Geez, kid. Try to jumpstart puberty, willya?
Posted on 05/15/2012 12:35:35 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
That’s when Palin came through with a surprise endorsement of the third candidate in the race, Deb Fischer, whose personal story is the most naturally appealing to the Tea Party crowd. The 61-year-old didn’t enter politics until 2004, when she won a seat in the state Senate, and on the campaign trail plays up her work as a rancher. She doesn’t ooze the same ambition as her opponents, and of the three candidates she’s the most likely to be immune to Potomac Fever.
The Palin announcement offered a huge jolt of momentum to Fischer’s effort, and was followed a day later by an endorsement from 1st District Rep. Jeff Fortenberry. Then, over the weekend, came one more surprise: a last-minute $200,000 ad buy from a super PAC that has decided to promote Fischer, and savage Bruning. (The super PAC is run by Ameritrade founder Pete Rickets, whose son, Pete, defeated Stenberg in the 2006 GOP Senate primary.)
[.....]
of course, it could be that she does turn out to be the next Angle, and that it still doesn’t matter, given Nebraska’s partisan bent. (It’s doubtful that a Stenberg win would do much to help Kerrey, since he’s a more established figure and has been able to win before.)
The bigger consequence of a Fischer win, though, would be to reinforce the message that was sent to Republican senators by last week’s Indiana Senate primary, when Dick Lugar was trounced by his Tea Party-aligned challenger. As I wrote yesterday, the Tea Party movement really isn’t about making the GOP a more conservative party; it’s about making what is already a conservative party more obstinate, unyielding and hostile to Democrats. A surprise victory by Sarah Palin’s candidate today would help that cause.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
The Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) say it’s time for Democrats to return to their compassionate roots when priorities were civil rights and humanity:
The Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) 2012 “Progressive Southern Strategy” will help restore faith in the Democratic Party while ensuring the re-election of President Barack Obama
It is important to learn from history when both major parties touted a “Southern Strategy” to win the hearts of “Dixie”
Author Steve Kornacki story
Steve Kornacki describes it this way:
“Democrats thought they had solved their Southern problem in 1976, when a peanut farmer-turned-Georgia governor named Jimmy Carter swept through the old Confederacy, winning every state except Virginia en route to a narrow Electoral College victory over President Gerald Ford.
For the first time in 12 years, the Democrats had won a national election — and Dixie was the reason why.”
http://www.zimbio.com/Ronald+Reagan/articles/oK4zz9xVJP1/Progressive+Democrats+America+PDA+say+time
Republicans returned in 1980 with their nasty version of a “Southern Strategy” after grandpa-esque Ronald Reagan managed to have “Dixie” stab President Jimmy Carter in the back – four years after propelling Georgia’s “native son” to victory.
“The story of why Reagan was in position to run against Carter in 1980 — and how he managed to turn Carter’s prideful home region against its native son — really begins in 1964, when regional tensions within the Democratic Party finally reached a breaking point.
Since Reconstruction, when white Southerners developed a bitter hostility to Reconstruction and its northern Republican liberal architects, Dixie had been the most staunchly Democratic region in the country“
— Wrote Steve Kornacki
THEY SAY ‘OBSTINATE’ LIKE IT’S A BAD WORD................
He says that like it's a bad thing.
Anal Cyst.
Looks like another electron-balled, metrosexual geek to me.
I mean, just look at the neck on that Yurtle.
Well, it is...to him. As for me, I'm going for "hostile"...
Actually, Carter ran stronger in the South than in the rest of the country in 1980. The electoral math was complicated by a third party candidate who ran strong in other parts of the country, but no way did the South "stab Carter in the back" in that election. It was his own incompetence that did Jimmy in.
Simple rule of thumb.. if Salon opposes it... it’s worth keeping!
A gay man commenting on behalf of a leftist publication, blasting Sarah Palin. The main reason homos hate Palin is they view her as "competition."
That would be John B. Anderson, RINO Republican from Rockford IL.
First off was Steve even alive then?
Secondly, and more important, Carter ran as sort of a middle of the road Southern Democrat. Once in office he showed himself to be completely in over his head. Runaway inflation, the misery index, gas lines and Iran showed how clueless he really was. The whole hostage crisis bumbling, which climaxed in the botched rescue (the Jimmy Carter Desert Classic) put the lid in his reelection hopes. By the end of his presidency anyone could have beat Carter. Lucky for the country we had Reagan who not only beat Carter but won such a convincing landslide he was able to get much of his agenda passed, despite a liberal House.
In short Steve, there was no back stabbing. Jummy Carter was an incompetent fool, who looks like a genius compared to B.H.0., but he was still a fool.
Didn't Lee beat bennet for senator?
Niky Haley as SC Gubbernator?
Ron Johnson in Wisconsin?
The demonRATS got kilt in 2010. I could go on, but you are a loud, looney loser and while you might be a son of a bitch, you have NO reason to be arrogant, try ignorantsob as your new screen name.
> Why shouldn’t we want to be “hostile to Democrats” because they are certainly hostile to the Tea Party as is this know-it-all Salon creator. He obviously thinks that he is smarter than the rest of us.
He certainly is gayer than any of us.
Geez, kid. Try to jumpstart puberty, willya?
Tagline material.
Splat.
Pinging humblegunner to this thread so he can post something about people with Palin Derangement Syndrome.
I no longer participate in any Palin threads, thanks.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908070050 (video of this hateful idiot)
STEVE KORNACK, COLUMNIST, NEW YORK OBSERVER: I don’t dispute that it’s real. I don’t dispute that the rage is real. I don’t dispute that these people have genuine, in their minds, in their hearts, gripe with Obama and with the health care plan. I just dispute that it really adds up to anything. I dispute that it suggests that there’s a broad movement in this country afoot that is similar to that, you know, in terms of rage.
I don’t think — when you look at a poll that finds that roughly 50 percent of the public feels they sort of support what Obama’s trying to do on health care and about 50 percent oppose it right now, I don’t think the 50 percent that oppose it feel the way these people feel.
I think if you can draw a parallel, if you can think back to 2000, the presidential election in 2000, Ralph Nader ran for president, if you remember. He drew 15,000 people at his rallies, paying $7 a head to get in. They had more energy and more enthusiasm then anywhere else. Did it mean anything? No, it meant intensity; it didn’t mean breadth of support. We’re seeing intensity, here.
DOBBS: You want to ask al gore how much it meant?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0908/07/ldt.01.html
Nothing at all "gay" about wallowing in filth and misusing one's body.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.