It’s remarkable how many conservative Republicans such as William Bennett and Peggy Noonan are expressing admiration for Barack Obama, so much so that a new term — Obama Republican — is being used. What’s going on?
Former Bush official Peter Wehner tries to explain what Republicans see in Obama. Part of it, he says, is the “eloquence and uplift of his speeches, combined with his personal grace and dignity.†He has charm, and Republicans are not immune. Part of it is his message of unity and hope. Part of it, of course, is GOP contempt for the Clintons.
At some point, though, Wehner argues, Republicans smitten with Obama the person will come up against his thoroughly liberal record on issues.
75 Comments
OK, as a Republican I’ll take the bait. Obama’s tone and message are positive. He isn’t the kind to descend into gutter politics. He doesn’t chase ambulances. He energizes young people. He doesn’t divide the country into us and them. He transcends race. He’s honest and has clarity in his positions. And, yes, he’s not a Clinton. If the Democrats want their best chance at winning the White House, they’ll nominate him. Republicans will oppose him on the issues and lack of experience, but he doesn’t generate anything like the kind of passion Hillary Clinton does. I’m torn about who to root for in the Democratic primaries – Obama because the slimy Clinton menace will be slain once and for all, or Clinton, because she will be much easier to beat in the fall, especially with John McCain, who can win the Independent vote against her, but not against Obama.
Absolutely correct. The infatuation will suffer when the reality of Obama’s liberal positions including Supreme Court justices, higher taxes, abortion and gay rights agenda, etc…, hits home. His health care proposal however is better than Hillary’s. If he moves toward the center (he has a long ways to go), though, he has the personality that could make him a unifer.
If the republicans wont vote for mccain because he’s too “liberal” I hardly see them embracing the even more liberal Obama.
That’s why I think all this republican “support” for Obama is smoke and mirrors. The so called “moderate” republicans have their own so called “moderate” in mccain.
And the hard core cons are more likely to stay home than vote for any democrat.
And if the republicans are looking for hope and inspiration, I just got done listening to the huckster at CPAC. Hell, if I didnt know what a religious wingnut theocrat he is, I could have been “inspired” by his speech, his message of hope and personal responsibility, and his likability factor too. Republicans looking for charism will find it in Mike.
But hey, if the democrats want the republicans to choose their nominee, good luck with that…
Lucy. Charlie Brown. Football.
I don’t know why we’re even thinking about the Republican votes. They will vote for whoever is the candidate with the “R” beside the name. We really don’t them anyway!
The REAL reason- the Republicans are scared to death of Hillary. Most of them pretty much have wrote off November. They know it is going to be a disaster for them so if they want to have any influence it will be in the Democratic party which is still having a competitive primary. The Republicans know that, if elected, Hillary will not play ball with them if she has majorities in the House and Senate. She will ram her programs through and give them the worst committie assignments known to man! And she will lord over the House and Senate with an iron fist and not hesitate to make the democrats use the “nuclear option” when it comes to rules like the fillibuster. On the other hand, Obama is known as a person that likes to have as many folks on board as he can. In Springfield (Illinois) as a state Senator he often reached out to Republicans to forge coalitions around his issues and the chances are he would try to deal with Republicans in the House and Senate to get his agenda passed. He would probably use compromise to get the 60 votes in the Senate rather than using the “nuclear option” to change the rules. He would probably nominate very middle-of-the-road judges to get the 60 votes rather than try to ram though a real left of center judge. That is why lots of Republicans would rather have him than her. Whether is approach would work in such a partisan environoment is questionable but he would certainly try. Hillary won’t.
“What do Republicans see in Obama?”
One of two things.
One of their own.
Or a sappy, starry eyed, dupe that they can make into one of their own.
Kev,
Standing ovation! It is going to be soooo good!
“Whether is approach would work in such a partisan environoment is questionable but he would certainly try. Hillary won’t.”
I dont think you know that Kev.
That is the “mean bitch” meme the republicans push and it seems you have fallen for it.
Hillary is smart, if nothing else. EVERYONE seems to agree on that. I have NOT heard her preach a scorched earth approach. The repukes just fear a strong woman (and well all know that is dog whistle for “mean bitch”) who will stand her ground and is smart enough to fight with them and win.
I have NOT heard her talk about treating them the way they treated her. I have NOT heard her talk about “ramming through” (freudian?) anything.
I have heard her talk about being able to fight the wingnuts if necessary.
So.. if you were a republican, who would you want? Mr. “let’s talk and compromise”? Or Ms. (here’s what we are going to do and you can have input or fight me. Your choice”)
Shit. Why do you think they call it “triangulation”?
Nope Kev. Some of us can see right through the republican fear rhetoric that you clearly have bought.
But we do share your concern about Obama’s need to be liked. Does he need to be liked so much that he would give away the store?
THAT is what I fear.
I lost my point about Hillary being smart. She is smart enough to know that she needs a certain amount of buy-in from the repukes to get her agenda passed. She has also felt the sharp end of the “no negotiations” stick. She is smart enough to know, having served under bush and his minion dominated congress, that sooner or later, those strong armed tactics come back to bite you.
You know Kev, a woman CAN hold her ground without being mean, destructive, or a castrating bitch.
But you’d never know it by listening to Obama’s republican fan club.
Goddess forgive me for agreeing with max on this.
““What do Republicans see in Obama?”
One of two things.
One of their own.
Or a sappy, starry eyed, dupe that they can make into one of their own.”
Max
Posted February 9, 2008 at 9:14 am | Permalink
“What do Republicans see in Obama?”
One of two things.
One of their own.
Or a sappy, starry eyed, dupe that they can make into one of their own.
————————————————-
There is a troll MAX and this is the 2nd post from the troll that I’ve seen.
Obviously a LIB who can’t defend their positions without a sneak attack. Have fun.
And the fact that the corporate MSM is CLEALY backing Obama scares me just as bad.
HEE HEE HEE HEE.
WEll, THAT certainly explains why Max finally posted something I could agree about.
It was a troll.
ROFLMQAO.
“”"If the republicans wont vote for mccain because he’s too “liberal” I hardly see them embracing the even more liberal Obama.
That’s why I think all this republican “support” for Obama is smoke and mirrors. The so called “moderate” republicans have their own so called “moderate” in mccain.
And the hard core cons are more likely to stay home than vote for any democrat.”"”
The PROBLEM for moderate Republicans is that there is really not many of them left. The Republicans used to be a “moderate” party before Reagan and the band of reckless right wing nutcases took it over in the early 80s. These are ideologically pure types that reject any compromise when it comes to issues whether they be taxes, immigration, guns, abortion, church-state and any number of other issues. The FACT is that no Republican can win without these people turning out the vote because they have driven all the moderates out of the party. And these people have been winning by smaller and smaller margins. Bush beat Gore by a few votes in one state and then beat a WEAK John Kerry by one state. So now McCain has a problem- he can either try to remake himself and cast his lot with the Reaganites or he can attempt the “big tent” approach and cast his lot with the Rockefeller types that ran the GOP prior to Reagan. I do not think either will work for him this year.
Conversely the Democrats do not need the “looney left” to win. They have effectively rebuilt a coalition of minority voters, union/government employee voters and women voters that can carry them to victory in November if they can get them out to vote. The Democrats biggest weaknesses have always been their candidates and their organization. We now have 2 strong candidates that are not going to allow themselves to be “swiftboated” or bullied. And, thanks to Howard Dean, we have a great and well oiled street organization ready for November.
Yup Farmgirl, I guess that will be your clue as to which is the real Max and which is the imposter.
You’ll only agree with the imposter.
“Conversely the Democrats do not need the “looney left” to win.”
I sure hope that isnt a back handed way of painting Hillary as the “looney left”.
And Max, I’m sorry you were trolled. But I do think it is REALLY funny that when I read the troll post, I thought, damn, max is finally making some sense.
I’ll remember that if I agree with you, it must be a troll post.
I don’t know what Republicans see in Obama.
I know Conservatives see his Liberal voting record, his lack of support of the 2nd Amendment, and his support for increased Federal Spending, increased taxes, and National Healthcare.
I’m not sure Republicans are Conservative any more.
I am a registered Independent.
Farmgirl, it must have been a real shock I know.
But you know, Valentines day is approaching…
Republicans are SOCIALLY Conservative and other than legislating morality don’t have a clue what true and meaningful Conservatism is all about. The other part of today’s Republican Party is the even-more deluded one-world power, protect Israel, keep the people under your thumb while America takes over the world NeoCons. Those two factions can’t be allowed to take over America! And, the second one listed is USING the first to accomplish their goals.
“”"I dont think you know that Kev.
That is the “mean bitch” meme the republicans push and it seems you have fallen for it.
Hillary is smart, if nothing else. EVERYONE seems to agree on that. I have NOT heard her preach a scorched earth approach. The repukes just fear a strong woman (and well all know that is dog whistle for “mean bitch”) who will stand her ground and is smart enough to fight with them and win.
I have NOT heard her talk about treating them the way they treated her. I have NOT heard her talk about “ramming through” (freudian?) anything.
I have heard her talk about being able to fight the wingnuts if necessary.
So.. if you were a republican, who would you want? Mr. “let’s talk and compromise”? Or Ms. (here’s what we are going to do and you can have input or fight me. Your choice”)”"”
Of course she is not going to say anything like that because she does not want to turn off moderate swing voters nor does she want to agitate conservatives who might just decide to go fishing on Election Day rather than vote for McCain. But make no mistake about it- she will get her way one way of the other. Ask anybody- even a Democrat that even questioned her when Bill was the President. She would threaten them and go after them with a vengance. There was one Democrat that wanted to tinker with her first healthcare plan she told him “if you do that we will destroy you”. I do not recall his name but he endorsed Obama. So if she will do that to her own Democrats, the Republicans would certainly hold no sway with her. So if I were a Republican, I would want Obama. As a Democrat I want him too. Although I am a political warrior I think we should always give the “nice” approach a good try.
Lindalinks, do you have any sources to support your 9:38 post?
“”"“Conversely the Democrats do not need the “looney left” to win.”
I sure hope that isnt a back handed way of painting Hillary as the “looney left”.”"”
No Hillary is not the looney left. I am talking about people like the ones that run San Fransisco and Cynthia McKinney, Ward Churchill and those types.
Hillary Clinton is ABSOLUTELY the Loony Left.
Check her record, and note her ‘experience’.
http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=55463
Professional Experience:
Attorney, Rose Law Firm, 1976-1992
Faculty, University of Arkansas Law School, 1975
Author
Former Staff Attorney, Children’s Defense Fund.
Political Experience:
Candidate, United States President, 2008
Senator, United States Senate, 2000-present
First Lady, President Bill Clinton, 1992-2000
First Lady, State of Arkansas, 1978-1980, 1982-1992.
http://ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
(Scroll all the way down)
Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal.
“Ask anybody- even a Democrat that even questioned her when Bill was the President. She would threaten them and go after them with a vengance”
OMG. BIG eye roll. Ask anybody?
Well if everybody and anybody knows that, why not provide some proof?
Yeah. I can tell you are an Obama supporter.
Are you like Tucker Carlson and involuntarily cross your legs when Hillary speaks?
You did swallow the “mean angry bitch” meme. Did you wash it down with kookaide too?
hehehehehehehehheehheeheheheheheheheehhe…..
Max, I know you can use “the google.” And, I know that nothing I would bring to the table would satisfy you. You are so capable I’ll leave it to you if you want to research my post.
“Although I am a political warrior I think we should always give the “nice” approach a good try.”
Isnt that what pelosi and reid did?
How did THAT work out?
Charlie Brown. Lucy. Football. Flat on your back.
And the fact that he sounds like a preacher half the time. Goes good with that sheep mentality republicans are known for.
I’ve said before, I”m very afraid of this conversion. I do not want my party becoming republicon lite. And I do think that is what is going on here. The moderates have been pushed out of their party, and so they are taking over mine. I hope Obama doesn’t sell out in order to keep their votes if he is nominated. I also think that might be why he doesn’t talk about his plans. He doesn’t want to lose his republican support.
And Pmom? All we have to do is look at the Kansas democratic party to see what happens when the republicans move over, move in, and take over. The party becomes republican not-so-lite. And the republicans become next in line for the top office.
Very astute observation about why obama and his supporters want to share conversion stories not policy.
And also, if you get them talking about obama’s voting record on the war, you find it is no different from Hillary’s. They have LOTS of reasons to want to talk about inspiration, not real issues.
I am SO waiting for Mr. Controversy to get his answers.
Obama must move the Democrat party right. The loony left cannot sustain a majority. Ever.
I don’t know, Substance 22, McCain seems to be doing that quite well!
Democrats, for the first time in a looooong time, know we can’t lose no mater who is elected and no mater what Party they are from.
Max, we NEED a hardcore liberal to undo all the damaged caused by George and the Neocons.
SOMEONE has to take over the White House that is actually connected to reality.
George and his Messianic Complex has to go and it will take years for us to recover.
McCain, the GOP’s nominee, only promises us four more years of Bush politics – nothing else. Perhaps he failed to note that Bush only has an approval rating of 30%.
Maybe McCain can start to explain to the other 70% why FOUR MORE YEARS is a good plan?
McCain is moving the Democrat party right?
Since you can’t lose, please vote for McCain, Linda!
It’s kinda fun to mess with you, Substance 22. McCain won’t move the Democratic Party any way. It’s just that you Republicans are nominating the best of the least. I know you didn’t have many choices.
I think Obama is appealing to Rinos, people who are Republicans because there parents are, I know alot of people in this category both D and R people that really dont understand what the parties stand for but belong to one because someone told them too. Or people regstristed republican because democrats never have any choices in the primaries.
It is probably true that there were registered Rs who reregistered as Ds so that they could get on the bandwagon. But it is hard to say whether they will stick. Moderate Dems in Sedg Cty for years have been persuaded to register R so that they could help try to wrest control from the neo-cons – hasn’t worked at all, has it? But many of those “converts” still vote for Democrats. Sebelius stil won Sedg Cty in 2002 and by a larger margin in 2006.
I suspect the vast majority of the newly registered Ds last Tuesday at the caucuses were brand new voters, or were Ind voters switching to D in order to participate in the “change” movement here and nationwide. I suspect they will not switch back before the primary, because they are not invested by heritage or ingrained habit in the R designation.
Ultimately, I am more concerned with how citizens vote.
Well as far as I know, the Republicans in Kansas have never chosen a former Democrat to be the lieutenant governor nor have they put a former state party chair, of the opposite party, in line to be the NEXT governor. Nor have they nominated a former democrat to be AG.
Thank you governor “leadership”.
“It is probably true that there were registered Rs who reregistered as Ds so that they could get on the bandwagon. But it is hard to say whether they will stick.”
Well, no shit.
I think that’s what Pmom and I have been saying. They made a temporary visit to democrat land just long enough to rat bugger the primary.
Then they’ll go back home and vote for mccain.
Linda; We started with four Republicans with more accomplishments, more relevant experience and better skills than any of the Democrat candidates. Now we are down to two. It will likely be McCain because he will beat Hillary and has chance against Obama.
George has done us in on more conservative candidates. Not that he has done a bad job by any means. He just has trouble expressing himself. How’d a guy who can’t speak well get elected president twice? Two answers. Al Gore and John Kerry.
Linda, I do like your enthusiasm. I tend to be a bit of a grump myself.
“Not that he has done a bad job by any means. He just has trouble expressing himself.”
So… what color is the sky in YOUR world?
“He just has trouble expressing himself.”
Jeez, and I have trouble passing for Brad Pitt.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh…………….
Perhaps, “ksfarmgrrl” –
But that’s not what I saw in my small little rural county. The moderate Republic Party members have been complaining for years that “I didn’t leave the party, the party left me.” I.e., the evangelical whackos have so taken over the Kansas Republic Party, the Kassebaum Republics no longer have a home.
Still, in this Republic Party-dominated county, the only way to vote for a Sheriff or County Commissioner is to vote in the primary. Some of them are sitting out both parties’ caucuses, but a surprising number showed up February 5th to participate in the Democratic choice. The traditionally moderate Republic newspaper editor and his wife showed up; he stood up for Obama, his wife stood for Hillary. He’d never attended a Democratic Party event in his life.
I suspect, in this dialog we’ve had, “ksfarmgrrl,” you’ve forgotten that traditionally, the Kansas Republic Party was a fairly moderate outfit. Before Roe v. Wade, it was a Republic-dominated Kansas Legislature that passed one of the most liberal abortion rights laws in America. Nancy Landon Kassebaum wasn’t anything like the post-Ginrich/DeLay radicalized Republic Party nitwits. The radical right hated even Bob Dole (Bob Dole!) for being too “liberal” for their taste in 1996.
In a couple of hours we’ll find out the results of today’s caucuses. I’m betting the twice-born will give the Huckster a victory because traditional moderate Republic Party Kansans no longer have a party, or have come over to the Democrats.
It will be interesting to see whether they will “go back home and vote for McCain”. I agree that that is quite likely to occur – at least in terms of what will happen in the voting booth – if Clinton is the nominee. I do not agree that that is what will happen if Obama is the candidate. McCain is going to have enough problems of his own convincing the religious right to turn out and vote for him, and unburdening himself with the promise of a 100 year long presence in Iraq.
“It will be interesting to see whether they will “go back home and vote for McCain”. I agree that that is quite likely to occur – at least in terms of what will happen in the voting booth – if Clinton is the nominee. I do not agree that that is what will happen if Obama is the candidate.”
Pure speculation. Opinion not supported by evidence.
And in the same vein…
I think republican blood, in the end, will be thicker than crossover water.
no matter who is the Democratic nominee.
Lucy. Charlie Brown. Football.
“I suspect, in this dialog we’ve had”
WE are not having a dialog. YOU are preaching and lecturing me.
“”"I’ve said before, I”m very afraid of this conversion. I do not want my party becoming republicon lite. And I do think that is what is going on here. The moderates have been pushed out of their party, and so they are taking over mine. I hope Obama doesn’t sell out in order to keep their votes if he is nominated. I also think that might be why he doesn’t talk about his plans. He doesn’t want to lose his republican support.”"”
We HAVE to win some of the more moderate people to vote for us. We cannot win being an always left wing party. The Democrats have made real errors by doing that in the past- especially by advocating policies that scare the hell out of blue collar rural voters (gun control anybody?). That cost the Democrats in 2000 when we lost West Virgina over that issue (which is why you do not hear either Hillary or Obama saying anything about guns). The trick here is to get all the things the base wants (end the war, health care at least reformed if not nationalized, economic fairness) without making too many moderates mad. I think we have a GOLDEN opportunity not seen since LBJ here. We should have good majorities in the House and in the Senate (although not 60) after November and if we win the White House, a good chance to accomplish much for the American peoples and our country but we will WASTE this opportunity if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in culture wars with the right wing over things like God, Guns and Gays. For example, Bill Clinton and the gays in the miliary issue- he let that bog him down during the first year of his administration. What he should have done was on the FIRST DAY say “today I am ordering the United States Armed Forces to adopt a non discrimination sexual orientation policy” BOOM! Done and out of the way. Same with the guns issue- if it is brought up by either side just say “guns are a state issue and we will not be spending any time on them here” BOOM! Done and out of the way! Now we can get to real business! The right wing will try to use culture wars to slow the new President down and he/she must not allow them to get away with it.
I agree that I am speculating about the future, but will you agree that you are also speculating? Just curious . . . it doesn’t matter. Neither of us is clairvoyant.
“Pure speculation. Opinion not supported by evidence.
And in the same vein…”
Yes, I’m admittedly speculating too. That’s why I said “in the same vein”.
I just have a gut instinct that this is a bait and switch on the part of those crossover republicans. We’ll see whose “gut” is correct.
And as they say, there is still a lot of green on the table before November.
I mean, there could still be lots of “terra terra” alerts, no?
And the swiftboating of obama hasnt even begun. They are still having too much fun with Hillary.
Kev, I agree with you about DADT and how it should have been handled.
But… ” blue collar rural voters”
Funny you should mention that. Obama is the choice of vichy dems everywhere. Every “latte drinking, over educated, upper class democrat” seems to be supporting Obama.
Even his hometown paper agrees.
From the Chicago Tribune:
WASHINGTON — Even when Sen. Barack Obama was the presidential candidate of the open collar, he was never the blue-collar one.
And these days, now that he rarely appears in public without a suit and tie, Obama is coming to grips with an undeniable trend: People with college degrees and higher incomes tend to choose him, while working-class voters, at least white ones, are more likely to favor Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
This is by no means a new divide within the Democratic Party, whose economically diverse population includes Hollywood glitterati, union workers and every pay grade in between. (Think Kendall-Jackson meets Anheuser-Busch.) But the preferences are emerging in such stark terms lately that even the Obama team may be accepting it as a difficult reality. In a memo leaked last week, Obama campaign staffers projected they were likely to lose in a handful of states—which just happen to be heavy with blue-collar workers. The beer-wine dynamic is not as significant as the gender divide, which is sending many female voters to Clinton’s side. Still, it’s an important factor as the race moves into the most competitive phase yet, in which any sliver of the electorate that sticks together might make the difference.
“His support tends to be stronger in suburban areas where you have white-collar professionals,” said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. “There has always been a division among the Democratic Party among its limousine liberals and its blue-collar workers.”…
More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-working...
How long will it be before we hear about Obama’s privy background of prep schools and being raised by his affluent white grandparents in Hawaii?
Ya know the repukes, they’ll turn on you and switch tactics on a dime.
I agree with you about the “terra terra” issue, the swift-boating issue, the DU discussion of the anti-Hillary sexism, and I add that you were right about the Gov endorsing Obama. I should have read the back pages of the Vogue article where she tipped her hand. Jeez, I think I may have just used up all my good nature today.
Thanks for that Kelly. Really. Now if you would just acknowledge that I’ve been right about Hays, Russell, governor leadership and the water issue…
hehehehehhe. Ok, I wont push it if you are at the end of your good nature….
I know I’m on the wrong side of popular opinion about the governor and lots of issues. But it isnt that I dont KNOW I’m on the unpopular side.
But.. at the risk of being self serving AND pushing it. I do have good instincts about some of these things.
It just doesnt always make me a winner.
Peace. And thanks for all you do, even if we rarely agree.
What Republicans see in Obama is a firewall against the coming storm.
They are going to lose HUGE in November and they know it.
Put yourself in their place. A President with a miserable approval rating. An occupation of Iraq that they now know they were lied into supporting.
The middle class in the last stages of failure.
We all know the list. So do they. And they are scared.
They see Obama as someone who will forgive and forget. Which is pretty much taking Obama at his word. He doesn’t even rise to the label of “nice cop”.
I generally try to avoid Republican advice as to who Democrats should vote for. Sorta like asking a mugger to be gentle.
WSClark
Posted February 9, 2008 at 11:19 am | Permalink
Max, we NEED a hardcore liberal to undo all the damaged caused by George and the Neocons.
SOMEONE has to take over the White House that is actually connected to reality.
George and his Messianic Complex has to go and it will take years for us to recover.
McCain, the GOP’s nominee, only promises us four more years of Bush politics – nothing else. Perhaps he failed to note that Bush only has an approval rating of 30%.
Maybe McCain can start to explain to the other 70% why FOUR MORE YEARS is a good plan?
————————————————–
McCain, Clinton, Obama, all sit in the Senate now.
What is it that any of them have DONE in their Senate careers that makes you want to vote FOR any of them?
Max
Posted February 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm | Permalink
Nothing, but then I’m not voting any of the above into or out of the Senate. This election is for POTUS, remember?
As far as I know, none of the candidates of either party has experience in THAT office. Unless you want to count Clinton, that is.
I guess it’s human nature to want to compare apples to apples only when it’s to your benefit, and apples to oranges when it’s not. If so, then Max is certainly human. Or human-like, anyway. :wink:
“Missing link” is more like it.
Name the last Senator to get elected to the office of the President.
“”"Kev, I agree with you about DADT and how it should have been handled.
But… ” blue collar rural voters”
Funny you should mention that. Obama is the choice of vichy dems everywhere. Every “latte drinking, over educated, upper class democrat” seems to be supporting Obama.
Even his hometown paper agrees.”"”
That is true but blue collar folks (and I am from such a family) want their kids to be “white collar folks” someday. Obama has the opportunity to win these people in the general by stressing things that they care about- education and healthcare- as well as economic reforms. He should be able to win union support with his support of the checkcard system and not allowing Mexican truck drivers to roam the USA at will (Teamsters). The working folks know the Republicans are not for us. Not by far. Now, as for him wearing a suit and tie all the time (and I have seen him without a tie), I will say this- I HATE suits and ties. I own one suit and it stays in the closet for funerals and weddings. However I expect the President of the United States to be well dressed everyday unless he is at a BBQ or a NASCAR race. I see nothing wrong with that. He is the CEO of the United States and represents all of us to the rest of the world and, as such, he should look the part and dress well. So why the Tribune (which is a Republican paper BTW) would make a deal out of that is beyond me.
“Part of it, of course, is GOP contempt for the Clintons.”
Strike that. The GOP FEARS the Clintons.
Hillary will not “play nice” and Bushco’s crimes will be brought to light and the Republican Party will be destroyed once and for all.
It isn’t contempt but fear that the Republicans feel.
See in Obama? It’s what I don’t see.
And that would be Billary Clintons.
But, I gave a moving speech at the community center during the democrat caucus. Brought tears to the libs eyes. All BS, but I wanted him to win.
It’s not exactly fear Kansas. Extreme dislike.
A foul taste in my mouth whenever I see Bill flaunting all over himself during speeches for the Hillary socialist.
I no longer fear her. I’ve moved everything I can to protect my investments from her wrath. I’ve maxed out my 401K plus the over 50 kicker to shield current income. I’ve also adjusted as much of my wages to pretax status.
Still, looking into off shore movement of financials for added protection, if possible.
The Dems will be looking at the 2 trillion dollars in retirement savings to steal.
Like your money means anything. Typical Republican…money is your God.
You may have waited a little late, AmWay. Maybe in ALL your wisdom you took steps to protect your investments from bushco and only are giving that “moving speech” again. Maybe you did better last Tuesday?
Obama is educated. It would be nice to have an articulate president.
You must be a new Kansas. SOunds like the ole Capn America.
Money is my god now? Wow, I thought I was a neocon, complete with the religious right fortified with onward christian soldiers marching on before!
You don’t know me well enough to say that. But your Archie Bunker stereotyping colors are showing true.
And new Kansas, MY money is apparently YOUR god.
You want to take as much of it as you can.:-)
In fact, you and your party focuses an awful lot on my money.
Fortunately, I live a life of abundance(John 10:10).
So I have much for you to covet.
more fear and whining from AmWay and even a little paranoia.
Sure makes me smile to read those posts!
Obama wins decisively in Louisiana, doubles Hillary’s vote in Nebraska and Washington.
The pundits are saying that the two are tied in delegates.
Which means that Hillary the “front runner” is losing . . .
She also has high negatives among Democratic voters.
Obama is losing real friends and gaining phony friends.
I am surprised you do not see it Capn.
The Republicans I know would probably vote for Satan before they’d let Hillary Clinton become president.
He isn’t eligible to run again. His second term is finally over January 20, 2009.
American Way
Fortunately, I live a life of abundance(John 10:10).
So I have much for you to covet.
*****
Yeah, that’s the way I look at it too, Regula . . . I mean, AmWay.
Having a lot of money means that God loves me.
Having more money than you means he loves me more.
/sarcasm off
“I have come that ye might have life, life in all its abundance . . . ” I’m pretty sure that isn’t just money that Jesus was talking about.
Go back to King James version. “Have life MORE than abundantly.”
Now re-read my post (Oh ye of little reading comprehension ability).
My life is full to overflowing with abundance. It appears you finally get it. Christ was not talking about COLD HARD CASH. The abundant life is not just cash. But that comes with it. I tithe. I live large, and I reap the promises of God. God didn’t want his believers to be suckers or poor. We are filled with the holy spirit and crowns of glory await us. God didn’t intend for Christians to be doormats.
Silly rabbit. Tricks are for kids.
Hillary will win without a doubt–think about it–have you ever been in a position to promote a weaker opponent rather than go up against the one that knows how to defend. The Republicans know they cannot win against her. Obama is a patsy. I would not doubt if they are the ones that put him up to run.. You really think it is coincidence that a 1/2 black man is running against a female at the same time.
Ugh, he is more liberal than even Hillary, so I don’t see how you can think that Republicans put him up to running for President.
lindainks55
Posted February 9, 2008 at 10:53 pm | Permalink
He isn’t eligible to run again. His second term is finally over January 20, 2009.
That was very funny linda!! So true, oh so true. I was a little scared that Cheney might have tried to run, but alas, we were saved from that hell.
One Trackback
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]