And then when the Religious Right gets on their self-righteous bully pulpit and preaches to these younger voters – they really don’t connect with them. For one thing, the younger people are not as intolerant as the Religious Right.

But I did get one thing last night from the Republican Governors Association meeting – they are all buttering up the Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindahl (sp??). I don’t know how many old farts I counted that were praising this guy like he is their next God – and they talked about the liberal media appointing Obama as the messiah…

——–

The arrogance! They “think” (NOT!) that Americans are so stupid they can put a prettier bow on it and sell it. When Rove stated out loud and used as his method for getting bush elected twice: “half of Americans are of below average intelligence,” I couldn’t believe it would meet with success. It did — TWICE. Maybe if anything good had come from those eight years it would still work, since it is obviously still true.

More people are aware of how condescending the Republicans are towards our abilities to think. The youth particularly aren’t buying it! And, the more highly educated aren’t buying it. The Republicans won’t be able to repackage and pretty up the same old message and sell it to any more than the faithful, and they don’t have numbers any longer. As their “base” shrinks so do their possibilities of winning with the same policies of hate and fear.

These people were blaming their huge losses on two people – John McCain and George W. Bush.

Granted, these two men were not the best thing going in this election cycle but what the rest of the Republicans don’t get is that the American voters turned alot of the Republicans out – not just McCain.

These governors all sat around and talked about their message does not need to be changed – it needs to be marketed better.

By their own admission, these governors said the Republican party does not connect with the women, minorities, younger voters, people of modest incomes, etc. But yet they still insist the American voters want their message of social conservatism.

What part of reality do these people not get? When people are seeing their jobs being sent overseas in order for their company’s CEO to get a few more millions in his paycheck, this does not look good for the Republican Party who wants to make sure that CEO doesn’t have to pay any more taxes.

When people are not working, they cannot purchase homes, cars, household appliance, or send their kids to college. And what does the Republican Party do about that? They watch out for the Wall Street fat cats in order to make sure they don’t pay any more taxes.

When people are not working, it makes them angry and when the masses start getting angry, the anger turns towards the top elite level and guess what – that’s where the Republicans have placed themselves.

This is why the Republican Party is in shambles but the only thing I saw come out of their discussion at the governors meeting was ‘ their message is right – they only need to find a new face to sell it’.

Only fools keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

Funny, but Joe started out the day chastising MP for being a hater….

Pot, meet kettle.

Not only the BDP, but the BBH! (Blog’s biggest hater!)

“Religion is poison.” (Mao Zedong)

“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” (Napoleon Bonaparte)

“I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another’s creed. I am satisfied that yours must be an excellent religion to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness. For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be judged.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.” (Adolf Hitler)

What makes you think. . .
————

Multi-nic’d Regular doesn’t seem to “think” very clearly. Maybe he needs more time to recover from his stroke?

Guess all those “pie in the sky” programs that will create millions of jobs is out the window.

—

What makes you think Obama is so short-sighted to not prepare our country for any future high-priced gas? Obama has always said that it is ridiculous for our country to be spending billions every year for foreign oil. Why would that statement be any different now just because of a drop in gas prices for the short term?

Besides, anyone with half a brain would know that the US cannot depend on the goodness of the Middle East foreign oil to continue to be our eternal source of cheap gas for too long.

Obama is an intelligent person and he can see that if he can help to get the US off the dependency of foreign oil, the better off our future will be. And if he can create jobs doing it, why not?

At least he is willing to spend tax dollars on Americans and not continue giving tax breaks or subsidies to US corporations that only want to ship jobs overseas.

It’s about time we have a president who puts Americans first.

outlander, President elect Obama is a liberal. That is a very desirable quality. He isn’t the most liberal Senator. And, he campaigned as a centrist, will need to govern as a centrist to be successful. His term will begin January 20, 2009. I’m sure we’ll have many opportunities to discuss how he is doing at his job.

Guess all those “pie in the sky” programs that will create millions of jobs is out the window.

Looks like Osama Obama may have to raise taxes on the lower and middle income tax levels to get his trillion dollars worth of programs passed.

Let’s see, and Osama Obama was elected on his campaign promises because of change??

Yeah change, changed his mind…

I have seen Linda and Mary challenge others to show where he is liberal. It is a fact. No doubts.
———————

Actually, the challenge was re outlander’s 8:00 post: “If the most liberal senator. . .”

It is a “fact” that Obama is “liberal”.

It is NOT a fact that he is what outlander claimed, “the most liberal senator”.

“The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact,” the Illinois Democrat wrote in “The Audacity of Hope,” a memoir published last year. “Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal.”

Obama has a 95 percent liberal rating from Americans for Democratic Reform, a liberal advocacy group that ranks all members of Congress. Yet he is often portrayed as a centrist.

“His record is liberal, and his rhetoric is moderate,” explained Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

———–

Actions speak louder than words. But you all know Obama is a far left lib. It’s why you voted for him. Why try to deny it?

http://www.examiner.com/a-538596~Perception_vs__reality.html

No. . . if outlander can’t read it upthread, it’s not worth reposting

“If the most liberal senator…” Please tell me why you think Obama is the “most liberal”…and be specific.
————-

A candidates own website is a poor place to gather information about them. Actions speak way louder than words. In fact, it is the only thing that matters.

Here is an article about the action record of president elect Obama, the most liberal member of the US Senate.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

“Green, the National Journal editor, says voters shouldn’t rely on a single rating to determine a candidate’s ideology.

“There’s pluses and minuses to each rating system. If you look at a number of them, I think you have a pretty good picture,” he said.

Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a political think tank, said they have limited value.

“This is a case,” he said, “where statistics can do more harm than good.” “

Taking Liberalties

“snip”

A more serious problem is that National Journal’s system imputes ideological content to votes that they don’t necessarily have. Each vote is scored as either “liberal” or “conservative,” depending on how the majority of each caucus voted. But these categorizations often obscure more than they reveal. Sanders and Boxer, for instance–as well as Hillary Clinton–received credit for a “conservative” vote by opposing a proposal by Joe Lieberman to establish an independent Office of Public Integrity for the Senate.

“snip”

So where does Obama really fall on the spectrum? No vote-ranking system can capture it perfectly, since ideology is as much about legislative priorities and emphases as it is about votes. But here’s a rough idea: In his first two years in the Senate, when he didn’t miss many votes, Obama ranked 16th and 10th on National Journal’s “most liberal” list. A separate and more elaborate ranking system, developed by highly regarded political scientists Jeff Lewis and Keith Poole, found him to be the 11th most liberal senator in 2007 and 21st most liberal in the previous Congress. Obama clearly belongs to the party’s liberal wing rather than its centrist contingent–he’s essentially said as much–but he’s not close to being the Senate’s left-most member. (The same was true of Kerry, by the way: He’s been ranked 20th and 12th in the past two National Journal rankings.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=08c25e0a-9b88-49a6-97f5-45114f3fff28

More at link.

From NBC’s Mark Murray
National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.

But a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).

National Journal’s vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine’s ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the “most liberal senator” — even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.

As National Journal’s editor wrote back then, “[O]ur magazine — or, more precisely, our annual congressional vote ratings edition — has become a Republican talking point in the 2004 presidential campaign. And that’s been a fascinating, and disconcerting, experience. Fascinating because we’re more used to being cited in congressional hearings than on the Today show. Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading — or just plain wrong.”

Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine’s most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006.

Another question that might come up is why the magazine released its voting ratings now — just days before Super Tuesday. In fact, the magazine says it full congressional ratings won’t come out until March. But, according to the editor in a Q&A published in the magazine: “Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season.”

As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn’t vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, “He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59.”

And like with Obama’s overall liberal score, rivals and critics could possibly seize on McCain’s social rating….

Full disclosure: This reporter worked and wrote for National Journal from 1997 to 2003.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm