Stats

Comments Posted By nabsentia23

Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments

Bill Clinton Endorses Mitt Romney

“Still, had Clinton not hammered down the positives over the economy and continuation of it through Gore by having that affair and lying about it (though that is not a legit reason to have impeached him), Gore would have won by too big of a margin to have been stolen away from him.”

To me, this sums up Bill Clinton’s ultimate weakness. I actually like Clinton. I like him a lot, but this is how the GOP had him by the cahones despite him surviving impeachment. It didn’t just hurt Gore (who I still think should have had Clinton campaign with him despite the Lewinsky affair), but it also harmed Glass-Steagall. So much of his political capital had used up by this affair that if he had wanted to take on more liberal intiatives in his second term, he could not.

As for his criticizing the Bain attacks by the Obama campaign, he’s dead wrong. Hello, Bill! This is actually a part of your suggestion that we attack Romney as the “severe conservative.” The last time I checked, severe conservatives support vulture capitalism because they foolishly think that profits automatically equals job creation.

Besides, Clinton of all people should know that Romney’s use of his record at Bain Capital (regardless of its end results) to say he’s qualfied to be POTUS is totally BS. A businessperson doesn’t have the same function as an elected official. Business and government overlap and depend on one other, but they do not have the same goals.

So, Bill if you are upset with Obama attacking Romney’s record at Bain – then why don’t you tell Romney to stop using it as a qualification for President? It was Romney, not Obama who brought it up and we aren’t suppose to attack it? Bill, I love you, man, but you really need to get ego in check. Honestly!

» Posted By nabsentia23 On June 4, 2012 @ 6:06 am

The Shape of the GOP Win in 2012? I Fear The Coup is Coming

I’m just not so certain that the DNC has demonstrated such poor leadership in this regard. If there had been poor leadership on the Democratic side (either coming from the state party or national committee) – this recall wouldn’t even be taking place. Recalls are rare and very difficult to pull off. Sure, everybody calls for recalls, but to actually do it is another story.

Besides, from the DNC’s point of view, the recall will not impact Obama’s standing in the state and I agree. However, it will still have political ramifications nationwide. These ramifications may have more of an impact on GOP strategy than on the Democrats.

Sorry, but I’m not ready to pile blame on the DNC when just the fact that recall is even taking place is a monumental triumph. To me, that alone is proof that there’s stellar leadership somewhere within the Democratic party.

» Posted By nabsentia23 On June 4, 2012 @ 6:40 am

“For them, the money lost will soon be replaced and since it is largely from their excessive surplus….no harm done….except we remain vulnerable to their next swing at bat which will happen in 2014.”

You would think this is how these guys think, but it isn’t. Yes, the money can be replaced, but it’s still a loss and it’s going to hurt. Oh, they will keep trying, but it they keep losing, what return will that be on their investment? Ultimately, these guys are looking for some type of return on investment and without that, there’s no point in continuing.

» Posted By nabsentia23 On June 4, 2012 @ 5:44 am

I think everything should be done to get Walker recalled on June 5th. It’s just that I want people to remember the continguencies if things don’t completely our way. And believe it or not, this is how the right-wing has been successful for the last 3 to 4 decades (despite U.S. Congress not being in control by one of the major parties for a significant amount of time).

» Posted By nabsentia23 On June 4, 2012 @ 5:38 am

Walker is still limited if he survives the recall.

He needed the both the Senate and the Assembly to pass his anti-union “reforms.” Today, if he wants to go further, he doesn’t have that.

And a legal battle is a distraction from his day-to-day duties as Governor. Sure, he could put the Lt. Governor in, but how will this help the Wisconsin GOP politically?

Would you rather looking be the glass half-empty or half-full? How a person perceives “reality” is just as important as “reality” itself.

» Posted By nabsentia23 On June 4, 2012 @ 5:33 am

I’ve been a lurker of this site from time to time, but I felt compelled to respond to this article.

Yes, it would be nice if Scott Walker is defeated in this recall against Tom Barrett. However, if he’s not, I am more afraid of the liberal and progressive response than anything else. And here’s why:

1) The criminal investigation that Walker is still under as he goes before a recall. Even Tom Barrett has mentioned this time and time again. Does anybody honestly think this investigation is just going to disappear if Walker survives after June 5th? If he survives, the investigation is more likely to be intensified.

2) The Wisconsin Senate – Why do you think Walker was able to get his way during the first few years of his term? It’s because he had a GOP-controlled Senate! Even when the Dem Senators left the state in order to stop Walker, they were still hindered by GOP control. Well, guess what – Walker can no longer depend on a GOP-dominated Senate, even now! Right now, the Wisconsin Senate is evenly split among the GOP and Dems. And what’s worse is that 4 of the GOP Senate seats are up for recall on the same day as Walker is. Either way, Walker will not have the help he had when he was first elected.

There’s always more than one way to skin a cat, Murph and instead of putting all of your eggs in one basket, alternatives should always be investigated. End of story!

» Posted By nabsentia23 On June 3, 2012 @ 2:44 pm