Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

The Right Is Wrong

Political columnist, and mostly-conservative columnist, Andrew Sullivan, who writes for The Atlantic Monthly recently wrote an article, he titled Leaving The Right writes why he thinks the party is over for American conservatives, and why he felt moved to make such a public break with his political blood brothers (and sisters). Sullivan's column in The Atlantic Monthly follows a few days after Charles Johnson, another mostly-conservative blogger who runs Little Green Footballs explained that The The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff. I won’t be going over the cliff with them.

This certainly has been a long time in coming, but I am glad to see that some American conservatives (the REAL ones, not the neo-con type) are beginning to--as Dear Abby used to say--wake up & smell the coffee...but, I guess in this case, the smell is more akin to the fetid stench of a morally-poisonous, parasite-laden brew of faux ideology concocted by cynical, selfish, fear-driven-money-loving opportunists out to serve their own special interests by leeching off a valid political belief system (that I nearly always disagree with, but which I can respect because I know that--like me--they believe what they believe because they love their country, and want to make it better. These TRUE conservatives and I want the best for our country...we just disagree on how to do it).

I know it may be hard to believe this--being as how I am as far away from "conservative" as Sarah Palin is from sanity--but I really do hope more true conservatives begin to smell the rot coming from the slow-but-sure death of their no-longer Grand Old Party, and get the fire in their collective political gut to not only stand up and say, "Enough is enough," but to fight to take back what was theirs.

I am a (mostly) proud Democrat & progressive, but I am--first and foremost--a (mostly) proud American, and it is my country (& even the world) that would reap the benefits of a strong (at least) two-party system. A civil political discourse amongst people who may not hold the same point of view can only make this country stronger.

With those who run today's American Right, it's impossible to have a real discussion of the issues of the day when they're not even interested in talking or compromising. Believing that they honestly know what's best for everyone else, bound-for-"glory", they proudly wear their blinders, cavalierly ignoring the will of all but the truest of believers, forcing their neo-con mirage of Utopia onto the rest of us--for our own good, of course! (<----Sarcasm)

Friday, May 1, 2009

In Honor of Matthew...


On April 29th, after debating the issue, the U.S. House of Representatives approved, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA), also known as the Matthew Shepard Act by a vote of 249 to 175.

In the midst of the debate, with Matthew’s mother, Judy Shepard, in the Visitors Gallery to hear every word, Republican Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina’s 5th District resorted to outright lies to try to stop passage of the LLEHCPA:

“…I also would like to point out that there was a bill -- the hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. This…the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that…that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills…”

Rachel Maddow had a chance to speak exclusively with Judy Shepard after the vote about how she felt about what the US House had done & to comment on Rep. Foxx’s reprehensible mis-characterization of her son:

Being me, I examined the results of that House vote & thought I’d share it here.

Of the 256 Democrats currently in the US House:

231 Voted FOR the Matthew Shepard Act
17 Voted AGAINST
8 DID NOT VOTE

There is also a vacancy in California’s 32nd District at present, due to Rep. Hilda Solis (D) being appointed as President Obama’s Labor Secretary. A special election in the district will be held on July 14, 2009 to select Ms. Solis's replacement for the remainder of her term.

Of the 178 Republicans in the US House:

18 Voted FOR The Matthew Shepard Act
158 Voted AGAINST
2 DID NOT VOTE

It’s also interesting to note where the 17 Democrats who voted against the LLEHCPA came from:

3 came from the Midwestern States
1 came from the Northeastern States
13 CAME FROM THE SOUTHERN STATES
NONE of the Democrats from Western States voted against

As for the Republicans who voted in favor of the LLEHCPA:

2 came from Midwestern States
7 came from the Northeastern States
5 came from the Southern States
4 came from the Western States

Next stop for the Matthew Shepard Act is the U.S. Senate. Not sure what the prospects in the Senate are right now, but I’m feeling more hopeful now than I have in the past…oh…8 years or so.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Sound & Fury Signifying Nothing

...a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

--Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5

Today's G.O.P. brought you by the number "ZERO" (ya know, as in the number of good ideas the G.O.P. has in trying to fix the economic systems they screwed up in the first place...)




Sunday, March 8, 2009

Be Careful What You Wish For...

David Frum, a well-known conservative who works with the right-wing American Enterprise Institute and is editor of the equally right-wing website, New Majority.com, penned a column recently for Newsweek in which he attempts to lay out the case against Rush Limbaugh from a die-hard Republican point of view.

I agree with Mr. Frum on very few things, but I certainly agree with him on one point: if Rush Limbaugh, with his gargantuan ego, keeps on insisting that he is the Chosen One--the anointed guardian of conservative Republican purity--as well as the party's biggest & loudest mouth, the pusillanimous political pachyderms will more than earn their electoral & historical fate.

The ever-shrinking Elephant Party, who've been actually behaving for so (too) long like bulls in a china shop, have left the shop (i.e., our country) in shambles, and have been properly politically punished for the mess they've left for the next guy. You'd think that the few Republicans that are still left standing might have actually learned something from the past couple of national elections, and that they'd be thankful enough to still have a job that they'd want to who work to help fix what they've so blithely broken, but apparent repeated mass repudiation of their neo-con agenda means nothing at all to a party more beholden to ideology than to anyting resembing the common good. Nope. No, sir. Rush say that's socialist talk, maybe even communinism.

If the minority Republicans buy Rush's line that it's not the message that's defective, it's that the volume at which said message has been broadcast hasn't been cranked up enough & if the "R's" insist on simply standing in President Obama's way complaining about the mess & the smell they have made as he & the other Democrats attempt to sweep out the shards & the elephant droppings, they might as well get used to their well-earned status as the increasingly-irrelevant Party of "No". I have to say, it couldn't happen to a more-deserving group of dittoheads.

I've included some of my favorite parts of Frum's article below, and I've highlighted one sentence in particular that shows that at least SOMEONE in the Republican party has been paying attention.

Enjoy:

Every day, Rush Limbaugh reassures millions of core Republican voters that no change is needed: if people don't appreciate what we are saying, then say it louder. Isn't that what happened in 1994? Certainly this is a good approach for Rush himself. He claims 20 million listeners per week, and that suffices to make him a very wealthy man. And if another 100 million people cannot stand him, what does he care? What can they do to him other than … not listen? It's not as if they can vote against him.

But they can vote against Republican candidates for Congress. They can vote against Republican nominees for president. And if we allow ourselves to be overidentified with somebody who earns his fortune by giving offense, they will vote against us. Two months into 2009, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have already enacted into law the most ambitious liberal program since the mid-1960s. More, much more is to come. Through this burst of activism, the Republican Party has been flat on its back.

We need to modulate our social conservatism (not jettison—modulate). The GOP will remain a predominantly conservative party and a predominantly pro-life party. But especially on gay-rights issues, the under-30 generation has arrived at a new consensus. Our party seems to be running to govern a country that no longer exists. The rule that both our presidential and vice presidential candidates must always be pro-life has become counterproductive: McCain's only hope of winning the presidency in 2008 was to carry Pennsylvania, and yet Pennsylvania's most successful Republican vote winner, former governor Tom Ridge, was barred from the ticket because he's pro-choice.

We need an environmental message. You don't have to accept Al Gore's predictions of imminent gloom to accept that it cannot be healthy to pump gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We are rightly mistrustful of liberal environmentalist disrespect for property rights. But property owners also care about property values, about conservation, and as a party of property owners we should be taking those values more seriously.

Above all, we need to take governing seriously again. Voters have long associated Democrats with corrupt urban machines, Republicans with personal integrity and fiscal responsibility. Even ultraliberal states like Massachusetts would elect Republican governors like Frank Sargent, Leverett Saltonstall, William Weld and Mitt Romney precisely to keep an austere eye on the depredations of Democratic legislators. After Iraq, Katrina and Harriet Miers, Democrats surged to a five-to-three advantage on the competence and ethics questions. And that was before we put Sarah Palin on our national ticket.

In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I've received a great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when Levin or Hannity or Hugh Hewitt or Limbaugh himself has had something especially disobliging to say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don't agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There's the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don't care how much the party has to shrink to do it. That's not the language of politics. It's the language of a cult.

I'm a pretty conservative guy. On most issues, I doubt Limbaugh and I even disagree very much. But the issues on which we do disagree are maybe the most important to the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party: Should conservatives be trying to provoke or persuade? To narrow our coalition or enlarge it? To enflame or govern? And finally (and above all): to profit—or to serve?

Monday, February 16, 2009

Living & Loving In The Beehive State

Though he started out in the arcane world of professional baseball stats as a number-meister extraordinaire, Nate Silver has nearly officially morphed into the next big thing in political prognostication. With the same attention to detail & his nearly-trademarked kit-glove handling of ostensibly insignificant minutiae that he pours into baseball, Nate may have started out as an internet sports sensation, but his ability to not only read but forecast the direction of the political winds with as much apparent ease as his nearly dead-on sports prognostication has only served to add to Nate’s notoriety & “street creds,” as they say.

The day of the 2008 election, on his political website, 538.com, Nate predicted a final Electoral College vote in favor of Barack Obama of 349 to 189, off by only 16 electoral votes. While he (fortunately) incorrectly predicted that Obama would "narrowly [lose]…Indiana" to John McCain, he was spot-on in calling not only my own home state of Florida for Obama, but Virginia & North Carolina, too. I remember well hoping against hope that Nate was right, but having strong doubts about not only Obama’s ability to flip two reliably crimson red states like VA & NC to sapphire blue, but his chances of delivering a state like Florida with nearly every statewide office being held by the GOP as well as a nearly non-existent state Democratic Party over to the political light side. Nate’s proven adroitness in calling political winners with as much ease & nearly as much accuracy as calling baseball games has made me a true-blue believer. While I'm on the subject of colors, I gotta say that, as one of his newest fans, I think Nate Silver is golden! :-)


This is my admittedly long-winded preface to the issue about which I am really writing today. Nate is reporting on his website that Jon Huntsman, the Republican governor of Utah has announced his support for civil unions for same-sex couples. For me, it’s not as personally satisfying as if Gov. Huntsman had endorsed full marriage rights for same-sex couples and, in the best of all possible worlds, it would have been nice if the governor had made his sentiments known earlier in his political career as opposed to the end of his term, but, considering from whence comes this news—Ground Zero for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—this is really pretty big news!

In putting this announcement into proper perspective, Nate writes on 538.com that this die-hard Republican’s conversion is "in its own quiet way, just as much as a cultural signifier as [California’s] Proposition 8. The days in which bigotry can be exchanged for votes may be numbered."

One can only hope...and keep fighting the Good Fight.

Sunday, January 4, 2009

Who made HIM President?!?!? Oh, WE did!!

I almost, kinda, sorta, a wee bit, feel guilty in posting this article from a website called 23/6, that reports on the absolute shock & fear that the same neo-cons & their enabling political pachyderm pals who blithely drove our country into the current ditch in which we find ourselves are enduing as they watch Barack Obama pick the people who will be running the federal government. My mother taught me to never gloat, so I very nearly hate to rub what is supposed to be a victory for the entire country (even the world) into the faces of those who have to be dragged kicking & screaming into the 21st century. They cannot believe that the President-Elect, to use 23/6’s words, “… isn't appointing the same people John McCain would have appointed if he had won.”

What the…???

Amazing how deep & dark runs the GOP stronghold State of Denial, isn’t it???

What nerve of Barack Obama to behave like he has not only won the election, but got the most votes of any US Presidential candidate ever!! I think there’s a pretty good reason for that, though: EX-MAVERICK-TURNED-BUSH-SIDEKICK, JOHN MCCAIN & HIS LIPSTICK-WEARING-PIT-BULL OF A SOUL MATE SARAH “THE MOOSE KILLER” PALIN ACTUALLY LOST THE ELECTION OF ‘08—even if “only” by about 9 ½ million votes!

I guess, since they long ago ran out of anything approaching real ideas & since they obviously have nothing constructive to add to the new national conversation, all the Republicans have left is whining & obstruction, and--if history is any indication—they’ll soon run both of those strategies together with their political fortunes & any real chance they have to be part of a badly-needed solution to the ugly mess they’ve worked so hard to create—even further into the ground before you know it.

While I'm not really one to encourage or offer hope to a political group who largely has no compunction whatever in promoting the idea of befouling our nation's most sacred document with the codification of a permanent second-class citizenship for GLBT people, perhaps all is not necessarily lost for the (formerly) "Grand" Old Party. In the link above to the 23/6 article, there's an awesome pie chart included that provides some pretty good advice to the remnants of Dubya's party, in case they still believe in life after (near-political) death.

Friday, November 21, 2008

The G.O.P. & G-O-D

I never thought I'd agree with conservative syndicated columnist, Kathleen Parker, but in this piece she wrote for this past Wednesday's Washington Post regarding the Republican Party's "God" problem, I found myself not only agreeing with her, I even let out a little, "Amen!" when I finished reading it!

Of course, I'm no fan of the obviously self-destructive GOP, and there is no doubt that after all these years of sowing an ill wind, they are now most deservedly reaping the inevitable whirlwind of no good. The question is: Will whatever-is-left of the Republican Party own up to their mistakes & allow a little of some long-needed introspection to set them free, or do they decide to re-double their efforts at stubbornly careening down the hill at an even more rapid pace towards political oblivion by fueling their political Edsel with more of the same old snake oil they call "that Old-Time Religion"?

Giving Up on God

By Kathleen Parker

As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.

I'm bathing in holy water as I type.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.

But they need those votes!

So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.

Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.

Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.

Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.

It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.

Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.

Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.

With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course.

Even Sarah Palin has blamed Bush policies for the GOP loss. She's not entirely wrong, but she's also part of the problem. Her recent conjecture about whether to run for president in 2012 (does anyone really doubt she will?) speaks for itself:

"I'm like, okay, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is.... And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it's something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."

Let's do pray that God shows Alaska's governor the door.

Meanwhile, it isn't necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world's architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents.

But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.

Among Jewish voters, 78 percent went for Obama. Sixty-six percent of under-30 voters did likewise. Forty-five percent of voters ages 18-29 are Democrats compared to just 26 percent Republican; in 2000, party affiliation was split almost evenly.

The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won't get whiter. And the nonreligious won't get religion through external conversion. It doesn't work that way.

Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Surely, You Jest!

The Associated Press reports that Sarah Palin has just sounded the clarion call for the newly (and much deserved) diminished Republican Party to be the watchdogs of the new strengthened and widely-voter-approved Democratic majorities:
Sarah Palin called on fellow Republican governors to keep the new president and his strengthened Democratic majority in check on issues from taxes to health care as she signaled she'll take a leadership role in a party searching for a new standard-bearer.
Wha..The...?

The party which, for 8 years, not only eschewed any oversight & manipulated any & all levers of government to deflect the light of day from the ill-conceived schemes & shenanigans of their "good ol' boy" network but who--eyes wide open--recklessly maneuvered our country into the the sorry economic ditch in which we now find ourselves actually believes that it is in any position to play referee for a game to which elephants haven't even been invited? Just goes to show that the pachyderm party has still not come to terms with the fact that the American public cannot love a political party that it cannot trust.

And Sarah Palin's claim that she could become the party's "new standard-bearer"? All I can say is that it couldn't happen to a better group of unwitting soon-to-be-if-not-already-almost political has-beens! If our Mrs. Palin is trying to position herself as the archetype leader of the brand new Grand Old Party, and the true believers & movers & shakers of the Far Right fall for it, maybe American voters will mercifully put the this poor deluded band of political blood brothers & sisters out of their electoral misery once and for all.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Obama & McCain By The Numbers


Of the 28 states, plus the District of Columbia, whose electoral votes Barack Obama has garnered from last Tuesday’s election, 27 were won with a higher percentage of the popular vote than John Kerry earned in 2004. The sole exception was in John Kerry’s home state of Massachusetts, where Obama earned an identical 62% of the votes as Kerry did last time around. That’s right, Obama from Illinois got the same proportion of total votes cast in the Bay State this year as did that state’s current junior U.S. Senator in 2004. Interestingly but not really suprisingly, the largest increase in vote percentage in a Kerry-blue state from 2004 to an Obama-blue state in 2008 was in the state where Obama was born, Hawaii, where he received 72% of the vote, which was 18 points higher than Kerry’s 54%.

Of the 22 states won by John McCain in 2008, however, 16 were by smaller percentages than George Bush won in 2004. One of the biggest surprises was that Bush earned a slightly higher percentage of overall votes than did McCain in McCain’s own home state of Arizona: 55% for Bush vs. 54% for McCain. Contrast that with Obama’s win of 62% of the votes in the Land of Lincoln (Kerry had carried Illinois with 55% of the vote in 2004). Of the remaining 6 states, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia were won with the same percentage as Bush earned in 2004. Only in Alaska (from whence comes McCain’s political soul mate), Louisiana & Arkansas with 1%, 2% & 5% respectively, did McCain fare better than Bush before him. I guess having Sarah The Mooseslayer on the GOP ticket actually did help McCain after all...in the deepest of deep-red states, Alaska, and it was only enough to get him a measly one percentage point more than Bush got last time around.

Also interesting (to me anyway) is how the so-called “Swing States” actually swung on Tueday. Of the 5 states listed as such by the New York Times (Florida, Indiana, North Carolina Ohio & Missouri), all but one of them went to Obama this year. It bears reminding that all 5 of these states went for Bush in 2004, so the fact that they were even in doubt even towards the end of the campaign was just not good news for the political pachyderms.

Of these Fab 5, it seems that only Missouri went for McCain this year, and that was by less than half the vote (McCain won 49%, only a fraction of a percentage more than Obama). The other 4 had the political red bled out of them : Florida (won by Obama with 51%), Indiana (which Obama won by besting Kerry’s percentage by 11 points, up to 50%), North Carolina (where Obama added 6 percentage points to Kerry’s 44%, ending up with 50% of the vote), and fence-sitting Ohio (with a 51% win). Now, it is for sure that the win percentages in these states are not (at least on their face) earth-shattering. Even if you put aside the glaring fact that Barack Obama is the first African-American to be elected to the nation's highest office, if you consider that the home state of racist & homophobe extraordinaire Jesse Helms, North Carolina, last cast its electoral votes for a Democrat 32 years ago when the Tarheels voted for Jimmy Carter, and that crimson Indiana (like Virginia, which Obama also surprisingly won) hadn’t voted (D) since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, it really puts into perspective just how truly historical Obama's win is.

Of course, Obama's election, in and of itself, & hopeful as is seems, doesn't mean fear & prejudice in our country are dead, and, unfortunately, it doesn't mean that racism as we know it has breathed its last; such plagues of humankind--just like poverty & sickness--will undoubtedly always be with us, in one form or another. I am hopeful that--at least where electing a leader is concerned--our country has brought Dr. King's all-too-elusive dream of judging a human being not by the color of his or her skin, but by the content of his or her character one step closer to reality.

One last thing, I was reading Information Please’s website, and I noticed that (no surprise) Barack Obama has received the most votes ever for a U.S. Presidential candidate (65+ million), but I didn’t know that at least the preliminary figures show that, while the junior Senator from Illinois set a record for the sheer number of votes received by a presidential candidate (over 3 million more votes than Bush in 2004), McCain’s vote total (about 57.1 million) is actually less than the previous 2nd place finisher, John Kerry, who “only” racked up a little over 59 million votes.

I also found some interesting info on those who did vote Tuesday. National exit polls show that President-Elect Obama's Hope & Change message apparently resounded with a good part of the electorate.

As regards demographics, in just about every category measured by exit polls since 1980, Obama seems to have outperformed the average Democratic Party candidate in every category (and even outperformed the average Republican Party candidate in most categories; notable exceptions: the numbers for the average Republican candidate were higher for Males, Whites, Voters aged 45 and older, Protestants, Suburban & Rural voters...none of those numbers are really surprising, though).

The numbers are really interesting, but I am personally most impressed by the Obama advantage in voters under the age of 30, and first-time voters. Those numbers are very telling, because the political party for whom the first-time voter casts his or her sacred vote tends to be the party with which they identify for most of their lives. As if the obvious political & even physical differences between Obama & McCain (not to mention their respective life stories) weren't enough, at the same time that Obama was establishing all-time highs in these categories for any presidential candidate, McCain was--as he has been all along in this campaign--Obama's polar opposite, garnering the lowest scores in these particular categories (even lower than Poppa Bush in his landslide loss to Bill Clinton in 1992) for any major political candidate since they've been keeping record.

Male voters
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 41%
Obama: 49%
Obama +8%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 52%
McCain: 48%
McCain -4%

Female voters
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 49%
Obama: 56%
Obama +7%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 46%
McCain: 43%
McCain -3%

White voters
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 39%
Obama: 43%
Obama +4%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 54%
McCain: 55%
McCain +1%

Black voters
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 87%
Obama: 95%
Obama +8%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 10%
McCain: 3%
McCain -7%

Non-white Hispanic voters
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 63%
Obama: 67%
Obama +4%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 32%
McCain: 31%
McCain -1%

Voters aged 18-29
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 47%
Obama: 66%
Obama +19%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 45%
McCain: 32%
McCain -13%

Voters aged 30-44
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 44%
Obama: 52%
Obama +8%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 50%
McCain: 46%
McCain -4%

Voters aged 45-59
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 44%
Obama: 49%
Obama +5%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 50%
McCain: 49%
McCain -1%

Voters aged 60+
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 46%
Obama: 47%
Obama +1%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 50%
McCain: 51%
McCain +1%

Voters who are High School Graduates
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 48%
Obama: 52%
Obama +4%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 40%
McCain: 35%
McCain -5%

Voters with College or higher education
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 44%
Obama: 53%
Obama +9%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 49%
McCain: 45%
McCain -4%

First-Time Voters (info available starting in 1984)
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 48%
Obama: 69%
Obama +21%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 45%
McCain: 30%
McCain -15%

Protestant Voters
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 37%
Obama: 45%
Obama +8%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 57%
McCain: 54%
McCain -3%

Catholic Voters
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 47%
Obama: 54%
Obama +7%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 47%
McCain: 45%
McCain -2%

Jewish Voters
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 70%
Obama: 78%
Obama +8%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 25%
McCain: 21%
McCain -4%

Voters in Big Cities
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 64%
Obama: 70%
Obama +6%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 31%
McCain: 28%
McCain -3%

Voters in Suburbs (info available beginning 1988)
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 42%
Obama: 50%
Obama +8%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 51%
McCain: 48%
McCain -3%

Voters in Rural Areas
Ave. Democratic Candidate: 39%
Obama: 45%
Obama +6%

Ave. Republican Candidate: 53%
McCain: 53%
McCain 0%

Add all the foregoing presidential particulars to the fact that as the remaining few as-of-yet un-called U.S. Senate races come to their electoral end, the Democrats are edging closer & closer to the not-necessarily-magical-but-just-plain-old-politically-satisfying 60 votes to the news of Nancy Pelosi being awarded at least a dozen and a half new House Democrats, and you couldn’t blame the ruddy-red Republicans for feeling just a tad blue.

(As an FYI, other sources for the political numbers listed above are CNN and The New York Times.)

P.S. Just finished reading this article showing the further historical-ness (is that a real word???) of the election of 2008, to wit:

Obama's Democratic Party also gained seats in Congress for the second successive legislative election -- the first time since the Great Depression in the early 20th century that they have achieved that...

The article also provides the elephant party with a little of what I consider good advice as they do some long overdue political soul-searching, especially if they want to remain relevant at all in the new Post-Bush/Post-Neocon world:

US voters want the Republican Party, which took a beating in this week's general elections, to embrace progressiveness and work with Democratic president-elect Barack Obama to get America back on track, a poll showed Friday. ...71 percent said Republicans "should give Obama the benefit of the doubt and help him achieve his plans," against 24 percent who said it should oppose the progressive changes proposed by Obama...

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Dole-ing out Desperate Distortions & Downright Devious Deceptions...

Seems like this is becoming Dole's modus operandi--and, golly gee, it fits her so well!

Appears that the ever-so-virtuous Elizabeth Dole is so desperate, she's willing to lie & make up a reality that is better suited to her own personal tastes & pass it off as fact. Typical of Republican politics of late. Her ad is not surprising, just sickening...


Kay Hagan's response? Call Dole out on her lies & deceptions. Make sure the North Carolina voters know just what kind of Senator they'll be re-electing if they decide to give their blessing to Dole's ugly, contemptuous treatment of what passes for truth in Liddy's World:


Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Republicans for Obama??

So, maybe, as the rabid Obama supporter that I am, I can't really convince you to vote for the junior senator from Illinois as the next President of the United States. Maybe it's hard for you to consider any of the arguments I make as a lifelong Democrat (who has been really dis-heartened & disappointed at my own party of these past 8 years when they've completely lost their backbones at a time when our country needed a STRONG loyal opposition) to support the candidate of the opposing party. Maybe all I say comes out as AUTOMATICALLY suspect when you're seeing things from a different point of view. That only makes sense, I guess.

I found this YouTube video of current mostly Republican voters who have said they are going to be voting for Obama this year. Each tells, from their own perspective, why they cannot abide voting for the candidate of the party to which they claim membership. Maybe--as I have been through the years--they've become disenchanted & disillusioned with the actions/inactions of a political party from who've they've expected so much more.

Seems, in listening to these people, that--as one of the participants in this video stated--whatever happens if Obama is elected cannot be worse then they've (actually, we've) endured these past long 8 painful years. Like me, the John McCain they see today is not the man he was in his real "maverick" years. He's given up so much ground & wasted the trust & good will of those who--even if they didn't support him--admired the man for his much-vaunted-and-sorely-missed "Straight Talk".

These conservatives in this video obviously cannot & will not waste their sacred vote on the shadow of man who really doesn't exist any more. They are tired of defending a party that has left them behind as that party loses its way & whatever used to be their moral bearings.

To paraphrase the Republican hero, Ronald Reagan, they didn't leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left them.

Here's what they are saying about why they have decided to place their trust in a man who is as un-Republican as they are feeling forced to become:


Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Yo, John, Whose Economic Fundamentals Are You Calling Strong?!?!?

***Note: Some of the links originally included in this post weren't working properly. They should work just fine now.***
I'm sure that the "fundamentals" of John McCain's & George Bush's own personal economies are just as sound as ever. Probably even sounder than that. They won't have to worry about what happens if they miss a paycheck or two, like the rest of us would. I'm sure McCain's royalties on Blackberry sales alone will keep him from having to touch his wife's beer money for a while!

So, as a Public Service for voters who might need a little reminding of what Bush/McCain economics hath wrought us these past 7+ years, a few facts & figures to confirm that low down feeling you've been having deep in your wallets.

U.S. Unemployment Rate

In January, 2001, the unemployment rate in the U.S. was 4.2%. In the most recent U.S. unemployment report, August, 2008, that number rose to 6.1%. That’s an increase of 1.9%.

U.S. Government Budget

For Fiscal Year 2000, President Clinton left office with a Budget Surplus (A BIG PLUS) of $128.236 BILLION. In 2007, the surplus was only a memory. Our country ended that Fiscal Year $410.047 BILLION in the hole (A BIG OLD MINUS). That’s a difference of over HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS down the proverbial rat hole! (YEP THAT’S A “T” FOR “TRILLION”)

U.S. Trade Deficit

In January 2001, the U.S. Trade Deficit (the value of all U.S. exports to the world vs. the value of all products imported into the U.S. from the rest of the world) stood at $35.3 billion. In July 2008?? Nearly $62.2 billion. That’s an increase of 76%!

Retail Gas Price (average for all grades)

The retail price of gasoline is monitored by the Department of Energy every week. On January 22, 2001, the average price of gas was about $1.51 per gallon. The latest price recorded by DOE as of September 15, 2008 was almost $3.89 per gallon. That’s an increase of nearly $2.38 per gallon (up over 157%).

U.S. Inflation Rate

In January 2001, inflation was running at about 3.7%. As of July 2008, it was up to 5.6%. Up nearly 1.9%.

Consumer Confidence

The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index (CSI) is the widely-accepted barometer of American consumer confidence in the U.S. economy (basically, it gives us a picture on how the everyday person feels about how the economy is going). The U of M has set December 1964 as the “standard” at 100. In January 2001, the index stood at 94.7. In the most recent report, the CSI had dropped to 63.0, down by nearly a third from when Bush took office.

So, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, when it's time to cast your sacred vote for President of the United States, ask yourself the same question Ronald Reagan asked the American people when he ran against Jimmy Carter in 1980: "Are you better off now than you were 4 [or 8] years ago?"

If you're among the 7 or 8 people left who don't know how they're going to vote, just let your wallet be your guide!

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Vote for a Democrat, Doom Your Country!


Who says the Republicans haven't wrung every drop of false fear they can out of the tragedy of 9/11???

Apparently the guy who paid for & put up this billboard at the corner of John Young Parkway & Orange Blossom Trail thinks there is still political mileage to eke out one of the darkest events in our history (I forget, who was President on Sept. 11, 2001??? Was that Bill Clinton?? Maybe Jimmy Carter?? Could it have been the person who REALLY won the 2000 election, President Al Gore???).

Just thought I'd let you see this piece of Republican dirty politics in all its "glory"!

Here's the story from WFTV:
http://www.wftv.com/news/16879991/detail.html

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Too much to hope for?!?!?

From Politico.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11090.html

Many historians see little chance for McCain

One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any.

Historians belonging to both parties offered a litany of historical comparisons that give little hope to the Republican. Several saw Barack Obama’s prospects as the most promising for a Democrat since Roosevelt trounced Hoover in 1932.

“This should be an overwhelming Democratic victory,” said Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006. Lichtman, whose forecasting model has correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners, predicts that this year, “Republicans face what have always been insurmountable historical odds.” His system gives McCain a score on par with Jimmy Carter’s in 1980.

“McCain shouldn’t win it,” said presidential historian Joan Hoff, a professor at Montana State University and former president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency. She compared McCain’s prospects to those of Hubert Humphrey, whose 1968 loss to Richard Nixon resulted in large part from the unpopularity of sitting Democratic president Lyndon Johnson.

“It is one of the worst political environments for the party in power since World War II,” added Alan Abramowitz, a professor of public opinion and the presidency at Emory University. His forecasting model — which factors in gross domestic product, whether a party has completed two terms in the White House and net presidential approval rating — gives McCain about the same odds as Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and Carter in 1980 — both of whom were handily defeated in elections that returned the presidency to the previously out-of-power party. “It would be a pretty stunning upset if McCain won,” Abramowitz said.

What’s more, Republicans have held the presidency for all but 12 years since the South became solidly Republican in the realignment of 1968 — which is among the longest runs with one party dominating in American history. “These things go in cycles,” said presidential historian Robert Dallek, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. “The public gets tired of one approach to politics. There is always a measure of optimism in this country, so they turn to the other party.”

That desire for change also tends to manifest itself at the end of a president’s second term. "Only twice in the 20th century has a candidate from the same party as a two-term president won the presidency, most recently in 1988, when George H.W. Bush replaced the term-limited Ronald Reagan, who was about twice as popular in the last year of his presidency as President George W. Bush is now.

But the biggest obstacle in McCain’s path may be running in the same party as the most unpopular president America has had since at least the advent of modern polling. Only Harry Truman and Nixon — both of whom were dogged by unpopular wars abroad and political scandals at home — have been nearly as unpopular in their last year in office, and both men’s parties lost the presidency in the following election.

Though the Democratic-controlled Congress is nearly as unpopular as the president, Lichtman says the Democrats’ 2006 midterm wins resemble the midterm congressional gains of the out-party in 1966 and 1974, which both preceded a retaking of the White House two years later.

One of the few bright spots historians noted is that the public generally does not view McCain as a traditional Republican. And, as Republicans frequently point out, McCain is not an incumbent.

“Open-seat elections are somewhat different, so the referendum aspect is somewhat muted,” said James Campbell, a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo who specializes in campaigns and elections.

“McCain would be in much better shape if Bush’s approval rating were at 45 to 50 percent,” Campbell continued. “But the history is that in-party candidates are not penalized or rewarded to the same degree as incumbents.”

Campbell still casts McCain as the underdog. But he said McCain might have more appeal to moderates than Obama if the electorate decides McCain is “center right” while Obama is “far left.” Democrats have been repeatedly undone when their nominee was viewed as too liberal, and even as polls show a rise in the number of self-identified Democrats, there has been no corresponding increase in the number of self-identified liberals.

Campbell also notes that McCain may benefit from the Democratic divisions that were on display in the primary, as Republicans did in 1968, when Democratic divisions over the war in Vietnam dogged Humphrey and helped hand Nixon victory.

Still, many historians remain extremely skeptical about McCain’s prospects. “I can’t think of an upset where the underdog faced quite the odds that McCain faces in this election,” said Sidney Milkis, a professor of presidential politics at the University of Virginia. Even "Truman didn’t face as difficult a political context as McCain.”

Friday, June 6, 2008

You heard it here second

Obama in a Blowout: The Presidential Election Will Not Be Close

By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet. Posted June 6, 2008.

Charisma, change and vision vs. a gaffe-prone spent force: Obama will beat McCain and win 300 to 350 electoral votes.

In early December 2007, at a time when Hillary Clinton was tracking 20-plus points ahead of the Democratic field in national polls, I published an article contending that Hillary Clinton was an inherently weak candidate, a beatable candidate, and that Barack Obama would be a stronger match against Republicans.

I argued that she had the highest "unfavorable" rating of anyone who ever had run for the presidency; that she was the only Democratic candidate who could unite and energize the Republican base; that she was running 10 to 15 points behind in generic Democrat vs. Republican presidential polls; that her head-to-head matchups with the Republican candidates were poor; that in Iowa, where she was the only female candidate with seven men, she was polling only 26 percent; that several Democratic U.S. Senate candidates had told me she would pull the ticket down in their states; and that Bill was a potentially large, uncontrollable liability (even I did not know how true that prediction would become!). Hillary never was "inevitable." The evidence of her imminent demise was there for anyone who wanted to look.

OK, that was then, this is now.

The November presidential election is not going to be close. Barack Obama is going to beat John McCain by 8 to 10 points in the national popular vote and win 300 to 350 electoral votes. Obama is going to wipe out McCain mano a mano.

I am far more confident making this prediction than I was in predicting Hillary's demise. There are many reasons why.

The Political Environment

The Republican Party is led -- and branded -- by an extraordinarily unpopular president, whose policies McCain has staunchly defended and supported (95 percent voting congruence in 2007). In the recent CBS News/NYTimes poll, Bush is at 28 percent approval, 65 percent disapproval; in the Hart/Newhouse poll, he is at 27 percent approval, 66 percent disapproval. While some presidents have fallen to low levels in the past, what is truly remarkable about Bush is how long-term and persistent voter disapproval of him has been, and the depth of voter sentiment: A May 12 Washington Post/ABC poll showed only 15 percent of voters "strongly approve," while 52 percent "strongly disapprove."

Voters think, correctly, that the country is on the wrong track. In the Hart/Newhouse poll, 15 percent of voters said the country was headed in the "right direction," while an astounding 73 percent said "wrong direction." Remember, these polls include all voters, not just Democrats.

On issues, Republicans are on the short end of everything except the military and national security. Among voters, in the NYTimes/CBS poll, when asked which party is better, on health care 63 percent say Democrats while only 19 percent say Republicans; the economy, 56 percent say Democrats, 28 percent say Republicans; sharing your moral values, 50 percent say Democrats, 34 percent say Republicans; and, dealing with Iraq, 50 percent say Democrats, 34 percent say Republicans. The Democratic Party has a 52 percent favorable and 41 percent unfavorable rating; the Republican Party has a 33 percent favorable and 58 percent unfavorable rating. A whopping 63 percent say the United States needs to withdraw from Iraq within 12 months; McCain wants to stay roughly forever -- and attack Iran. The Washington Post/ABC poll asked, "Which party do you trust to do a better job coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?" Democrats were chosen over Republicans, 53 percent to 32 percent.

The U.S. economy is sinking (while McCain has said he doesn't know much about the economy); gas prices are skyrocketing; the housing market has collapsed and people are losing their homes; and the Iraq Recession shows no signs of abating.

McCain has been able to stay close to parity in polls matching him with Obama, but that is the product of the bashing Obama has taken from the Clinton campaign. Once that internal scrap is behind him and he can go head to head against McCain, his polling is going to soar.

Even in fund-raising, a traditional Republican strength, the Republicans are at a disadvantage. At last reported count, Obama had $51 million in cash on hand; McCain had $11 million. In the combined cash of the national party committees, Republicans had $55.5 million; Democrats $87.1 million. The netroots has raised unprecedented amounts of money for Democrats, especially Obama; labor unions have gone deeper into their pockets and are raising more money for Democrats than in prior elections; and, even business PACs have given more money to Democrats! Business blows with the wind, and it knows which way the wind is blowing.

Simply put, this is the worst possible time for any Republican to be running for president. And this is not simply my opinion; it is an opinion that has many adherents in the Republican Party and among traditional Republican supporters. Representative Tom Davis, from Virginia, in an internal memo to Republicans, recently wrote, "The political atmosphere facing Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than the fall of 2006.The Republican brand is in the trash can. [I]f we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf."

The Candidates

While many ardent Democrats would disagree with this assessment, I personally consider McCain to be an honorable, decent man. I have enormous respect for -- and cannot forget -- the fact that he declined the opportunity to be released from a North Vietnamese prison because his father had been a Navy admiral and chose instead to stay with his comrades for 5½ years. Very few of us would have done that -- I know I would not have. There is a loyalty and integrity there that we need to remember and honor. And, despite efforts to disparage the "maverick" label, the reality is that, for a substantial part of his political career, he was a Republican maverick on a variety of issues, including the environment, immigration, campaign reform, taxes and the budget. These are not inconsequential disagreements with the Republican Party, and he has been almost singular in being willing to disagree with the Republican establishment. But that is the previous incarnation of McCain, not the version we've seen for the last four years or the version who has to run between now and November.

The problem with McCain is that his brain is no longer working. There is something wrong. Many doctor friends of mine hypothesize Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which is consistent with his 5½ years of great stress in prison and which can explain his violent temper, his memory lapses and his frequent mental disconnects. It also is possible that he is suffering mini-strokes, which cause momentary double vision, partial blackouts and confusion, and which could explain why he can say incredibly stupid things, sometimes the same dumb thing several times in one day, without appearing to understand what he just said. Whatever the specific cause, he is not healthy, and mentally he is struggling to hold it together.

What we are going to see in the general election from McCain is a ton of mistakes. The very thing the press likes about him, his candor and shoot-from-the-hip style, is going to kill him when the full weight of media attention is trained on him. He never has been a good speaker with a prepared text (last night, his speech was characteristically wooden, with several word confusions). The media has always loved the quick, gritty, candid McCain, but that version is gone; he now is a damaged, slower-thinking McCain, but his habits will remain the same. He will still try to be the quick wit, the maverick; it just isn't going to work. And while McCain is still capable (with help) of firing off some zingers that hit, he will be unable to sustain a narrative -- or fool the American voters -- for the next five months. This is not just about being 71; it is about being a very old 71. It might be sad to watch, but I for one will have no sympathy. There is too much at stake.

Obama is the perfect candidate for Democrats, and a nightmare for McCain. Obama, who by every metric is a brilliant strategist, thinker and speaker, is going to run circles around McCain. McCain, who is not a very good speaker even on his best day, will appear slow, befuddled and confused; he will make gaffes. Obama will be charismatic, smart, thoughtful, high-minded, alert and substantive. It will be no contest. And adding to Obama's natural advantages, McCain has just enough integrity to try to match up with Obama on issues. In that debate on substance, Obama's overwhelming intellectual superiority and mental alertness will become obvious. There will be the believers, who have jumped aboard the Obama campaign and will continue to multiply, but there also is going to be another type of vote that is going to swing heavily to Obama: the default vote. Voters are going to default to Obama because it will become obvious that McCain simply is not up to the task of being president.

This is going to be the first not-close presidential election since 1988. You heard it here first.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?

From the Democratic National Committee...

Obama's Top Ten vs. McCain's Top Ten

According to the Huffington Post, here are Barack Obama's Top Ten Celebrity supporters:

10. Jennifer Anniston
9. Robert De Niro
8. Chris Rock
7. Samuel L. Jackson
6. Scarlett Johansson
5. George Clooney
4 a. Ben Affleck
4 b. Jennifer Garner
3 a. Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg
3 b. Maria Shriver (Caroline's cousin & the wife of
California Republican Governator Schwarzenegger)
2. will.i.am (The Black Eye Peas' singer)
1. Oprah Gail Winfrey

Link to HuffPo article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/20/top-10-celebrity-obama-su_n_96313.html

In comparison, who are the Top 10 5 supporters of the republican nominee, you ask? Well, after thorough research lasting many seconds, I have compiled my own list of John McSame Supporters:

10. ?
9. ?
8. ?
7. ?
6. ?
5. That guy who played Delivery Man #2 in Three Men And A Baby
4. Heidi Montag
3. Charlton Heston
2. Sylvester Stallone
1.
Arnold Schwarzenegger (see #3b in the Obama list above)

Monday, April 7, 2008

Schadenfreude Anyone??



Found this website called Republican Offenders which documents the shady & illegal dealings & the assorted criminals that make the "Grand Old Party" so darned "Grand"! The list is long (and apparently growing longer), but it only covers the past 10 years (since 1998). This website might be funny if it weren't for the fact that so many of the felons listed there were doing that voodoo that they do while being paid by me & you & using their access to the levers of government to make life better for their friends' bottom line as well as their own! Nothing was too good for anyone with an (R) after their name.

It all just reminds me how Dubya's beloved party worked so hard to make us all think Bill Clinton was so bad. Read some of the entries at www.republicanoffenders.com & Bill Clinton's shenanigans will begin to look more like the amateur hour.

I just hope & pray that the American people have been watching all this & are not suffering from outrage-overload long enough to send the pachyderms packing in November).

I also hope that, if the Dems get the chance to clean up after the GOP party's over, that they, too, remember why they're there. More of the same felonious finagling committed by the donkeys would bring a similar deserved fate.