« Democrats Capture Deep-Red Mississippi House Seat | Home | Quinnipiac: Both Dems Beating McCain »

NRCC Head At A Loss For Spin On Mississippi Race

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), chairman of the NRCC, did something very interesting in his statement on tonight's result in Mississippi: He didn't even try to spin the loss of a seemingly safe GOP seat in a special election.

"We are disappointed in tonight's election results," Cole said. "Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short."

Full statement after the jump.

NRCC Chairman Tom Cole's Statement on Special Election Results in Mississippi

Washington -- NRCC Chairman Tom Cole released the following statement following the results of the special election runoff in Mississippi's 1st Congressional District:

"We are disappointed in tonight's election results. Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short.

"Tonight's election highlights two significant challenges Republicans must overcome this November. First, Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority. Though the Democrats' task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy, and it should be a concern to all Republicans.

"Second, the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but time is short.

"I encourage all Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall by building the financial resources and grassroots networks that offer them the opportunity and ability to communicate, energize and turn out voters this election."

87 Comments

| Leave a comment

YOUR TEARS ARE DELICIOUS

OM NOM NOM

Perhaps inspired by Newt, he's telling it like it is: They better get their sh*t together in the next 6 months or they are toast.


Evolve or die.

user-pic

Thank you, Karl Rove and Tom Delay and George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, and uncountable other Republican liars and cheats, and depraved types. All together you orchestrated an era which brought the nasty subsurface infected boil to eruption, allowing a painful but necessary awakening in America's decent citizens.

And all in less than 8 years. How long did the Democrats control congress - like 50 years? And the Republicans manage to lose majorities in the House, Senate, and most likely the White House in less than a decade. Marvelous.

Weird how elections hold morally bankrupt thugs accountable....

user-pic

14 years, actually. Newt's contract began in 1994, IIRC.

You're right, of course, Ben. I stand corrected. I think the point is still valid though, isn't it?

This Congressional seat pickup together with my official clinching of the Presidential nomination tonight clearly shows that I am the candidate who will most benefit downticket races.

Thanks for joining us Hill - and welcome to TPM. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your game-changing landslide and ask you who your VP choice will be.

She will be both President and her Vice President since no ones is more qualified to take orders from her, then her.

You have that exactly backwards: The reason that I am going to be my own Vice President is not that no one is more qualified to take orders from me but me; rather, it's because no one is qualified to give orders to me but me.

LOL.

That was awesome.

I stand corrected.

Teh awesome!

user-pic

Ar first I thought it might have been voter turnout aided by new voter registrations that overtook the Republicans. Then I thought maybe voter discontent was driving many to crossover. But it seems the excitement of the Dem's primary brought out a bigger crowd than that for a special election for a House Rep, obviously trumping whatever Republican turnout there might have been.

Either way it all works. Voter registration, appeal to the swingers and the republican discontent, and keep building the momentum.

The movement has begun.

"Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short."

Translated: We did whatever we could to link Childers to Obama and Wright, but damn you people, once Racism doesn't work in Mississippi there is something wrong in this country. Look at WV, that's honest to God racism there and it's working for Clinton.

It is not racism. He really is black.

user-pic

ROFL

Touché.

user-pic

Ouch.

user-pic

Translation: "Every man for himself. We are broke, we got nothin' and we are going under, so do all you can to try and bamboozle the voters into thinking you are something other than a Republican, good night and good luck."

user-pic

This could be a sign of things to come for the GOP.

2 new supers for Obama! Lauren Wolfe and Awais Khalil of young Democrats of America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VARYagkoAQo&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/13/233315/650/418/515195

Not that it is a huge surprise but..

THAT IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!

user-pic

Nice. Yes not a huge surprise. I had an opportunity to correspond with them (did my part to encourage their endorsement of Obama) and even though they claimed to be neutral, I got the feeling they were leaning that way anyhow.

I wonder, though, if a conservative Democrat is welcome in the party, given the current atmosphere.

user-pic

Federalists.

Whigs.

Republicans.

Hillary Clinton.

Footnotes in history.

user-pic

TPM and TPM-EC also appear to be at loss for spin...

I just woke up and went to the TPM main paging hoping to final the final election tally on their "scoreboard" but, to my surprise, it had already gone dim! And there is almost no commentary or the usual interesting tidbits about the results of this primary so far (at 12:38 am EST). I guess it is on the purpose to keep up with the emerging and convenient narrative that W.V. simply does not matter...

For what it is worth, with 93% of precincts reporting, the politico and NYT have Hillary's margin now at a staggering 41 points.

This is news in that, according to the pundits, Obama is now the presumptive nominee, so thatg for him to be losing so badly this late in the game should give his giddy supporters in the press and out there a pause: Are we, the Dems, headed for a McGovern-like landslide drubbing in the GE?

As goes Appalachia, so goes the nation?
WTF

The Obamabot spin in in the comment line on this thread. Since WV voted heavily for Clinton, it's obvious to them that the whole state is racist.

user-pic

Did I say I just woke up?

Try again... I just woke up and went to the TPM main page hoping to find the final election tally on their "scoreboard" but, to my surprise, it had already gone dim!

user-pic

DC -- It's not gone, they just linked to it instead:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/05/_clinton_obama.php

user-pic
DC -- It's not gone, they just linked to it instead:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/05/_clinton_obama.php


Thanks, Stemp, but that is still odd in that the "scoreboard" has usually been left "on" overnight following a primary. This seems to me like a blatant attempt to bury this embarrassing drubbing of Obama by Hillary, when his media enablers have all but declared him the nominee...some nominee!

"Dog bites man" gets buried and its a conspiracy. But hey, yay Hillary. If she runs up the same margin in every remaining state, she'll only be 108 delegates behind (assuming she can stop supers from coming out for Obama at the rate of 3 - 5 a day between now and then).

Welcome back, by the way, DCS. Seriously. Been a long time.

"I wonder, though, if a conservative Democrat is welcome in the party, given the current atmosphere".

Current atmosphere? What's that supposed to mean? And how do you define 'conservative democrat'?

Conservative Democrat = Hillary Supporter? I don't know, you tell me.

"Conservative Democrat = Hillary Supporter? I don't know, you tell me".

You're being disingenuous. You were the one who wrote, ""I wonder, though, if a conservative Democrat is welcome in the party, given the current atmosphere".

Are you now saying you've no idea what you were talking about?

To repeat one of my two questions: How do you define what constitutes a 'conservative democrat'? You can either come reasonably near to explaining it, or you can't.

Well that's just it. I read from several sources that Mr. Childers is a "conservative" Democrat, whatever that means. So I go to his website and I look up his issues page. Standard boilerplate stuff. No indication where he stands on the kind of hotbutton issues that define "liberal" and "conservative" in today's mass political culture. So I am left to wonder what "conservative" Democrat means. However, I assume that this animal exists in some form or another and that it tends to favor Senator Clinton's candidacy over that of Senator Obama.

As for the "atmosphere" comment, it was a (apparenlty too) veiled reference to the hostility in the Democratic blogosphere for Senator Clinton and her supporters; many of whom I assume hold positions similar to those espoused by Mr. Childers and who seem less and less welcome in the party as it is seen by what I take to be the majority of posters on TPM.

I would also posit that ideological heterodoxy is healthy for the party and should be encouraged

user-pic

The DEMs have an AuH2O girl and a lukewarm Eisenhower Republican running for President and you want to know what a recessivist Democrat looks like.

Fuck. Our country is screwed.

Recessivist? That's a new one for me. It does not appear in my unabridged dictionary. And a Google search reveals that Richard is the only person on the internet currently using the word. However, from the context of Richard's earlier posts, I assume that the term is pejorative. What, pray tell, does it mean?

I'll admit to resorting to the dictionary to comprehend the meaning of the word 'heterodoxy'. Point, Euphman (if that really is your name).

And I know what you mean. I also happen to believe the New Deal terminology of conservative and liberal is as dead as Julius Caesar, and has been for decades.

I also believe that had Clinton voted to oppose the Iraq/Big Lie War Resolution, she would have sewn up the nomination by Super Tuesday. But her vote had nothing to do with anyone's definition of left or right or center. Rather, it struck to the content of her character. She took counsel of her own perverted ambition, and chose war. The hostility you've discerned was born in that moment, and was not a result of any legislative score keeping by a disaffected wing of the democratic party.

Back to the subject, Mississippi is a moral victory of immense proportions. Almost no one at the national level thought Childers was really going to do it, it was all about forcing the Republicans to spend money to win something that they shouldn't even have to campaign form. It would have been *nice* to win, but there are things you really shouldn't get your hopes up for, and the Republicans will win in *some* places. Anyway, making them sweat and spend right on their home turf was a victory in itself.

And now it's Good Morning, Congressman Childers!

WOW! And not even close!

I actually considered endorsing Obama last night, thinking, well, compared to most politicians he's not that bad, probably not dumb, and maybe even up to the job, despite a lack of any clear evidence to prove it. But then I thought, the three presidents in modern (post 1900) history with the least experience, by far, are W, Obama (assuming he were elected) and JFK. And W and JFK are actually among the worst, along with Harding.

W and JFK: loutish rich kids who went to Ivy institutions based on family money and social class. Undistinguished academic careers.
Obama: pompous middle-class kid who goes to Ivy institutions based on checking the "AA" box. Undistinguished academic career.

W: "businessman" living off sweetheart deals from people wanting a connection to Sr.
JFK: "writer" of Pulitzer winning book, written by someone else.
Obama: "law professor" who never published a single scholarly article, usually a requisite to teach law.

W: governor for a few years
JFK: Senator for a term
Obama: Senator or a few years

Performance:
W: well, pretty obvious
JFK: because he got assasinated, people get all weepy over Kennedy, but he was in fact not at all that good a president.
Obama: well, as Borat says, if you want, you can let a monkey fly a plane, but watch out, you don't know what's gonna happen!

So you have guys who never actually accomplished anything on their own, who are privileged by one reason or another, whose purported achievements are actually make-believe, and then they have the serious responsibilities of the presidency to handle.

Sorry, Obama's not proven and definitely not ready.

There is so much wrong with your post but this one jumped out at me.

Obama: pompous middle-class kid who goes to Ivy institutions based on checking the "AA" box. Undistinguished academic career.
In 1990, Barack Obama was elected Harvard Law Review president over 18 others.

Psst... I think you bias* is showing.

*I am being polite.

Don't be. He's a tool, and everyone here knows it.

user-pic

Weak. Try this:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html

or Time's take on the experience yardstick:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926,00.html
- and -
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1717927,00.html

And a few more:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/07/presidential_experience/

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/17/Worldandnation/Presidential_experien.shtml

http://theroaringlyon.blogspot.com/2007/12/krugman-on-presidential-experience.html

Bottom line is: experience may matter if you're looking for a surgeon, but appears to have no bearing on presidential performance. Besides that, Obama's political/executive experience falls within the low-midrange of past presidents, a far cry from "inexperienced". There have been many successful presidents with less experience, and in terms of years of experience, Obama actually ranks right about the same as Abraham Lincoln.

Your experience argument is a dud.

oh, experience has no bearing? Sounds a lot like the 2000 argument I heard all the time, "intelligence doesn't really matter." I think you're kidding yourselves if you think things like "experience," "intelligence," and "competence" don't really matter. And I see scant evidence Obama is heavy on any of these counts.

As for Lincoln, isn't he the guy who presided over a bloodbath that left a million young men dead, for no particular purpose?

But tell me, who are these successful presidents to whom you refer? And please, let's limit it to 20th century, since the nature of the institution and the country have changed dramatically from, say, 1810.

user-pic

Read the links and compare for yourself. I certainly don't claim to be the foremost expert on who the best presidents were, but I trust the judgement of historians and other experts to give a reasonably fair assessment, and they come up with several examples - in the past 100 years - of presidents who're considered good to great, and had relatively little of the experience you claim is so important.

Furthermore, conflating intelligence with experience is silly. You can't be a successful POTUS and be a dummy - Bush II case in point.

But, geez, I'm debating with a person who says:
"As for Lincoln, isn't he the guy who presided over a bloodbath that left a million young men dead, for no particular purpose?"
OK, dude. No purpose? You're suggesting Lincoln was not such a good president? Well, I guess all those historians, scholars, and just about everyone else is wrong, and you're right.

W. was governor of Texas and thus had quite a bit of nominal executive experience (although his Lt did all the work of course).

Obama has not only published many "scholary articles", but headed the Harvard Law Review.

really? Care to cite one of them?

And AAs do not have to grade onto the HLR, they have special non-competitive seats set aside for them, and "President" of HLR is more a political position than editorial.

It would be considered extraordinary for any non-AA to have a serious teaching career without a clerkship and some publication history. It shows just how low the bar is for AAs that Obama was offered a tenure track position without having either.

Eh, Obama's an empty suit, but you fools get all excited over some cheap rhetoric and the fact that he's black.

Ah, another hate-spreader. You really don't know Obama at all but are so bitter that you feel the need to spread your insecurity via hate. How classic and Republican of you.

user-pic

"you fools get all excited over some cheap rhetoric and the fact that he's black."

Believe what you want. That's not why any Obama supporters I know are voting for him. The soaring oratory is just icing on the cake. That he's black - ditto. We feel the same way about a woman (Hillary), but didn't choose on the basis of skin color or what's found between the legs. Not relevant.

Here is the meat and potatoes, not the icing on the cake:

I was first moved to consider Obama after reading his books last summer. I was impressed by Obama's keen ability to observe complex situations and draw powerful distinctions and conclusions from them. I was impressed by his unique background and personal history. I was impressed by his ability to see the humanity in others, to understand and fully appreciate different opinions and see things from multiple perspectives. I remember thinking, "Wow, this guy is the exact opposite of George Bush, worldly, sharp minded, curious, insightful, open and honest."

At that point, I still supported Hillary, but decided to do my homework. Over a period of months I compared their positions, began to pay attention to their campaigns, etc. While their positions were quite similar, I concluded that Obama's healthcare plan was better, and that his "judgement" argument actually had merit, at least in contrast to Hillary. I was also impressed by his unique resume and life history, which I felt would bring both a fresh, unique perspective to the White House.

I think everyone would agree that of the most important issues of our times is Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. What we need is a multifaceted approach if we wish to effectively deal with terrorism. We need to fight the conditions that lead people to choose violence. We need to understand why some people hate America - and not just some cheap line about how they're 'opposed to freedom and our way of life', for it isn't that simple. We have to build relationships and trust between peoples and cultures that now fear each other. Ultimately, the degree to which Muslim people consider the U.S. and the west as friends and allies, is the degree to which terrorism will recede, naturally. Figuring out how to accomplish something like that requires insight into the minds and hearts of the Muslim world, and an ability to appreciate and respect those viewpoints, good or bad, right or wrong.

Having lived in a Muslim country, having worked among the poor in Chicago, having family in Africa, and having travelled abroad many times, Obama is uniquely positioned to do what no other candidate can do. He can speak directly to people around the world in a way that they can hear him. His appreciation for different cultures and points of view will open doors of dialogue, diplomacy and negotiations that no other candidate could possibly expect to achieve. With his background, his skin color, and his name, Obama's election to office alone would positively transform the perception of the United States around the world. Finally, his ability to inspire others, to rally people to a higher purpose, to help others see the humanity in even their enemy, could extend beyond our borders and help bring about peaceful resolutions to numerous conflicts around the world.

Aside from that, there are a great many reasons why Obama supporters chose to support him. I can't speak for all other Obama supporters, but people are supporting Obama because of what he's accomplished, who he is, and what he stands for. Here's a list of things many people have cited, some of which are not even things I care that much about, but some others do:

-- Graduated first black president of Harvard Law Review having won trust and support of conservative members.

-- Passed over 600 high-money law firm offers to work for civil rights practice at fractional pay.

-- Added health insurance for 20,000 children, welfare reforms, earned-income tax credits, and increased minimum wage in Illinois.

-- Reformed death-penalty cases, requiring that interrogations be video-recorded. Passed Illinois Senate 58-0. Signed into law by Illinois governor who first opposed Obama’s bill. Obama succeeded by building consensus with conservative opposition.

-- Opposed Iraq war publicly, long before invasion. Accurately depicted it as of undetermined length, undetermined cost, undetermined objective, with a great likelihood of civil war breaking out.

-- Expanded program to locate and dismantle stray Russian WMD with Republican Senator Lugar.

-- Passed major ethics and lobbying reform bill with Russ Feingold, insisting upon tougher restrictions around gifts, meals, etc. And extended the interval preventing exiting congress members from moving directly into lobbyist positions.

-- Toured Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, and Palestinian territories, telling Palestinian Authority Abbas that US would never recognize Hamas leaders until they renounced mission to attack Israel.

-- Cosponsored Secure Orderly Immigration Act by John McCain. Passes Senate 62-36. Makes undocumented persons who have been here 5+ years only allowed to stay and apply for citizenship if they pay back-taxes, learn English, and have no criminal record.

-- Communicated frankly to Michigan automaker executives of need to increase fuel-efficiency standards by at least 3% per year.

-- Many aisle-crossing bi-partisan solutions throughout 10 years of senate experience (8 state, 2 federal).

-- 100% approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood. National Education Association gives him an “A” on their most recent scorecard.

-- In Illinois State Senate sponsored 780 bills, 280 were signed into law.

-- In first year as US Senator, held 39 town-hall meetings throughout his state, sponsored 152 bills and resolutions, and cosponsored 427 more.

-- Designated US Senate point person on ethics by Speaker Harry Reid.

(fyi, this list was totally stolen from another poster on this site)

You may choose to believe what you want, but the reality is that Obama if far from being an "empty suit", and Obama didn't achieve this level of success simply because he's black. As Obama pointed out himself, if someone were to create a handbook on how to become POTUS, being black would not be in it. He's gotten where he has DESPITE the fact he's black, a testament to his fine political skills.

a short reply, as I actually have things to do today. Being president of HLR is no a big deal, and Obama did not "pass over 600 offers," he declined to interview with many of the 600 or so firms that interview on-campus. Get your facts straight. And so he lived as a child for a few years in a foreign country. Big deal. I have spent time in about 18 Muslim countries, and I know the range of Muslim cultures far, far better than Obama ever will. He seems smart only because you people are so fucking stupid, and he seems so worldly only because you morons are so provincial.

Even shorter reply: primaries are over, Obama won.

oh, I think Obama is the next president. I just don't think he'll be a very good one

a large-scale experiment in affirmative action : )

user-pic

Yeah... right. People elect him, and that's "affirmative action". He runs a successful campaign against the establishment candidate and wins. "Affirmative Action" - uh-huh. Keep talkin'.

well, without affirmative action, Obama would never have gone to Columbia or HLS, and without his silly HLR triumph, never have gotten the publicity to get a book contract. And after reading some bits of both his books, I can say, he's no heavyweight. So affirmative action got him pretty far down the road, and now we'll get to see, in public, what is widely known privately, which is that the beneficiaries of affirmative action tend, usually, to perform terribly at complex tasks. Ask any corporate law partner, for example.

user-pic

His performance thus far at the complex task of campaigning for POTUS seems to be working out pretty good.

And I could go on, but there's little point in debate with someone who calls names and never actually uses hard fact to make his/her case.

By the way, who are YOU voting for in November?

user-pic

Like I said, the list was copied. Fine, strike the 600. The point of the list was to illustrate that there are a great number of reasons why Obama supporters back him, in contrast to your comments: "Obama's an empty suit, but you fools get all excited over some cheap rhetoric and the fact that he's black." YOu also claim he's an "empty suit". I think my response serves to invalidate both of your comments, and the nitpicking is your way of changing the subject.

Finally, if you have to resort to expletives to make your point, I think we know who the stupid one is.

user-pic

I don't know about Godzilla, but Yilla=Mila=Milorad. I wouldn't waste my time.

user-pic

Yep - I think Godzilla is yet another screen name for the asshole Milo/Mila/Ludmilla/Yilla (perhaps using another computer). Reprehensible, vile, disgusting, racist-filled bullshit. Better to not even get into anything with him/her.

and you sounds like a dumb bunny housewife. get back to the kitchen, I'm hungry. and get me a beer while you're at it.

And when I need an uninformed opinion, I'll ask you.

user-pic

How clever of you. How many times have you been banned now? 4, 5? Women intimidate you, don't they, big boy? Poor thing. I feel nothing but pity for anyone who is that hate-filled - you're not even worthy of anger, just pity.

"Being president of HLR is no a big deal" (sic) -- Godzilla.

Editor of Harvard Law Review? Not a big deal?!!

Dude, you are out of your flipping depth and maybe out of your flipping mind, too. Before you make such cocky misstatements, check what the hell you are talking about next time, eh?

user-pic

Yeah, this is the same character who wrote (above): "As for Lincoln, isn't he the guy who presided over a bloodbath that left a million young men dead, for no particular purpose?"

Nuff said?

user-pic

Perhaps he's upset over the Emancipation Proclamation?

Judging by his affirmative action rant, that'd be my guess.

well, the war was not waged to free the slaves, certainly not initially, it was waged to keep the southern states in the union, and nothing more.

And as for emancipation, the former slaves were hardly free for another half century. They'd have been better off in a South that gave up slavery as uneconomic (much as Russia gave up serfdom) in the passage of time, in an economy not devastated by war, than what they got, which was semi-slavery in a desperately poor and backward region.

A million boys and young men died, for nothing more than over which flag would fly over post offices in Richmond etc.

user-pic

So, from your comments I glean that you're a white guy with far less accomplishment than Obama.

Bitching about affirmative action is a dead give-away on that score.

well, in terms of actual accomplishments, not make-believe accomplishments, I consider myself far ahead of Obama.

user-pic

Yes, well, you also consider yourself to be an intelligent person, while all intelligent persons can see that you are not. For example, while Obama is headed for the nomination for the presidency of one of the most powerful nations on earth, you're in an internet chat room spewing bigotry. I see what you mean - that's quite a huge accomplishment on your part. So I'm pretty sure your perceptions of your own wonderfulness don't amount to a pile of shit.

Please do not feed the trolls.

This is another username for a vile racist poster who is just trying to get a rise out of you. He's been plaguing the board for a long time.

Childers is the newest Superdelegate.

Who will he endorse? The Candidate who carried his state? His District? The one his opponents tried to link him to? But the one he disavowed knowing?

user-pic

Hillary Clinton actually carried this district narrowly, even as she lost the state in a landslide.

Thanks for that info, Eric. So this guy is equally justified however he casts his Superdelegate vote IMO and he may even lean Clinton.

I think one of the most interesting things about this win is that Childers had a lot of support in the more rural areas. Davis is from an area that serves as a bedroom community to Memphis. Sort of a flip of what we've seen in the past re: urban-suburban vs. rural voting patterns.

user-pic

Here is some fun guidance for responding [in your mind's eye, not necessarily in typed comments] to the latest troll behavior.

What appears both in this thread and in the last thread about the Mississippi special election was a tag team ugliness initiated by Yilla and followed through by Godzilla, both of whom flame on with lies about affirmative action as the cause of Obama's achievements and impressive resume.

When you read these flame comments, simply picture those flamers sitting at their keyboards suffering through life with tiny wienies to match their tiny brains. It is a fun image and at the least more likely than not to be the reason for their ugly comments. Yilla's screen name is rather vanillla-ish, and Godzilla's screen name is a pathetic attempt to hide a lack of personal prowess.

user-pic

LOLOL! Thanks, Donna - so true, so true! ;)

They're the same person.

Is there a pill that addresses electile dysfunction of old white bigots?

cyanide?

user-pic

Childers was elected after the cut-off date. Does Super-hood get assigned after the cut-off date?

- - - - -

I argue that the Presidencies of John Adams, Hoover, Reagan and Bush43 have have to be seen as low points in our nation's history. America was not designed as Monarchist. America was not designed to be a fascist plutocracy. All these pukes imprisioned folk for politicaal reasons, waged political or economic warfare against the American people and ran corrupt/morally bankrupt kleptocracies.

- - - - - -

If you can't grok 'recessivist' it is highly probable that the answer to your inquiry is in your bathroom mirror while you brush your teeth.

user-pic

Sorry about the the mirror crack.

The use of the word 'recessivist' can out my high school American Government class and my Junior College Political Science classes. I may have coined it . . . or it may have popped up in discussions and I adopted it (late 70's, early 80's).

I will post a full discussion of the word/concept at TPM Cafe this afternoon.

"Gozilla" and "Yilla" are obviously both Milla sockpuppets - click the profiles and you'll see the same boilerplate diatribes posted under both names.

TPM staff seem willing enough to intervene when they are notified, but they obviously don't have staff sifting through all the comment threads playing whack-a-troll.

Please everyone, let's report abusive trolls to: talk@talkingpointsmemo.com

Include links to offending posts/comments and the profiles.


shorter Cole:

Deeply troubling mistakes were made.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address