The New Political Reality

[rayboyusmc]

On Friday, Gallup released a devastating report, based on 30,000 interviews over the course of 2008. It found that last year an average of 36 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats and only 28 percent called themselves Republicans. Gallup noted that this was the largest advantage for the Democratic Party in more than two decades.

Despite what Boehner et al say, not all Repubs want US to succeed. If those folks can create an Obama failure, they will even though the good old Liberal USA is more liberal than ever now.

But in what might be seen as a "good cop, bad cop" division of labor, others in the GOP are already savaging Obama and his plans.

The most insidious line of attack involves laying the groundwork for blaming the new president in the event of a terrorist attack.

In a remarkably partisan op-ed in The Post last Thursday, Marc A. Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush, declared flatly: "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."

This is dangerous, both substantively and politically, and it suggests that some of Bush's loyalists will continue to politicize issues related to terrorism in their efforts to vindicate the former president's legacy.

Hope they screw up so bad that the average voter sees what they are doing and throws them out, and the people on both sides who do want to work together for the good of the country win this one,

If Bush had really been a uniter, I would have had far more positive feelings about him. The only time he ever talked about being bipartisan is when he needed something.

 

[WillowTree]

You dems didn't want to work together for the good of the country until you had your guy in office.

you hypocrisy is glaring. so I mock you for it.

 

[rayboyusmc]

You dems didn't want to work together for the good of the country until you had your guy in office.

Your lack of knowledge is so weak, I cry for you.

Bush and the Republican majority refused to work together. The didn't even let most Dem bills get to see the light of day.

You don't know your butt from a hole in the ground on this.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

On Friday, Gallup released a devastating report, based on 30,000 interviews over the course of 2008. It found that last year an average of 36 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats and only 28 percent called themselves Republicans. Gallup noted that this was the largest advantage for the Democratic Party in more than two decades.

Despite what Boehner et al say, not all Repubs want US to succeed. If those folks can create an Obama failure, they will even though the good old Liberal USA is more liberal than ever now.

But in what might be seen as a "good cop, bad cop" division of labor, others in the GOP are already savaging Obama and his plans.

The most insidious line of attack involves laying the groundwork for blaming the new president in the event of a terrorist attack.

In a remarkably partisan op-ed in The Post last Thursday, Marc A. Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush, declared flatly: "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."

This is dangerous, both substantively and politically, and it suggests that some of Bush's loyalists will continue to politicize issues related to terrorism in their efforts to vindicate the former president's legacy.

Hope they screw up so bad that the average voter sees what they are doing and throws them out, and the people on both sides who do want to work together for the good of the country win this one,

If Bush had really been a uniter, I would have had far more positive feelings about him. The only time he ever talked about being bipartisan is when he needed something.

More of that " we used to all get along" stuff from you I see.

 

[Vel]

The most insidious line of attack involves laying the groundwork for blaming the new president in the event of a terrorist attack.

In a remarkably partisan op-ed in The Post last Thursday, Marc A. Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush, declared flatly: "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."

Why is it that Obama supporters take such issue with the truth? The above statement isn't "laying the groundwork". It's a simple fact. If Obama weakens our ability to prevent terror attacks and lets this nation take another hit from the Al Quaeda crowd then most Americans will certainly hold him accountable.

 

[WillowTree]

You dems didn't want to work together for the good of the country until you had your guy in office.

Your lack of knowledge is so weak, I cry for you.

Bush and the Republican majority refused to work together. The didn't even let most Dem bills get to see the light of day.

You don't know your butt from a hole in the ground on this.

your lack of reality is astounding, I mock you.

 

[WillowTree]

On Friday, Gallup released a devastating report, based on 30,000 interviews over the course of 2008. It found that last year an average of 36 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats and only 28 percent called themselves Republicans. Gallup noted that this was the largest advantage for the Democratic Party in more than two decades.

Despite what Boehner et al say, not all Repubs want US to succeed. If those folks can create an Obama failure, they will even though the good old Liberal USA is more liberal than ever now.

But in what might be seen as a "good cop, bad cop" division of labor, others in the GOP are already savaging Obama and his plans.

The most insidious line of attack involves laying the groundwork for blaming the new president in the event of a terrorist attack.

In a remarkably partisan op-ed in The Post last Thursday, Marc A. Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush, declared flatly: "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."

This is dangerous, both substantively and politically, and it suggests that some of Bush's loyalists will continue to politicize issues related to terrorism in their efforts to vindicate the former president's legacy.

Hope they screw up so bad that the average voter sees what they are doing and throws them out, and the people on both sides who do want to work together for the good of the country win this one,

If Bush had really been a uniter, I would have had far more positive feelings about him. The only time he ever talked about being bipartisan is when he needed something.

More of that " we used to all get along" stuff from you I see.

 

[WillowTree]

On Friday, Gallup released a devastating report, based on 30,000 interviews over the course of 2008. It found that last year an average of 36 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats and only 28 percent called themselves Republicans. Gallup noted that this was the largest advantage for the Democratic Party in more than two decades.

Despite what Boehner et al say, not all Repubs want US to succeed. If those folks can create an Obama failure, they will even though the good old Liberal USA is more liberal than ever now.

But in what might be seen as a "good cop, bad cop" division of labor, others in the GOP are already savaging Obama and his plans.

The most insidious line of attack involves laying the groundwork for blaming the new president in the event of a terrorist attack.

In a remarkably partisan op-ed in The Post last Thursday, Marc A. Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush, declared flatly: "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."

This is dangerous, both substantively and politically, and it suggests that some of Bush's loyalists will continue to politicize issues related to terrorism in their efforts to vindicate the former president's legacy.

Hope they screw up so bad that the average voter sees what they are doing and throws them out, and the people on both sides who do want to work together for the good of the country win this one,

If Bush had really been a uniter, I would have had far more positive feelings about him. The only time he ever talked about being bipartisan is when he needed something.

your ilk threw eggs on bush on his inauguration day.. your ilk never supported him or his country, your ilk are liars, your ilk are whimpy liitle pansy assed whiners.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Willow, go ilk yourself. I always support this Country. You are a narrow minded little partisan who sees only your way as the right way.

I am not and will probably never be a conservative, but I don't blanket call them traitors like you do to the left.

If Obama weakens our ability to prevent terror attacks and lets this nation take another hit from the Al Quaeda crowd then most Americans will certainly hold him accountable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably even though Bush did not make US any safer and there is no proof that what he did stopped any future attacks. He also created the mess that is Gitmo and left it for others to clean up.

Stopping torture is not preventing US from going after the terrorists. Prey tell how he is weaking our ability to prevent attacks.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

On Friday, Gallup released a devastating report, based on 30,000 interviews over the course of 2008. It found that last year an average of 36 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats and only 28 percent called themselves Republicans. Gallup noted that this was the largest advantage for the Democratic Party in more than two decades.

Despite what Boehner et al say, not all Repubs want US to succeed. If those folks can create an Obama failure, they will even though the good old Liberal USA is more liberal than ever now.

But in what might be seen as a "good cop, bad cop" division of labor, others in the GOP are already savaging Obama and his plans.

The most insidious line of attack involves laying the groundwork for blaming the new president in the event of a terrorist attack.

In a remarkably partisan op-ed in The Post last Thursday, Marc A. Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush, declared flatly: "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."

This is dangerous, both substantively and politically, and it suggests that some of Bush's loyalists will continue to politicize issues related to terrorism in their efforts to vindicate the former president's legacy.

Hope they screw up so bad that the average voter sees what they are doing and throws them out, and the people on both sides who do want to work together for the good of the country win this one,

If Bush had really been a uniter, I would have had far more positive feelings about him. The only time he ever talked about being bipartisan is when he needed something.

Seems like they have never put down their thirst for koolaid since Gingrich left. Newt played this game with Clinton and when the Gov briefly shut down the nation did a closer look at the so-called contract with America and quickly came to the conclusion that the contract was actually a contract on America. You would think they'd have an institutional memory within the party for what Newt, and not to mention what Tom Delay, later did to the Grand Old Party.

So much for Rove's new, permanent GOP majority they all spoke about.

 

[sealybobo]

On a side note, speaking of new political parties, I just heard that the Republican party was forever changed the day Lincoln had to sell out the GOP to be the party for the corporations and mega rich. Without their support, he would not have won the civil war.

 

[sealybobo]

On Friday, Gallup released a devastating report, based on 30,000 interviews over the course of 2008. It found that last year an average of 36 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats and only 28 percent called themselves Republicans. Gallup noted that this was the largest advantage for the Democratic Party in more than two decades.

Despite what Boehner et al say, not all Repubs want US to succeed. If those folks can create an Obama failure, they will even though the good old Liberal USA is more liberal than ever now.

But in what might be seen as a "good cop, bad cop" division of labor, others in the GOP are already savaging Obama and his plans.

The most insidious line of attack involves laying the groundwork for blaming the new president in the event of a terrorist attack.

In a remarkably partisan op-ed in The Post last Thursday, Marc A. Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush, declared flatly: "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."

This is dangerous, both substantively and politically, and it suggests that some of Bush's loyalists will continue to politicize issues related to terrorism in their efforts to vindicate the former president's legacy.

Hope they screw up so bad that the average voter sees what they are doing and throws them out, and the people on both sides who do want to work together for the good of the country win this one,

If Bush had really been a uniter, I would have had far more positive feelings about him. The only time he ever talked about being bipartisan is when he needed something.

your ilk threw eggs on bush on his inauguration day.. your ilk never supported him or his country, your ilk are liars, your ilk are whimpy liitle pansy assed whiners.

I really did support the goofy little bastard.....until I found out he lied about WMD's, and then torture, spying, katrina, economy, leaking cia agents names, stay the course, surge worked, tax loopholes to offshore companies so no one paid a god damn cent in taxes the last 8 years, and we are all in worse shape.

Bush had my devoted support for about a year. He blew it. Only brainwashed idiots stood by all 8 years.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

On a side note, speaking of new political parties, I just heard that the Republican party was forever changed the day Lincoln had to sell out the GOP to be the party for the corporations and mega rich. Without their support, he would not have won the civil war.

um, but weren't the others who were not GOP beholden to the corps money? after all they were all in a war,


context is so very important,. you may want to think a little before your lips move or your fingers type.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

so it took drastic acts for you to see what was clearly right before your eyes?

hmmm,..

right out of the gate the 'uniter not a divider' was as divisive as they come.

so you went from one extreme to the other? no middle for you, eh?

Despite what Boehner et al say, not all Repubs want US to succeed. If those folks can create an Obama failure, they will even though the good old Liberal USA is more liberal than ever now.



Hope they screw up so bad that the average voter sees what they are doing and throws them out, and the people on both sides who do want to work together for the good of the country win this one,

If Bush had really been a uniter, I would have had far more positive feelings about him. The only time he ever talked about being bipartisan is when he needed something.

your ilk threw eggs on bush on his inauguration day.. your ilk never supported him or his country, your ilk are liars, your ilk are whimpy liitle pansy assed whiners.

I really did support the goofy little bastard.....until I found out he lied about WMD's, and then torture, spying, katrina, economy, leaking cia agents names, stay the course, surge worked, tax loopholes to offshore companies so no one paid a god damn cent in taxes the last 8 years, and we are all in worse shape.

Bush had my devoted support for about a year. He blew it. Only brainwashed idiots stood by all 8 years.

 

[WillowTree]

Willow, go ilk yourself. I always support this Country. You are a narrow minded little partisan who sees only your way as the right way.

I am not and will probably never be a conservative, but I don't blanket call them traitors like you do to the left.

If Obama weakens our ability to prevent terror attacks and lets this nation take another hit from the Al Quaeda crowd then most Americans will certainly hold him accountable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably even though Bush did not make US any safer and there is no proof that what he did stopped any future attacks. He also created the mess that is Gitmo and left it for others to clean up.

Stopping torture is not preventing US from going after the terrorists. Prey tell how he is weaking our ability to prevent attacks.

I am partisan. I like my ilk a lot better than I like your ilk. btw. I think we've been attacked in Yemen. I'm awaiting FNC to come forth with the details.. your ilk is in charge now.

 

[Birdzeye]

The most insidious line of attack involves laying the groundwork for blaming the new president in the event of a terrorist attack.

In a remarkably partisan op-ed in The Post last Thursday, Marc A. Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush, declared flatly: "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."

Why is it that Obama supporters take such issue with the truth? The above statement isn't "laying the groundwork". It's a simple fact. If Obama weakens our ability to prevent terror attacks and lets this nation take another hit from the Al Quaeda crowd then most Americans will certainly hold him accountable.

The key word here is "if." "If Obama weakens our ability . . . "

It hasn't happened, and I hope it won't. Still, the partisan hacks on the right wing are already gearing up to blame Obama for something that hasn't happened. Do they hope it will, so that their hostility will be vindicated?

 

[rayboyusmc]

More of that " we used to all get along" stuff from you I see.

No, Retired, I am trying to say that "if" we could work together we might just get something done.

Sorry, but I don't believe Bush, advized by Rove, ever planned on working together. He had an agenda and fucking get out of his way.

If Obama turns out like this, I won't be a blind fucking rightie, I will state that I don't agree with him either.

You and Willow really need to hook up.

 

[WillowTree]

More of that " we used to all get along" stuff from you I see.

No, Retired, I am trying to say that "if" we could work together we might just get something done.

Sorry, but I don't believe Bush, advized by Rove, ever planned on working together. He had an agenda and fucking get out of his way.

If Obama turns out like this, I won't be a blind fucking rightie, I will state that I don't agree with him either.

You and Willow really need to hook up.

poor raybo, seems to have a burr on his butt.

 

[Sky Dancer]

More of that " we used to all get along" stuff from you I see.

No, Retired, I am trying to say that "if" we could work together we might just get something done.

Sorry, but I don't believe Bush, advized by Rove, ever planned on working together. He had an agenda and fucking get out of his way.

If Obama turns out like this, I won't be a blind fucking rightie, I will state that I don't agree with him either.

You and Willow really need to hook up.

Rather than looking to the past, we have plenty to do in the present. Let's all just roll up our sleeves and get to work for the benefit of our country and the world.

 

[midcan5]

I'm always surprised at the chronology of the WTC attacks, the first attack came only a month after Clinton was elected. If blame is to be placed anywhere it would have to be on Reagan-Bush. The second attack occurred after W was in office for eight months and really seemed quite lost. Again if blame is your only relief then Bush's administration had several months to figure out what was going on and didn't. But all this is beside the point at this time in history as republican conservatism after Reagan and on to Bush Jr has been an abysmal failure for the country. To deny that is to deny the nose on your face. All the finger pointing will never change that.