Gird your loins
“Today the American people have made their voices heard, and they have said, ‘Things are finally as terrible as we’re willing to tolerate,”
said Obama, addressing a crowd of unemployed, uninsured, and debt-ridden supporters.
“To elect a black man, in this country, and at this time—these last eight years must have really broken you… It’s a great day for our nation.”
I’d like to start my “post-election” post with a sincere thank you to all the friends and family that called or wrote to offer kind words and condolences on the election of Barack Obama to … Sorry, I still can’t say it.
I will openly admit, to the obscene joy of many of my detractors - Liberals all, that I am stunned. I knew there were a lot of stupid, greedy, lazy, selfish, envious people in America, I (surprisingly) had no idea how many. It is a testament to the great American life I live that Wednesday, November 5, 2008, was one of the worst days of my life. Yesterday was so bad, I called a realtor. (Apparently I’m not the only one, because she still hasn’t called me back.) But that was yesterday.
This morning, I dared to turn the TV, radio and computer back on, only to be assaulted, not by delirious Obamabots, but by a brand new campaign of lies and hate, directed at Sarah Palin. I find this interesting and very telling. Yes, Obama won (stole) the election, but he only garnered only 52% of the vote – not a landslide and certainly not a mandate. (Oh, and for the three or four of you who are tempted to point out that the GOP stole the election in 2000, get over it. Only a Liberal would try to justify the effing-up of America with some ridiculous excuse of payback. Besides, we all woke on 9/12 thanking God that Al Gore was not the President!) That leaves a whopping 48% that doesn’t believe the hype. (I’d put it at 50-50, though, if we only count legitimate votes.) So this election was certainly not a referendum on conservatism – just ask California.
Obama “won” – so why all the ugliness? Why is the media going after Palin so hard? Sure, a few McCain aides have sour grapes because they have to go find jobs. Sure they’re hoping to expunge this debacle from their resumes. But why throw the next logical Republican star out with yesterday’s papers? Could it be they never were on board the conservative bus? But why has the entire media corps turned their voracious appetites back on Palin? Does anyone besides Margery Eagan, a forked tongue, smarmy, Boston-elitist pseudo-moderate, who has only topped her hatred of Hillary Clinton (and all successful women BTW) with her vicious and vacuous diatribes against Sarah Palin, think that the governor did not know Africa was a continent? Ms. Eagan was so out of line today even her cowardly co-host, Jim Braude, was embarrassed and apologetic. And he rightly pointed out that her criticism was four days late. (Please feel free to contact Ms. Eagan at her places of work - 96.9 WTKK FM talk in Boston at 617-822-9600 or meagan@bostonherald.com - and let her know how you feel about her absurd and undeserved accusations.) She’s a hack. Maybe I’ll put up a calendar so we can all volunteer to go in and sub for her. That way, there will actually be an opposing viewpoint represented, one she is incapable or unwilling to deliver.
I suppose it is possible Gov. Palin got the continent of Africa confused with South Africa– she went to public school – but highly unlikely. If it is true, then the McCain aides should keep their mouths shut – they nearly got her elected. And it is their fault the Republicans lost. Well, that and a few million fraudulent ballots. Maybe if the RNC had run a true Conservative, we wouldn’t all be stockpiling canned food, duct tape and plastic wrap right now.
But it is what it is. And, true to form, it’s not enough for the Liberals to win. No, they have to go one step further with their attempts to humiliate and demoralize and discourage. Hmmm, should we tell them it never works? Should we tell them that real adults are never cowed by the tantrums of children? Or should we just get on with it? I for one will be watching with baited breath the reactions in the Middle East to the hiring of a Jew as Chief of Staff – that’s sure to earn someone a Fatwa, no? Or how about the Dow – it’s sinking faster than the Titanic. Apparently the markets aren’t happy with the idea of two years of uncontrolled spending and tax increases - can you say retroactive tax?
So, the Liberals and their bitch, the media, can say all they want about Conservatives and Sarah Palin. They can try to convince us she’s the reason McCain lost. We know better. The RNC tried to force a moderate down our throats and we choked. We have two years – two years that will damage the Obama brand irrevocably - their campaign is backpedaling so fast, they could power up one of Oprah’s houses. They are scared !*&#less. I guess they didn’t think they’d win, either. And we’re done with moderates. A gentleman said it perfectly on Rush today – the next time John McCain feels the urge to cross the aisle, would he just take a seat when he gets there … and stay there.
So, in the immortal and eternally goofy words of our future Vice-President, whom we will never hear described as an evil genius, “Gird your loins.” Indeed.
Popularity: 11% [?]
Comment by LOUDelf on 7 November 2008:
GOPMOM,
Let’s turn lemons into lemonaid for the GOP… You have kids, right? You know how sometimes kids have this great (in their mind) idea, and just can’t seem to figure out how silly it is? Have you ever just said “fine, let’s do it” just to show them how foolish it is? Well, obviously you think the Democrats are a bunch of idiots (I’m not arguing this). What better way than to show the country that they can fail miserably, than to give their messiah the job, then watch him fail? Wouldn’t this work to the GOP’s advantage, all while putting together an action plan for the next Republican ticket? You can use slogans like “We can’t afford 4 more years of Obama’s failed policies”, or “We need REAL change in Washington” and so on.
While I may not hold your passionate hate for the Dems or the liberals out there, I can often see your reasoning, and as you’ve read from my posts, or in my own blog we are often on similar paths. I did not vote for Obama, and truly am afraid that the bulk of his supporters either don’t comprehend our economics in this country, want to be on the take, are ignorant, like the idea that someone else can foot the bill for their pet project of temporarily destroying poverty (it has been shown to always return), voted solely based on party, voted solely based on race, or a mix of the above.
I understand the frustration a lot of people had with the Bush administration, as I too can’t find much he did right. However, the argument of “anyone would be an improvement over Bush” doesn’t pass the laugh test for me… especially, when there were other options beside Obama, and at least 2 or 3 had more, and better experience. Ironically, what I think is funny, is we’ll often hear how America has fallen in the world standings in terms of education, yet no one seems to equate this to our election result…
Comment by Meemers on 7 November 2008:
Your s*^#@ing me, right? (edit)
I don’t know, maybe it was the 10 Billion dollars a month occupation of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Maybe it was the economic melt down created by the conservative delusion that all business should have no rules or regulations placed on them to maximize profit. Perhaps it was the choice of a nearly brain dead X-beauty queen whose every public utterance made George Bush seem like a professor of linguistics. Maybe it was John McCain, a millionaire with 7 homes and 12 cars saying, Obama was a bad candidate because he wanted to “…spread the wealth.” Maybe it was the failure of hunting down and bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice. Perhaps it was the lack of any weapons of mass destruction ever being found or maybe it was the arrogance of a man who spent precious minuets in one of his few press conferences stuttering a “no” to the question of, what mistakes have you made and what would you do different? Maybe it was the idolization of Joe the plumber; a guy who lied about his name, lied about making the money he said he did, lied about being a dues paying union member with a licenses to be a plumber in the state of Ohio, and on top of it all- hadn’t even paid his taxes! There is a lien on his property. Or wait, I know! It was probably the home mortgage industry bankrupting America and the predatory lending unleashed on us under the guise of creating “The Ownership society.”
Any one of these things might have been the reason why the Republicans lost. Take your pick sore loser.
Comment by gopmom on 8 November 2008:
Oh, come on Meemers. Lighten up. What is it with you Obamabots? Are you all so brainwashed you can’t smell the approaching failure? Obama won. You won. Americans are officially as stupid as the French believe them to be - well, 52% or so, at least.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m gonna give Obama his four years - if he makes it. I still see an indictment on the way. But I’m willing to enjoy the ride. As a matter of fact, I’m thinking of getting help with my mortgage. It looks like, if I ask for help, I could pocket an extra $1000 a month! Plus, even though I’ve been a stay home mom for ten years, I’m thinking of getting in line for some of that ‘want a job but can’t find one $’. And I have big plans for the tax cut windfall coming my way. I was doing a few calculations this week and if Obama gets his full four years, I stand to make a minimum 78 K. That should just about cover my IRA losses.
Comment by giginthesky on 9 November 2008:
GOPmom:
The media is the media. Nothing can really be done. But how did Obama steal the election? Please, do not give me the ACORN thing. I did some Hurricane Katrina Relief through them. Sounds like a bad organization to me. That and it was just registration, not votes. Slight difference.
I think so far the only problem for Obama now is the high expectations. those are next to impossible to live up to…It will hurt them, but I don’t think it’s going to leave irrevocable damage.
Comment by gopmom on 9 November 2008:
Come on, gig. Of course fraudulent votes were counted. But the election was truly stolen by the media for the benefit of Obama. Even you have to admit that the lack of inquiry, the complete failure to investigate or report anything even remotely controversial, the media’s lovefest - all directed at an electorate to dumb to know any better. Hey, you’re apparently one of them, you should know.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m looking forward to the next round of elections - when true conservatism makes a comeback. But Obama’s win is hardly a landslide. Take a look at the stats.
63 million for Obama + 180 million not for Obama = the 240+ million voters
Comment by ATG on 9 November 2008:
Politico has written a good article about “lack of inquiry” in this year’s election coverage, where it deals with all the various stories that both sides were upset didn’t get enough play in the media. Sorry, but you can’t expect vague conspiracy theories to get covered. Add that to the fact that the Obama campaign was remarkably disciplined, and there’s just not that much negative stuff out there to cover.
Comment by gopmom on 9 November 2008:
Really? Not that much negative stuff? Cindy McCain’s decade old drug addiction gets front page coverage yet the Obama/Ayers friendship does not - except to debunk it? Who’s running? All the talk of how brilliant Barack is and yet not one college transcript? The Obamas attend a black liberation church, and donate to it, for twenty years and all we get is comparisons to an endorsement McCain received? And the “vague conspiracy theories” you refer to are only conspiracy theories because the media calls them so. Sure, some of them might be a bit far out there, but not nearly as far out as Obama’s left wing beliefs and policies.
You are truly out of your mind - or on the payroll - if you are even trying to suggest coverage was ‘relatively’ fair or even. And how about Matthews saying the other day that he considers it his job to ensure the president-elect’s term is a success? Please, even the other journos on the program couldn’t swallow that one. Just imagine for one second the same had occurred in favor of a conservative candidate. I know it’s difficult, but try. Would you just lay down like a dog and accept it - accept that a candidate was propped up by the media, never truly vetted by anyone, elected by a laughable margin (26% for - 84% against), while our candidate couldn’t even get airtime? And let’s not even go into the funding of all this. Is anyone going to check records and find out how many illegal, over the limit and foreign donation funded this “Wag the Dog” campaign? The “press” isn’t interested.
You Liberals have forced on the nation one of the most suspect and untrustworthy candidates ever - and you expect us just to accept this guy and all he stands for? Look, I’ll still say the pledge, sing the anthem and fly the flag but I will be praying for the safety and security of the country the entire time.
When the tables turn, as they eventually will, aren’t you just a bit concerned that it will turn against you and then your candidate will be left out of the process? John McCain was a good candidate - not the best, but better than Obama. His message was better, his experience better, his judgement and character better. The Obama campaign just had more money and more airtime. Now that public funded campaigns are over, aren’t you the least bit concerned we’ll win next time? It’s all well and good when your guy wins, but are you so blinded by “glory” that you’ll take the win at all cost? I suspect many Liberals are - and that is why they are not fit to lead.
Comment by ATG on 9 November 2008:
If somebody on Fox News said they wanted to make sure a conservative president was successful, I wouldn’t give it a second thought, the same way you should not be confusing MSNBC with real news.
And no, the conspiracy theories were not conspiracy theories because they were referred to as such, they were conspiracy theories because they attempted to draw extraordinarily tenuous connections without hard evidence in order to suggest that Barack Obama would be sympathetic to terrorism. You complaining about them not getting coverage would be no different from a liberal suggesting that the media had a rightward bias because it didn’t take Farenheit 9/11 seriously enough.
I don’t understand what coverage of Ayers you want a serious news organization to carry besides trying to evaluate the facts of allegations made. If the facts don’t bear out that Barack Obama is pro-terrorists, the news organizations are going to debunk those stories. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t trust a news outlet that reported conjectures from fringe-thinkers then treated them as fact.
John McCain would have been a good candidate if he had stuck to his guns, chosen a serious vice-president, and stayed out of the mud. He did none of those things, and paid the price for it. His message was worse (you can’t just try and co-opt “change” when you’re in the same party as the guy in office and support him on every major issue), his experience was irrelevant after he reversed most of his positions, his judgment and character were brought into question after he embraced an unqualified running mate and dirty politics.
Comment by gopmom on 9 November 2008:
ATG, After watching the last few days of coverage on Fox News, and their now blanket acceptance of Obama, I’m not listening to anything they say either. But you cannot excuse Chris Matthews. He has so blatantly abandoned all journalistic integrity, he should not be allowed on the air.
What worries me though, is that you, a relatively aware and intelligent guy, are accepting of this propaganda, because you write it off as propaganda. Not everyone does. Surely you must understand that not everyone is as savvy as you (and I). To excuse our pathetic excuse for news because it is the new norm is ridiculous - to do it because they happen to be going easy on your guy is to abandon the belief in freedom this country was founded on. Even I, a die hard Conservative, prefer a press critical of everyone over a press critical of no one. It is disturbing to see such a large part of the population capitulate to the whim of so few. Do you really believe that Obama can do no wrong? Are you truly willing to give up your right to question and investigate? Do you really trust the government that much? Then you are a fool and will be treated as so by those you elect to govern over you.
Comment by ATG on 9 November 2008:
I don’t blame commentators who openly have an opinion for expressing it in a medium that is designed for commentary rather than news - hence, I don’t think the fact that Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill O’Reilly, or Sean Hannity will mouth off means that we don’t have access to news. Anybody watching these people knows they have an opinion and are paid to give it - you want serious analysis, read a newspaper. The demands of free speech and a free press mean we can’t ban commentators from commentating - we just have to be a little discriminating about where we get our information from. When people like you try and equate real newspapers with the crap you might hear about from DailyKos or HP, you’re not helping anyone - you’re just forcing people to tune out news sources that should be trusted by citizens for their integrity.
I don’t believe Obama can do no wrong - I’m sure he will do wrong, both because nobody is perfect and because we live in an imperfect world which is sure to throw unexpected twists his way. But I do trust him to do what he thinks is right, and I do think that what he sees as “right” is pretty close to what I would think. Beyond me agreeing with him on most issues, he is objectively an extremely smart guy with tremendous rhetorical skills. Taking all those things into account, I can’t help but to be inspired by him and more ready to put my faith in his approach to governing my country than any other politician in our nation.
Not believing fringe conspiracy theories is not the same as giving up my right to question. Again, the same logic would say that you gave up your right to question by not accepting all Michael Moore’s accusations. I don’t think Obama is going to make Bill Ayers Attorney General, and I don’t think that he’s a socialist in any meaningful sense of the word. Those beliefs are not the product of trapping myself in a liberal echo chamber, they’re the product of reading real news sources and examining critically the echo chambers on both sides.
Comment by gopmom on 9 November 2008:
ATG, You are without a doubt, dumber than Ian. Are you, by any chance, black, hispanic, what? Or an immigrant from another nation - maybe illegal? I just have to know your back story. You have absolutely no respect or admiration for the American political tradition or process. You are either not one of us or you are an angry, disenfranchised minority just salivating at the thought of getting your piece of pie - all for free.
Go back to whichever cave you crawled out of and let us grown-ups handle the tough stuff. Goodbye.
Comment by ATG on 9 November 2008:
Wow I didn’t even think my last post was that fire-breathing. What ticked you off so much?
Comment by giginthesky on 9 November 2008:
GOPmom:
for the love of all that is good in the world: the entire ATG is dumber than Ian thing is sickening. He has his opinion, to insult his integrity rather than what he is saying, is to me saying “If I can’t attack the argument, I can insult their morals.” There is a famous saying “I may not agree with what you have to say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it”. To call him unAmerican because he thinks differently is insane. Here is the thing to the Communism you fear, it is the idea that everyone thinks alike. As George Orwell wrote: “Napoleon is always right”. By having differing views, we can remain free. It makes America work.
In relation to everyone out there, he isn’t really a socialists. I know socialists. He isn’t one of them. I agree, the media didn’t do an in-depth search…on either side. It happens, it’s not new. I don’t think Obama will be perfect. That would be stupid. However, I don’t think he will run America into the ground either. I think he will just be another politican, like every other one that took the white house.
Comment by gopmom on 10 November 2008:
OMG, gig. Why all the drama? “for the love of all that is good in the world”? Now I’m the threat to freedom? Come on - have you been drinking the kook-aid? Do you read? I did not insult his integrity or call him un-American. He’s the one all over the map with the arguments. He’s still in Obama-Soros campaign mode. As I’ve said to many since Tuesday and will only say one more time, to you, for the benefit of all - what is the problem? Your guy won. Are you saying you’re not all of a sudden miraculously happy? Second thoughts, maybe, as you hear the ridiculous plans he has? Getting a bit nervous as the market tanks yet again? Your guy won, why does it matter what I think? Why are you even here? The campaign is over. Yes, I will continue to be a critical watch on this bozo and will not give an inch. ATG can think whatever he wants, but as I had to point out to Ian, I will not be badgered by people who refuse to recognize that they’re getting nowhere. Am I really expected to continue to point out what a buffoon Obama is, just so that others can continue to point out how much they love him and respect him? The campaign is over, I believe that McCain would have won if the media (and that includes newspapers, BTW) had not been so pro-Obama and had not completely neglected their duty and relinquished their ability to investigate and report for reasons they have made completely clear - they like him better. All I get in response is “read a paper”. So, the debate is over.
I was questioning ATG’s background because I’m curious. His positions are in line with many other people I’ve encountered who have a distinctly different background than I - if that is what got you into defense mode.
Comment by Babba on 10 November 2008:
Gopmom, I know where you’re coming from and I can’t say that I blame you for feeling the way you do. Although, I will say that the first time Bush got into office that while I thought the way he got in was odd, I just shrugged and figured I’d be mildly irritated for the next 4 or 8 years. Little did I know that I would actually be horrified at many of the things he’s done. But I at least was willing to give him a chance.
I also agree with you about Palin. If I say things about her that aren’t particularly nice, well that’s to be expected and of no consequence. But the way people in McCain’s campaign and other Repubs have spoken about her, I find it appalling. But you can’t blame the press for reporting that it happened.
McCain lost because he ran one of the worst campaigns I’ve seen in my 50 years. He acted like a jerk and that really turned off some of his potential voters . And ATG is right, he tried to run on change and Obama had already picked that theme. It could never have worked for him under the circumstances.
And I can’t even believe you think there was widespread voter fraud. Where is your evidence for that?
Comment by gopmom on 10 November 2008:
Babba, Please don’t equate the supposed ‘crimes and misdemeanors’ of the Bush administration with the shady character, monumental inexperience, dangerous policy goals and downright corrupt nature of the Obama candidacy and campaign. Obama is a fraud and a thug - just like the rest of his cohorts. W is a victim of extremely unfortunate circumstance and tragedy. You might not like the way he handled the fallout from 9/11 but you and every single one of your FI Liberal friends should be grateful for every day our country has not suffered another hit. If he gets credit for nothing else, that in itself is remarkable.
So we finally get an admission that all this Obama BS is just some sort of childish payback. I wondered how long it would take for you Obamabots to compare our justifiable bewilderment at the election of Obama to the rightful election of W. I just can’t believe I’m still surprised by the lengths Liberals will go to to get their way. Destroy the country just to prove you deserve a turn? Brilliant!
As for election fraud, check the results. Obama won. ‘Nuff said.
Comment by ATG on 10 November 2008:
Yeah, I totally see the election fraud, given that pretty much every commentator on the left, right, and center predicted an Obama win and all the polling data said it was all but certain, and there haven’t been any reports of fraud since the election. But hell, you didn’t think he was going to win, so it must have been fraudulent. And you think liberals are arrogant.
Keep in mind that the amount of time we have gone without an attack on US soil since 9/11 is roughly the same as the amount of time we went between the first WTC attack and the second. Were you thankful every day in between that Bill Clinton kept the country safe?
When you say W was the “victim of unfortunate circumstance and tragedy” who do you think would disagree with you? All you do is create straw men because you can’t argue with actual intelligent people. Of course 9/11 was unfortunate and tragic. As you’ll recall, Bush’s approval ratings were through the roof after the attacks because everyone knew he had been put in a tough spot and we wanted to stand by him as he led this country forward. Patriotism obligated us to stand with our president in the nation’s time of need, but it did not obligate us to stop questioning the wisdom of his policies for the next seven years. His approval ratings aren’t low because 9/11 happened on his watch, they’re low because the way he chose to deal with 9/11 ended up alienating our allies, stretching our country’s armed forces too thinly, and bringing the hatred of our country into the global mainstream.
I don’t really understand your “childish payback” train of thought so I don’t have a good way to respond to it, sorry.
Comment by Babba on 10 November 2008:
Gopmom, I don’t know how to respond to your “childish payback” comment, either. This isn’t about payback. This is about straightening this mess out that W created. 9/11 would have been quite a challenge for any president and Americans were generally sympathetic to the challenges that W faced. And Americans were willing to give him a chance. He got his chance and he made a mess. And I think your fears about Obama are unwarranted. I can understand disagreeing with his policy ideas, but your fears of his corruption and thuggery and so forth, is odd. I don’t subscribe to the most wild conspiracy theories put out by some of the left like the idea that BushCo actually did 9/11. Why do subscribe to the wildest conspiracies put our by some on the right? And you still haven’t offered any proof as to voter fraud. Just because you can’t believe that Obama won doesn’t prove voter fraud.
Comment by Babba on 10 November 2008:
Oh, and I like the ads you’re accepting.
Comment by wrench on 10 November 2008:
The only one I encourage people to click on is the Pink Ribbon.
Comment by Babba on 11 November 2008:
The Pink Ribbon is a very good site.
Comment by John on 11 November 2008:
Oh man GOPmom your entire post is riddled with GOP propaganda that has been disproved time and time again… most of your conspiracy ayers/rezko/etc. theories you can find on snopes.com… listed as FALSE.
And as for your “Obama stole the election” train of thought, Obama won by over 8 million votes, almost 3 times the majority Bush had in 2004, and ahem, I don’t think I have to mention Bush’s lack of a majority in 2000. Don’t blame ACORN either, because there’s absolutely no proof of ACTUAL voter fraud committed by them, which is different than registration fraud.
Comment by American4America on 12 November 2008:
GOPmom,
Obvioulsy people aren’t hearing you or understanding what you are saying about acknowledging the fact the dems won, regardless of the means and consequences of winning. Sore winners, so to speak.
I look at it this way:
It is an opportunity to have a black man elected (unfortunately, it was this black man). It gives us the opportunity to prove we are NOT a racist nation, as the media would have us believe. It gives us the opportunity to no longer have to suffer the rants and tirades of Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, et al. It gives us the opportunity to say to people, “Racisim? A black man was elected. Get over it!” It gives us the opportunity to get this episode over with and move on.
We shall see the opportunities in 4 years.
Comment by ATG on 12 November 2008:
Sore winners? The only reason we’re forced to jump in and talk about the election results is because gopmom can’t get over the fact that the GOP lost fair and square. I’d say the side that is questioning the intelligence of the American electorate and saying the winner is going to be indicted for election fraud is the sore side…
Comment by American4America on 12 November 2008:
ATG,
No one is making you visit this site and/or comment. The name on this site is GOPmom. Her site, her subject matter, her prerogative to allow you to post.
Contribute or don’t contribute, that’s up to you; but, you must understand that EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion and perspective (at least for the time being).
“This is about straightening this mess out that W created.” Now, a comment on this: Oh ye of revisionist history. Have you forgotten the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 by Jimmah Cartah? AND the subsequent perpetuation by Bill Clinton? AND the continued fraud by Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, Tim Johnson, Chris Dodd, et al.? No of course not.
Comment by gopmom on 12 November 2008:
Hey American, welcome! I’m rushed off my feet this week so a big thanks to you for filling in so well - better than me, in fact. It gets so boring repeating myself all the time. Apparently when you sing on as a liberal, they not only remove your sense of humor but also your memory - two abilities liberal politicians certainly don’t want their supporters to possess. Otherwise they’d be conservatives.
Anyway, welcome. I enjoyed reading your comments today. Feel free to keep bashing your head against the wall - we have a couple of resident dissenters here who comment regularly. It’s a sport at this point.
Comment by ATG on 12 November 2008:
American,
Thanks for the reminder about the site format, but I don’t really understand how any of your comments were directed at anything I have said. Example:
-I never said anyone isn’t entitled to their opinions
-I wasn’t the one who said it was about straightening out W’s mess
I did say:
-Accusing us of being “sore winners” (I still don’t really understand what that means) doesn’t make much sense given that the site’s focus has changed focus from railing against the Obama candidacy to railing against the “fraudulence” in the election and the American people for selecting him. Those are pretty tell-tale sore loser sentiments if I’ve ever seen them.
Although I will say that I only bring up the sore loser point because of your talk of “sore winners”… I’m not that concerned with whether or not gopmom is a sore loser, I just think that many of the assertions that have been made on this site are alarmist and laughably groundless. I’d rather focus on those assertions than how well gopmom is handling election results.
Comment by Babba on 12 November 2008:
Gopmom, have I behaved like a sore winner? I don’t think so. And coming here is great sport for me, too. Lately, it’s been more like swatting flies at other Conservative sites I’ve been to. You are more of a challenge. It’s not that I want to convert you; that’s no more likely than you converting me. Rather it’s that I enjoy debunking Repub talking points. It keeps me on my toes. And you are a treasure trove of Repub talking points. And I’m sure you think I’m a treasure trove of Dem talking points. That’s fine. It’s all in good fun.
Comment by gopmom on 12 November 2008:
Babba, I did not call you a sore winner but I do feel that way about most Liberals these days. I have been pointing out, with no recognition from any of you - except to say that W was a really bad President - that the Liberals are still not happy. I’ve asked why and I still haven’t gotten an answer.
As for Repub talking points, sure I adopted a few during the election season, which is not over yet. But there is plenty here, from old posts, you can peruse if you’re interested in more. This is fun but not in the sense that I think it is meaningless. I am very strong in my beliefs and very confident in the conservative ideology being best for our country. So I was very vociferous in my support for the Republicans and John McCain. Not because I felt it was an obligation but because I did and still do believe that Obama has no good intentions regarding his plans for our country. I don’t trust him, I don’t trust his abilities, I don’t trust his friends. And even if it turns out, in twenty years, that W was the worst President ever, that will only have included Presidents up to W. Obama won’t be figured in yet - if he even gets in. Looks like we’ll know more on December 1st.
Comment by ATG on 12 November 2008:
Where are you getting the part about liberals not being happy? I actually don’t mean that in a confrontational sense, really, I just don’t really understand what you mean. From a personal standpoint, I’m as happy as could be with Obama’s victory, and I haven’t really seen stories about liberals now feeling unhappy that he won - is that what you’re implying? Though I did see one today saying some liberals are unhappy with the prospect of keeping Bob Gates and Joe Lieberman around… is that what you mean?
Comment by LOUDelf on 13 November 2008:
I HAVE seen a study that liberals do sleep less than conservatives. But they don’t give any hypothesis as to why this is, just what the results were.
I think in general, the mood of liberals will be up for the next 4 years, as they will finally have one of their own in the WH. Let’s see if that mood is the same for the non-liberals in the country…
Comment by LOUDelf on 13 November 2008:
Correction: Liberals sleep less restfully than conservatives.
Comment by gopmom on 13 November 2008:
Actually, LOUDElf, In my small circle, I see my conservative friends as more optimistic and content, even after last week’s outcome, then my more anxious and fearful liberal friends (Yes, please take into account my bias - but only if you’re willing to admit to the media bias otherwise.)
What I see on the conservative side is an “Oh well, government doesn’t do much for me anyway - I’m competent enough to make it through an economic crisis on my own.” I’m also hearing a lot of “Well, what’s the worst that could happen? I can always make more money.” And we’re planning for a better future, as we always do without discounting the current blessings we have.
On the liberal side I’m hearing a lot of impatience and anxiety, a lot of discomfort, doom and gloom. And a lot of “when Obama gets in, all will get better - I hope”.
There is a key difference, as pointed out in many studies, between the overall expectations and attitudes of liberals and those of conservatives - there have been studies, I’ve written about it here before. It’s why I keep saying we’re more OK with the outcome of the election than they are. We know that come hell or high water, we can take care of ourselves. We don’t expect the government to be the ‘first line of defense’, we expect them to be the ‘last line of defense’ - fundamental difference.
(Oh, and for all my critics out there, of course this does not refer to national defense.)
Comment by elina on 13 November 2008:
reasons for conservatives to be calm?
yes there are few.
it is not to them to clean the Augeas stables left after your people.
oh,and by the way
french got rate improvement concerning american IQ,
but well .. i guess that doesn’t include you,Gop Mom.
Comment by American4America on 13 November 2008:
GOPmom,
. . . . . . . . . . I slept very “restfully” in my optimistic bed
I must say, I think I hit a nerve with the ’sore winners’ comment.
I am flattered you would consider me in your ballpark–thank you.
I stumbled on your site by way of a compliment to you from another site; but, spent most of the pre-election surfing Texas Darlin’, Citizen Wells and HillBuzz. Wish I had been clued in sooner.
I read your piece on the Rezko land deal: BRILLIANT!!! I am going to spend some time catching up on ALL of your posts.
Comment by ATG on 13 November 2008:
You didn’t hit a nerve, you hit confusion because I still don’t understand what either of you mean
Comment by wrench on 13 November 2008:
American4America,
The Rezko land deal *is* a brilliant piece of investigative journalism. I just cannot believe the MSM did not publish this evidence, oh….yes I can, because they were a big part of the fix.
The MSM, by portraying BO as the Messiah and McCain as an adulterous, cancer ridden, senile bush wannabe, committed massive election fraud. One would think the Supreme Court being involved in a case to prove the ineligibility of the (not yet) president elect is more newsworthy than what dog will the (not yet) first children pick. But the same editors did decide that the cost of the Palin wardrobe was more scandalous than the documented evidence proving the corruption of BO by Rezko (and his friends)
Fraud indeed