How much does America hate Democrats?
How much does America hate Democrats?
Posted by: Barthélemy Barbancourt
on Aug 30, 2010 
Tagged in: Untagged
The Republican leads of 6, 7, and 10 points this month are all higher than any previous midterm Republican advantage in Gallup's history of tracking the generic ballot, which dates to 1942.
Yeah, Americans just love Obamacare, siding with illegals and against the rule of law in Arizona and gay marriage by judicial fiat. November will be worse than most pundits expect. Americans have had it with Obama, socialism and the sycophantic Democrats that have spent our nation into near bankruptcy.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (27)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Elmer , August 30, 2010
It could be the effects of the disastrous economic news of the last couple of months. I have heard pundits saying that pre-election economic attitudes are beginning to set.
In my opinion this election is an emergency. We have to get rid of these congressional fools as soon as possible before they wreck the entire enterprise.
written by Don Roscoe , August 30, 2010
It only matters if they vote, Primary turnouts have been light.
And as depicted by the swing from July to August, 10 weeks is a long time. I wouldn't count the seats just yet.
written by Don Roscoe , August 30, 2010
if you dont get majorities in Congress, you'll concede that the people have spoken and shut the f&*p up, right?
written by Kermit , August 30, 2010
Primary turnouts have been light
Among Democrats. Republicans have been coming out in record numbers. And the day I "shut the f&*p up" is the day they close the lid on my casket.
written by Elmer , August 30, 2010
If we can't get more conservatives into Congress, I won't stop advocating for them and against the progressives. I won't expect you to shut up when your guys lose, Don. Eventually the pendulum will swing.
written by TomC , August 30, 2010
What really will matter is what the freshmen do when they are there. If they hold to principals, things should be ok. If they succumb to the powers of Washington, the Republican Party could be due for a long hiatus from government.
Kermit, If you are planning on passing anytime soon, could I adopt your moniker? It seems to a gin the ire of some on the left.
written by Kermit , August 30, 2010
Sorry Tom. Since Jim Henson died I have sole proprietorship. Although Don would make a great Fozzie Bear. Wakka wakka!
written by Jim ross , August 30, 2010
These numbers are encouraging if you're a republican. However, I've talked to far too many republicans recently that think it's a given they will take over Congress in November and the Presidency in 2012.
Remember what Obama, and many other Democrats, are good at. Many of them have spent their entire lives organizing, rallying, raising money, and mobilizing support for progressive political causes. They're best skill in life is their ability to get elected.
Once elected, they lack the real-world experience to implement sound policy, but they sure know how to rally the faithful (and many of the not so faithful), come election time. If you're a republican, it's fine to feel optimistic about your chances right now. But the last thing you want to do is get cocky.
written by Kermit , August 30, 2010
JR, we finally agree. On every point you made. Open a bottle of sparkling grape juice.
written by Don Roscoe , August 31, 2010
"It seems to a gin the ire of some on the left. "
written by Don Roscoe , August 31, 2010
Like initiating two wars without a plan to pay for them? That was pure genius.
written by Don Roscoe , August 31, 2010
"If they hold to principals," Even the tea party guy who replaced Ted Kennedy hasn't been loyal to that extreme ideology. It's principal meeting the reality that is Washington.
written by TomC , August 31, 2010
From wictionary.org:
"to gin up (third-person singular simple present gins up, present participle ginning up, simple past and past participle ginned up)
1. To set up a snare.
2. To exaggerate.
3. To generate, devise or create.
4. To stir up, stimulate, enliven, etc."
I should have stated:
It seems to gin up the ire of some on the left.
written by Badda , August 31, 2010
Holding to principals is extreme?!?!?!
A strange thing to say, Rahelio.
written by Kermit , August 31, 2010
Like initiating two wars without a plan to pay for them?
Yeah! Damn that Wilson and FDR!
written by TomC , August 31, 2010
I said "hold to principals" and should have said hold to principals that they professed during their campaigns, which may not be all the principals of the Republican platform as a whole. Scott Brown may not be a southern conservative type Republican, but he seems to be a more conservative NE-type Republican.
Senator Lindsay Graham, South Carolina, is being "taken out to the woodshed" this week at home on his stances on several issues. This is as it should be. A representative should first be true to the constitution, then to his constituency.
written by Badda , August 31, 2010
Maybe this guy's opinion hits the nail on the head:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/31/2010-08-31_paladino_vents_on_bams_beliefs.html
written by kow , August 31, 2010
Because the most important thing when considering a war is the cost. Not crimes against humanity. sheeece!!
The recent downturn in dem popularity is the realization that after more than 20 months things are only getting worse. Dems are in power now, so they will get the brunt of the current discontent. As some one said here, it's not exclusive to the dems. It's to who ever isn't doing the job the were entrusted.
written by Don Roscoe , August 31, 2010
Going to war with the right enemy is first. What about those WMD's? Democracy is an illusion in Iraq.
"Because the most important thing when considering a war is the cost." And you would hope you have a plan to pay for it. But, keep shopping -- your prez says its ok.
written by kow , August 31, 2010
Democracy might seem like a illusion because duhbomba dropped the ball on the one thing he was supposed to do in that war......negotiations.
All the mustard gas, other illegal chemicals/bombs, torture chambers and jails used to kill at LEAST hundreds of thousands of people doesn't seem to be a large enough number to be considered mass destruction for the libs. Tell me, just how many people need to be killed to be considered MASS???
written by Don Roscoe , August 31, 2010
Stick to the facts. Publicly, We went to war with Iraq because they had WMD's and were behind 9/11. Both proved to be false but we knew that before the invasion started.
Democracy wont work in a culture like Iraq. It has always needed and will always need a strong, central leader to run the show. The best we can hope for is they are benevolent but absent that, they will go back to a form of government their culture and religion can support.
And if we invaded every country that tortured people in illegal jails, we would now have to include the good old USA on that list -- or did you miss all that.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , August 31, 2010
We went to war with Iraq because Saddam invaded Kuwait. We continued that war for a decade and Saddam did more and more to antagonize the US and show the UN to be useless.
Had we finished Saddam the first time or supported the Sunni uprising we wouldn't have had to ramp up for a second major surge.
Saddam violated 13 UN sanctions and the last one stated that if he didn't comply the US wold attack. The vote for the attack was nearly unanimous in Congress. Republicans wanted to end the decade long mess and liberals wanted to show that UN resolutions meant something.
WMD's were just part of the reson for the second wave under GW. There were also a host of humnitarian and international issues. Did you forget the biggest scam in world history, the oil for food program? Or how about his gassing of the Kurds? I know liberals don't give a shit about that.
Liberals grabbed the WMD issue as a way to discredit Bush when they weren't found quickly. They forgot about the people tortured and killed under Saddam, the UN Resolutions ignored, his openly funding Palestinian suicide bombers, etc.
We went to Iraq because of Kuwait, we finished the job because the cease fire with Saddam failed to work.
written by Don Roscoe , August 31, 2010
They were never found. As for the rest of the fable, it's creative.
Congress was sold a lie that Iraq had wmd's that were an imminent threat to national security and that Sadam was behind 9/11.
Congress would never have approved an invasion of a foreign country over the oil for food program or over torture. If so, there's a long list of countries we would march into.
Of course, Bush seniors regret about invading Iraq in 91 probably pissed junior off as well.
written by kow , September 01, 2010
I guess you conveniently forgot all the facts Bart just read off to you don. And I do mean in between you reading them and making your next post. There were nerve gasses found all over the country.
That stupid librul talking point about Bush lied is NOTHING more that a lie itself. Congress approved the invassion with evidence from our intelligence, France's, England's, Germany's and Russia's.
But, if all you can do is continually spout off Oberdouche's hand me down lies, go ahead.
Facts don, facts.
written by Badda , September 01, 2010
We went into Iraq because they were behind 9/11? According to whom?
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , September 01, 2010
The left has crafted an insane narrative that somehow there was no US presence in the gulf regarding Iraq until 9-11-2001. We were involved with Iraq for Bill Clinton's entire presidency. I am amazed that people forget the No-fly zones, oil for food, gassing the Kurds, Uday and Quasay's rape rooms, the torture of the Iraqi Olympians, etc.
And yes Don, Mustard and Sarin gas were discovered. We know that Saddam had WMD's that he hadn't disposed of properly. We also know that a huge amount of material was shipped to Syria prior to the invasion.
But the issue that Bush and Cheney really wanted to solve was the spread of Democracy in the middle east. It was clear from the start that this was the plan. If we could fundamentally change the politics of the middle east, there might be hope for peace in the long run. I wrote about this at the time and Tony Blair has said the same thing in his new book.
Unfortunately, Iraq turned into the front line with Islamism and the terrorists were heavily funded by Iran. The next front in this war is in Iran.
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
