| The Myth of "Cheap Labor" |
[Feb. 7th, 2010|01:31 pm] |
CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?
- Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.
- Consumers don't want expensive produce.
- Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.
The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."
( Read more... ) |
|
|
| Looks a little BIG to be a kids Mattel remote control flying rocket. :/ |
[Feb. 5th, 2010|08:07 pm] |
by the Left Coast Rebel
Recall the entire 'weapons of mass destruction' controversy that gripped the nation for quite some time several years ago? Anti war activists, liberals and humble foreign policy folks used the 'weapons of mass destruction' issue to bludgeon Bush and the Defense Department, essentially the auspices for going to war in Iraq in 2003 in the first place. No weapons of mass destruction have been found to this day. Until now?
The big dog above, apparently a rocket buried by the Saddam Hussein regime, was found today. It's big, it's ugly and it could be a weapon of mass destruction. At this time, however, it is not known if the 20 foot long rocket is armed with a warhead. It was found near Baghdad in an Abu Ghraib suburb. I don't know about you but I sure as hell wouldn't get close to that thing.
Photo via AP |
|
|
| If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it....BUT!!! |
[Feb. 5th, 2010|05:07 pm] |
In the event that "YOUR HEALTH CARE PLAN" changes (which happens quite frequently for most people), it is no longer YOUR PLAN, but a NEW PLAN and therefore the promise that "you can keep it" ("it" being "your plan") can be easily broken. A "GIANT SHAM" according to Professor Epstein who actually read some of the 2000 pages.
|
|
|
| Big Lie |
[Feb. 3rd, 2010|10:58 pm] |
16 second video. Obama telling us that "no matter what you've heard" you get to keep your doctor.
Throughout the year he said it in every speech, demonizing, mocking, attacking the right for daring to say otherwise. The sheep of the Left demonized, mocked and attacked right along with him.
Obama's Stunning Admission Obama 1/29/10: "For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge."
I've heard adolescents do a better job of weaseling out of a lie.
WHO snuck it in? What did they sneak in? When did they sneak it in? WHY didn't you know it? A constitutional law professor such as yourself shouldn't have trouble with the language. Why aren't you naming names and holding people accountable? WHEN did you supposedly discover this assertion you've made for a year was completely untrue? What did you know and when did you know it, now that the truth is out?
You can bet the "THERE IS NO LIBERAL!" media won't be asking any of these obvious questions of this serial liar.
The truth is he was lying to pass the legislation, because he will do literally anything in the name of his ideology. It was important "in saying to people". They knew it was a lie, but had all agreed on the collective message, and then spread the word. This wasn't a minor lie. This was a Big Lie. For a year.
Now we get to see who are the true ideologue sheep, as opposed to those who will reasonably condemn him for this. Keep in mind that those who brush this off will likely dutifully follow anything he and his might do. "Do not for one moment think that we are either intellectually or morally superior to those Germans who put Hitler in power. We have been saved by our institutions and our traditions-- the very institutions and traditions that so many are so busy eroding or dismantling" - Thomas Sowell
I don't know how long the link will last but after the cut is a 3 minute clip from today's Glenn Beck show on this.
( Read more... ) |
|
|
| Choose the title: "What a Shame!" or "Poor Katie!" |
[Feb. 3rd, 2010|07:41 pm] |
COURIC FACES PAY CUT; DEEP LAYOFFS HIT CBSNEWS
Wed Feb 03 2010 09:11:21 ET
CBSNEWS anchorwoman and 60 MINUTES contributor Katie Couric faces a dramatic pay cut at the network, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
CBS boss Les Moonves is determined to save money and trim expenses -- from top to bottom -- at the former crown jewel of broadcasting.
Couric, the highest paid TV news personality in history, commands over $14 million a year, plus bumps for non-EVENING NEWS appearances.
But her salary is now in the direct line of fire, network insiders explain, and a populist backlash against Couric's cash is said to be forming inside the newsroom.
"She makes enough to pay 200 news reporters $75,000 a year!" demands a veteran producer. "It's complete insanity."
The angry source continues: "We report with great enthusiasm how much bankers are making, how it is out of step with reality during a recession. Well, look at Katie!"
MORE
Couric's $300,000 a week paycheck has become the obsession of disgruntled CBS staff, just as deep layoffs rock the fishbowl.
Dozens of employees -- including staff members in D.C., San Francisco, Miami, London, Los Angeles and Moscow -- are being let go, the NEW YORK OBSERVER reports.
Couric's current CBS contract expires next year.
Developing...
EDITOR'S NOTE: Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather called on President Barack Obama to form a White House commission to help save the press. Tears welled in the lifelong reporter’s eyes as he discussed the dwindling number of war correspondents.
|
|
|
| People of AL5 Birthplace of NASA Respond to the President's Proposed Budget |
[Feb. 1st, 2010|09:26 pm] |
Today, the President unveiled his budget. As part of his plan to cut Defense spending to pay for his social programs that don't work, Obama killed three birds with one stone: cutting Defense spending, cutting NASA spending (one could say that is redundant, but strictly speaking NASA isn't direct Defense) and punishing Congressman Parker Griffith for switching parties. Of course, Griffith himself can't be taken to the woodshed, but his district sure can.
Congressional Candidate Les Philip calls the 2011 NASA Budget Cuts Un-American:
We are staring down the barrel of a very scary scenario here in the Tennessee Valley as the current administration is poised to propose ending manned space flight with the cancellation of the Constellation project. This would be a grave mistake to end both the Ares I and Ares V programs with so much of the research and testing already completed.
At a time when Washington is focused on job creation it is unfathomable to me to cut thousands of jobs in Alabama, Florida, Texas and other parts of the country. This decision would leave all of the vital research being done on the International Space Station to be supported by Russian launches. Not only is that un-American. It is unacceptable.
The Tennessee Valley deserves a representative in Washington D.C. that has worked in Research Park and understands the ins and outs of the lifeblood of the heart of the fifth district. There are over 7,000 jobs at stake at the Marshall Space Flight Center and as your Congressman, I would align myself with the other members that have a vested interest in the space program to make sure and protect NASA.
( Alabama Gubernatorial Candidate Ron Sparks (D) Has Weak Response )
( Congressman Parker Griffith's (R-Huntsville) Statement Doesn't Even Mention NASA )
Oddly enough, the silent party in this foray is Congressional candidate [ The Quotable] Morris Brooks, Attorney at Law. Why, even Mayor Tommy Battle had the gumption and audacity to write the President of the United States and beg that his city not be punished for Griffith's deeds:
( Mayor Tommy Battle writes the President a Letter ) |
|
|
| Anyone else watching HillBuzz? |
[Jan. 29th, 2010|05:37 pm] |
So has anyone on here been following the Left's antics over on HillBuzz?
If you're not familiar with the site or the current issues, this is a group of gay guys in Chicago who were huge Hillary Supporters back in the primaries. Lifelong Democrats, all.
Except that they didn't like what they were seeing out of then-Candidate Obama, so when he recieved the nomination, they promptly began actively campaigning for McCain and have been quite fair to candidates on both sides of the aisle - they'll support anyone who truly loves America (their number one requirement) and who wants to halt the madness in Washington, Democrat or Republican. The site came to my personal attention when they wrote an article last January saying farewell to Bush; they may not have agreed with all of his policies, but they believe he is a good man who tried to do his best. It's been fascinating watching these diehard Hillary supporters come out in defense of Sarah Palin and others as they're slipping more to the right.
They recently decided to step up the political activism and made it their mission to see every Congressman/woman who voted for the Health Care Debacle voted out of office and actively helped out Scott Brown's campaign. This, however, seems to have gotten them in trouble with some higher-ups. The day after Brown's election, some obscure leftist blog in England posted personal info on these guys online - names, pictures, etc - and called them racists. (How dare they not toe the party line!) Within an incredibly short amount of time for such an obscure blog, this story was reprinted in its entirety on Daily Kos and other such websites, where there were calls for actual physical violence against them. These guys work freelance in Chicago and have been dropped by employers, friends, and loved ones who don't want to associate with anyone whose Google search brings up the "r" word. At least one of them is now completely unemployable in Chicago. When they tried to get these posts removed for the libelous content, the websites have refused.
These guys aren't laying down and taking it, however. They got together with other center-of-the-road Democrats who have been on the recieving end of attacks and have managed to put together dossiers of information on the people who initiated these actionsand are trying to trace this back to whoever started all of this - they're completely convinced their path will lead them directly to the DNC (who has warned them to stop being so anti-Obama before or else), if not higher.
Right now, they seem to be looking for anyone who has legal know-how or sleuthing skills, as well as donations to fund the court cases and such. Even just some moral support would probably be a big help - and they've got some fascinating back posts if you have the time. |
|
|
| Sick of paying for other people's new cars, refrigerators, childcare, free lunches, ,,, |
[Jan. 29th, 2010|07:51 pm] |
I stayed home to raise my own kids = no child care "credit" for me, but I got to pay for others to ship their kids off to be raised by strangers.
I couldn't afford a new car this year, BUT, those who could afford a new car got to use MY taxpayer dollars to get themselves a brand new "cash for clunkers" car.
Currently, anyone who can afford to splurge on new refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines and various energy efficient appliances can now get some more of MY money in the form of an "incentive".
90% of the kids in the public schools I teach in are getting "free lunch" - Newsflash! There is no such thing as "free lunch"; somebody has to pay for it, and that somebody is me. By the way, if I occasionally need to "buy" lunch at the same schools, I have to pay more than the kids price (which they don't pay anyway) and I don't get any more than they do.
If I want to donate to a charity I should be able to choose it for myself. As it is, many of those who are benefiting from the money that has been stolen from me are already better off than I am financially .
Sick of all the crap! |
|
|
| Egypt must STOP THE SLAUGHTER or Obama must man-up and STOP THE AIDE. |
[Jan. 27th, 2010|05:06 pm] |
|
Coptic Christians of Egypt Massacred, President Mubarek Silent By Magdi Khalil
1/20/2010 Christian Newswire (www.christiannewswire.com) The escalation of attacks is encouraged by the Egyptian government's lack of resolve in addressing the problem and adopting a plan of action to stop it at its roots.
 The latest attack took place in Naga Hamady, Upper Egypt, during the late hours of Wednesday, January 6, 2010. Drive-by gunmen opened fire from machine guns at worshippers coming out of church after celebrating Coptic Christmas mass. Seven people were instantly killed, and many others were seriously wounded.
The latest attack took place in Naga Hamady, Upper Egypt, during the late hours of Wednesday, January 6, 2010. Drive-by gunmen opened fire from machineguns at worshippers coming out of church after celebrating Coptic Christmas mass. Seven people were instantly killed, and many others were seriously wounded.
The escalation of attacks is encouraged by the Egyptian government's lack of resolve in addressing the problem and adopting a plan of action to stop it at its roots. The climate of hatred is deeply entrenched in Egypt's mosques, the Egyptian media and the Egyptian educational system. Very seldom are killers of Copts apprehended, and when arrested, they are often released for lack of evidence, or given a very light sentence.
President Mubarak, now in power for almost 3 decades, during which 7 American presidents took office, turns a blind eye to what happens to the Coptic citizens of his country. This seems to be an attempt at appeasing the Islamists to strengthen his hold on power and pass it on to his son. Not once, did President Mubarak address his nation assuring the Copts that he cares about their problems.
Egypt, the recipient of 2 billion dollars yearly of American foreign aid since the signing of the Camp David peace treaty in1978, can not continue abusing the human rights of its Coptic Christian citizens, a basic perquisite for receiving American foreign aid.
We ask President Obama, the US Congress and government officials, and all freedom-loving people and organizations in the US and around the world to support the right of the Copts, for protection from aggression and equality under the law.
The American Coptic community will hold a rally in support of the Copts, Christians of Egypt, on Thursday 21, 2010 from 11:00AM to 2:00PM in front of the main gate of the White House, and from 2:30 to 3:00PM in front of the Egyptian Embassy |
|
|
| Ellie Light - Obama's (only?) biggest fan. |
[Jan. 25th, 2010|12:10 pm] |
Ellie Light: Who is She and What Does She Want? Somebody Identifying Themselves as 'Ellie Light' Keeps Writing Letters to Newspapers in Support of President Barack ObamaWho is Ellie Light and what is she trying to accomplish? In recent days, nearly twenty newspapers around the country have received emailed letters of support for President Barack Obama signed by a person calling herself Ellie Light.
Ellie Light: Who is She and What Does She Want? The letters are nearly identical to one another in content. The only difference between themis that each one has Ellie Light residing in a different part of the country.
At least one of the newspapers has written back to Ellie Light to ask her why she claims to be from many different places. Ellie Light did not answer the question directly, though at first she suggested that perhaps Ellie Light is a common name. While perhaps it is (though it doesn't seem it would be) it would not explain why each of the Ellie Light letters are nearly the same.
While there are some minor differences in most of the letters, they all have the same basic message: that President Obama has a very difficult job and that it will take time and patience to resolve the nation's problems.
What is actually somewhat surprising, to me at least, in the Ellie Light story is not that somebody appears to be on a widespread letter writing campaign to newspapers in support of his or her political view, but that this is the first time it has happened.
Prior to the ease of use of the Internet and email, writing a letter to a newspaper required actually mailing it, making it more difficult to disguise where the letter came from. Today, an email can be sent just as easily across the country as it can be down the street.
A person, or group of people, who would like to build a grass roots campaign to support a politician or point of view, can much more easily manipulate and conceal their identities and get the word out in a very short amount of time.
So this begs the question: what responsibility does a publisher have to ensure that a 'letter to the editor' actually comes from a person using their own name and living in the area that they say they are? It is not as easy a question to answer as it may seem. What lengths should a newspaper, blog or website be required to go to confirm the identity of the person before publishing a letter? |
|
|
| Is this the best they can do? |
[Jan. 20th, 2010|11:11 am] |
January 19, 2010 Posted by Paul at 8:27 PM As I understand the Democratic narrative of today's election, as explained by Robert Gibbs and others, Scott Brown's victory is the result of voter anger. That anger, in turn, is the understandable result of President Bush's policies. Thus, George W. Bush is responsible for the election of Scott Brown. President Obama is just a bystander. |
|
|
| What do the Democrats think their government should do now? |
[Jan. 20th, 2010|10:37 am] |
2 minutes and 30 seconds in, a room full of democrats think that the government "should NOT try to push the government health-care bill through before Brown is seated".
Does this show a disconnect between Democratic Voters and their Democratic leaders representatives? Are the rulers of our new tyranical government out of touch with the people? Ya think?
|
|
|
| Making international headlines |
[Jan. 20th, 2010|05:51 pm] |
I just thought this community might like to know that the lead news story on our national broadcaster this afternoon is the Republican win in Massachusetts.
Even here in Australia this is big news! The reporter described it as a "major upset" and played some audio of Mr. Scott-Brown saying that this was the people's seat.
Just thought you'd like to know... :) |
|
|
| Congratulations Scott Brown |
[Jan. 19th, 2010|10:08 pm] |
"It would make everybody the 41st senator, and it would bring fairness and discussion back to the equation," the state senator said of his potential victory.
Now WE are the 41st Senator.
It is, after all, "The People's Seat". =D |
|
|
| Brown may have won by a margin to large to challenge... |
[Jan. 19th, 2010|08:17 pm] |
Will edit this more later. =D
There was a 10% spread being reported a moment ago, now drudge says Brown 50% Coakley 49%.
Maybe they haven't put the fix in yet.
Waiting till it's official.
ok, not waiting.
so far:
54Brown - 45Coke cnn
52Brown - 47Coke fox
50Brown - 49Coke WBZ
51 - 48 fox
only 116 out of 2168 precinct reporting so far. Still time for the hanky panky. Let's pray this sticks.
Congratulations Scott Brown. Now do something good with that senate seat! |
|
|
| If Coakley wins by voter fraud... |
[Jan. 19th, 2010|03:54 pm] |
Isn't it still a win-win situation for the democrats?
They get to keep their interim stooge while the lawsuits and recounts play out on this. Meanwhile, if they can bribe enough of our "representatives" they can shove this travesty of government takeover of health care down our throats.
Our government is out of control and we're going to have to face up to that very soon. |
|
|
| Scott Brown Quotes: |
[Jan. 19th, 2010|02:57 pm] |
"We don't want a senator, whos only question on Health Care is to ask Harry Reid",
“With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedys’ seat,’’ Brown said. “It’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s the people’s seat.’’
“There’s no one that’s listening right now that believes, Martha, that you are the tax-cutting candidate,’’ Brown said.
“You can run against Bush-Cheney, but I’m Scott Brown,’’ Brown responded. “I live in Wrentham. I drive a truck.’’
“To think we’d give people who want to kill us constitutional rights and lawyer them up at our expense, instead of treating them as enemy combatants to get as much information as we can under legal means, it just makes no sense to me,’’ Brown said. “And it shows me that you don’t quite understand the law when it comes to enemy combatants versus terrorists versus United States citizens. |
|
|
| While America Drowns, Obama and the Elites Party - Courtesy of a Non-American Blogger. |
[Jan. 19th, 2010|02:44 pm] |
http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com/2010/01/while-america-drowns-obama-and-elites.html
"But best of all, it has now been brought out that the Obama Regime, much like Nero or Caligula, has been partying hard, with over 170 parties, receptions and big dinners, entertaining over 50,000 guests, flying in specialty chefs from around the world, all in this one year of power. That is, one party every two days. And the American serfs? They just bare it, grumble and pay their taxes, it si what they have been trained for. Oh sure, a bunch will get together here and there and wave signs and scream slogans for a few hours and then go home, feeling good that they did "something" and pat themselves on the backs for their "accomplishments" while promising to vote out the present elites and replace them with an exact same set from a different branch of the One Party Two Branch system. Someone famously called this: rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. And their so called conservative leaders on TV will tell them what great deeds they have done and how great they are, even as nothing changes and these so called leaders hustle books and t-shirts and caps to the impoverished but good feeling tax serfs. In other words, the bleeding continues."
This "partying hard" was about all I could think of as the news media featured Michelle Obama describing the parties, parties and more parties that have become her life in the White House. It amazes me that nobody seems to think there is anything wrong with it.
|
|
|
| OOOPS ! - What's a tiny mistake gonna do? It's only our entire Industrial Civilizatin at stake. |
[Jan. 18th, 2010|06:56 pm] |
OOOPS ! Scientists goof on Himalayan glacier retreat OOOPS ! Scientists goof on Himalayan glacier retreat American Thinker.com Rick Moran January 17, 2010 If anything, this story in The Times of London is good for a laugh - except that there's nothing funny about the people who wanted to use this information to steal trillions from the world's most productive nations. A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it. Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035. In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Got that ? The IPCC Report on which the science of global warming rests - a report being used to justify ruining industrial civilization - used an old story based on a brief telephone interview with a scientist nobody ever heard of, in a general interest science magazine geared for non-scientists (The New Scientist) to push the notion that the glacier's in the Himalaya's would be gone in 25 years. It would be too easy to ascribe this idiocy to conspiracy. More likely, it is simply one more indication that the proponents of AGW don't care about the science and are promoting a political agenda. |
|
|
| Catholics should not only move to the back of the bus they should be kicked off the bus. |
[Jan. 17th, 2010|11:30 pm] |
|
Mass. Senate Candidate Coakley: Catholics Need Not Apply By Mark Henry
1/17/2010 To borrow a racial epithet from the 60’s, Coakley said essentially that Catholics should not only move to the back of the bus they should be kicked off the bus.
 Perhaps Martha Coakley’s politically perilous assertion that devout Catholics should not work in emergency rooms, aka the 'Catholic Slap', will be enough to carry Scott Brown to victory this Tuesday. If that does occur, there will be no mistaking that politically the times they are a’ changing most certainly in Massachusetts and, possibly, for the nation as well.
Pittman questioned Coakley on rights of conscience and whether a Catholic doctor who agreed with the Pope’s teachings on contraception should be required to go against those teachings and prescribe emergency contraception. Coakley resorted to the secular liberal playbook employing the canard of separation of Church and State and incredulously asserting that devout Catholics should not work in an emergency room.
To borrow a racial epithet from the 60’s, Coakley said essentially that Catholics should not only move to the back of the bus they should be kicked off the bus. What possessed Coakley to make this slap in the face of the 39% of citizens of Massachusetts who are Catholics will be probed in detail in next weeks post mortem of this election?
Coakley’s responses in this radio interview give Catholic voters a candid glimpse at her judicial, social and political worldview. What you see in Coakley’s minds eye is a shocking degree of hostility towards the First Amendment freedom of religion rights of Catholics. Additionally, her strong support for the very unpopular Democratic health reform initiative, with its federal abortion funding, has alienated many voters, Catholics, other Christians, other people of faith and other people of good will as well.
As the current Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley should know better that to use the oft misused separation of Church and State metaphor to justify denying religious freedom rights of Catholics. ( Read more... )the First Amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from trampling on the rights of all citizens who are religious, including Catholics.
Coakley’s assertion that that Catholic physicians lose their First Amendment protected rights to free speech, including religious speech, once they start working turns the Constitution on its ear and is a dangerous position for any government official to espouse, let alone a State’s Attorney General. As stated earlier, the First Amendment generally protects religious freedom from government persecution and certainly does not justify prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedom as Coakley asserted in her interview.
Coakley’s hostility to Catholic rights of conscience is precisely the type of government intrusion upon religion that the First Amendment is intended to protect us from. As such, one could reasonably say that the First Amendment was specifically intended to protect the citizenry from the likes of Martha Coakley since she favors using naked federal power to stamp out the exercise of religious freedom in the health care arena.
Coakley’s comment also shows she is a liberal statist who neither understands nor respects the Constitution and its First Amendment protections of religious freedom. Similarly, Coakley’s views evidence a profound disrespect for Catholic teachings and Catholics who follow the Church’s teachings. In short, Coakley’s views on religious freedom and health care are dead wrong and Massachusetts voters will have an opportunity to show her how wrong she is this Tuesday on Election Day.
( Read more... )
( Read more... ) |
|
|
| Coakley reminds me of that politician who always voted "present"... |
[Jan. 16th, 2010|05:09 pm] |
The Cases Coakley Didn't Prosecute"The Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz describes how Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley "fought so relentlessly" to maintain a case against the Amirault family. Yet the Democratic Senate candidate was far from relentless when investigating fellow politicians. Paul Kix of Boston magazine recently profiled the woman vying to fill the people's seat formerly occupied by Ted Kennedy. Mr. Kix reports that "the three biggest public-corruption cases of the past three years—the only three that anyone remembers—saw her sitting on the sidelines." The author notes that indictments of former Massachusetts House Speaker Sal DiMasi, state Senator Dianne Wilkerson and Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner were all brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office, NOT Ms. Coakley. The feds charged Mr. DiMasi with allegedly taking payments for advancing state software contracts, and made a bribery case against the others. Writes Mr. Kix, "The FBI had video proof of Wilkerson stuffing bribe money into her bra. Coakley did nothing. The [Boston] Globe and Secretary of State William Galvin hammered DiMasi and his (allegedly) shady friends for 14 months. And the best Coakley could do was indict DiMasi's golfing buddy Richard Vitale? On misdemeanor charges?" "Coakley has done an intricate little dance these past few years," adds the author. "When the big-name prey wields statewide political clout (DiMasi), or represents a key minority group (Wilkerson), Coakley defers, staying popular at the State House in the process. Today more than 80 state legislators have lent her their full support." Ms. Coakley's Republican opponent, Scott Brown, has presented his campaign as a rejection of the state's machine politics. The Boston magazine report may help explain why Mr. Brown's message is resonating with Bay state voters."
Interesting how Coakley wouldn't put herself out on the line with any of the tough cases that she may have lost or may have made her unpopular. This is similar to Obama's playing it safe, never voting on anything controversial. Would either of them ever put themselves on the line for the Americans they represent? - I think we know the answer. |
|
|
| Waffles anyone??? |
[Jan. 16th, 2010|05:00 pm] |
Ok, first Obama had not intention to go to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley (why he is still campaigning when he has a bigger job to do it amazing all in itself),
but then when he sees that it's not "in the bag", he decides to go, because, after all, absolute power and no pesky Republicans to have to actually talk to, is the best way to govern.
And who cares about all the other stuff on his plate (Haiti, Afganistan, Yemen, and his many other pet projects that waste our money and do nothing for Americans).
We all know he watches opinion polls (a little too focused on that if you ask me) and he has a team, probably overseen by a Czar, watching the blogosphere...
in any case, he sees that people (that's us) think he's kinda stuck on himself and his power trip so he does a turn around and says he's not gonna go. - This must have been what it was like with his decision making on sending additional troops to Afganistan - no wonder it took so long.
Anyway, yes he's right, flexing his presidential muscle in Massachusetts to try to shove his opinions down the people's throats would likely be seen as controlling and power hungry, so instead Bill Clinton will go.
Anyway, it breakfast time somewhere in the world. Waffles anyone? |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
conservacorner
