HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Proud Liberal Dem » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Proud Liberal Dem

Profile Information

Name: Mara
Gender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 12:13 AM
Number of posts: 18,930

About Me

Transgender (MTF) Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Sci-Fi/Anime Geek and music lover. Hopeless \"political junkie\" and aspiring writer.

Journal Archives

I feel the exact same way

Surely President Obama could not really be so lucky to be blessed with such an incompetent opponent, could he? Sometimes, I even wonder if I'm dreaming about how bad the RMoney campaign is being run. In fact, in most instances, President Obama's campaign hasn't even had to lift a finger, especially in regards to his overseas trip last week. We've got a little ways to go to November but Romney has run such an incompetent campaign so far (and his trip abroad didn't help things at all) that his favorability ratings are sinking and people are starting to sour on him, things that will be difficult to fix no matter how many billions of dollars in ads are run against President Obama. That people seem to generally like President Obama and believe that he is looking out for the average "John and Jane" suggests that he stands a good chance of winning a second term barring some kind of catastrophe(though I can't exactly imagine what that might be).

All I can say is, whatever he is doing, I hope he keeps it up!
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sat Aug 4, 2012, 11:47 PM (0 replies)


Rooting for economic failure 2009-?????

IMHO the biggest determining factor in this race is whether or not people still blame George W. Bush (and his fellow Republicans) for the current economic mess and/or blame Republicans for the ongoing economic doldrums. I haven't seen any polls recently but every one that I've seen suggests most people still largely blame George W. Bush and Republicans can't completely "divorce" themselves from him no matter historical revisionism they attempt. I don't know if a poll has been done on the subject of whether people blame Republicans for the economy not improving but I would be interested in the findings. Clearly, they are not happy with the Congress, which obviously includes the Republican-controlled House.

If people blame the Republicans for the mess, President Obama will likely be given another 4 years (and, hopefully, a Democratic Congress) to try to keep fixing the economy, hopefully with less obstructionism (not likely but one hopes).

If people blame President Obama for the ongoing economic problems and believe that we need to try a different set of policies (which are really the same old Bush policies- on steroids), I guess they'll elect Romney and probably give him a Republican Congress to try to turn the economy around. It would be a horrific disaster, of course, but to dismiss the possibility after 2010 would be utter folly on our part IMHO.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:23 PM (0 replies)

I guess it depends on how things are going

If they're going good, then the "job creators" (and/or GOP governors/legislatures) are responsible. If they're going bad, then, of course, it's all President Obama's fault.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Aug 3, 2012, 09:54 AM (0 replies)

Romney thinks 163K Jobs Created Last Month is "hammer blow" to middle-class families


Last month, as you may recall, the (much weaker) jobs report was a "kick to the gut". This month's jobs report is, according to him, even worse (unless he thinks a kick to the gut is worse than a "hammer blow".

As predicted, he's focusing solely on the UE rate uptick, as well as using President Obama's "doing fine" line out of context (no surprise).

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Aug 3, 2012, 09:49 AM (7 replies)

I'm not necessarily comparing (in that they are equivalent in any way)

just pointing out that Romney and Republicans are acting all indignant about the tax returns issue when their "base" has been going after President Obama for his birth certificate and, as of late (in response to the tax issue), his school transcripts and other "sealed" records that they believe (or fervently hope) may have *incriminating* information.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:32 AM (0 replies)

Romney-Republican Strategy 2012

Constantly run distorted and disingenuous advertisements about how bad things are for Women, African-Americans, Hispanics, et. al BUT *conveniently* (and always) neglect how they and their former POTUS not only mostly caused things to get so bad (for pretty much everybody but the wealthy) and how they haven't been doing ANYTHING remotely useful to make things better and have, in fact, spent the past 3-4 years making SURE that nothing gets better so that they can blame President Obama for things not getting (much) better and (they hope) get somebody in the WH to serve as their latest "Autopen-in-Chief"!

Edit to add: Also, Romney and Republicans also continue to flog the bald-faced lie that the President "got everything he wanted from Congress" and that "his policies" have failed despite the fact that they successfully blocked many of them.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:02 PM (1 replies)

Birthers harassed President Obama about his birth certificate for 3 freakin' years

before he finally broke down and gave them what they wanted- something NO OTHER candidate and/or sitting President of the United States of America has EVER had to do, particularly AFTER the fact, so I'm just not clear why hounding Mitt Romney, a candidate for President, about his tax returns (that Romney seems to imply has some damaging- or at least easy to exploit- information) is so out of bounds now for the right. I'm not holding my breath that he'll actually ever give them up but his refusal to do so, along with his apparent tendency to destroy, hide, and otherwise obfuscate his personal and political "paper trail," does raise serious questions IMHO about how open and honest his administration would be should he (somehow) get elected to the highest office in the land.

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:45 PM (8 replies)

I was kind of a late bloomer (didn't think about sex/sexuality) much until the end of High School

but I have always been pretty clearly oriented towards women for as long as I could remember. However, as I've expanded my knowledge of sexuality, I've become sort of "bi-curious" and open to same-sex experiences if for no other reason than to see what it's like on the other side, though as I'm married, it's unlikely that I would actually be able follow through with any sort of experimentation at this point- a fun "fling" would probably all it would ever end up being for me. I doubt that it would drastically lead to any drastic changes in my lifestyle. I guess you could say that I'm straight but flexible! I honestly don't believe that people "choose" their sexual orientation so much as they "choose" what to do with it, which, in most cases, is whatever seems to be most consistent with what they believe their sexual orientation to be and it's great to see that more and more people seem less afraid to reveal/express their true sexual orientation and live more honest and open lives than they did (or were able to do) in the past.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:30 PM (0 replies)

Why is it that pundits think that Condi would be such a great choice for VP?

I know that she says she's not interested and it's not entirely likely that she would be tapped for the spot because of her (allegedly) more "moderate" views on hot-button social issues (i.e. abortion) and the fact that she in African-American in a party teeming with racists, but just about everybody in the punditocracy seems to gloss over her foreign policy disasters from the George W. Bush (mis-)administration, most notably her incompetence as NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR during the lead-up to 9/11 and her cheerleading for the Iraq invasion/occupation thereafter.
Her tenure as Secretary of State wasn't marked by any notable achievements either (no major controversies that I recall but certainly nothing to write home about either). So, given the fact that President Obama and Joe Biden can flex their muscles when it comes to foreign policy by highlighting that they took out the perpetrator of the attacks that Rice and her boss failed to prevent and then failed to apprehend during the remainder of their TWO terms in office, why do so many pundits believe it be a "good idea" for Mitt to remind everybody about this by nominating her? My only guess is that she is intelligent, a woman, and African-American to boot but even if that might make the GOP ticket more "presentable" to the general public, I'm not sure the GOP "base" would be equally as accepting- and Mitt can't afford to lose them, of course.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:13 AM (16 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8