy that so threatens you?

152075[/snapback]

Man you need to get a life. If the first lady was such a big factor Clinton never would have been re-elected would he, because Liddy Dole is arguably "more likeable" than Hillary.

 

Laura Bush is a good wife to George and that's the way it should be.

[KRC]

It does seem characteristic though of your posts that are always, always, always an expression of rage and anger at the evil left that has been imagined for you by the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world. 

 

...

 

You really do believe every one of the worst lies ever told about "liberals" by the hate machines from Limbaugh to Coulter don't you?

152043[/snapback]

 

You really seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et. al. lately. I hear that there are doctors in Florida willing to treat this type of "condition." Group therapy, maybe?

[VABills]

You really seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et. al. lately. I hear that there are doctors in Florida willing to treat this type of "condition."  Group therapy, maybe?

152105[/snapback]

Please and watch healthcare costs and government funding of these groups go up. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[AKC]

Man you need to get a life. If the first lady was such a big factor Clinton never would have been re-elected would he, because Liddy Dole is arguably "more likeable" than Hillary.

 

Laura Bush is a good wife to George and that's the way it should be.

152086[/snapback]

 

Your strategy of ignoring all the facts in the string is very interesting. I hope you don't mind me asking if that's effective in your line of work?

[KRC]

Please and watch healthcare costs and government funding of these groups go up.  :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

152124[/snapback]

 

I just find it humorous that, IIRC, the same people who criticized the "righties" over the Fox v. Franken fiasco (saying that you should stop bringing attention to these things and they will go away) are the same ones who are consistently bringing up Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

[blzrul]

Your strategy of ignoring all the facts in the string is very interesting. I hope you don't mind me asking if that's effective in your line of work?

152135[/snapback]

"Facts"? In my line of work I am wise enough to distinguish facts from fiction.

[Mickey]

Sure there's the 20 percent of Americans like you and Michael Moore who passionately hate Bush and everything about him, but the balance of America is proud to have a wonderful mother and outstanding person like Laura Bush as First Lady. And you're welcome as an American to believe that THK is a perfectly stable and normal holistic foul-mouthed gin-soaked raisin eater who would have made us all proud as our First Lady- after all, it is called "The American Dream"!

 

As a centrist the most lilely poitical show to regularly be selected in my household would be hosted by Tim Russert or Chris Matthews-are they also part of that Right Wing conspiracy that so threatens you?

152075[/snapback]

"Passionately hate Bush"??? You have concluded that everyone who disagrees with you is a left wing Bush hating, gutless liberal so I guess actually giving you a vague idea of may actual political positions would be pointless wouldn't it? For example, did you know I supported the war and that my oft expressed opinion of it by election time was that I was going to vote based on who I thought had the best chance of winning it?

 

By the way, what is so insidious about eating raisins? I have no problem with Laura Bush as our First Lady nor would I have had with Theresa. I also eat a raisin now and then myself so what the eff do I know.

 

Forgive my confusion, I haven't heard Matthews or Russert rant about "liberal bastions" or "gutless liberals" or complain about the nefarious eating of raisins by political spouses. Maybe you could point out some of your posts complaining about the right using just the same level of vitriol and undisguised rage that you so generously spew at the left so that I can see first hand that your a "moderate"?

 

Again, if you can point out any posts of mine where I used the phrase "right wing conspiracy", please do. Until then why don't you argue with me over what I have actually said rather than making things up?

[Mickey]

You really seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et. al. lately. I hear that there are doctors in Florida willing to treat this type of "condition."  Group therapy, maybe?

152105[/snapback]

Sorry KRC, we have ignored those jerks for decades now and accepted the explanation offered by their listeners that they don't take them seriously, that it is just entertainment. Its all a big joke. They have millions of listeners and their books sell out and on top of that, I can attest myself to the fact that people really do believe that tripe. You see it parrotted here often enough. The ultimate irony is that their biggest fans are now complaining about the nasty rhetoric of the left and how it has coarsened debate. Accordingly, it is perfectly acceptable, just a goof, a hearty laugh to call democrats latte swilling, eastern elitist, limousine driving, gutless baby killing "gay lovers". I got that one just this past week, "gay lover". If the similarity between that slam and "!@#$ lover" isn't chilling, I don't know what is.

 

Fortunately there are enough debates around here where people are digging out information and linking it to keep it from becoming just one big chorus of "You're a Nazi, You're a Commie".