The Republicans have plenty of good choices .

The Dems are stuck with the failed Evil King Union Thug .

Lots of people here sounding just like I did in 2004. “It doesn’t matter who wins. No way is W coming back.” Whoops.

I know, I know….the economy is so bad and Obama is so bad. Well, Bush didn’t have any foils like the Tea Party to dump blame onto, either.

Republicans have only one choice too, not-Obama.

Corporations get to pick that not-Obama for you and you get to go through the ballot box charade and vote obligingly

Bye bye Tim. 

His democrat record surpassed his republican. Most rinos know when to quit.

Interesting…..’im wondering…..if those that lived during ancient times, would love to exchange, to live in modern times?’

T-Paw is toast, just as Progressives for Palin had previously predicted.

” The Republicans have plenty of good choices .”

We have a winner for Funniest Comment of the Day!

It’s hardly come as a surprise to anyone has it really!

Pawlenty knew when to quit  When will King Obama get the hint ?

“As for the president’s claim that some folks in Congress refuse to “put the country ahead of party” and that they would “rather see their opponents lose than see America win”: this repeats a nasty little Obama habit, which is not simply to disagree with his opponents but to impugn their character. The Tea Party and Republican Members of Congress can’t possibly believe that the federal government is too large, spending needs to be reduced, and taxes shouldn’t be raised. And they certainly can’t believe that the philosophy they hold and the policies they embrace are in the best interest of America. It’s easier to assume they are knaves and traitors to their country.
“If there’s anything we have learned about Mr. Obama during the last two-and-a-half years, it is his obsessive need to advertise his moral superiority. He wants us to believe – he is desperate for us to believe – that his motivations are pure, that he is the only adult in Washington, that he is a champion for the national interest while his critics are champions of special interests. It is not enough for Obama to be president; he wants us to believe he’s Sir Galahad.
 
As Mr. Obama is increasingly overwhelmed by events, as he and his presidency shrink before our eyes, his worst tendencies are being exacerbated, his narcissism further exposed, his anger at an unaccommodating world more pronounced. A man of supreme self-regard is watching things crumble before his eyes. He is obviously not well equipped to process any of this. It is enough for one to feel, if only for a moment, some pity for Mr. Obama. These are not easy days for him, and certainly not for his country.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/12/obama-emotions-mind/
  

If you seriously want a good laugh, go back and look at the field of Democrat hopefuls for the 2008 election and then look at who won, the candidate with the least to offer besides his ethnicity and a couple of good speeches.  

Bye Barney Fife.

Obama was a constitutional scholar, an educator, a state legislator, a US senator, a best selling author and had run the most successful, effective and well-financed presidential campaign ever.

Just curious — since you’re so knowledgeable about Obama’s lack of credentials — what are yours?

Commentary? Are you serious? You’re linking to a discredited neocon rag?

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Bye bye little man. You shouldn’t pick on women you fool.

I wonder if he worked out a deal with Romney to be picked up for veep

“The Dems are stuck with the failed Evil King Union Thug .”

Unlike the Repugs who are stuck with Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber.

That would also discount: Romney, Huntsman and Jesus, i mean, Rick Perry.
All have adopted liberal ideas at one stage or another- Romney’s healthcare and everything else he did in MA, Huntsman is self-explanatory and Perry’s only jumped onto the ultra-conservative bandwagon in the last few years in anticipation of a presidential run (so he’s a hypocrite and an opportunist).
Plus, we don’t know anything about Cain’s conservative policy credentials because they’ve never been tested.
So, what you’re saying is that the only ones who stand a chance (because they’re NEVER been RINOs) are Bachman (who’d be obliterated in a General), Paul (75 yos- McCain in 2008 : 71), Santorum (couldn’t even re-win his Pennsylvania senate seat- once people realised what a backward, hateful man he was) and Gingrich (the man who’s idiocy restored the Clinton into the White House and who made Clinton look like a moral posterboy with his post-impeachment antics). 

Are republicans trying to hand the Presidency back to Obama?!  The only candidates that stood a chance against Obama in a real election (as in one where the majority of voters aren’t crazy wingnuts) were Romney, Huntsman and Pawlenty.
And, Pawlenty was the only of those 3 who stood a chance of winning the crazy party’s ticket this time. Romney’s too, uh, mormon, so the evangelicals will see to his demise and Huntsman had an entire question in the debate pinpointing him as a pro-obama liberal, so there’s no way the tea Ps are gonna let him get the nomination.

Tim Pawlenty Tells This Week: Campaign Didn’t Have Enough Momentum To Continue

When King Obama drops out , he’ll do it on a show where he feels comfortable .

Probably “The View ” , where he could easily become one of the panelists .

She questioned his credentials, he questioned hers. What’s wrong with that? Or is this the new right-wing version of politics- conservative women have to protected at all costs, because they’re just fragile?
I’m no Pawlenty fan, but this is a race for the presidency of the US, they should all be going at one another now- you think they’re gonna be let off easy in a general? No, way!

Bush didn’t spend his presidency trying to blame other people. It’s not a good quality for a leader.

What corporations?

Constitutional scholar? What has he published?

Reagan would be considered a RINO now, too, although tea turds see no irony in their canonization of Saint Ronald. 

Bush didn’t have a predecessor who left him an enormous deficit, two wars, unfunded tax cuts, a plummeting jobs market and a housing market in the toilet. 

They should all drop out, Obama is gonna win anyway.

I’m sorry. I just have to laugh out loud every time I see the word thug. You guys really crack me up, and using a picture of Edward G. Robinson completes the picture. Looks like you for got Marxist and replaced it with King. That’s new.

bush spent his entire presidency blaming 9/11

Articles in the Harvard Law Journal. I hear he was also editor.

goldman sachs

Wow….Shocking coming from a liberal New Yorker. How has he done on economy and jobs?

Obama will cut deficit in half FEB 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8&feature=related

also editor of harvard law review

Repubs bit, and he bit back. Just like you do here.

dude, reagan would be a democrat!

republicans NEVER raise taxes, right?

The more the field narrows, the less noise we will hear. That’s a good thing.

But like Obama, he also inherited a triple A rating. Difference is, Bush managed to keep it.

Then you need to have a word with the American public as a whole, my friend, because as a larger majority of the them still blame Bush more then Obama for the economy…
http://www.businessinsider.com/people-still-blame-bush-more-than-obama-for-the-economy-2011-6

I think, that’s what happens, when you royally f-ck up everything- start never-ending, unfinanced wars, give never-ending, unfinanced tax cuts, and just generally make every President that came before and every President that comes after look competent- people don’t forget.

btw, it’s “Democratic” hopefuls

not “Democrat” (sic)

FNC feeds them certain words and phrases and they regurgitate them endlessly.

blame for the tea party and GOP for that

i think some serious revenue increases and/or lack of discussion about default
coming from the teabaggers would have helped maintain that…

i hope they don’t forget

bush also authorized torture, too

Perhaps your not old enough to remember the democrat party was trying to shake off the stigma as the Slave Owners in Chief by changing their party name Republican. It took thirty years to make the change but they succeeded in doing so. Today they are rinos and conservatives know who they are.
Back then the country was known by Americans as America & having morals and values. Sadly ethics were on their way out because our politicians were turning into what most are today.  Reagan saw this progressive invasion and stopped it.  America is on the way to saving the country once again.
Thanks for the reply & don’t be surprised if you see Bachman-Palin 2012…

Most credible economists — including many conservative economists like Bruce Bartlett — will tell you that Obama prevented a true depression. There’s very little debate about this except on Faux News and blogs of the fringe right. Bush put us on a path to credit unworthiness and the tea party pushed us over the edge. The fact that Bush got out before the $hi# really hit the fan is hardly a defense of his policies.

Sort of feel sad for him.  He seems to be a nice man but just too milquetoast.  

Do you Remember how Reagan used blame Carter over and over and over? No, you don’t. You know why? He was busy fixing problems. That’s what a President is supposed to do.

“Ohnoes, I’ve been left with an enormous deficit! Whatever shall I do? I know! Triple it!”

gosh you are just so “worldly”!  

Blaming 9/11? What the heck does that mean?

where have we heard the Reagan nonsense before – oh yes, it’s one of the left’s talking points.  
(it’s also b.s. but if it makes you feel better)

perhaps you’re not bright enough to consider that most of us know the truth and your attempts at rewriting history don’t wash.  I think the “mad” moniker fits.  

No, he’s not biting back. He’s ducking, he’s hiding, he’s looking for someone, anyone else to be responsible for his failures. It’s all he’s done since he was elected, demagogue and blame.

why would Reagan be a democrat?  That logic would lead one to believe there was no democratic party when Reagan was in office wouldn’t it? 

When you’re in charge, you look forward, not back. You devise solutions, you make decisions and you take action. Speechmaking does not a President make.

Public opinion and the Presidency are very different things. Public opinion does not lead. Then again, neither does Obama.

And how do they do that? They buy primary votes?

sorry there dude – Mr. Axelrod was doing the shuffle with your “certain” words – you seem to be confused.  Perhaps all the excitement over Bachmann’s photos weakened your thinking ability.  

remember now – the new word is “weird” – now go spread the word far and wide.

btw it Tea Party not the b.s. you type.

As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in
Chicago, Senator Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a
scant paper trail. His name doesn’t appear on any legal scholarship.

But an unsigned — and previously unattributed — 1990 article
unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama’s views on abortion
policy and the law during his student days, and provides a rare addition
to his body of work.

http://tinyurl.com/6cadod
One article. One. That does not make him a Constitutional Scholar, especially given that it isn’t an article on ConLaw.

Got anything else?

the only “law review editor” with not one published article! lol

In fact – no published articles in any legitimate legal tome – but I hear he had wonderful articles in the Community magazines.  Go figure.

blaming 9.11 for the demise of the country

i agree, but this thread isn’t about obama

If the shoe fits, thug…

http://tinyurl.com/3txpn2r

they legally spend millions of dollars in contributions

they also provide advisers to the white house

the tea party doesn’t exist

it’s the Republican party

reagan raised taxes 8 times, expanded abortion coverage, gave amnesty to millions of
illegals….

Our great King Obama has no clothes….. and he looks rediculous.

Please, if you really believe what you are positng then take a moment and view this clip, Reagan if he were alive today would be leading the Tea Party.  As always Progressives want to claim any great historical leader for their own…  but we have Reagan’s words to refute such claims..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmUJY5EugcM

you type dumber and dumber things each day darla.  Now that you’ve come out of the closet – you figure anything goes?

LOL! Every word of that clip of Reagan is filled with lofty, meaningless generalities about freedom and too much government. All pretty words, but none of it had anything to do with his ACTUAL record. Reagan nearly tripled the national debt. Reagan signed
an immigration reform bill that granted blanket amnesty to millions of
illegal immigrants. Reagan talked with our enemies. Reagan raised taxes 11 times. Reagan raised payroll
taxes in order to pay for government-run health care. Reagan put two justices on the Supreme Court that voted to
uphold Roe v. Wade. Reagan closed tax loopholes to ensure “every corporation pay their fair share.” Reagan even advocated gun
control on the op-ed pages of the, gasp, New York Times.

Reagan would probably do the smart thing: move the goal post from $250, 000 to $1 million so all the “Joe the Plumber” businesses wouldn’t suffer from the current liberal tax and health care philosophies.

He’d probably come off looking like a moderate.

You don’t have any idea about Reagan’s record, do you? 

“don’t be surprised if you see Bachman-Palin 2012…”

Every Dems dream ticket.

Why is it that you have such a need to rewrite history, I will grant you that deficit spending increased dramaticly under Reagan, maybe we should just call it an investment in the future as he had inherited a devasted economy from his predecessor Barack…  Oops! excuse me Jimmy Carter..  At least Reagan’s investments paid off as opposed to the trillions spent by our current president.  Reagan never controlled  congress so many of his policies and decisions were tempered with compromise..  Please if you want to claim a modern Democratic hero stick with Kennedy, although I think he would be soundly rejected by your party today.

“Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy objectives, although not to the extent that he and his supporters had hoped,” and notes that the most substantial change was in the tax code, where the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70% to 28%.

“With the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Reagan and Congress sought to broaden the tax base, eliminate many deductions, and reduce rates. In 1983, Democrats Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt had offered a proposal to clean up/broaden the tax base; in 1984 Reagan had the Treasury Department produce its own plan. The eventual bipartisan 1986 act aimed to be revenue-neutral: while it reduced the top marginal rate, it also partially “cleaned up” the tax base by curbing tax loopholes, preferences, and exceptions, thus raising the effective tax on activities previously specially favored by the code.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Bush started “never-ending, unfinanced wars” and gave “never-ending, unfinanced tax cuts”, and then Obama CONTINUED those same wars and added more, and Obama signed into law a CONTINUATION of those same tax cuts. So, by your standard, Obama is continuing to royally f-ck up everything.

bullshit- reagan and the rightwing blamed carter for far longer.
Most of the right-wing still can’t stop blaming Carter now, even as he’s done more in his post-presidency life to make America/the world better then any other president ever.

“Joe” the Retarded Plumber hasn’t made $250K in his life, let alone in a year.

That’s exactly what we need now – tax reform to broaden the tax base and get rid of tax loopholes.

Darla please review your talking point memos…  sometime back you were directed to not use the term illegal, but rather the more politically correct phrase….  undocumented residents, in using these terms you will be able to demonize conservatives while at the same time making a case for the voting rights of those that the president will need for his re-election efforts..  Please make a note..  thanks.. - DWS

Fantasizing about a naked black man.  Marcus Bachmann has a therapy that can help you with that.

True, but if it took 8 years to monumentally f-ck everything up, it’s gonna take just as long to correct it. That’s not excuse-making, that’s just fact: go back and look at history and how long it took to get out of all the major economic recessions of the past. And the 2008/9 situation makes all the previous reccessions look like a bad week at the office.

First, I don’t like the fact those wars were started- but i’d rather they were brought to an end slowly and tactfully, then just halted to please the public opinion- those wars were started stupidly, it’ll be worse if they’re ended stupidly also.
Second, Obama at least wants to end the high end Bush tax cuts- only problem is he’s faced with a brain-dead GOP who refused to do so and held ransom Unemployment benefits and all middle income tax cuts (so the GOP were willing to screw over the majority of americans to benefit the top 2%).
And, since S&P’s downgrade noted that 1 reason they did so was that they thought the Bush tax cuts would never be ended with no new revenue increases brought in, the fact that every GOP candidate has (insanely) made it clear they would walk away from any revenue increases, means Obama would never be able to f-ck things up as royally as these people.

The same Goldman Sach’s that contributed upwards of a million dollars to his first campaign, your president is owned by Wall Street!

Goldman Sachs contributions to the Obama campaign were more than four times larger than the $230,095 in donations to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign.

“Barack Obama’s presidential campaign shattered all records when it came to fundraising, so it’s no surprise that he significantly outraised John McCain when it came to contributions from the financial industry in general and Goldman Sachs in particular,” CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser said.

Since the 2008 election, FEC reports indicate that Goldman Sachs has contributed generously to Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee members. The two panels are responsible for oversight of the industry.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/politics/obama.goldman.donations_1_obama-campaign-presidential-campaign-federal-election-commission-figures?_s=PM:POLITICS

How do contributions buy elections? Do they vote?

Tim who?

Tim “cap-n-trade” Pawlenty is likely never going to become president or vice president. He was making a fool of himself by avoiding Romney and picking on a Lady who is a hundred times more principled than he is.

To shay….I think that’s how you spell it!!

Gosh darn….I “think Pawlenty” was mentioned maybe twice in this whole commentery.  You dems really have alot to say.  Sure wish you were right on your “Mr. Wonderful”.  Everyone in this country would like to wish that. Your so bent on being right that you scare yourselves. Yes sir, I’m right, by golly!!!

According to you, my sister who is 62 years old, overweight, and rescues mosquitoes from a glass of water because she is that bleeding-heart liberal, is a thug. She is a member of a teacher’s union. 

Republican/Tea Party folks have blocked routine appointments to many federal agencies and judicial positions, just because they could or because they had a hostage of some kind. Look up how many such positions remain open if you can take a challenge. Show your ability to do some research.

Bush’s popularity was dropping by 9/11, but that event unified the nation and Bush rode that. He used it to go after Iraq when he should have stuck with Afghanistan. He loved being Commander in Chief in Time of War, and rode that, too. Only a traitor would not support The President at a time like that.