Skip to content
Categories:

Vulnerable Republicans decide to skip GOP convention

Post date:
Author:

A few months ago, Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican and former chairman of the NRCC, told the WaPo, “The House Republican brand is so bad right now that if it were a dog food, they’d take it off the shelf.”

Has the GOP “brand” improved since? Apparently not.

Nine of 12 targeted Republicans running in the most competitive Senate races this fall are either skipping the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., or have not decided whether to attend.

Among those who will not attend are Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who is not close to presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona, and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who is a McCain loyalist. Stevens and Collins will use the convention week to focus on their campaigns.

Also sending regrets is former Rep. Bob Schaffer of Colorado, running for the seat being vacated by retiring GOP Sen. Wayne Allard.

Six others — Sens. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Gordon Smith of Oregon and challengers John Kennedy of Louisiana and Rep. Steve Pearce of New Mexico are still on the fence. Their spokesman offered responses ranging from “there are no plans yet” to “no decisions have been made.”

Now, I can understand these vulnerable Republican incumbents not wanting to be photographed alongside George W. Bush. I can even understand some of them, particularly those in traditionally “blue” states, not wanting to be seen delivering speeches at the Republican convention.

But these guys don’t want to go to their party’s quadrennial gathering at all? Do they think voters might forget which party they belong to if they steer clear of St. Paul altogether?

It sets up two interesting contrasts.

First, there’s the other side of the aisle.

[M]ost Democrats in those races are either planning to attend the party’s late August convention in Denver or are leaning toward attending the event that will formally make Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois the party’s nominee for president.

Second, there’s the comparison between this Republican convention and the one from four years ago. Mike Madden raised a good point:

[In 2004,] nearly any Republican running for statewide office anywhere not only flocked to New York for the party’s convention but scheduled as many fundraisers during the week as they could possibly cram into their days and nights.

Now, many of them seem to be saying, “The Republican National What?”

The example of Sen. Gordon Smith (R) in Oregon is especially amusing. He’s not only skipping the GOP convention, he’s running ads touting his connection to Barack Obama.

Comments

  • Martin

    says:

    [In 2004,] nearly any Republican running for statewide office anywhere not only flocked to New York for the party’s convention

    My guess is the hookers are better in NYC;>

  • katie springfield ma

    says:

    Can anyone tell me Mr O’s actual plan to bring down the price of gas? And his actual plan for keeping us safe on American soil (as Al Qaida are still out there and still want us dead)….no rhetoric or soaring speeches please—-I mean ACTUAL measurable plans. I’m trying to see if Mr O can earn my vote since (as I’ve said in other blog posts) I am a lifelong Democrat who is not in love with him as a potential leader (Please refrain fron calling me “racist” or any other name just because I express a dissenting opinion).
    Kaie, springfield MA

  • jimBOB

    says:

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch. In my dreams the Republican party deteriorates to an irrelevant regional southern party and then dies, going the way of the Whigs. After what they did to this country and to the world in the past 8 years, they deserve never to hold power again.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    2.On July 28th, 2008 at 9:26 am, katie springfield ma said:
    Can anyone tell me Mr O’s actual plan to bring down the price of gas? And his actual plan for keeping us safe on American soil (as Al Qaida are still out there and still want us dead)

    The campaign has a website with detailed policy positions on most issues. Go there and look for your answers.

  • TomB

    says:

    Katie:

    Here are two broad strategies that Obama has been advocating that might interest you. Perhaps you can find implementation details on his website.

    Gas Prices: Conservation, fuel efficiency and developing alternative energy sources will bring down the price of gas. In fact, the White House credited the fuel frugality of American consumers for bringing down the cost of oil.

    Security: Having strong working relationships with allies and others across the globe makes us safer. I think having an American president that is not reviled by the rest of the world makes us safer. More specifically, I think a focus on Afghanistan, rather than Iraq, is taking the fight to where the real Al Queda and Taliban are. Reducing our footprint in Iraq not only frees up forces to fight where they should be fighting, but it also reduces resentments that can lead to increased hostility toward the U.S.

    I don’t see substantial differences between McCain and Bush on these issues.

  • kevo

    says:

    Oh, and katie springfield ma, you’ve already shown your prejudice against Barack Obama by introducing him as “Mr O” and repeating your reference. What are you really fishing for? Don’t expect any dignified responses! -Kevo

  • OkieFromMuskogee

    says:

    Katie, other commenters may disagree with me but I don’t think that the price of crude oil (and therefore the price of gasoline) is going to come down materially. Ever.

    “Drill more” won’t work because we can’t possibly increase production enough to continue to consume at present levels. Our ongoing addiction to foreign oil is an economic and national security disaster. Alternative sources of energy and conservation are the only way out of the mess, and that isn’t going to happen overnight.

    If a presidential candidate has to promise to reduce gasoline prices to “earn your vote,” then McCain is your man. But you’re selling your vote for cheap – McCain’s gasoline tax holiday won’t even buy you a tankful – if the oil companies don’t just soak it up for themselves.

    Keep us safe from domestic terrorism? Are you serious? How about finishing the job in Afghanistan, where 9/11 came from, and ending the Bush / McCain misadventure in Iraq?

    If you just don’t like Obama, you won’t vote for him no matter what the facts are. But if you’ve been paying attention, you can’t possibly believe that McCain is more the credible candidate on either of your two favorite issues.

  • katie springfield ma

    says:

    Thank you to Jimbob, Shalimar and Tom for the info and links.
    Kevo, I respect honesty not PC comments so I have no problem with “undignified” responses—just actually THINK about them before you write….give us undecideds some real reasons why we should vote for Mr O as the charisma thing is not doing it for us (basically we want substance and someone who is consistant, not flip-flopping as Mr O has done since the primaries have ended ).
    What am I fishing for? A candidiate I can back wholeheartedly, and information to make an informed decision. Katie Springfield MA

  • N.Wells

    says:

    I see others answered Katie’s questions while I was off-line, but just to make clear the depths of her concern trolling / laziness and because I am becoming increasingly p.o.’ed at people who complain that Obama is light on specifics, here’s a more detailed run-down of his plans, which are readily available to anyone with enough brains to operate a keyboard, from his websites:
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf

    Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050, using cap and trade, carbon sequestration, and restoration of forests and grasslands

    Double energy R&D & investing $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy (biofuels, fuel infrastructure, hybrids, renewable energy, low emissions coal plants, and a better electrical grid).

    Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce, a Green Jobs Corps, and modernize and promote “clean technology” manufacturing centers. This will be funded by cap-and-trade fees and a “Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund”

    Require 25% renewable electricity by 2025 (e.g., solar, wind and geothermal) by 2025.

    Support Next Generation Biofuels:
    – tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts for cellulosic ethanol
    – expand locally-owned (farmer-owned) biofuel refineries
    – establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (10% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020)
    – require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022, increasing to 60 billion gallons by 2030.

    Increase oil independence
    – double fuel economy standard in 18 years (rework tax credits & loan guarantees for domestic auto plants & parts manufacturers, R&D on lightweight materials & new engines)
    – reduce oil consumption by 35% (10 million barrels per day) by 2030

    Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
    – set National Building Efficiency Goals (reaching carbon neutral / zero emissions, by 2030)
    – competitive grants for Early Adopters
    – investment in our utility grid (e.g., reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage)

    Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
    – Energy & Environment Forum of G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa
    – Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change:

  • zhak

    says:

    Katie — I’ll tackle the second part of your query, though I certainly don’t speak for Obama (not a fan) or anybody else but myself. As far as terrorists go, the truth is that if someone wants to hurt innocent people badly enough — and die in the process — it’s next to impossible to stop them. The whole point of terrorism is to make people afraid. If you spend a lot of time considering that there are terrorist groups who want to attack the US, you are ceding success to them. Letting them win. Europe & especially England (IRA attacks) have lived with the spectre of terrorist attacks for decades without letting it immobilize them. I know it’s bad form to think that any other country does something better than we do, but we’d do well to emulate their pov, which is basically, yes, the government will do whatever they can to nip attacks in the bud, but the ones that do happen, they’ll be damned if they’ll let it impact their daily lives. (This attitude also worked wonderfully well during the London Blitz.)

    But whatever, to specifically address what Obama has in mind, it’s fairly straightforward, as far as I can tell (I’m a reasonably well-informed voter who is not at all impressed or swayed by Obama, who I see as a politician first & foremost — and far too Centrist for my own tastes). First, Obama wants to bring the situation in Afghanistan under some sort of control. Working closely with our NATO allies should help make this a viable reality, but we can’t continue to do what we’ve done the last few years. The Bush admin likes have Bin Laden alive & free, because he’s their bogeyman. Afghanistan is one of the greatest challenges geographically anywhere in the world: no occupying force actually wins on the ground there. They never have. So we need the cooperation of the locals (killing innocents in ill-conceived bombing raids is probably not raising our stock). Basically, we’ve really screwed up there, and Obama wants to put things right, work with our allies, and by doing so, create a situation on the ground where nabbing Bin Laden once again becomes a real option — and this time, it would be allowed to happen.

    Second, the situation in Iraq & the Middle East in general needs to be resolved. We never should have invaded Iraq. With the growing scarcity of fossil fuels, the Bush admin had the great good sense to do what? Why, invade and totally destroy and kill & maim & displace millions of Iraqis! For no good reason! Wow! What a GREAT IDEA!

    We need to get the hell out of Iraq. Obama, and most everybody else (including the nominal Iraqi govt) agrees with this premise. His stated view is an orderly draw-down of troops, contingent upon the needs of the Iraqis & the situation on the ground.

    The sooner we get out of there, the better, because every day we are there, we radicalize a few more people. We kill their children, we destroy their homes, their lives. And they grow to hate us. (And you know, I’m quite sure I wouldn’t like it if some occupying force were here in the US, telling me where I can & can’t go, what I can & can’t do, and shell my house just on the off chance there’s a bad guy here.)

    Simply put, the sooner we bring the Afghanistan situation back to some semblance of control and the sooner we get out of Iraq, the fewer new enemies we will be making.

    Finally, and ultimately perhaps the most important point, under the Bush admin, there has been a scandalously stupid (big surprise there) approach to nuclear weaponry. The materials & weapons themselves that exist in a “black market” situation where they’ve slid off the radar of countries known to have nuclear weaponry (& there are quite a few that do). Obama has made it a stated goal to seek out these materials and weaponry so that they cannot be used against us.

    McCain has no coherent policies whatsoever about any subject — domestic or foreign — and there is no real choice to any thinking person.

    For myself, I don’t know if I’ll be voting for Obama (the FISA “compromise” has hurt his chances with me), but I can tell you I would never vote for McCain. The man would, I believe, actually be worse than Bush, and this country can simply not afford to continue to embrace such rank incompetence at the federal level.

  • jhm

    says:

    Lest we forget, Hon. Sen. Grassley will not be a delegate, because he wants to investigate whether the Church of Jesus for Unbridled Avarice might be a tax evasion scam (apparently above and beyond the scam of run of the mill Jesus nutters).

  • TR

    says:

    My guess is the hookers are better in NYC;>

    Sen. Larry Craig begs to differ. He loves all that Minneapolis has to offer.

  • katie springfield ma

    says:

    Thank you Zhak—you’ve given me a lot to think about. I appreciate you taking the time to share yor thoughts.
    Katie, Springfield

  • mellowjohn

    says:

    of course the hookers in nyc are better. after all, the former governor had to bring one with him when he traveled.

  • William

    says:

    I’m Gordon Smith and I approve both bi-sexu.. I mean bipartisan reaching acro.. I mean, oh never mind. What I don’t stand for is gays getting married!

    I hate to say it Katie from Springfield, Mass but high gas prices are transformative in a positive way even though the little guy gets burned the most. The words Al Qaeda (Qaida/Quesadilla) have also been transformative, apparently they’re are a massive multi-national business organization with literally tens of millions of members (depending on whose bullshit you’ve been being spoon fed by). To me Michael Chertoff and Fatherland security is 100x more frightening for America but America is asleep.. Oh yeah, watch out! It’s an orange alert!!! Fear is the mind killer.

  • beep52

    says:

    What am I fishing for? — katie springfield ma

    Attention? The answers to all your “questions” are widely available and have been for some time. Those of your “concerns” that are not immediately apparent as falsehoods to anyone but a blind conservative have been debunked ad nauseam here and elsewhere.

  • Bernard HP Gilroy

    says:

    katie @ 2:

    Can anyone tell me Mr O’s actual plan to bring down the price of gas?

    Others have done a good job answering your question, and I hope you were earnst is your desire to know and so have pursued the links given. For my part, I’d like to point out that Barack Obama is a duly-elected member of the United States Senator and that office deserves the conventional respect: Please address him as Senator Obama.

    In fairness, that also goes for John McCain. It’s tempting to scoff and mock him, and it’s not so hard to come up with ways to mangle his name, but the man is still a United States Senator and should be addressed with the honorific as well: Senator John McCain.

    Resorting to nicknames and slurs undermines the time-honored institutions of our country. It’s childish and does nothing to advance, much less, elevate public discourse in this nation. It is in no small way responsible for the coarsening and deading of American politics in the past generation. Sure, the Republicans play this game. Let them. Remember the old adage about wrestling with a pig.

  • Vicki

    says:

    To be fair, there are Democrats doing the same thing. Ronnie Musgrove, a Democratic former governor of Mississippi running for Trent Lott’s seat, and Gene Taylor, a representative from south Mississippi are both skipping the Democratic convention

  • katie springfield ma

    says:

    I was’nt just looking for attention, but i certainly did get it did’nt I? I was just excercising my right to free speech and hoping the most staunch of Mr O’s supporters would give me their insight into why they truely believe in him (aside from the fact that they are partisans and he is “the” Democrat and they would vote for ANY Democrat)….. and I actually thought addressing The senator as “Mr” O was a sign of respect (I also address my favorite TV personality Oprah as Ms O).
    Mr Obama I really don’t know yet and even though his website says he will do this or that, it doesn’t mean he will ACTUALLY do these things. Lest we forget he’s flipflopped on FISA and troop withdrawal ? I guess I’m wondering where all the belief in him comes from….is it just you want the Republicans out and the Democrats in or do you really believe in Senator Obama himself ?
    Katie, Springfield MA

  • Rich

    says:

    Katie from Springfield – Since a lot of people have taken a lot of time to answer your naive (in my view) questions thoughtfully and respectfully, I think you owe it to everyone on this blog to explain why you think McCain would better address the concerns you have than “Mr. O”, as you choose to call him. Do you really believe McCain will protect you from domestic terrorism?

    Certainly McCain has put forth no coherent or consistent positions on national security, energy, or the economy. Neither Bob Barr or Ralph Nader are real players, so you’re stuck with McCain, who at best would only continue Bush’s disaster or could easily make it all worse, or Obama who seems to have a functioning brain. W

  • Jasper

    says:

    Lew (#19), I’ve noticed the same thing.

    It’s a good strategy. Just a few years ago, I’d have voted default republican in any race. It’s reversed completely now. Absent any other extremely compelling information, GOP = NFW for me.

  • katie springfield ma

    says:

    Hi Rich,
    Just because I’m not IN LOVE with Mr Obama does’nt mean I LOVE Mr McCain….if the election was today I would stay home. I am “on the fence” as they say…I think both men have very likable traits as people but I don’t know if either one is “the complete presidential package”—-one seems consistent but conservative and antiquated in his thinking (Mr McCain), the other charismatic and eloquent but in the short time I’ve known of him has flipflopped on what I thought he stood for (Mr Obama)…which makes me wonder what DOES he stand for….this is why I thought a super-PRO Obama blog might give me some insight into the man himself. I am still undecided. I think my best bet is to watch the debates and just listen everyday to what each of them say, and of course WATCH WHAT THEY DO. Katie , Springfield

  • N.Wells

    says:

    I apologize if I sounded rude in my last post, and for the length of that post and this one.

    Zhak, you apparently have a pretty clear view of the downsides of electing McCain. Given that this is likely to be a close election, how can you risk not giving full support to Obama?

    I’m a little less confident that McCain’s energy policy is self-evidently non-existent or awful. His website gives the transcript of a year-old speech on energy, at
    https://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/Speeches/13bc1d97-4ca5-49dd-9805-1297872571ed.htm

    At first bite, he comes across as sounding pretty reasonable on the environment and on energy. He’s attractively upbeat in referring to American innovation and entrepeneurship. He refers to many of the same sorts of solutions as Obama. However, 1) people who think Obama offers no specifics may switch to saying, “but he’s just spouting meaningless goals” (which isn’t true), while failing to notice that McCain notably offers no specific targets at all, and very few specifics about how to achieve the stated goals. 2) It is also important to note that McCain is saying he supports a bunch of things that elsewhere he has rejected or even voted against. See Steve’s list of McCain’s self-contradictions for details: specifically he has flip-flopped on coastal drilling, a windfall-tax on oil companies, the Lieberman/Warner bill on combatting global warming, national emissions standards, whether cap-&-trade should be mandatory or voluntary, and whether his “gas tax holiday” would give an immediate economic stimulus or not.

    McCain’s stated goal is energy that is more diverse, more reliable, and cleaner (and more available), all of which he correctly notes will also increase national security and limit terrorism.

    However, “the strategy I propose won’t be another grab bag of handouts to this or that industry and a full employment act for lobbyists.” [That sounds nice, but what he’s actually saying is that he doesn’t want to increase government spending on R&D. That’s a popular stance, but it rejects a very powerful tool for improvement.]

    McCain says he’s for conservation (specifically improved technology, practicing sensible habits in our homes, businesses and automobiles, improved lightbulbs, smart grid technology, high tech materials, flexible-fuels vehicles).

    He’s also for alcohol fuels made from corn, sugar, switch grass and many other sources, fuel cells, biodiesel derived from waste products, natural gas. “I won’t support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the healthy competition that stimulates innovation and lower costs. But I’ll encourage the development of infrastructure and market growth necessary for these products to compete, and let consumers choose the winners.”

    He wants to add capacity and improve reliability of power grid, promote partnerships between utilities and automakers to accelerate the deployment of plug-in hybrids.

    He wants to cut subsidies for industries that can stand on their own, & establish a national challenge to improve the cost, range, size, and weight of electric batteries for automobiles.

    He also wants to use and bury carbon dioxide, recover the oil below the wells we have already drilled, and he favors low-emissions coal burning.

    He wants much more use of nuclear power (deregulation, resolve spent-fuel storage issues, cites France getting 80% of its electrical power from nuclear sources).

    He wants to improve and make permanent the research and development tax credit,

    He favors deregulation.

    He wants to develop a catalyst capable of breaking down carbon dioxide into useful chemical building blocks [actually, this is known as coral, creating limestone, which can be used as is or converted to concrete].

    He also cites a “bipartisan plan” for cap and trade, although again he cites no details.

    Lately he has also come out for offshore drilling, opening up ANWAR, and providing a useless and counterproductive “gas tax holiday”.

    His unwillingness to increase government expenditures on R&D, his counterproductive pandering with the gas tax holiday, and his flip-flops should be a warning that little good will come from a McCain presidency with regard to energy policy. He says that conservation does not have to mean shivering at home in the light of a gas lamp, but Obama seems to be the person who has the best tools and ideas for avoiding that outcoms.

    Back on the topic of the post (sorry for the detour): the Republican convention should be interesting. They have to keep Bush at arm’s length while not exactly rejecting him, make the fundamentalist wing look not too scary, gloss over massive Bush-sponsored federal incompetence, try to look friendly to minorities, and keep McCain from saying something so spectacularly awful that even the media can’t paint over it. In any other reality, this would build to a disaster of spectacular proportions, but no doubt they’ll put on a good tapdance that will fool a lot of low-information voters and most of the media, as they’ve done so many times before. I expect Lieberman will hit a peak of publicity and media attention, but with any luck in the following six months he’ll plummet to Zell Miller levels of national revelance.

  • limu

    says:

    @Katie #23.

    Katie – I think quite a few people have been really polite in answering your questions and you’ll have to understand, those whom support Senator Obama usually refer to him as either Senator Obama or just Obama, the only time I’ve read a poster’s reference to Senator Obama as “Mr. O” or just “O” is when they are being condescending from other online blogs and news commentaries. So that’s where some of the sensitivity comes.

    Now you mentioned:

    “Lest we forget he’s flipflopped on FISA and troop withdrawal “?

    I agree he reversed his position on FISA ,much to our disappointment, but troop withdrawal? Could you site to me where this has happened? I have yet to see where his has flip-flopped on this issue.

  • Heimyankel

    says:

    In truth, gas prices aren’t really that much higher so much as the dollar has weakened. The weaker the dollar gets the more dollars are needed to purchase the same barrel of oil. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I believe in the year 2000 the dollar was worth roughly 50% more vs the euro than it is today.

  • 2Manchu

    says:

    “Vulnerable Republicans decide to skip GOP convention”

    Sounds like the GOP could have a bit of a problem filling the convention center.

    They might have to downgrade to a smaller venue, otherwise it’ll be quite embarrassing to have all those empty seats shown on national televsion.

    Maybe they can find a nice social hall or VFW post.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    Katie:
    I was willing to accept your self-portrayal and answer you respectfully — even explaining why I — almost alone here — support Obama’s position on FISA, and pointing out that I, as a Democrat, have been in a similar position in previous elections, in fact, since Carter except for Clinton’s first race. Certainly I could never have described Dukakis as ‘Presidential material — and that WAS the only time I considered voting Republican, until Quayle came along. (As I’ve said, this year is different. I am voting FOR Obama and not just against McCain.)

    But then you described Sen. McCain as ‘consistent.’ Anyone who can say that with a straight face — see the flip-flop list in the upper left — is either being disingenuous, stupid, or has just not been paying attention.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    But, katie, you did a great job of ‘fly-catching’ — distracting us from the topic of the post. The idea of Republicans fleeing the convention and the ‘party label’ does not surprise me. I’ve been predicting for months that — in 2012 or 2016 — there would be a new center-right (or center-left if Obama does move to the center — which so far he has made no attempt to, despite the Republican/PUMA/MSM claims) party to replace the totally discredited Republicans.

  • Shade Tail

    says:

    Katie: I’ll say it directly, girl. I think you are a troll. I think you are not the least bit sincere. And I think you have a lot of brass to whine and act defensive when you made a very trollish post in the first place.

    If you really want to know about Obama’s plans and positions, which I think you do not, then go to his web site. Unlike McCain, Obama has very detailed specifics on what he intends to do with every issue. And contrary to your claims, Obama has been telling all of this to people throughout the election.

    So either you have not been paying attention, or, more likely in my opinion, you are just trolling.

  • katie springfield ma

    says:

    Can someone explain what a troll is ? I definetly see this new term being added to the dictionary next year as I’m being referred to as this and I’ve never heard it before reading this blog.
    Also, I get the distinct impression that dissenting voices are not welcome on this blog (sorry I do believe as Americans we should question authority AND voice opinions–even opinions that don’t jive with other partisan Democrats beliefs).
    I certainly appreciate those of you who did answer my question respectfully and thoughtfully voiced your beliefs for Obama and against McCain…this will help others on the fence like me make an informed decison. Thank you again and I meant no disrespect to the Senator or to his friends on this blog.
    Katie, Springfield MA

  • katie springfield ma

    says:

    I just read the troll definition…Wow, I guess I am a “troll” jimBOB.
    Katie Springfield MA

  • sduffys

    says:

    Wow!. Thanks to Katie and jimBOB’s response to her – I’ve learnt how to properly link an emoticon. Whew!

    jimBOB at 36 – thanks for your un-solicited, but highly helpful hint on the commenting software!!!

  • libra

    says:

    But, katie, you did a great job of ‘fly-catching’ — distracting us from the topic of the post. — Prup, @32

    I guess, since she’s unfamiliar with the term “troll” (as applied to the “inertubes”), she’s also unfamiliar with the ideas such as “thread” or “topic”. She probably thought — because of the name (carpetbagger) — that we’re a black, southern church, where people testify for Obama randomly, without any rhyme or reason, as the spirit moves them. That’s why she thought it was perfectly OK to break into a discussion and hijack the subject. Just ignorance, not rudeness or malice.

  • Crissa

    says:

    I think ‘not having a war in the country with the second-largest reserves’ will lower the price of oil.

    But personally, I’ll just use less of the stuff.

  • joey (bjobotts)

    says:

    There is no justification or reasonable explanation for FISA but there are a lot of rationalizations to justify Obama’s support of this hideous unneccessary capitulation of legalizing Bush’s corruption and lawbreaking and letting his bribed buddies off the hook. glenngreenwald@salon.com easily puts this issue in perspective for those willing to open their eyes to it. Multiple civil liberties groups are suing the government over this attack on the constitution. There is no “other” side to this argument and any justification offered for it is plainly wrong.

    There are no miracles that are going to “bring the price of gas down” as there is only so much of it and high consumer demand is burning it up at an alarming rate and at the expense of the environment. Nature demands we find alternative sources of energy if we are to maintain our present lifestyle. It is our expectations that must be changed. Peak oil has been reached…years ago as a matter of fact. Our happy motoring days are nearly over and it has taken wars and environmental disasters to make us address this problem. (Thars still gold in them thar hills)

    Terrorism is better dealt with by police and investigative agencies than by military force. Bush had all the warnings plainly visible and did nothing to prevent 9/11 but rather used it as an excuse for military excursions to go after the huge ME oil fields….and would do so again. Just like the insurgency was preventable making the surge (troop escalation) unnecessary if we would have had a competent president who lacked the ambition to be “commander-in-chief” but would rtather have seen our best way of dealing with the violence in Iraq was to make employment rather than war. People with good jobs and income security don’t go around blowing things up. Ask what people want and overwhelmingly they say they want peace and security, good medical care, a home and a future. Ending poverty is the key to ending the threat of terrorism.

    A few thousand very greedy people are trying to create a corporate global economy to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. We need rational, reasoning, deliberative leaders willing to negotiate peace and economic harmony and fairness. Obama is such a character. McCain just wants to beat people up and show you how tough he is. He doesn’t tolerate discussion, disagreement or dissent . Attack Iran…throw Russia out of the G 8, leave a resented occupying force in Iraq for their own good…no national health care ins, tax breaks for the 1%. All one has to do is watch him speak and you would have to be blind not to see how irrational a character he is.

    This race is not close…after the Bush disaster and with McCain continuing the same disaster…no republican will win the WH this election. People really didn’t know McCain tilt now and after exposing his vileness before the public he will probably cease being a senator very soon also.

    Obama is just what the country needs at this time but he still is not that progressive or that liberal but he’s a good start. Reaganomics have failed us and the destruction of FDR’s policies and idealism stops now as we prepare to prevent another Great Depression brought about by the same “Economic Royalists”

  • Linda

    says:

    When I watch the Republicans as they continue their “cheap shots” and justification for their actions, I am truly amazed at how stupid they think the American people are. Their whole attitude is ” do as I say not as I do”; they have a different set of rules for themselves and others. It is an insult to my intelligence as well as others to think that they can preach the same rhetoric without people knowing exactly what the real messages are.