Mad_Machine76
Mad_Machine76's JournalI don't agree that it was a good idea for him to get involved in that situation either
Whenever he gets involved in something local, it tends to wind up all about him- not necessarily intentionally and not because that's what he wants- but he does tend to galvanize wingnuts and if it doesn't turn out the right way, the blame invariably gets laid at his feet for "not doing enough" and/or Fox News and the conservative media get to crow about another victory "against Obama". There's just little benefit for him or anybody else from his involvement. Plus, when he is involved, he is throwing his very (heavy) political weight into the ring, which makes it hard to lend credibility to grassroots movements. IMHO he needs to focus on national issues and leave state and local political issues alone unless they somehow impact/influence federal laws or his governance of the country.
Bush policies.......steroids.
Nothing else more needs to be said IMHO- and Romney's campaign VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED this! While the argument was made back in 2008 that John McCain would be "Bush's third term" because of his general support of Republican policies, Romney's campaign has actually acknowledged that Bush's economic policies that plunged our country into the mess in 2008 will be his policies- albeit on steroids. I don't think that anything else Romney could have done would have made it easier for President Obama to make that argument. Also, we also know that most of Romney's advisers were part of the same "marketing team" that brought us Iraq Part 2.
This is the stuff that bothers me about guns
I don't have a real problem with people wanting a gun for personal protection, hunting, etc. but when people start talking about wanting guns to protect themselves from some vague threat(s) from the government, I start getting nervous. Guns and politics have traditionally not mixed well and people that paranoid about the government are incapable of making rational and responsible decisions involving the use of guns IMHO.
Since when was it the job of POTUS to get involved in local political disputes?
I know that Bush injected himself into Terri Shiavo's case but we didn't like him for it (and nobody else did). Ever since Obama became POTUS, it seems like some people want him to get involved with every major state or local political dispute whether it is relevant, necessary, or appropriate for him to do so.
That would be a nightmare scenario IMHO
They'll definitely keep the House under those circumstances as well. Let's make damned sure NOT to let THAT happen!
Remember: Elections have consequences, people, 2010 being the most recent cautionary tale!
I agree
We need to have some kind of uniform system for federal elections. Not exactly quite sure why each state should be allowed to have its own rules for federal elections. The Canadian system- as described by Michael Moore- seems to make a lot more sense but then again they've also had health care delivery figured out for decades and we're just (kind of) now starting to move in that direction.
USA! USA! USA!
What nonsense
What are they? A bunch of kids? 
They just need to do their jobs, plain and simple IMHO
Bullies always squeal (loudly)
when their victim(s) fight back. Republicans and their "very serious" friends in the corporate media are no different. *ugh*
Come to think of it
"vulture capitalism" has pretty much been the entire Republican economic policy of the last 30+ years through the *clever* guise of "privatization". The buzzards are still hard at work trying to wrest control of the last major government programs still in existence (i.e. Medicare, Social Security) so that they can turn them over to their 1% buddies to help further line their pockets.
Profile Information
Name: Mara Alis ButlerGender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,443
