Comments Posted By Walker
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 10 Comments


I note that John Lewis does not expect his own toxic language to lead to violence from white people. He just expects to be able to insult us and kick us around verbally without any response from us at all. 'Cause we don't ever respond. Ever.

AT least that's how it has been so far.

Comment Posted By walker On 15.10.2008 @ 18:37


@wramblin wreck: I believe that George Bush was a very good president in many ways; not all by any means but enough so that his tenure was beneficial to the country as a whole.

I think that's probably true of his first term. The second, not so much, and I'm still undecided about the legacy of Iraq, but I've definitely become a firm believer that pre-emptive wars are just not the way to go.

Kudos on your conservation.

@chuck tuscon: Sorry to tell you this, but in Republican circles, people like you are laughed at, mocked, and shunned.

Um, uh, no. George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford is a model of green efficiency.

I don't conserve a lot, sadly. I drive a hybrid Saturn Vue, but we produce about 10 bags of garbage a frickin' weak. I'd love to cut down on that. But I've got the greatest respect from Wramblin' Wreck. Way to go! That's great. Any Republicans here laughing or ridiculing Wramblin' Wreck here, or just the strawman Republican Chuck set up?

Comment Posted By Walker On 8.10.2008 @ 16:46


She might not be the brightest star in the firmament intellectually

Or, perhaps she just hasn't mastered the nuances of political presentation. She has her own ideas and ideology, which she has to merge with McCain's in order not to step on his toes, while at the same time facing an ultra-hostile media that lobs softballs to Democrats while acting like Bill O'Rielly interviewing Barney Frank when they get to her.

And "the brightest stars in the intellectual firmament" tend to be Ivy Tower intellectuals who will labor diligently to destroy the country, take our money, and make us as a country submissive to the despots and dictators of the world. But will do it with elegance, grace, aplomb, and the occasional sesquipedalian.

Give me Sarah Palin any day of the week.

BTW, Ifill was fair, but not a particularly good debate moderator. She complained about questioning not being answered without getting answer, and let both Palin and Biden bulldoze their way through answers without ever really getting to the meat of it.

As far as Biden lying goes, that really depends on what your definition of "truth" is. When things are relative, liberal "truthiness" will do just fine. As can be see by the amount of praise on the left for Biden's performance.

Comment Posted By Walker On 3.10.2008 @ 08:47

'Unleash' Palin? Get Real

If McCain drops Palin, I'm not voting for McCain. And I betcha I'll have a whole lot of company in voting a straight Republican ticket, except when I get to president.

Comment Posted By Walker On 29.09.2008 @ 16:11

Don’t you mean youthful indiscretion with cocaine? And, right or wrong, the view that the world is 6000 years old is, according to many polls, the prevailing mainstream view in America. It’s not the mainstream view among scientists, but then again polls show only about 2% of the top ranking scientists believe in any God at all which is far outside the mainstream for Americans as a whole.

I'm a Christian (late to that game, I was an atheist for years). I believe the world is very, very old, and that evolution was the mechanism for the creation of man. So, I'm not a creationist. That being said, do I give a flip if Sarah Palin is a Creationist or thinks the world is 6000 years old? No. Is it going to have any bearing on her governing, other than giving liberals ammo to self-righteously declare she's ignorant, crazy, and anti-science? No. And they'd do that, anyway. Is the criticism of Palin as anti-science and a crazy, snake-handling religious nut fair? Not remotely. Accurate? Not exactly. Typical of the left? Oh, completely.

They want to go that route as a way to win, they are more than welcome to. But I don't see it as being a substantial argument.

Comment Posted By Walker On 29.09.2008 @ 14:19

I have a hard time not believing that the McCain campaign is mostly responsible for the change.

Same here. Unleashing Sarah Palin is not about thinking she's a secret superhero, it's about keeping the wonks in the McCain campaign for overcoaching her and telling her everything that worked for her before the nomination, and at the convention, is wrong. She doesn't need to be prepped for every pop-quiz question about whose the Vice Grand Poobah of Whogivesadamnistan, she needs to have some good stock answers that redirect the questioning and reframe the debate, and she's demonstrated in the past that she's perfectly capable of that. Why isn't she doing it now?

The McCain camp is keeping her on a short leash. Simple as that.

The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as “disastrous.” One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, “What are we going to do?” The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is “clueless.”

This sounds like lefty wishful thinking, or a rope-a-dope, to me. Maybe what McCain was trying to do with his debate, and failed.

If that's what the McCain wonks are really thinking, then they are indicating that they are clearly part of the problem--if not, in fact, the sole cause.

Frankly, I don't have the huge problem with Obama and Biden that my right wing brethren do. But I love Sarah Palin, and I think the McCain camp is holding her back here. She's clearly not going with the same instincts that got her to where she is, and it shows, and it's a bad idea.

I'm looking forward to the debate, in hopes that the McCain camp has gotten their heads screwed on right by then. I'm doubting it, but we'll see.

Palin/McNugget '08!

Comment Posted By Walker On 29.09.2008 @ 14:15


You know, I’m a, I’m a practical person. One of the things I’m good at is getting people in a room with a bunch of different ideas who sometimes violently disagree with each other and finding common ground and a sense of common direction. And that’s the kind of approach that I think prevents you from making some of the enormous mistakes that we’ve seen over the last eight years.

Ironically, Obama just described George W. Bush's governing strategy. If he's remotely seriously, he needs to check out Bush's approval numbers. This stuff can work at a certain level, like in the state senate or in a campaign--it worked for Bush as governor of Texas--but it just doesn't function in Washington. And especially not for the president. Just ask W. how much cred he got for Medicare Part D or letting Ted Kennedy write the education bill or rolling over on McCain-Feingold or any number of his "across the aisle" compromises that have pissed off the base (a big part of the low approval numbers, lefties, don't kid yourself: conservatives aren't angry at Bush for tax cuts) and got very little from the Democrats or the MSM.

I think Obama is serious. I think it will hamstring him as president, when he gets elected after John McCain finishes imploding, doing us the favor of (I hope) a Palin ticket in 2012.

Comment Posted By Walker On 25.09.2008 @ 10:26

The first one was picking Sarah Palin. That one is already wearing thin with the public. She’s not ready to lead anything and was a terrible choice.

Spoken like a true lefty. She's was the smartest move he has made in this campaign, though I suspect he did it for all the wrong reasons. She rocks, she's been elevated to the national stage, and ain't going anywhere, even if McCain ends up self-destructing. She's the main reason, now, I'll be pulling the lever for McCain in November, even as McCain tries to demonstrate the number one reason long-time senators don't make good presidential campaigners: politics in presidential races don't work like political posturing in the senate.

This particular stunt is so bone-headed, I'm not convinced McCain wants to win. Hopefully he will be given some excuse to say "crisis solved" and show up at the debate. Letting Obama go the debate alone is idiocy. I'm sure Axelrod is cranking out inspirational mini-speeches as we type. And McCain not showing up for the debate will mean Obama gets to speechify for an hour or so, and it's all upside for Obama.

And, it looks like McCain wanted to avoid the debate! Frackin' brilliant, wrinkly old white dude. Or like he can't debate ideas critical to the looming and un-delayable election while there is bad economic news dominating the news cycle. Opponents will hammer home the "presidents cannot call a time-out" meme. It's just crazy. Why doesn't he stump for his pro-puppy torture policies while he's at it?

Still, I'll be voting for Palin in Novemeber. And the crazy old white guy running with her apparently is part of the deal.

Comment Posted By Walker On 25.09.2008 @ 10:21


Scandal! Disaster! We must vote Obama, because McCain has a hard time understanding a reporter with an outrageous accent. Oh, no. He's so unworldly. So out of touch.

Only two options: McCain is evil and insane, or he's actually the devil. Either way, we have to vote Obama or the entire world will burn, and the seas will rise and drown us all.

I love the things folks in the left try to get their panties all in a wad about. Where normal people respond thusly: yawn.

Comment Posted By Walker On 19.09.2008 @ 13:05


Sarah Palin had a tanning bad? How crazy is that? Well, I was going to vote for McCain, but now that this incredible scandal has broken, I'm certainly going to think twice. A tanning bed? The outrage! Why, those things cost almost half of what a plate at an Obama fundraiser costs. Outrageous!

I think they're trying too hard.

Comment Posted By Walker On 16.09.2008 @ 16:58

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page