Hi 38° | Lo 25°

Editorial: Red-meat Republicans

It was called the “Freedom Summit.” Mike Huckabee got into the spirit of the day when he suggested that “there’s more freedom in North Korea sometimes than there is in the U.S.” Donald Trump called the Affordable Care Act “the single greatest lie I have ever witnessed.” Bill O’Brien received an award as New Hampshire Conservative of the Year.

O’Brien was booted out as House speaker after a single term – in January 2013. For more than a year he’s been a has-been.

As for Trump, he’s got a short, selective memory. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t hold a candle to the Bush administration’s deadly lie about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

And Huckabee? He turned an appealing aw-shucks presidential run in 2008 into a get-rich gig shoveling much harsher stuff on television. If he really thinks North Korea is “sometimes” freer than the United States, he should pick one of those times and move there with Dennis Rodman for a spell.

The crew at the Freedom Summit poses a dilemma for the Republican Party. The Tea Party gave the GOP a jolt of energy, but the day it nominates a Huckabee or a Ted Cruz or a Rick Santorum for president is a day it will rue.

Tea Party energy is what Republicans need this year. There’s a midterm election, which bodes well for the party that does not inhabit the White House. Newt Gingrich told summit-goers to expect a disastrous defeat for Democrats in November.

New Hampshire voters have to look no further than 2010 for an example of what that means. Disastrous was just the word for it. Republicans swept out Democratic majorities in both chambers of the Legislature, and O’Brien and his gang began their reign of terror.

“It wasn’t the establishment that saved the (conservative) movement,” talk show host Laura Ingraham said Saturday. “The Tea Party saved the movement.”

But in New Hampshire, the Tea Party could not govern, and voters noticed. If anything, the political ineptitude, radicalism and over-reaching of Tea Party figures such as O’Brien helped Barack Obama win re-election. And re-election cemented the prospects of the Affordable Care Act.

That hasn’t stopped Republicans from repeating the anti-Obamacare mantra. Sen. Kelly Ayotte told the Freedom Summiteers Saturday that winning U.S. Senate seats in the fall was the key to ditching the Affordable Care Act.

The law has survived a Supreme Court test, a presidential election and a rocky rollout, but both the radical and less-radical elements of the GOP seem united on killing it. More than 7 million people now have insurance under the plan and more will get it before November. Campaigning to cancel their policies, as the Republicans seem bent on doing, is dumb politics.

The Freedom Summit was sponsored by two super PACs – Citizens United and Americans for Prosperity. After the last election, Gingrich declared such super PACs “very dangerous . . . very negative, disruptive to our system.”

If the red meat tossed to the star-struck crowd at the Freedom Summit is any indication, super PACs are dangerous to the Republican Party, too.

Legacy Comments92

Aint no racists in this Grand Old Party. Cliven Bundy, the latest hero of the Right, and the man one Carp Per Diem poster on this thread said is twice the man Harry Reid is, opens mouth and inserts foot. Cliven tells us about our "Negro" problem, and longs for the good ole days when they just picked cotton for Massa and were happy all the live-long day.

"They are not patriots and people who bilk the US out of grazing fees for 20yrs"....Warren Buffet and Al Sharpton owe 100 times that in back taxes and I dont recall the Obama admin sending armed men to their homes...maybe I missed it tillie...

Nice try at changing the topic. Bundy's actions are indefensible and inexcusable. He has repeatedly broken the law, and has issued violent threats against government officials. He fully deserves everything he gets in the way of legal trouble, including serious jail time as a violence-prone terrorist. BTW: the Nevada state constitution explicitly allows the federal government all the authority it claims here. Bundy doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Al Sharptons actions are indefensible and inexcusable. He has repeatedly broken the law, and has issued violent threats against government officials. He fully deserves everything he gets in the way of legal trouble, including serious jail time. Ahahaha...yeah that wont happen though....BTW..there is no topic to change...I was making an observation.

Your keen interest in Sharpton is duly noted--as if it were equivalent to the Bundy case. Sharpton may make ambulance chasers look good by comparison, but I guess I missed those "violent threats against government officials", and other than his tax issues, when has he "repeatedly broken the law?. And most especially, when did Sharpton convene an armed standoff against the feds? But kudos on the grammar and vocabulary of your post, though I think it's been done before.

Harry Reid is half the man that Bundy is and because he has connections, he was able to get a waiver over the supposedly endangered turtle, unlike Bundy. Obama, as described by a liberal journalist on Sunday has a "manhood problem", if he ordered all of those people to go after Bundy, I guess that is pretty true.

Have you no shame? Is there no one you won't smear with innuendo and falsehoods? "Harry Reid is half the man Bundy is"--what rubbish! The man is a scam artist and tax cheat who's sucking at the federal teat but refusing to pay for that privilege. Bundy's claims have no legal backing in either federal or state law. This addresses your innuendos directly: BTW: That "liberal journalist was David Brooks, who may be a "liberal" from your far-right perspective, but is regarded as conservative by those in the real world.

Harry Reid is one of the most corrupt pols in DC. He is also using race to shut down discussion. As a matter of fact quite a few folks in DC use race at every turn. What comes out of Harry's mouth is vile and he passes on the message to use vile rhetoric at every turn. That is why we are at each other's throats. The Dems prefer that over fixing anything and coming together. Get the folks attacking each other, and the issues will not be discussed.The oldest trick in the book. Attack someone personally and change the topic. Put them on the defensive. Use race, gender and the size of folk's wallets to divide us. That is how you get votes. promise the moon, and when you fail to deliver divide folks.

Dear readers.... What do the following all have to do with each other...... The Rancher Bundy, Overpopulated "endangered" desert turtle, convicted Harvey Whitmore- a Nevada developer and lobbyist, democrat senator Harry (criminal) Reid, a $5 billion Chinese solar panel plant (ENN), rare earth elements in the larger adjacent area, Rory Reid, son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid new client — ENN Energy, 36 year old head of the Bureau of Land Management - Neil Kornze - recent member of Senator Reid's staff.....

he is on film trying to sell drugs to an undercover FBI agent. That is a crime.

Have they been taken to court, lost, and refused to abide by the court's decision?

Do you realize that your hero Bundy would have to pay over $15 per acre to have his cows graze on private land, but because of "subsidies" and not Negro subsidies he would only have to pay #1,35 per acre on public land, but that was even too much for your favorite "patriot".

I was hoping that the new editor would add journalistic integrity to the paper but apparently I was wrong. This comment, "The Affordable Care Act doesn’t hold a candle to the Bush administration’s deadly lie about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction." is as bad as I've even seen in this paper - and there have been many. First of all, the argument that it's OK for a current president to lie because a previous president did is beyond ludicrous. Secondly, if you consider Bush a liar then you must consider Bill Clinton's comment in 1998, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." And Nancy Pelosi, also in 1998, said, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." John Kerry said, in 2002, "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." I could go on and on listing quotes by a few dozen democrats who also believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs. We know factually that he had them because he used them against his own people. Regardless, that comment by the Monitor was totally out of line and childish. We wouldn't accept that from a 10 year old and it's certainly unacceptable from an adult editor. In my opinion, the Monitor needs to take a long hard look at its policies. The paper keeps getting thinner, is removing features and has fewer articles written by its own reporters. The only thing not shrinking is its price.

There is a fairly significant difference between voicing an honestly-held (if erroneous) belief and uttering a known falsehood. Only the latter is a lie. So the editorial correctly characterize Bush’s Iraq WMD falsehood as a lie. Clinton’s and Pelosi’s statements were probably true when made; and Kerry’s reflected his misplaced trust in Bush’s “intelligence.” And by all your misdirection you manage to whistle past -- and thus concede -- the point of the editorial, which is that nothing Obama ever said about the ACA could hold a candle to the consequences of Bush’s LIE: millions dead or maimed and trillions wasted. Only Halliburton and some other corporations benefited, but that was the whole purpose of the “war” after all.

Common, I think you've got your characters mixed up. Bush was relying on the same intelligence that Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, et al relied upon. His was the honestly held belief. Obama knew full well that there would be millions that could NOT keep their insurance plans, that they couldn't keep their doctors and that "every family will save $2,500."

No, the war was three years after Clinton left office. Bush/Chaney did not rely on information from Clinton about Bin Laden and Chaney faked the evidence about Saddam. The UK had an investigation of the misinformation. Chaney had information leaked by Scooter Libby to a reporter to discredit a CIA to keep the truth from coming out. It was all LIES from the beginning. Why Obama would lie about keeping your doctors when the truth would come out makes no sense. . It was the insurance companies that cancelled the policies. Obama should have seen that the insurance companies would look out for their bottom line over patients but he didn't. That is a mistake not a lie. A lie is when some one intentionally doesn't tell the truth as Bush and Chaney did..

The insurance companies have no motivation to cancel polices to "protect their bottom line." There is a provision in the ACA to ensure that the insurance companies remain profitable with taxpayer funds. The policies had to be cancelled because they did not comply with the provisions of the ACA. According to Forbes, New Hampshire is seeing 90% increases in the cost of health insurance - yes, that's 90%. As far as Iraq is concerned, let's try a few more quotes closer to the start of the war. "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. However, the point I'm trying to make is that we can have respectful and reasonable debate about political differences without resorting to name calling and very slanted accusations that pervade this editorial and others printed in the Monitor. Sure, state an editorial position and the reasons for it. But don't slander those who disagree.

I will not get into the 90% figure, that has always been discredited. The evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was faked and many politicians relied on that evidence as witness Colin Powell at the UN who later felt he had been duped and used as a pawn. There is no doubt that Saddam was an evil dictator but he was not involved in 9/11 (another lie) and the fact is there were no weapons found and that can not be disputed and it is more than political differences. I assume you are saying that Bush and Chaney are being slandered while Obama is being slandered daily on these pages.

poll shows that voters have little trust in the president these days, with 61 percent of respondents saying Obama lies about significant issues “most of the time” or “some of the time.” That includes 38 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents. This survey goes beyond the conventional “honest and trustworthy” measurement common in polls and tests the loaded term “lie.” For so many to say that the president lies is a big deal

Scooter Libby did NOT leak anything - another FALSE character assassination by the liberal

FACT he was convicted.

FACT CHECK TIME - Scooter Libby was NOT convicted for leaking

No character assassination needed, Libby did that by himself. Libby was convicted on 4 counts of obstructing justice and lying under oath. And Bush refused Cheney's plea to pardon Libby--telling by itself.

Clinton lied but did not go to jail. He was impeached and should hang his head for that.

" Poll: Many voters say Obama lies to the country on important matters"...... In an all time historical high 61% of voters say NOama is a LIAR....he is officially a LAME DUCK president

I am saddened also by the new editor. It appears that he brought his Alinsky Tactic Book with him when hired. The one that states, "Attack your enemies with lies, character assinations, and change the subject". Basically, promote your agenda. We are in quite a bad place in America these days. A place, that many refuse to acknowledge. Our candidates are focused on their agenda. All candidates. As a result we have no good candidates to elect. We are divided to the point, that rational and civil discussion no longer exists. At each other's throats. No common sense and fixing nothing. Trapped. We have pols using race to promote their agenda, and other pols using religion to promote their agenda. Neither of those two things fixes anything. We are bleeding fiscally and now folks have given up. Nobody is held accountable. It is like watching Jerry Springer. Round and round in the dysfunctional circle. I keep hoping that sanity will return. I am shocked when I hear the rhetoric that comes out of pols mouths. Both parties. Like a bad soap opera. What ever happened to common sense, the desire to fix anything, and folks being held accountable? I am angry that we have allowed all our politicians to behave this way and we allow the media to keep the facts from us. The rhetoric is getting even more vile. Race is used on a daily basis for political gain, as is religion. Disgusting. For every Reid we have a McCain. For every Bachman we have a Pelosi. Money rules with all candidates. Get elected and pay back the folks that got you in. Mafia tactics. Honesty and common sense are gone. I am embarrassed how we have allowed this to happen. We are all being played, and we do not even know it. Keep money. religion, race, social issues and political agendas out of politics. Fix our problems. Otherwise, the US is going to sink even more.

Good men and women were killed and maimed because of Bush's and Chenny's lies. Nobody is dying from the ACA

We will see, the jury is still out. Over 1500 people who lost their coverage with Cancer have been impacted negatively by Obamacare, while others who did not have insurance have gained coverage....whoppee for them, while others suffer.

Comparing the Bush administration statements that knowingly lied this country into a 3 trillion dollar war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 with Obama's claims about Obamacare is bizarre. The Bush administration cooked the intelligence on Iraq--and hid that fact from the nation and from Congress. Condoleeza Rice's claim that the 'smoking gun of proof might be a mushroom cloud" was only the most outrageous of the hundreds of misstatements and distortions--let's not call them lies-- told by the administration.

But that is history and two wrongs don't make a right. Obama has lied and lied and lied and screwed up our health care system and that is OK with you because Bush lied too? Kind of a juvenile view.

Maybe it is not just history to the families of the soldiers that died or the thousands of wounded. Maybe you have very strange priorities.

For the record, I never really considered Bush Jr. to be a liar. He was and is someone who without money and family connections was not qualified to run a 7-11 franchise. Saddam was never a threat to anything but oil, had about as much to do with 9/11 than the GOP, and lest we all forget it was the US that trained, financed and put him in power in the first place. You are citing 2002 data on Kerry, that is ancient news and not even a valid argument. Bush supposedly was acting on the latest info available, and I use latest info in the loosest of terms. This GOP hype fest was nothing but a patting on the back fest. Come on, anyone using the words North, Korea and Freedom in the same sentence just proves this was as news worthy a topic as a frat boy reunion. FTR, the union Leader, Globe or frankly any other papers are mere shadows of what they were in their hay days. People want news or what passes for news, as it happens - not really the specialty of print media. But we do need to stop reading so much into everything. You can start by dismissing everything the far right says and the far left as well. You then take parts of the mainstream non radical GOP and the non radical democrats and split the difference. What you are left with is usually the real truth. That is how our system is supposed to work.

I agree! I am against blaming ones behavior on another persons behavior. Lying is lying. It does not matter if a President/person before them lied or was misinformed. If we all blamed our behavior on others the world would be a terrible place.

Capthall, just because the new editor came from the Union Leader does not mean that he will have a slant unlike those at the Concord Monitor. There is no guarantee that his ideology is anything but Left leaning. The Monitor hires people who are Left leaning, it is obvious that the Union Leader might hire people for their actual ability. Joe McQuaid wrote upon the new editors departure: "Desk editor Dana Wormald, like John DiStaso, is taking on what is arguably a tough political challenge. He is going to head up the Concord Monitor's editorial and forum pages. If anything needs a jumpstart, it's that cockeyed liberal Concord Gang." Doesn't mean that Wormald is going to be anything less than bleeding heart left in his editorial slant. I can already see less letters to the editor and more moderation on this site. The readership is getting more short changed than ever, it seems.

Note to "BestPresidentReagan". President Reagan would be run out of town today by the Teddy Boy Cruz, Know it all Huckabee, who caused the shooting deaths of four policemen, with his pardon of a career criminal in AK and slick man Trump, who has cost private companies and governments many millions of dollars with his at least four bankruptcies. And watch out NH, Senator Ayotte has joined the tea party hook, line and sinker. One and done in 2016,

Thats why they call it the opinion page - especially for liberals

Hmmm, Rabbit said this was a forum page and not for opinions only FACTS

Hint - liberals call it a opinion page as that is all they offer - The middle right prefer to deal in Facts over feelings - Facts provided here daily by the middle right solve issues as opposed to the wishful utopia thinking that the left post here daily

BestPresidentReagan wrote: "Facts provided here daily by the middle right solve issues..." Really??? Where are they? I must be reading the wrong section.

good editorial it is about time the union leader is giving balanced comments

Superb editorial. A perfect summing up of the so-called "Freedom Summit" and the bizarre rhetoric of these so-called leaders of their movement.

A screed from the radical left worthy of Kathy Sullivan - Congrats new editors you have managed to slink lower than estimated. REMEMBER ... state democrats after their spending spree left O'Brien and the responsible Republicans an almost $$$$ 1 BILLION deficit which O'Brien and the Responsible Republicans balanced with no new TAXES. The Tea Party is a grass roots center right movement that is not trying to impose some untried utopia like the leftist liberal progressive socialist democrat party. The middle of American politics is clearly occupied by the Responsible Republicans and they will restore the lost heritage of a self reliant citizenry with a small govt America that has been eroded, undermined, or just plain sold out by the progressive liberal socialist democrats. Not once in the 5+ years of democrat edict has the public EVER said the country is even close to going in the right direction. You can keep you 37% approval of the direction of the country or vote to return it to its days of glory.

" new TAXES"? That assertion, of course, is false. I gather that you have not been following any of the developments in the litigation over the hospital tax (MET) which O'Brien and his crew converted into a real and substantial new hospital tax through a deceptive shell game. The O'Brien hospital tax, by the way, has been declared unconstitutional by two New Hampshire judges.

As that tax has been in place since Shaheen was Gov - your retraction and apology can be printed here 24/7

It was not a "tax" when Shaheen was governor, it was a shell game to get money from the Feds, O"Brien made it into a real tax by keeping the money. I don't expect any apology from you because if you started you would never be able to stop for all the mistakes you make.

BestPresidentReagan said; " The Tea Party is a grass roots center right movement that is not trying to impose some untried utopia like the leftist liberal progressive socialist democrat party. ".......... Nuf said.

While not intending to accuse any specific Tea Party enthusiast of racial and ethnic hatred, the primary fuel for this Astro-Turf “movement” is indisputably and ominously racial and ethnic hatred, brought on by the election of a black president and exacerbated by the appointment of a black Attorney General. Any questions about that were aptly dispelled by the recent committee hearing exchange between Eric Holder and Louie Gomert, a Tea Party product, which would not have been imaginable were the AG white.

Absolutely FALSE. I don't think that people have an issue with Obama because he is black. They have a problem with his arrogance, his inability to be honest and tell the truth and his integrity. Most of us have an issue with his inability to lead or manage and his obvious lack of experience in all aspects of administration from monetary policy to foreign relations. It has nothing to do with his skin color, it has to do with his arrogance. The AG made it quite clear that he was not going to prosecute black Americans early on in his tenure. That IS racist. I guess that you do not remember Janet Reno or Gozalez being grilled by Congress and accused of all sorts of things. Holder was previously held in contempt of Congress when he would not answer questions on Fast & Furious. He sued a state because Obama did not want to uphold standing immigration law. Holder urged state AG's not to uphold certain laws. But holder and AG's are directly responsible for upholding ALL laws passed by Congress. Of course it is NOT about the color of a man's skin, it is about his character. Then to whine and complain like both Holder and Obama do, the former fed with a silver spoon and the latter the product of special programs and the public dime, speaker further to their demeanor, character and maturity. I would think that an educated man, in your case, would not make such broad claims based on political slant and ideology.

Ah, there it is right there: “the product of special programs and the public dime.” I would say that comment represents a pretty significant racial double-standard in that you single-out Obama (who has actually held private-sector employment not underwritten by taxpayer largesse), while giving a pass to Paul Ryan (who went to high school and college courtesy of taxpayers and whose only non-government employment was in a family business entirely dependent on public funds).

It is Obama's arrogance, demeanor, insincerity, lack of understanding of the plight of so many voters. Period. It is not about his "race" which in fact, he is half white Paul Ryan? We are talking about Obama and Holder.

Those words you used, "arrogance, demeanor, lack of understanding" these are all words used to describe "uppity" black men. I wonder if you even know you are a racist. Over and over you mention his arrogance. If the President of the United States can't be arrogant, who can?

I wish the President weren't arrogant - no matter who he or she is. Arrogance is an awful trait for a world leader to have. Arrogance in world leaders results in innocent people killed, natural resources wasted,the less fortunate among us neglected, etc, etc, etc.

Republicans love arrogance in anyone but Obama. Don't the worship at the feet of Putin? GWB was arrogant, Romney is arrogant, Cruz is arrogant, and most of the right wing posters on here are arrogant. They believe only they are right and know the answer to everything.

I have no idea why you think that...

No one in the Republican Party loves Putin. Bush was down to earth, Romney, I know him, he is very down to earth, Cruz is passionate and correct but Dems don't like to hear the truth. Nothing is more "arrogant" than a poster sniping at people by stereotyping them as many libs do here.

When Putin first went into Crimea, the Republicans and pundits were all over Fox saying want at great leader he was compared to Obama, Bush was arrogant when he first became President, the outcome of a favored son, not so much so when he left office after his wars and Katrina. If a billionaire who owns seven homes (or eleven) and feels he can't be bothered with almost 50% of the citizens can be considered "down to earth" then lucky you to be his friend. Cruz is a first term Senator who thinks God sent him to lead the country, even the Repubs know he is an arrogant SOB.

tillie, first of all they were saying that he was a real leader compared to Obama because he was decisive and Obama was like the wind, changing his mind, failiing to respond. Just because Cruz wants to stand up to the Constitution.....does not make him arrogant, it makes him a patriot. Something you can't comprehend because patriotism is antithetical to your sensibilities.

You really have a nerve saying I am not a patriot just because I don't agree with you. The tea party and secessionists and people like Cruz who shut down the government because he could not get his way have coopted the word. They are not patriots and people who bilk the US out of grazing fees for 20yrs and then bring armed men to turn on federal employees trying to do their jobs are not patriots. You and Cruz might be surprised to find that the Constitution is not only for the far right, it is for all Americans whether you agree with them or not.

You really have a nerve calling folks racists that do not agree with you. Actually it goes beyond just having a nerve, it is vile, disgusting. ignorant and shows how Dems are willing to keep the vile rhetoric going to divide us and attempt to stop discussion.

they are just angry that the only racist that has turned up in the news recently was a life long democrat...the nerve of thinking I wouldnt support Ben Carson for president ..or Allen West...we got real problems in this country....and going around making false accusations of racism solves exactly none of them.

You are absolutely right, I do not know Itsa well enough to call him a racist. I only know him and you through his posts, which I find intolerant and judgemental. He also is quite able to defend himself. He said I know nothing about being patriotic for no other reason than he doesn't agree with what I say. I find that to be unpatriotic. The rest of your post is exactly what I would expect from you, no discussion just name calling. Nothing was directed to you, so why don't you just go back to worrying about airline prices and IGNORING me, Remember?

You have just violated rule |#3 of the discussion guidelines. Plus...baseless accusations of racism ARE unpatriotic...unamerican, and shameful ...but vote democratic. its expected.

I don't often agree w/you but I have to respect you for that! Although you might want to stop doing their job for them - if you persist they may let all of their editors and online moderators go!

News Flash Tillie, your judgemental and intolerant. You name call folks vile names. Every word you connect, twist and associate with race, gender, politics, etc. The question is Why? Simple, you cannot debate what is said, that is why you treat folks so badly. Then when they respond to your treatment, you get insulted. Your post proved my point. You did not own up to your calling him a racist. You pretty much defended your bad behavior. So your statement that I was absolutely right, was null and void. Like President Obama trashing Reps in one sentence and then stating he wants to work with them. Is there anyone on this forum who has dared to have a different opinion than yours, that you have responded to in a civil tone? I think not. When you bait folks with nastiness, they will respond. That is how it works. So don't go defending your actions. You admit you love to harass folks, push their buttons. Then when they respond, you get nasty, can't take the heat you created..

Soooooo, I guess this means you are not ignoring me any longer?

Patriots love their cuountry and the history of their country. They don't look to ease their liberal guilt by blaming America first as the answer to everything. You don't like our country, much less love it , you are bitter, angry, cynical and you really don't show any of those traits of a patriot. So nerve? Just speaking the truth.

There is nothing patriotic in thwarting the constitution like the democrats do daily

Well Romney and his wife may be very down to earth but they both come across as arrogant elitists. Examples you say, how about the 47% of Americans are parasites comment. Or Ann trying to pass herself off as the average stay at home wife. It was their arrogance that gave the election to Obama. For those here that claim the GOP is really the true majority party, how do you explain Obama's reelection? Don't even get me started about Cruz, anyone that would think of him as middle of the road, clearly has no understanding of what middle actually means. He's as middle of the road as John Bircher's were years ago.

Well G Carson, it seems to me you have a bad case of jelousy in relation to folks who happen to be successful. How can you state that the Romney's may be down to earth and then state at the same time they come across as arrogant elitists? As far as the video goes of Romney's campaign event. The bartender who filmed that is a major loser. He has sued at least two employers he has worked for. He had not paid his income tax, and basically was looking for fame. He got hooked up with Jimmy Carter's grandson who is also a loser. Romney never said the 47% were parasites, you did to bolster your argument. He said they considered themselves victims, and no matter what he did, they would not vote for him. It is called campaign strategy. Romney said nothing that was untrue. We have a high % of folks who live off the govt that consider themselves victims. Yeah we do. President Obama congratulated Carter's grandson for his dirty work on his behalf. Now if that fundraiser had been for President Obama, and he said something about Rep voters, you would be all up in arms crying foul, or state the person videotaping him was a racist. That his how you Progressives roll. You justify bad behavior when the folks doing that bad behavior are Dems. That is how I see many of you posters on this forum. You call folks out when they respond to your attacks on them, you refuse to honestly debate any issue, and you justify this President's bad policies by stating that other President's did it so it is okay. When that fails, you rewrite history, use the race card, and go back to your Bush syndrome rants. So much for honest debate and being informed.

No, others can be arrogant, have a poison demeanor and lack of understanding. It does not describe black or white folks or women or men. How you tie that to racism is not really understandable. Any leader who is arrogant is not a good leader. Great leaders leave their ego at the door, they listen to people first and then compromise, they are driven by the challenge and consider all things, Obama has none of those characteristics. Hitler was "arrogant", Nixon was "arrogant", Putin is "arrogant". That is not a trait I would want in a leader, strange that you do.

Name me one Republican who has left his ego at the door and listened to people and then compromised in the last six years One. Boehner, (one term president) Mitch McConnell,? The word "compromise" is a dirty word to Republicans.

excuse me...but wasnt it you who said something along the lines of...we elect democrats to vote Shaheen voting just shy of 100% of the time with her party...if its ok for Shaheen...why would you expect elected republicans to vote with the democrats?? Wouldnt that upset the constituents that voted them in??

I was replying to Itsa. Read his post then read mine, maybe then it will all be clear to you. When you vote your straight ticket Republican do you hope they vote with the Democrats every once in a while? I don't think so. This new GOP is so opposite of every thing I believe, why in the world would I want to vote for one of them. Even if there was a Republican I liked, voting for him would be useless because they toe the party line or they are out.

I did not say Obama was arrogant, you did, over and over again. In this post you even compare him to Hitler, Getting better. Is there a special class that you and Rabbit go to, where they to teach you to accuse people of doing the very thing you do yourself?

I gave you examples of people who were arrogant. They were all extremes, including Richard Nixon. No classes, if you read your posts you might start to think.

Both Ryan and Obama benefitted from special programs. So we can talk about "entitlements" that benefitted both. Somehow those that benefit minorities merit scrutiny from the right while those that benefit them escape such scrutiny.

liberals pulling the racist card shows they have a losing is as desperate lowball slimy act they can pull.

Well, Itsa, common sense does not live in the Democratic Party. Race is used because they want to divert attention from all the issues. It will be the same if Hillary runs. Out of one end of their mouth they will say that women should be equal, but Hillary will use the I am being abused blanket because I am a woman, so no opposing candidate has the right to treat me like a male candidate. I saw her cry at the Benghazi hearings when asked tough questions. That will be her cover. Course if a female candidate is running that has an R after her, the Dems will abuse her. Bachman and Palin come to mind. But Hillary will have the full cover of the media and her supporters. That is how the left roll. Different rules for them. I am not so sure Hillary will actually run. When I saw her at the Benghazi hearings, she did not seem to have the stomach for the fight for power she use to have. She made a lot of mistakes in her testimony and seemed overwhelmed. Lost her sharpness to lie well. Time for her to retire and focus on becoming a grandma. Her husband is also an issue. When I see photos of him posing with porn stars, and strippers, one has to wonder what more dirt is out there that will appear if his wife runs.

Lost her sharpness to lie great line!!!!!!!!!!!

OK one question. Were Bachman and Palin standout representatives of the best the GOP could offer, be honest. If that's the case then the GOP is in worse shape than I thought. Besides who didn't make fun of Palin. As for your " Her husband is also an issue. When I see photos of him posing with porn stars, and strippers, one has to wonder what more dirt is out there that will appear if his wife runs." Now this is innuendo at it's finest taken 100% out of context. This photo was taken at a social event in Monaco with no indication that he even knew what the 2 women did.

Bubba can spot a porn star or stripper from 20 miles away...nice try

The Monaco photo is old news GCarson. In March he was in LA at an event and took photos with two prostitutes from the Bunny Ranch in Nevada. Guess he had no clue about them either right. There is more dirt out there about him at strip clubs, etc. That is what I meant. He likes to have, shall we say a good time, and his wife looks the other way,. I was not a Palin fan by the way. She was thrown into the lions den by McCain and had no clue what she was doing. Bachman is a smart woman, but is too into her religious beliefs. With that being said, neither of those two women deserved to be treated like they were by the left and the media. Their attacks were vile. No justification for treating any female candidate that way. But the left is fine with hate rhetoric when it is a conservative woman. I have heard horrible things said about Condi Rice also. No feminists ever defend these vile attacks. Your basically stating that Clinton's actions are taken out of context. Your defending a womanizer because he happens to be a Dem. That is my honest opinion. Bill Clinton wants to be back in the WH with his wife. He never quite adapted to being retired, wants to bring back the old days when he had power. And if she runs, all this dirt about him for his latest escapades will come out. My guess is that is why Hillary is unsure about running. Her husband has a lot of baggage. And I am talking about current escapades, not just the old ones.

Now that you reminded me, it seems that whenever there is a Democratic president, the Republicans have countless hearing and investigations don't they?

Ever hear of Watergate? The calls of Democrats to try Bush and Cheney for war crimes? Democrats trying to sink Christie for a traffic jam? Democrats going after Scott Walker? How informed are you or are those blinders obstructing you view of the truth?

Not an ounce of fact in the Common Grind submission. Would that be the same AG that has been held in Contempt of Congress.... that would have ended any other career? Name one person fired by NObama?

Department of Homeland Security — which produced an execrable report on the dangers of extreme right-wing terrorism four years ago.......... employs a manager running a website urging African-Americans to prepare for a race war against whites. Yea - who is racist now?

Folks should not be judged on the color of their skin, nor excused because of the color of their skin. But that is not how it has played out with the Dems. They use the color of our President's skin as a means to stop any discussion about his failed policies. That to me is using race for political gain. They should be ashamed. Holder is one of the most corrupt AG's we have seen. Any informed voter knows this. If you have to use race to shut down discussion, that tells me you want to change the subject.Pretty sad that some have allowed race to be used for political gain. All President's should be judged on their performance by everybody, even their own party.

You seem to have confused the United States of America with the Confederate States of America. Or mistaken the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution. Jefferson Davis couldn't have said it any better. But the CSA lost the Civil War. And there were many good reasons the Articles of Confederation were replaced by a constitution with a STRONG central government.

What's next: Tofu Democrats?

I would say Jello Democrats but if you really want to stick to meat, there is a product out there called "Beyond Meat" and it is perhaps the worst product on the market, ever. So Beyond Meat Democrats.

Ok then. There you have it. Gluten-free, nut-free, fat-free, GMO-free, Beyond Meat Democrats!!!

No meat, pale and weak! It fits. Oh, don't forget.....Save the Whales!

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.