I disagree with it, but I have to admit, it’s a great post.

Well done.

upside99 Says:
Mr. Nice Guy,

Thanks for answering that question. I respect your candor on that.

But it still sounds like you you are totally negative to Obama and haven’t said anything negative about McCain. Doesn’t his flip-flopping, BushCo supporting, dishonesty and K Street whore-mongering bother you …. A LITTLE bit?

I am indeed negative on Obama, no doubt. His phony “change” talk is not backed up at all, imo. I think Hillary would have been a wiser choice, but whatever. At any rate, yes I like a few things about John McCain because he has some interesting, positive personal qualities. For example, he has a proven independent streak, he’s a *very* decorated military hero who also handled his POW situation remarkably well. Although none of those things are political, nor ideological. Its all about his personal story that appeals to me. With regards to the conditions how he left his first wife, well that’s obviously not heroic nor seemingly honorable, but I do *love* how he and Cindy adopted an abandoned girl from a Bangladeshi orphanage. I mean come on, that’s awesome. However, politically, I don’t like his policies nor more than I like Obama’s. I will not be voting for McCain as I don’t like at all how he changes his beliefs from independent one year, then to the GOP party line another year. Clearly he’s keen on political expedience. What is that about?! That’s a typical politician for you. I also don’t like his finance reform legislature which I feel essentially limits free speech during an election. He’s definitely not my guy and he’s definitely not getting my vote.

Someone else also mentioned Barr, and I was seriously concerding him. However he too is far, far from perfect. At least though he seems to be somewhere other than far left or far right. At this point, I’d prefer to vote for none of the above.

I guess there isn’t much suspense about where Dana Bimberino will land huh?

I wonder if all these neocons are closet gays, on a never-ending mission to prove their “manhood”.

An excellent narrative of their ignorant circular logic.

Just sayin’ …

Sterno is a cruel taskmaster, and must be appeased – even at the risk of a few hundred thousand completely innocent neurons, just hanging around, minding their own business, and not causing any trouble.

So is rubbing braindamaged righties’ noses in their own debunked talking points.

Um – doesn’t that presuppose he had a brain to start with?

Just sayin’ …

golf is fun.

So is rubbing braindamaged righties’ noses in their own debunked talking points.

And it’s much less expensive, and less damaging to the environment.

drick23 Says:
golf is fun. you libs should try it one day instead ofdoing drugs and aborting babies. it actually make you relax. haaaa

Troll John Kerry? Is that you?

Hogwash.

The elitism that Rove want to portray, has nothing to do with the country club set. It’s the intellectual elite, he wants to tie Obama to, not the priviledged, moneyed elite. That’s why this attempt looks so desperate: he’s betting on the cupidity of wingnuts, to be unable to differentiate the two, and I see by your post, it’s working.

Except for the beautiful date part, this is a perfect description of the porcine, porcelain, pasty-faced, puke, POS that said it.

So, his comment “the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by” wasn’t really about Barack Obama, but about how Rove perceived how he was treated at some of the many ritzy, hoity-toity country clubs he’s visited where some of the frat-boy country club types sneered at Karl Rove and showed disdain for his daring to think himself good enough to join their ranks…especially since Rove got beaten up by a girl when he was a kid.

Rove definitely needs some psychiatric help.

backup Says:
The country club attack is used by both sides. Rove wants to use it to infer an Obama elitism. Democrats want to incite class divisions.

I’ve never been to a country club, but I bet those people are probably much like the rest of us. Some good, some bad. Using them as a broad brush to prejudice the opposition is disingenuous and narrow minded in either case.

Note to observant readers: here we see a sterling example of a favorite tactic of the Right:

a characteristic behavior is exposed (in this case, using “Country Club” as a perjroative. even though wildly misplaced). The preferred tactic, “Projection” is not available, or has proven ineffective. So the fall-back is to claim that “both sides do it” and condemn this behavior across-the-board, even though the evidence points to a unilateral commission.

This has two potential advantages: one, it affords access to the “high road” through a transparently faux “even-handed” approach and two, it implies that, since it’s inarguable that both sides do it, anyone on the other side who complains can be seen as a hypocrite.

Doesn’t always work, but it’s got its strengths. backup is tactically on solid ground here.

And as for Zed Lefflin — I’d know that Billy Hill incoherence anywhere.

Smart, powerful, yea, but never popular.

Karl’s man crush is unbecoming.