Why the GOP needs a big win in 2014

From WikipediaThe 2014 election is critical for Republicans in ways that few pundits are addressing. As the party steadily retreats into a regional strategy, focusing more intensely on aging, rural whites who make up a steadily declining percentage of the electorate, the party becomes increasingly vulnerable to wave elections – major disruptive events that can shift power for decades. One of those may be looming in 2016.

This year’s election is the GOP’s last hope to build a bulwark against its declining national presence. The vagaries of the election cycle mean that a large percentage of Democratic Senate seats are up for grabs in 2014, many of them on terrain that still favors Republicans. The flipside of this happy coincidence is that a tsunami looms in 2016 that could put the GOP in danger of dropping a dozen or more Senate seats and put the House back in play.

Control of the Senate for a couple of years is the least of the GOP’s priorities in this election. Republicans need more than a mere majority in the Senate. Unless the party can get at least 52 or 53 seats, which would represent a remarkable showing, they face a catastrophe in the election that follows.

To get a sense of the growing national gap between the parties, compare the prospects for the 2014 and 2016 elections. Based on current numbers and the assumption that Republicans generally fare better in off-year elections, a massive GOP sweep might give them as many as 53 Senate seats. Facing their best electoral landscape in decades they still have no shot at absolute control of the Senate.

Now look at 2016.

Of the 33 seats facing election in 2016, Democrats hold only ten. None of those ten are in states won by McCain or Romney. Colorado and Nevada could potentially be competitive depending on who runs, but there is little likelihood of a contest elsewhere. Barring a major flub or retirement, the Democrats will not be playing defense anywhere on the map in 2016.

Worse, Democrats traditionally perform at their peak in Presidential election years. Even worse, there is no Republican frontrunner for the 2016 Presidential race. Since the fifties, Republicans always nominate the runner-up from the last election cycle (’64 and ’00 are the exceptions, in which the previous runner-up did not run). The runner-up from the bizarre 2012 campaign, Rick Santorum, is not a major figure.

Republican Senate candidates in 2016 will be getting no help from the top of the ticket. There is no sane Presidential candidate waiting in the wings.

Neither Jeb Bush nor Chris Christie shows any sign of winning over the frothing base. If it seemed like the 2012 nominating race was freak show, get ready for some truly nauseating action in 2016. Unless the Democrats can find another Black Communist Fascist Muslim born in Africa to nominate for President, Republicans will be struggling to manufacture even the marginal enthusiasm that left them short in the last two elections.

Many of the 23 seats Republicans will be defending sit in territory where the party is steadily losing ground. Seven of them are in states the party lost in both of the last two Presidential campaigns. Barring an extraordinarily poor Democratic nominee, Republicans can expect to start each of those campaigns at either a toss-up or trailing. Those Senators:

Florida – Rubio
Illinois – Kirk
Iowa – Grassley
Wisconsin – Johnson
Ohio – Portman
Pennsylvania – Toomey
New Hampshire – Ayotte

The rest of the Republican field will be defending seats in states Obama lost, but that provides limited comfort. Another eight of those Republicans will be running in states that have already elected a Democrat to their other Senate seat.

Alaska – Murkowski
North Carolina – Burr
Indiana – Coats
Louisiana – Vitter
Arkansas – Boozman
Missouri – Blunt
North Dakota – Hoeven
South Dakota – Thune

That’s 15 seats Republicans will be defending in states that either voted for Obama or have recently sent a Democrat to the Senate. Some of them should be pretty solid, like Murkowski and Thune, but the map gives them no guarantees. And with the party in such a deep defensive stance, resources will be scarce.

The news gets worse when you look into the narrow pool of what should be “sure-thing” states. The Arizona Senate race in 2012 was surprisingly close. Whether Arizona comes into play may depend on whether McCain decides to run again and if not, how daffy the Arizona GOP’s replacement candidate is.

Likewise, Georgia and Kentucky ought to be safe, but this year Democratic challengers are running unexpectedly close races. Altogether, Republicans will be defending 23 seats. At least seven of them will face strong headwinds from the start. Another eight have to be expected to be competitive. And three more warrant watching.

With seven Republicans defending Blue-state seats, another eight in competitive states, and three others teetering toward purple, just a modest overall Democratic showing in 2016 would be enough for an epic-making sweep. And that’s before you look at the ways that demographics are eroding the already tenuous gerrymandering that protects Republican control of the House. A subject for another time.

If Republicans somehow manage to sweep all eight of the tossup Senate races in 2014 they will hold a narrow majority of 53 Senate seats. Almost anything less than that gives Democrats a solid shot at a super-majority in 2016. Failing to take the Senate would give Democrats an opening to rack up the kind of overwhelming Senate majority in 2016 that they haven’t seen since the sixties.

This is the kind of math Republicans can expect to face on a consistent basis as the consequences of a decade of mounting extremism become increasingly difficult to escape. Chickens are coming home…

Review the list of Senate races in 2016 at Wikipedia.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Election 2016, Republican Party
319 comments on “Why the GOP needs a big win in 2014
  1. […] seats in red or purple states. In 2016 Republicans will be defending 24 Senate seats and at least 18 of them are likely to be competitive based on geography and demographics. Democrats will be defending precisely one seat that could […]

  2. ToddB says:

    Chris: Interesting analysis. I think WI, IL, and PA are certain Dem wins in 2016. The next level of likely wins would be NH (Hassan would beat Ayotte in a presidential year turnout), FL (Crist over Rubio), NC (if Hagan runs again), GA (if Nunn runs again). I’d say a likely 7 seat swing back to the Democrats, so a probable 53-47 Dem majority in the 2016 Senate. Possibly Strickland could unseat Portman in Ohio if he opts to run, so maybe a 54-46 Dem majority.

    Iowans tend to keep re-electing people so unless Grassley retires that seat probably remains Republican. I’m up in the air about whether Arizona would remain Republican even if McCain still runs. Missouri is shifting red so I wouldn’t count on a Democrat picking up that seat, although maybe Nixon could.

  3. EJK says:

    Funny, Chris writes about how the GOP needs a big win in 2014 back in June, then he dismisses it in Nov.

    • ToddB says:

      I think you kind of miss the point. He’s saying a big win was needed to prevent a Dem supermajority in 2016, and he’s right on that. He’s also right that Republicans will definitely lose seats in 2016.

  4. EJK says:

    The 2014 wave destroyed the Dem bench in OH and FL. NH is a very independent state. I can see Hillary and Ayotte winning there. PA has elected a Dem for Pres and re-elected the GOP incumbent, as recently as 2000.

    • ToddB says:

      Except the “wave” was only 36.3% of the vote. I think you’ll be stunned at how quickly it shifts back to the Dems in 2016. I’d agree OH is a tossup but FL I’m fairly certain will go Dem.

  5. Michael says:

    HAHAHAHA, I want some of what Chris smoking if he thinks Alaska, Louisiana, Indiana, Arkansas, North Dakota or South Dakota will be competitive. John Thune won with 100% of the vote in 2010.

    What a fucking pathetic joke of an article

  6. […] 13 Senate seats in red or purple states. In 2016 Republicans will be defending 24 Senate seats and at least 18 of them are likely to be competitive based on geography and demographics. Democrats will be defending precisely one seat that could […]

  7. […] 13 Senate seats in red or purple states. In 2016 Republicans will be defending 24 Senate seats and at least 18 of them are likely to be competitive based on geography and demographics. Democrats will be defending precisely one seat that could […]

  8. […] 13 Senate seats in red or purple states. In 2016 Republicans will be defending 24 Senate seats and at least 18 of them are likely to be competitive based on geography and demographics. Democrats will be defending precisely one seat that could […]

  9. […] 13 Senate seats in red or purple states. In 2016 Republicans will be defending 24 Senate seats and at least 18 of them are likely to be competitive based on geography and demographics. Democrats will be defending precisely one seat that could […]

  10. kabuzz61 says:

    Good morning my conservative brethren and liberal combatants. Another day and another tale.

    Quite a few liberals were adamant that Obama had the constitutional right to do what he did. Negotiate with terrorists and releasing terrorists from captivity. You guys were certain.

    Then why oh why did the WH apologize to congress for not consulting them?

    Do you know why Obama really released the top five prisoners? I think he wants to shut down Gitmo for Hillary’s run. That is right. Our president put top Taliban terrorists back on the battle field to kill our soldiers for political gain. It just didn’t work out like he planned.

    You liberals must be so very proud.

    Chris, how about a post about what the GOP should do in congress now that laws have been broken. You know, something really relevant instead of “The GOP wears more brown then democrats which makes them seem older.” We have some major stuff happening in the world and you are whistling past the grave yard my friend.

    • John Galt says:

      An honest question here: with American troops out of Iraq and mostly leaving Afghanistan by the end of the year, the wars there are largely over as far as direct American involvement is concerned. What should we do with Gitmo? If they are prisoners of war, the war is over and they must be repatriated according to international (and U.S.) law. If they are criminals, then then need to be charged and tried according to U.S. laws. Do we detain these individuals indefinitely without one of those two things happening?

      • objv says:

        JG: The more important question is if these men present a current danger to US security. I agree that we should try to get US soldiers back (even if they prove to be deserters) but do we release known terrorists in order to do so?


        “Experts told PolitiFact that each of the five detainees represented risks to the United States’ national security to one degree or another, with Fazl and Noori at the top of the list.

        “They were involved in a range of Taliban operations in senior positions,” said Seth G. Jones, associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation. After being released, the five will be able to leverage their time at Guantanamo, Jones added. “We’ve already seen Taliban statements that they’re pretty excited about the return of these men.”

      • EJK says:

        OOPS…Obama extends US troops mission in Afghanistan and orders troops to Iraq.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      That is something to consider at the time. Obama could have run out the clock but he chose to operate politically. Even so far as having Susan Rice go on the talk shows saying this deserter service with honor and distinction. I mean, come on you guys, when is enough enough.

      The only thing keeping Gitmo open were the five terrorists he released. The worst of the worse. Absolutely terrible.

      • DanMan says:

        I believe this was Obama’s test case to empty Gitmo. He forced the issue to get the VA off the front burner. That another cigar blew up in his face over Bergdahl is merely a side note to the heat he expected to take over the timbre of the frenemies he released.

        There’s about 150 left in Gitmo. Bush would not declare them prisoners of war because they don’t fit the description of being uniformed and representing a nation. Recall Obama came into office and attempted to eliminate the term terrorist when discussing jihadis. Domestic terrorists were ripe for targeting and the only qualifications for that was not being a moon-eyed leftist.

        So now he has to find a way to get the last 150 out of Hillary’s way. And many of their home countries don’t want them. And 15 or so dem senators are caught in the political crossfire. And another 15 or so will be there again in 2016.

    • Crogged says:

      Love the Monday morning quarterbacking here. In what way could this have been done such that you would agree with the actions of the President? Trading prisoners of war is old news, read up about Israel and the PLO. In this situation the executive office made some PR goofs based on bad assumptions (for the first time in the history of our nation) and shouldn’t have bragged about it–but we had no other way to get this done (and you know the US armed forces did all they could do-despite the status of the POW).

      If this POW were your son, what would you say? Why not let all the facts come out and accept that war doesn’t always bring out the best of anyone. Who of us can prove we wouldn’t crack under the pressure these men face hour by hour, day by day, week by week, month by month? He’s home, he will face the results of whatever his actions were.

      The drone attacks of the US haven’t stopped, so these five released ‘enemy combatants’ will not be resting too easy after talking to any of their remaining friends.

  11. objv says:

    I voted in my first New Mexico election yesterday. After handing over my voter registration card, I was asked to provide ID – the horror! As you can well imagine, I was completely and utterly traumatized by having to show a complete stranger my driver’s license.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I wouldn’t put up with it. You were clearly profiled. The racist bastards.

    • objv says:

      kabuzz, thanks, my friend, you understand my predicament and resulting mental anguish. With all the “dumb blond” jokes going around, I was clearly being profiled as too dumb to cast a ballot. – let alone have an ID. 🙂

      That said, New Mexico requires ID (doesn’t have to be photo) only when voting for the first time after registering online. (It also gives driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.)

      The race for state representative was close. Only 109 votes separated the winner and loser. In a tight race, voter fraud could swing an election.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Wow…several studies show that 8% to 11% of eligible voters do not have the appropriate IDs for voting, and those numbers are higher for poor folks and minority members.

        Interesting that you consider folks without IDs “as too dumb to cast a ballot”

      • DanMan says:

        yeah, several other studies show dems need to cheat to win elections and will belly-ache about any attempts to address the issue

      • objv says:

        Homer: I never said that. I was joking that, as a blond, I was being profiles as “dumb”. In the state New Mexico, I would be in the minority. Hispanics outnumber whites.

        You are actually the one promoting the idea that minorities and the poor are incapable of having an ID. Here’s a big shock: people in Latin American countries vote in elections – and have to provide an ID. In Venezuela, not only do citizens have to show a national identity card (with photo), they have to be fingerprinted at the election site.

      • Crogged says:

        And it’s not odd at all that so many who gripe about the overreach of government have no problem with pulling out government approved identification for more and more activities in this country. It’s a small issue, both in having an ID and the ridiculous idea that elections in this country were tainted by ‘fraud’. There is an attempt to limit the voter pool in the same way poll taxes and the rest of the voter restrictions were, but economically rather than racially motivated.

      • DanMan says:

        you know we laugh at your insistence on allowing fraud in elections don’t you Crogged? did you know it will require an ID to speak at the EPA hearings on the new coal rules?

      • Crogged says:

        I don’t think this is a big issue, but anytime someone puts an impediment to any of us voting, how on earth doesn’t this rise to the same concerns we hear from gun owners?

  12. Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

    Not to completely derail an already derailed blog posting, but I just stumbled into the “waterboarding is not torture” conversation.

    Is that serious or are folks just goofing around?

    Regardless of political leanings, I’d like to think we could all agree that waterboarding is torture.

    Ignore politicians’ definition. From a normal human perspective, waterboarding is clearly torture.

    • CaptSternn says:

      No, we do not agree. That should have been obvious from the beginning.

      • Crogged says:

        Many words defending blastocytes as humans, but no problem with torturing human beings. There is no such thing as ‘enhanced interrogation’ unless you are a character in an Orwell book.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I didn’t say anything about killing innocent human beings, or even Gitmo detainees, out of convenience. And that has nothing to do with interrogations of terrorists.

        A person could call anything in the world torture if they saw fit to do so. Whatever you find convenient.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Just curious…what do you have to do to a person before you consider it torture?

        Where is that line for you?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Don’t fall for it Captain. Homer isn’t curious. He is setting you up.

        When 3000+ civilians were murdered and 4000+ service men and women killed and the main reason we didn’t have good intelligence in 2000 is because the CIA couldn’t get their hands dirty. Now they use waterboarding for select, SELECT war combatants. If you didn’t know, the interrogators already know some of the answers they ask the combatant. If they are pretty damn sure the combatant has time sensitive intel, they ramp up the interrogation. I see no reason to remove that tactic if it saves civilian and soldiers lives. But going part and parcel with my belief the liberal mindset can’t stand the military, they could care less if they die.

      • Crogged says:

        Waterboarding is not interrogation, as much as it is torture and the only result is the tortured tells the torturer what they think the torturer wants to hear. This sad chapter to our history will be added to the forced detainage of Japanese American citizens during World War II as panicked bad reactions to real threats.

      • Crogged says:

        Quit watching ’24’ and think about the situation. Suffering pain only motivates a person to avoid the pain, not tell the ‘truth’………..

      • John Galt says:

        Waterboarding is not torture when the “good guys” do it. It is torture when the “bad guys” do it.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        How many and who were waterboarded? Did you not read my comment. Time sensitive for protecting the lives of our soldiers? You guys are cold hearted.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…you are one wacky dude. Yes buzz…we are all out to get you. Yes, it is all a trap.

        For me, it seems like a huge no-brainer that it is torture, and I’ve very literally not talked to anyone who would suggest it wasn’t torture. So yes, actually, I am curious.

        From your description of when waterboarding is used, you seem to agree that it is torture, but during war, sometimes unpleasant things needed.

        Justifying its use does not mean it is not torture.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Who is the ‘we’ you spoke of. I called you specifically out.

        You read my comment wrong. I thought differently on 9/10 but evolved on 9/11 when I, for the first time in my life thought my country is not safe from other countries. So, if an interrogator is pretty certain an individual has knowledge that is time sensitive to saving lives, go for it.

        Now you guys say that makes us no better then them. Not at all. We don’t chop off their head and televise it for the world. What kind of animals do such a thing. And you are comparing waterboarding, with a doctor standing by, with beheadings.

        In reality, if someone in your neighborhood took your son and they sent a letter to you saying they were going to torture and kill him that would be terrible. The police let you know that they are almost sure your neighbor to the right is involved and may know where he is. But you say “well, okay but don’t hurt the guy or make him feel uncomfortable, after all, it is only my son.”

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        So, buzz…it is torture, but it is justified.

        That is sincerely how most people view it. I’ve not really met people who do not think it is actually torture.

      • DanMan says:

        my goodness Homer that is one of the most torturously qualified statements I’ve seen in quite awhile

  13. geoff1968 says:

    Did you travel very far? As far as the eye can see.

    Which ain’t too far, so much as I can tell you, but I did travel to this remote realm called language. Apparently, there, there is this rather strange idea of tense. There’s both singular and plural. There’s an I, and a you, and a he she or it. (singular) There’s a we, a y’all, and a they.

    Our we and they are getting mixed up. At least that’s how I see it. I view the US as being first person plural. Jefferson’s preamble to the Constitution reads “We the people.” I suppose the correct question is “Are you people?” The idea of plurality, for an ethical politician, is fundamental. After all you are not me.

    By the same token using we as a weapon what do we really want, and in superior what do we need.

    So, I clutch my Bible. I believe in its fullness. When both the left and the right bring me quotations from the scripture I am joyful, because then I know that the US will land on both feet.

    The other day I got swooped by a bald eagle. Must have been my white helm.

  14. Owl of Bellaire says:

    More potential problems for Republicans in 2016:

    Click to access ClimatePollMemo.pdf

    “Voters, and particularly independents, don’t have much tolerance for climate skeptics when it comes to the 2016 Presidential race. Only 38% of voters say they’d be willing to support a candidate who doesn’t believe global warming is caused by human activity, and by an 11 point margin they say they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate. When it comes to independents just 29% would be open to supporting a climate skeptic….

    “The politics on this issue are pretty clear. Voters believe in man made climate change, and they support President Obama’s new initiative to help deal with it. Republicans risk putting themselves in an even deeper hole with independent voters by continuing to express their skepticism, and it has the potential to help cost them yet another Presidential election in 2016.”

    Does anyone really think the howling Republican primary crowd are likely to nominate someone who actually pays attention to science? Right, didn’t think so.

    I’m sure Sternn, kabuzz, Dan, and the other shit-slingers of the forum will wax wroth and deny reality in their usual fine form. But it’s pretty clear that, if not yet in Texas then definitely in the nation at large, they are the tired rump of a dwindling party.

    • DanMan says:

      I hear dinosaurs yawning in the distance…

    • CaptSternn says:

      Single issue voters.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Way, way, way down on the voters mind.

      • John Galt says:

        Would you vote for a pro-choice candidate if he or she had impeccable fiscal conservative credentials?

      • CaptSternn says:

        I voted for Romney, and even though he may have claimed to have “evolved” on the abortion issue, I didn’t buy it.

      • DanMan says:

        sure, as long as she professes a choice not to promote abortion

      • Turtles Run says:

        Dan other that the policies advocated by you, Cappy, and Buzzy no one promotes abortion.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Other than the founder of Planned Parenthood and the organization, Turtles.

      • Turtles Run says:

        You got me Cappy and it only took finding someone from 1921 to prove your point. Because wanting to end back alley abortions is the same thing as promoting abortion.

      • CaptSternn says:

        What next Turtles? Ending back-alley rape? Back-alley murder? Back-alley robbery? Back-alley assault? Back-alley slavery? Hey, everything should be legal, safe and hopefully rare, right? After all that is how you see the killing of innocent human beings, treating innocent human beings as property.

        Then again I expect you and others to deny their humanity, just as slave owners once did towards blacks. Or as Owl says, “What person?” That is the way you excuse such attrocities.

        Rest with the compay you keep. Goodnight.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        The company he keeps is just fine.

        Must be fun to go through life morally superior to others.

  15. John Galt says:

    Bergdahl is an American soldier. If he’s guilty of deserting, then bring him home and prove it in a court martial. If he’s not, then he needed to be brought home.

    Prisoner exchanges happen all the time. Israel traded over 1,000 Palestinians for one solider. A few have protested at freeing “Taliban leaders.” The guys have been in prison for 10 years. They aren’t leaders of anything anymore.

  16. DanMan says:

    oh man this is getting really funny now


    He’s toxic over the VA and needed a shiny squirrel to distract his critics. Hey! let’s free a prisoner! they will love us!!!111!! oooofff!

    • DanMan says:

      The updates are coming fast and furious now. Apparently the pentagon and members of the intelligence community had successfully blocked the release of these 5 guys for years. Obama and the state department thought they found a neat away to get around that problem by making up the hasty trade deal with the hopes the euphoria and excitement of getting back a prisoner would quell the concern of getting rid of these 5 territz that were fairly high profile.

      Now get this. These guys were directly in the way of Obama closing Gitmo. So he got the worst problem he had out of the way hoping to score some points and is getting his face rubbed in the carpet for it. And Hillary and John Kerry own it as well. Kabuzz is right. This is a good day what with all this sunshine and all.


  17. texan5142 says:

    kabuzz said

    “who converted to Islam (like his dad) ”

    Lair! Bearing false witness again kabuzz, you are going to hell. Please show us all prof that his father converted to Islam. Some on Fox news have said that he looks like a terrorist because of his beard, so I guess that make all those Duck guys terrorist also.

    • texan5142 says:

      “I mean, he says he was growing his beard because his son was in captivity,” Kilmeade said. “Well, your son’s out now. So if you really don’t — no longer look like a member of the Taliban, you don’t have to look like a member of the Taliban. Are you out of razors?”

      Bergdahl had grown his beard, the Washington Post said, in order to mark the time that his son had been gone, and in an effort to win sympathy from his son’s captors. The Post reported that he spent the last five years learning Pashto, the language of southern Afghanistan, and studying the culture of those holding his son captive.

      You should be ashamed of yourself kabuzz. Studying one’s enemies language and culture does not mean he has converted to Islam you tool. Otherwise I guess all the men and women in the military who do the same have converted also. You are a sad, hate filled old man.

  18. texan5142 says:

    kabuzz61 says:

    Again, you on the left love the enemy.

    That means we are more christian than you will ever be.

    Matthew 5:43

  19. texan5142 says:

    kabuzz61 says:
    June 3, 2014 at 2:50 pm
    Again, because some say water boarding is torture doesn’t make it so. Get away from the keyboard and sip your drink.

    I think most of the civilized world is more than just some. Just because you say you are a christian does not make it so.

  20. kabuzz61 says:

    I’ll tell you folks it is a great day and a great week so far politically. Our empty suit of a president is running rampant. He can’t stop himself from causing trouble. JG mentioned Obama fatigue, wow, that is to say the least. Even with the MSM propping him up, he looks bad. Carney is quitting. Hillary is tied to Obama’s baggage which the GOP will bring up again and again and the RNC is demanding conservative questioners at the debates in 2016 so we don’t wind up with any fake war on women bull Stephenopolus got away with.

    Homer made note that we conservatives are frothing because we may not win in 2014 (which really cracked me up) but really, this Obama guy is the gift that keeps giving.

  21. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    To the topic at hand, how much does Benghazi and Bergdahl affect voting in 2016?

    I would suggest that 95% of the electorate won’t remember the name Bergdahl.

    Benghazi will have an effect. It will keep people like Buzz from voting for the Democrat candidate. Buzz was just about to move to the Democrat side, but Benghazi will keep him and others like him from voting Democrat.

    Obamacare has two more years under its belt without the world coming to an end.

    If we don’t have a major economic collapse, you can complain about Obama all day, and it won’t matter.

    Weak economic growth is not a “major collapse”, and baring a catastrophe, 2016 looks hard for Republicans.

    If the GOP cannot swing 2016 after 8 years of Obama, I’m not sure how you folks can have a rosy outlook about your party.

    In 2008, you lost to a candidate 25% of the population thought was a Muslim and/or from another country, and who was wildly inexperienced.

    In 2012, you lost to a candidate 25% of the population through was a Muslim and/or from another country (’cause these folks are slow learners), and who implemented the wildly unpopular Obamacare.

    If you couldn’t beat Obama, reminding folks about Obama probably won’t get it done. Benghazi isn’t going to get it done either.

    • DanMan says:

      so how do you like Obama and his policies? You want more of this?

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Very nice spin Homer. Almost professionally done. Obamacare is going on due to the delays and waivers. Hardly and implementation.

      Votes can’t forget what they will see and hear on political ads coming buddy. Obama fatigue has set it and Hillary tied her career to this loser.


      This article deals with the Taliban bragging about having a soldier who converted to Islam (like his dad) and is teaching them how to make bombs.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…I appreciate your appreciation of my professionalism. Soros doesn’t just give money to hacks…we have to earn it.

        if your political ads in 2016 are Benghazi and Bergdahl…your electoral college picture is going to look horrible.

        The forward looking, optimistic candidate almost always wins presidential elections. Complaining about Obamacare, Benghazi, and Bergdahl won’t get you there.

        You can keep spinning and spinning these issues, and bless your heart, you try so hard. It really is admirable in some ways, but your spin just is not catching on.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, looks like y’all have written of 2014 already. 2016 is a very long way away.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…I think everyone here has said that the GOP will do fine in 2014, as is the case in almost every mid-term election in the last several decades.

        If you cannot do amazingly well in 2014, then I don’t know what can help you guys.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I hope so, HT. But I take nothing for granted. Nor should you or the proclaimed permenant democratic majority claimed in 2008.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…there is no permanent majority in anything.

        However, if the GOP cannot manage to start swaying Hispanic voters to vote for them, it is going to be an uphill struggle for the GOP.

        You seem to be banking on the Democrats infringing everyone’s freedom so much that Hispanics come flocking to the GOP. You may be right, but I’m not sure the best long term strategy is to hope the other side screws up.

        We have a goofy country that really likes being on the winning side. We are seeing an unprecedented number of new Hispanic voters in the country – easily the fasting growing group of voters.

        We had 2008 and 2012 with Hispanics heavily voting Democrat. Toss in 2016, and you would have a growing generation of Hispanics who have only voted for for Democrats, and they won each time.

        Convincing those voters to go back and then vote Republican in the future will be an uphill battle.

        I think you’ve said before that maybe Democrats should win the Presidency and the GOP focuses more on state and local elections. That idea may become a bit of a reality if the GOP cannot capture a bigger portion of the Hispanic vote.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Homer, when Obama ran, it was against the 8 years of Bush. Now the GOP will remind voters of the 8 years of Obama. No matter what you say, there is no good track record at all, in anything. Just lies on top of lies. So yes, the GOP should focus and let voters know what Obama and Hillary did and why a change has to happen. You know this. I know you do.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, you seem to forget a very important point. Tutt is a hispanic lady, and i have met her family. She has explained why she has moved to the side of conservatives, and it isn’t because I am a conservative or because I am part American Indian or because of my views or hers on the social safety net or because I demand it of her (and she is an intelligent and educated lady and would never accept such demands from anybody).

        This is not some claim that, “I can’t be a racist because some of my best friends are (fill in the blank) …” This is a simple observation. You leave people alone and do what you want based on some higher idea or authority, you get their vote, mostly Catholics. But when you get all up in their personal business and start micromanaging their lives, demanding that they pay for abortions and abortificants, things change. When the idea of forced health care comes into play, things change.

        I put myself with the tea party movement, Tutt is very far from it. You, democrats, liberals, leftists, are driving people away. We have a problem in the tea party movement of attracting some people we would rather not have. But you have the likes of Lifer, Pelosi, Reid and Obama, extreme leftists. Only you call such people moderates when they are to the left of Marx, and anybody to the right of Marx or Lennin or Stalin are right-wing extremists.

        People that support a constitutionally limited government are called anti-government anarchists.

        We are nowhere near the divide of the War between the States, but we are coming to a serious divide. Who will win? Those of us that value individual liberty and rights, or those of you that demand socialism and control? We may not find out in my lifetime, but we may, all depending on the speed of the destruction of individual liberty and rights.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…you (and she) have reminded us plenty of times that Tutt is Hispanic, and her conversion is nice and all, but there are several million other data points that seem to trump your personal experiences.

        The Democrats are driving conservatives away in droves, but if you look at the polling data, the GOP is not making headway with Hispanics (and I firmly believe the GOP has completely given up on Blacks).

        So yes, Tutt (and her family/friends) may be conservative, but it is kind of hard to ignore the data telling you that Hispanic and women are not flocking to the GOP.

        As far as religion, Catholics have a pretty long history of supporting Democrats, even with the abortion disagreement. Also, the percentage of Hispanics in the US identifying as Catholic has dropped dramatically over the last five years. Your best electoral hope is that Hispanics are Evangelicals rather than Catholic.

      • CaptSternn says:

        As does Turtles, HT.

        I haven’t given up on anybody. The message is the same for all, if you want to be respected as and treated as an adult and respect and treat others as adults, the tea party movement is what you should be supporting even if not a part of it.

    • desperado says:

      Never get tired of stepping on that rake, do you Danielle?

  22. texan5142 says:

    CaptSternn says:
    June 3, 2014 at 12:01 pm
    What war crimes? Do you have anything specific, or just more of that bumper sticker mentality?

    You are a willful tool Sternn,


    Bush authorized waterboarding ,

    92 tapes were destroyed by the CIA in November 2005 after a report by Inspector General John L. Helgerson’s office determined that they depicted “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as defined by the international Convention Against Torture”.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Waterboarding wasn’t torture. Got anything else?

      • texan5142 says:

        After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war for torture. Waterboarding is definitely a form of torture, illegal and inhumane according to the Geneva Convention …

        Like I said Cap you are a fucking tool!

      • DanMan says:

        Looks like t# is in that special place…kind of early in the day isn’t it?

      • texan5142 says:

        If you mean by stating facts versus you and the Sternns bullshit, then yes I am in that special place. You will never know that place.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Another fool that said water-boarding is not torture.

        Of course Sternn could handle this with ease. It isn’t torture after all.

      • DanMan says:

        when will you get to arguing about the civil war again?

        Why do think Obama did this? and why now?

      • texan5142 says:

        Yep, and that chicken shit Hannity said he would get waterboarded for the troops for charity and never did.

        “It has now been 1402 days, or three years and 10 months, since Sean Hannity said, on April 22, 2009, he’d undergo waterboarding to prove it’s not torture – and do it to raise money for charity. Time to man up, Sean, to borrow one of you favorite phrases, and either fulfill your promise or explain why you haven’t.

        You may recall that Hannity was confronted about his promise last month by Think Progress blogger Scott Keyes. Not only did Hannity fail to explain why he had not fulfilled his pledge, but was very much not interested in discussing it.”

        Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/sean_hannity_waterboard_watch_1402_days_since_he_promised_to_be_waterboarded_for_charity_02222013#rOaTmi1O4VM9uDOC.99

      • DanMan says:

        somebody is sure hung-up on waterboarding aren’t they? anything else get on your nerve?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Again, because some say water boarding is torture doesn’t make it so. Get away from the keyboard and sip your drink.

  23. DanMan says:

    Latest reports say he left a note even. So did Obama know he was a deserter and traded for him anyway or did he just read about that in the newspapers? This is what a community organizer grade prezie will get you. Total incompetence with a side of stupid.

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      If he is a deserter, we want him back to try and punish him pursuant to military law.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Not at the expense of releasing Taliban leadership to lead in more terrorist attacks against us and our allies.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Maybe we are releasing them after turning one of them?. How in the hell do you know about operational aspects of such matters?

      • texan5142 says:

        and what makes you think that they won’t be taken out by drones at a later date?

      • CaptSternn says:

        75, the Taliban specifically named the people they wanted released.

      • DanMan says:

        I question the timing.

        nah, not really! Obama was getting hurt by the VA scandal so he jumped into this fire.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        And maybe we agreed to this because they were already turned?

        Like I said, how in the hell do you know?

      • CaptSternn says:

        The military stated that they should not be released. That’s how we know.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        And what the hell would you expect them to say regardless? What? “Yes. Please release them because we have turned them and they will be assisting us going forward undercover because if they don’t we will kill their families.”

        Think for once.

      • CaptSternn says:

        These aren’t the only five that have ever been released.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:


        That means what?

      • CaptSternn says:

        That the military has actually cleared people and they were released.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        And how is that relevant in terms of the release of the latest people and whether or not they were turned or not?

        If we had turned them, wouldn’t the military WANT the Taliban to think that the people we released are still hardcore terrorists ready and willing to continue the fight for the cause?

        Like I said, think.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The military didn’t want these latest ficve released, the Taliban did. Our president shouldn’t be negotiating with terrorists to begin with, much less giving into their demands. Take your own advice.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        The military didn’t want these latest ficve released, the Taliban did.

        That may be what the military said. But how do we know that is actually what they mean? Maybe they secretly want them released for the reasons I have mentioned. You have to admit, that is at least a possibility. And it’s something that neither of us would ever now about (unless they write a book about it years in the future).

        Our president shouldn’t be negotiating with terrorists to begin with, much less giving into their demands.

        Whay should we not negotiate with our enemies? We do it all the time. Why should this war be any different?

        It also gives us the ability to crack their organization.

      • rucasdad says:

        “liberal democrat happily ignores the crashing of his cherished idol’s administration of misfits”

        Not that it really matters but if that was true then why did the president have a 5% jump in approval ratings. I honestly have no idea why some of you still waste your time with people who have been proven wrong on this blog time and time again.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Once again, you’re just making things up that sound good to your imagination.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        I am simply admiting it is a possibility.
        It has happened before.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Your right Rucas, Obama is loved by all and we worship him. (Whoa! What’s he smoking?)

        75, you haven’t a clue about the military. The military goes by the book. If the men on the ground in Afghanistan wouldn’t even go after this piece of shit deserter, why would our great empty suited president exchange 5 Taliban leaders against the law for this deserter?

        Again, you on the left love the enemy.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Whatever kabuzz.

        Besides, we are talking about something the CIA would be involved in and they most certainly DO NOT do things by the book.

        Go read a good book about the initial invasion of Afghanistan and you’re learn that.

    • Crogged says:

      Republicans React Angrily to Presidential Declaration of Sun Rising in East.

      • DanMan says:

        liberal democrat happily ignores the crashing of his cherished idol’s administration of misfits

    • Turtles Run says:

      Cappy claims to be a soldier but apparently he is one of those that would leave his buddies behind to save his own skin. This man has not been convicted of desertion so he deserves the same treatment as any other American civilian and military in the hands of the enemy. Sternn and kabuzz are not of the military mindset that is drilled in to the heads of every soldier “no one will be left behind”.

      In the minds of the right wing Bergdahl has been tried and convicted of desertion and sentenced to remain in enemy hands. But at the same time actual Americans that plotted to kill other Americans while working with terrorists are defended and the President is cursed for the drone attacks that killed them.

      Such is the tea party. Why do you people hate America?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Ever wanted to know how we were trained not to leave a person behind from the very beginning of Basic Training?

        Deserters are different, and his fellow troops claimed he is a deserter. The Pentagon says it is without question that he simply walked away from his post. A soldier is also trained not to leave his post until relieved.

        I have never had a problem with killing U.S. Citizens abroad that were working with terrorists. In fact, that is one area that I have defended Obama on.

        Try again Turtles, so far you just keep strking out.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy do not pretend to think I do not know about any military training. You are not the only Leonard Wood Grad here.

        They could claim he was a martian in his unit. So what. Nowhere was there an exception clause in leaving people behind especially when they have not even been charged with desertion. If he was considered a deserter then the Army would have never promoted him to Sergeant while he was a captive.

        If calling out your ignorance is striking out then that is fine with me.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I will take their word over yours, Turtles. I once knew a deserter, and I had no pity for what he faced. But he came back on his own and faced it.

        I am of the mind that Bergdahl also came back on his own, and helped free Taliban leaders in the process. His desertion is pretty much confirmed by the Pentagon, if the second part is true, that would be treason and the Obama administration would be party to such.

        Maybe that is why the administration didn’t want to question his actions? Of course, that is only speculation, but what if it turns out to be fact? What would you say about Bergdahl and the Obama administration then?

        I don’t really need to ask that, you would excuse treason to support the democrats.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Oh, and tell me how soldiers are trained from the very beginning not to leave anybody behind if you know so much.

  24. texan5142 says:

    kabuzz61 says:
    June 3, 2014 at 9:54 am
    You liberals don’t even know the law he broke. He signed a law that stated NO Gitmo terrorist can be released without a 30 day notice for review, by order of the president.

    He also made a signing statement that said he had the authority to make the final decision, so no, he did not break the law.

    “Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.”

    Bush used signing statements also,

    “During the administration of President George W. Bush, there was a controversy over the President’s use of signing statements, which critics charged was unusually extensive and modified the meaning of statutes.”


    • kabuzz61 says:

      Wrong as usual. Time for a drink buddy. Obama had to confer with congress when moving terrorists ANYWHERE. You are saying “it all depends on what is is” which is of course loony.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        If they feel that strong about it, impeach him.

      • texan5142 says:

        Time for a nap old man, Your hero Reagan used signing statements also, but hey, he was a republican so that makes it alright .

      • texan5142 says:

        If they impeach him, then Bush, Cheney , etc. should be tried for war crimes. That would be the only fair thing to do. I would gladly go along with that.

      • CaptSternn says:

        What war crimes? Do you have anything specific, or just more of that bumper sticker mentality?

      • geoff1968 says:

        3:57 time for a magnum

    • texan5142 says:

      Torture you idiot, that is why Bush can not travel overseas without risking arrest.

      • DanMan says:

        no American can now thanks to Obama swapping for territz, this is going to get interesting in a hurry

  25. texan5142 says:

    Yep! It seems the guy was a deserter after reading some of the accounts in the story by the NYT.


    I am laughing at you Sternn and kabuzz, after all of your talk of “liberals” acting on emotion and here you are acting on emotion about this story. I think Obama made a big mistake, just like Reagan did when he traded with Iran, and yet he is still a conservative hero.


    • desperado says:

      I don’t care if he was a deserter. The military punishes deserters, we don’t leave them in the hands of the enemy.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Because the generals on the ground wouldn’t risk the troops for a rescue missions. Some soldiers died trying to find this coward, who helped the enemy. You guys as liberals always side with the enemy. Like you are all Jane Fonda’s.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        I think continued references to the 1970s is the best way to win the hearts and minds of the 2016 electorate.

        The folks who have disliked Jane Fonda for the past 40 years are unlikely to be voting for a Democrat anyway.

        You folks are a frothy bunch lately. I can almost see the spittle flying.

        You folks would only be going this nuts because you are afraid the Democrats are going to win. If you really thought the GOP was going to roll, you would be feeling a different set of emotions right now.

      • texan5142 says:

        Your buddy Cruz said he would have “risk the troops for a rescue missions”.

      • DanMan says:

        always good to have somebody that doesn’t know me telling me how I’m supposed to feel

      • texan5142 says:

        Yep! Agreed Dan, but why dose Sternn keep doing that?

      • DanMan says:

        whatcha talkin’ bout?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Homer, I couldn’t be more happy. This fool of a president is just cutting your chances. He is packing more and more garbage in the democrat sack. Not frothing here. Just enjoying the view.

      • texan5142 says:

        Just shitting your pants old man not frothing

    • CaptSternn says:

      Thing is, Reagan didn’t know about the deals until well after the fact, then he apologized to the nation for the actions of the government once he found out about the deals. But you won’t let facts or reality interfere with your emotions and whining.

      • texan5142 says:

        So it was ok for Reagan not to know what was going on in his administration and apologize….. but not Obama,,,,got it. Remember that the next time you bitch about the VA scandal you twit.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I was no fan of Reagan, Texan. Not even now.

      • texan5142 says:

        Fan or not, you just made excuses for him.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I just point out the facts.

      • texan5142 says:

        Your facts are suspect.

      • CaptSternn says:

        My facts are documented. Reagan assured the nation that no such trades were being made. When he found out the truth, he came stood begore the nation and apologized, apologized for misleading the nation by not knowing and apologized to the nation for the trades having been done.

        That’s one thing 75 is right about concerning the CIA. Just read up on the Church hearings from the 1970s.

        As I said earlier, I was never a fan of Reagan and I don’t get why some people on the right, especially entertainers, give him so much praise. He talked the talk, and he walked the walk of foriegn polcy, but not so much on domestic policy. He was better than any democrat, but he was very much a neo-conservative. I could see his old liberal ways still being praciced even before I was old enough to vote. I looked at Bush43 much the same.

  26. kabuzz61 says:

    How about Obama breaking the law and releasing 5 top Taliban leaders for a deserter that aided and abetted the enemy. This fool has to go.

    How about trading Pelosi and Reid for the Marine that is being held in Mexico?

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Buzz…you realize that Obama is in his second term right? He’ll be gone in 2016.

      Are you actually calling for impeachment?

    • DanMan says:

      What does the rucas posse think about their precedent now?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Which precedent is that? The precedent that the President is Commander in Chief. I am fine with it. Bush, Reagan, Clinton and all future Presidents should be Commander in Chief and not worry about laws that try to interfere with the separation of powers.

    • desperado says:

      Oh shut the hell up. If Obama didn’t try to get our soldiers back you’d say it’s proof he hates the military. When he does you say he negotiates with terrorists. BTW, you had a chance to get rid of him in 2012. You lost, get over it.

    • Turtles Run says:

      How exactly did Obama break the law? The US Constitution dictates that the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the military. The Congress cannot pass laws limiting that power unless it is a constitutional amendment. I am surprised our resident constitutional scholar has not come out supporting the actions of the President.

      That law he broke is most likely unconstitutional but once again Buzzy proves that the tea party does not really care about the constitution unless it serves their purposes.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You acknowledge he broke the law, and that law stands until and unless is is ruled unconstitutional. Bottom line, Obama negotiated with terrorists and returned the top Taliban leaders they demanded in exchange for a person that the military deemed a deserter.

      • texan5142 says:

        Cap care to show us in writing where the military said he was a deserter? Bet you can not do it. You are a tool Sternn . Let the facts come out . On a side note, I do not think he should have traded, he screwed up, but let the facts come out first weather or not this guy deserted.

      • CaptSternn says:

        In 2010, the Pentagon concluded that it was incontrovertible that Bergdahl simply walked away from his post.

      • desperado says:

        Bottom line. Obama got one of our soldiers back in exchange for 5 guys who were going to be released before the end of the year anyway. It’s up to the military to decide if he was a deserter or AWOL and to hand out any justice.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        You liberals don’t even know the law he broke. He signed a law that stated NO Gitmo terrorist can be released without a 30 day notice for review, by order of the president.

        This fool just makes it up as he goes along. He reminds me of Nixon in the interview with Frost that “I can’t break the law, when I do things, it is the law.” Well your royal highness, excuse me. How about closing congress and the judicial. It seems Obama doesn’t need them.

        As far as this coward who deserted, many pentagon spokesman said he has a lot of explaining to do. Now why would you need to explain anything if you were a captured POW? Logic is not a liberals friend.

        I do notice that again the left doesn’t clamor for explanations from this empty suit, but it just adds to the baggage Hillary will be dragging around.

        I am looking forward to this election year, but now I am excited about 2016. This isn’t short memory stuff, this is long term.

        Now before you guys on the left start telling us Obama isn’t running, well the GOP took a page from you running against Bush when he wasn’t running. Now turnabout is fair play.

        As far as impeachment, I don’t want that. I want Obama to have free reign to continue in this lawless behavior. Like bussing thousands of illegals to the air force bases in San Antonio. Now the Mexican’s have heard about the chance for amnesty, the borders are being overrun by children without their parents. They are contained in an air force base where disease is running rampant. All because of the empty suit Obama. Taxpayers will love to here this. So, keep him in. He is the GOP’s best friend now.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Five Taliban leaders that should never have been released and will almost certainly return to terrorism against the U.S. and our allies.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Oh and Turtles? Once again you show your lack on knowledge. Terrorists are not part of the Commander and Chiefs purview.

      • Crogged says:

        Talk about your useless paranoia–does one honestly think if ‘thousands of Mescan kids’ were storming the border the first reveal of the story would be as a comment to this blog? I’ve heard the Canadians are getting fed up, we need to build a wall up there too………

      • desperado says:

        That Netanyahu is such a candy-ass, weak-kneed, empty suit, terrorist sympathizer. Somebody should impeach him.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Old desp would run like a scared woman if Netanyahu confronted him. Bwah! Chickenhawk.

      • desperado says:

        Whoosh! Read the article, dipshit. Or have someone read it to you.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – The President like other elected officials has a duty to support and defend the constitution. The constitution separates the powers of government into three distinct branches. The President is Commander in Chief and the executive branch handles foreign policy. When Congress writes laws that intrude on the president’s ability to conduct his constitutional duties then he needs to follow the powers given to him expressly in the constitution.

        Feel free to write your congress man and take it to the SCOTUS. If you win and a Republican President is ever elected I hope you guys enjoy Pelosi looking over your shoulder telling you how to run the next war you guys want to start.

        Thanks for once again proving the tea party is more interested in rhetoric about returning to constitutional limited government than actually following through with their BS.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That’s all well and good, Turtles, but it doesn’t include simply freeing terrorists in violation of federal law.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – The military officially labeled him as Missing/Captured. He has not been ruled a deserter. That is why he was able to be promoted while in captivity.

        From the time of the Founding Fathers we have dealt with terrorists. The Taliban however was the legitimate government of Afghanistan at the beginning of the war. Even if they were not they would still be the enemy we would have to deal with.

        Since the first day of basic training soldiers are always taught “no one gets left behind” and this action was the fulfillment of that promise. It does not matter what this person did the promise to the uniform must be kept.

        Only you neo-con clowns would politicize the return of a US POW.

      • CaptSternn says:

        What nations recognized the Taliban as the offical government of Afghanistan?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Turtles, the president is the commander and chief. Does he have the authority to start war? If not why? Then you’ll know about terrorism oversight and policy.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Buzzy – Not that it will matter to you but Obama did not start a war. He did a prisoner exchange like almost every time we have been to war.

        Cappy – They are the enemy we are fighting. So we have to speak to them. If this young man was killed and you right-wingers found out there was a deal on the table to get him back you guys would have cried bloody murder. The POTUS is screwed any which way he acts so if I were him in this case I would say f*ck it and get our soldier back.

        I love the impeachment talk already starting up on the right. I say go for it. If you guys win it will be hello President Biden. I would love to see him kick some tea party/neo-con butt.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Al Qaeda started a war, Iraq started a war, but you want to get all cozy and nice with al Qaeda and the Taliban now.

        No, there was never any way conservatives would approve of freeing Taliban leaders in exchange for a deseter. Probably not even for a soldier that was captured rather than deserting.

        Oh, and how did that impeachment of Clinton help Gore again?

    • texan5142 says:

      How about waiting for all the facts to come out first kabuzz . Maybe he should of just traded arms like Reagan did.

  27. geoff1968 says:

    Why read Pasternak? Simply because it is a useful diversion while the bowels move? Nothing leads to a better understanding of one’s humanity than that. It’s a vulnerable moment. I mean the book exposes the complexity of the Russian revolution. Quite vulnerable.

    The partisan movements are a form of constipation, so I need to read some Pasternak.

    Where’s a thinking man to go, other than the commode. The local Republicans will just present a grab bag, a colostomy bag, of super heated rhetoric. Anti-establishment Republicans, the notion.

    You can have Ted Nugent.

    I’ll take Segovia.

    • Crogged says:

      Big like, how much land, fully automatic weapons and ‘principles’ does a man need?

      • geoff1968 says:

        100 acres, preferably in the Mountain West. A cache of various weapons, enough to hold off the imminent Chinese invasion. 50 principals, which I personally train.

        A complete collection of Ted Nugent material. A still. What am I leaving out?

      • Crogged says:

        A few Daisy Mae’s………

  28. CaptSternn says:

    Johnofgaunt75, you claim to be a “former republican”. That would suggest you are at least almost as far left as Lifer, and now a solid socialist democrat that thinks rights should be revoked in favor of licensed privileges, as in the licensed privilege of owning firearms. You think it has to do with hunting, but that is false. You seem to run on emotion and reject science when you don;t like the results.

    I see Lifer as one of the people of the GOP Establishment that wants to make the parties so much the same that it makes no difference which has the majority. You see anybody that is not to the left of Karl Marx as being a far right extremist.

    You do not even understand the difference between earned pay and benefits to simple handouts for being lazy and staying at home, smoking weed and having babies for more handouts. Oh, the horror of actually having to work for a living. Maybe you do, but you excuse those that don’t and won’t.

    Done for the evening. Bye.

    • Manhattan says:


      Does it ever occur to you or people like Kabuzz that goplifer just wants the Republican Party to resemble all of America and not just specific demographics and writing off whole parts of the population just to please specific groups? The handout bit is why some demographic groups don’t vote Republican because you just lumped some of these groups and it’s a little elitist. It’s no different when the Democrats claim Republicans have poor whites vote against their own interest. Are there Republicans on welfare too?

      As far as I can remember, conservatives can be emotional too like constantly referring to Reagan and going ga-ga over Fred Thompson or talking about Jesus constantly. Hell, the Tea Parties rallies could be emotional too.

      But then again with your second paragraph, conservative Republicans did what they did 50 years ago and saying moderate, liberal and pragmatic conservatives were no different that the Democrats. This has been going on for a long time.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Manhattan, you haven’t a clue. GOPLifer isn’t a republican. He doesn’t participate in party events even though his profile says so. So you are just another dupe who takes what he reads as gospel without doing any legwork on your own. In other words a liberals.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        He isn’t “your” type of Republican but neither was Ike, Nixon and countless other leaders of the Republican Party over the years. Hell, if Ronald Reagan was alive today and ran he would be chased out of the modern Republican Party as a LIB.

        Sad what has become of the party of Lincoln.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JohnofF, are you a seer? Please tell us what the future holds oh great one? You know what I would have done years ago, now and in the future.

      • CaptSternn says:

        In want a federal government that represents the U.S. Constitution and the founding principles of this nation. That is where the disconnect happens.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        You want it to represent “your interpretation” of the US Constitution which doesn’t reflect current constitional law or about 100 years of case law in this country.

      • CaptSternn says:

        It is written in English, which is my first language and I don;t need to have English interpreted for me.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Hah hah. I love when people with obviously zero legal education make such statements. I think you need to buy a constitutional law book. This is a good one (and cheap):


        Ponder this: If interpreting the Constitution was that easy, why in the hell do we need the smartest legal minds in the country on the Supreme Court?

      • CaptSternn says:

        To find ways around it and grant congress and the federal government powers they were never meant to have.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        So you agree that there should be a socialist military? What about a socialist federal police force?

        Do you feel icky now that, like everyone, you’re part Socialist?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Ther U.S. Constitution grants congress specific and limited powers. Again, we tea party folk are not anarchists, so stop buying into the lies.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        You are not anarchists. True.

        But you are part socialist.

      • DanMan says:

        75 reminds me of pajama boy, a prissy little twit in flannels playing parlor games all day

      • johnofgaunt75 says:


        What an intelligent comment. You are a bright one.

      • DanMan says:

        the game of trying to corner someone who supports order and those who are bound to keep it as a socialist reveals you to be the tedious little twit you are. Some people like the Johnny Depp character Jack Sparrow. Some don’t.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Hah hah. Well, I have found that those who resort to name calling and personal attacks only do so because they lack the mental ability to respond adequately. So, your comments say as much about you, rather than I.

      • DanMan says:

        pal you don’t have the mental ability to make a point, do you think anybody but you thinks buzz or stern are socialists? you built the entire premise on your koskid logic. Tell us lightweight. Do you believe stern is a socialist?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy wrote: In want a federal government that represents the U.S. Constitution and the founding principles of this nation. That is where the disconnect happens.

        No you don’t. You want a federal government that allows you to push the far right policies you approve of whether they are constitutional or not.

      • DanMan says:

        liberal logic on display here, turtlehead thinks its unconstitutional to follow the constitution

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, looks to me like you think the constitution itself is a far right policy. No suprise there since so many on the left think following it would be no different than outright anarchy.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Dan you don’t even know what socialism is.

        To you it’s just a label you pin on things you don’t like like some spoiled child. Stern does the same thing.

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      What in the world does licensing of firearms have to do with socialism? Is Hong Kong socialist? Is Singapore? Clearly you need to take a basic class in Economics. I suggest reading Economics for Dummies.

      By the way, do you support the US Military? Do you support local police or fired departments? Well if the answer “Yes” then by Lord you are a dyed in the wool Socialist as well. Time for you to go take a shower and wash all that “red” off.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Different levels of government have different powers and reposnibilities. That is called federalism. Maybe you should try using a dictionary, there are several free ones online.

        FYI, attacking real problems? The PPACA is a real problem, the federal debt is a real problem, failing to secure the borders and enforce laws are real problems, Obama ruling by decree and bypassing congress is a real problem, expansion of the federal government is a real problem. But you don’t really want to address the real problems.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Federalism is a political system. Socialism is an economic system. Like I said, pick up Economics for Dummies.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Socialism is a system where there is no private property and everything is run by the government. Maybe you should pick up that book along with a dictionary.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        A purely socialist economic system would be what you described. But there has never, in the history of the world, been such a system, at least in a macro level. All countries have a mixed economy with some learning closer to a pure market system (which has also never happened) and some leaning to a pure collectivist system. The fact that you fail to grasp that point shows that your level of understanding is minimal.

        Again, the US military is organized in a socialist manner. It is owned, administered and run by the government. All soldiers are employed by the government as government employees.

        Nothing in the Constitution would stop, for example, completely farming out the entire military to private companies. This was very common, of course, many hundreds of years in Europe where the entire army were made of up mercenary companies hired from across Europe. The German states in particular followed this model (because they had lots of money and a small population).

      • CaptSternn says:

        The U.S. Constitution specifically grants congress the power to raise and provide for a navy and army. Don’t fall for the lies, us tea party folk are not anarchists.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Nothing in the Constitution says that the army and navy cannot be a purely private army, operated by private companies. Congress could make that decision tomorrow.

        See, you are already misintepreting the Constitution. You get an “F” in Constitutional Law 1.

        Besides, we already have a lot of private mercenary companies working in such a capacity. Nothing is stopping us from privatizing the entire military if we wanted to (other than political will).

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Another example for you: Ever heard of the Pinkerton Agency?

        They were a private company that essentially served as the national police force of the United States prior to the Civil War. They served as the personal body guard of Lincoln for a time and also investigated potential spies.

        After the war, the DOJ and eventually the FBI was created to take these roles because of the criminal actions of Pinkerton Detectives. So, again, the DOJ and the FBI are run on a socialist model. We could go back to teh Pinkerton model if we wanted to though.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I didn’t say privatizing it would be illegal. Work on your reading comprehension. And then study the constitution and court cases for 20 years and you can get back to me.

    • John Galt says:

      I was also a former Republican. When you notice the crowd in your room getting smaller and smaller, Sternn, sometimes you ought to wonder how badly you smell.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        It’s just the ideology rather than the attempt to solve real problems that really gets at me. Paul Ryan, while I think he brings too much ideology into his proposals (meaning he just assumes things will happen not based on facts but on ideology); I actually respect the guy for bringing forward at least a starting point for negotiations and a plan. Everyone knows that the long term fiscal problems for this country are real and despite the rants of the Tea Party, cutting “waste” and cutting “welfare” is not going to solve it. We must have bigger ideas on how to address and fix our social welfare programs who most think are a good thing (forgetting Capt and the others) but need to be tweaked and reformed for the long term demographic changes that are occurring in this country. Simply saying that private charity or the “market” will fix everything is ridiculous and not based on reality.

        I want results. No ideology. Government is not evil and although it can’t do everything, it can do SOME things. That is what I want and frankly, what we all deserve.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Now JG I thought one has to evolve? Nice try though.

        JohnofF, how about all those shovel ready jobs Obama promised based on ideology?

      • Crogged says:

        In normal times, with an economy running fairly decently, it is better to have a smaller government deficit–because when ‘hard times’ hit there is only one governmental entity in the US which can legally run a deficit (and prints money). The ability of the US government to respond to the crisis of 2008 was politically hamstrung by the political decision to cut taxes, expand Medicare and the real need for a military response to the events around 9/11. The crises of 2008 was a fiscal crises like the depression of 1928, confidence in the economic system of the entire world was in doubt. The current Tea Party seems to think every economic crises is the late 1970s, when a rapid increase in oil prices put tremendous inflationary pressure on the economy.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Congressional democrats cut taxes in 2008? Really? Oh, maybe you were thinking of many years earlier, and the results were a booming economy and near full employment. But something changed in January 2007.

        the expansion of medicare was wrong and bad, but nowhere near the level of wrong and bad as te PPACA.

      • Crogged says:

        No they didn’t cut them in 2008-they did in 2010 with the economic stimulus package, which consisted of 40 percent tax cuts (primarily the payroll tax cut). So yes, Obama cut taxes back in his first term, before allowing the top increment, which you and I never have to fear paying, to be raised in his second term.

      • Crogged says:

        It’s funny, but writers like John Galt, the author of this blog, Fifty and John of Gaunt have pulled me further right. They are the type of people I can trust to make good decisions of dealing with the crises of federal spending as a percentage of GDP going from 22 percent in 2014, to 26 percent after 2040……..

      • John Galt says:

        johnofgaunt – Exactly. I want results, not this BS. I think this could be a successful general election strategy for the GOP for someone like Christie. Before the “bridge gate” scandal, he had a reputation as a cut-through-the-BS person who has been successful working with the opposite side in a heavily Democratic state. He won’t get nominated, but he’s someone I could support in ’16.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        I would consider Christie as well. Seems like a problem solver rather than a blow hard. Also, as a former North Eastern Republican, I like the idea of a North Eastern Republican in the White House.

        What scares me though is that he would probably be forced to morph into a far right conservative to appeal to the current base of the Republican Party, which is mainly white, old and Southern. Romney did the same thing and turned from a pro-choice, pro-gay rights country club Republican to an immigrant hating, right-wing religious crazy just to appeal to the Bob Jones types in the Republican Party. Terrible.

  29. texan5142 says:

    You guys are funny.

  30. kabuzz61 says:

    JG, put your broad brush away. The TEA Party started because of Bush. McCain’s numbers were sinking until he put Palin on the ticket.

    But Obama has so much baggage and Hillary being a big part of the baggage I think the left/dems would be nuts to run Hillary. Even with the support of the MSM we have had 8 stagnant years of growth, Obamacare that all Obama’s cronies got waivers, Benghazi, IRS, Fast and Furious, dumping bus loads of illegals in Arizona and releasing 5 top Taliban leaders from Gitmo for a deserter. And we still have more time left on the clock.

    So you hold onto your dream, but you are going to have to eat every morsel of Obama pie that is served in 2016. I hope you’re hungry.

    • John Galt says:

      Well, then Kabuzz, you just go ahead and nominate a nut job and you’ll see what that gets you. The GOP might win the White House in 2016, but they will only do it if they nominate someone who can broadly appeal to the electorate, not just the 15% who call themselves TPers.

    • texan5142 says:

      Haha! Kabuzz you have the biggest broad brush out there. Hahahaha!

  31. I kinda like divided government. It generally means that less gets done to, er, for me. It’d be just peachy, as far as I’m concerned, if the GOP took the White House and lost the Senate. I’d have to raise a glass to Harry Reid, but WTH?

    Note that regardless of which party gains control, it would appear our prospects for addressing our dismal fisc are dim.

    $1.7 X 10^13 in the hole and counting!

    Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
    Whoopee! We’re all gonna die!
    – Country Joe McDonald

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      If this country didn’t face such daughting problems, perhaps your logic would work. Unfortunately, this isn’t the 1990’s anymore. The train is heading over a cliff and the officials we send to Washington refuse to compromise and make any progress to address our problems.

      • Ah, compromise. Such a lovely word, so pregnant with meaning, so fraught with consequence. And progress; every one wants to progress, right?

        I always *love* it when the left presents me with a ‘compromise’ justified in the name of ‘progress.’ Oh, we’re in debt? Let’s compromise by increasing spending just a little less, and raising ‘revenues.’ What? Another shooting in a gun free zone? Let’s compromise, and reduce legal magazine capacity from 10 to 7. What was that, again, Mr. Frog? The water is a tad too warm, you say? Let’s compromise, and heat it up just a bit slower…

        Sometimes the best alternative to a bad agreement is no agreement. Sometimes you just have to say, “No.” Sometimes, you just have to let the train go splat. 🙂

      • John Galt says:

        You’ve just presented a reasonable compromise and your utter rejection of it is why the GOP is broadly mistrusted on these things. The drivers of the deficits over the last few years were a sharp drop in revenue and increases in spending largely mandated by social welfare programs that have existed for a long time. Over the last 6 years you have not, in fact, been taxed enough already – tax revenues have been at an historic low. Spend less and raise more revenue…a five year old could figure this out. Only five year olds are not eligible for election to the House.

        Second, the TEA party is all over spending less money. Just not on Social Security or Medicare (those are election losers) or on defense, despite that bloated and inefficient budget. The answer is to screw poor people even more and eliminate this mythic “waste”, even though neither of those things will actually balance the budget.

        And where, exactly, is the compromise in allowing mentally ill individuals access to whatever lethal weaponry they want?

      • Crogged says:

        We have been through this–what ‘financial emergency’ is pressing now? The link was from DanMan–no one addressed what the graph shows (and why the authors didn’t choose to eliminate the unused 30 to 40 percent range of the graph?). If it’s just me, go ahead and point it out. What am I missing here?


        Long term means precisely that, and since this is a fiscal issue, consider each of the debit and credit side of the ledger in play.

      • JG, your comment is an outstanding illustration of the problem at hand. In your mind, you are being entirely reasonable. Unfortunately, your “reasonable compromise” is complete anathema me. I don’t thing think we need more government; not a lot more, not even a little more. What I, and a great many like, think we need is a *LOT LESS* government. And therein lies the rub. You see, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

        I’m not going to “compromise” and give the federal government any more money at all. You, on the other hand, are not going to compromise by settling for less government. So we’ll just see how it all plays out at the bottom of the cliff. (Here’s a clue for you: less government. A lot less. Because we’ll be broke.)

      • Crogged says:

        The Tea Party nominates the man incapable of compromise, Harold Stassen, for 2016 Presidential race.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        First, I am only “the left” from the perspective of someone who is so far to the extreme right they are falling off the table. I am an ex-Republican and, frankly, have fairly conservative views in terms of fiscal matters. I believe we need to have a balanced budget, except in times of national emergencies. I believe that we should have limited social welfare programs and that they should encourage work and be temporary except in situations where the person clearly cannot support themselves. But what I do not believe in is that always cutting taxes automatically brings in more revenue.

        In terms of compromise (which you apparently consider some negative), I will only say that only extremist believes that they are always right and that compromise is a bad thing.

      • JohnofG, I wasn’t accusing you of being a leftist; I was addressing “the left” abstractly. As for compromise, there can only be compromise when there is give and take. With the left, it’s generally all take and no give.

        The recent calls for additional gun control measures by the usual suspects (Richard Blumenthal, Diane Feinstein, etc.) following the UC Santa Barbara incident provide ample illustration of the concept. Never mind that California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Never mind that the perpetrator complied with those gun laws. Never mind that the perpetrator killed as many people with a knife as he did with a gun. Never mind that he used his automobile as a weapon, running over several people during his rampage. Never mind that his family *knew* he was mentally disturbed (to the point of requesting that police check on him). Nope, never mind all that: the only possible solution is more gun control.

        I’m sorry, but this nation already has literally *thousands* of gun statutes on the books at the federal, state and local levels. More gun control laws are not the answer, and while I sympathize with the pain and loss of those victimized by yet another homicidal nutball, I’m not going to willingly cede one more inch on the gun control front. My natural right to self defense has already been compromised beyond all semblance of common sense; I will ‘compromise’ no further. I am fresh out of compromise on the topic of gun control. And I am far from alone in this feeling.

        Same goes for taxes; same goes for government spending; same goes size and intrusiveness of government: I’m fresh out of compromise.

      • John Galt says:


        Look at the drivers of the federal budget: Social security, medicare and medicaid make up half. Significant cuts to at least SS and Medicare are unlikely, because old people vote. Defense is another 18%. Interest and other “mandatory” programs are another 17%. The rest (also about 17%) is “non-defense discretionary” and this is the part that the GOP wants to cut.

        You want *A LOT LESS* government. So do many of your fellow citizens, at least in abstract discussions. Then you start talking turkey: what parts should be a lot smaller? Social security? Nope. Defense? Nope. Medicare? Nope. So what do we cut?

        You also say that I’m not going to compromise and accept less government. Wanna bet? The growth of these entitlement programs is dangerous, particularly as the baby boomers retire. Relatively modest changes to these programs could put them on the road to solvency for decades, just as those in the 1980’s did. Inevitably, this will end up sending less money to pensioners in some form. To sell this to them, one has to say, look, we’re going to need something from everyone – we’re going to cut tax loopholes and, in some cases, raise rates. The federal government taking 18-20% of GDP in taxes has been the norm for 60 years, it has been closer to 15% over the last 6. Is 18-20% bad? We’ve been pretty successful over that period. We need to slim the bureaucracy, and manage departments more efficiently. We can get rid of lots of things: ag subsidies, consolidate military bases, get out of the mortgage business. We should examine cost-effectiveness of regulations. We should simplify Obamacare.

        In short, we should come up with a big package of reforms, along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles commission. A brave politician would step up and say that we are going to share this pain for the sake of this country and our children. Those are in short supply on both sides.

        You are not willing to compromise. Fine. You’ll eventually be marginalized and cast to the side, because what you want is not politically salable.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        “The Left” is simply your foil to avoid the discussion of difficult choices.

        Yes. Some Democratic members are unwilling to cede on anything but, frankly, they are the minoirty not the majority.

        Some Republicans are also willing to work with the other side to reach a mutually agreeable deal to address some of the many issues facing this country. But they are quickly labeled RINOS and primaried by far-right extremists.

        In terms of gun laws….have you ever considered the fact that since this madman complied with existing gun laws perhaps we should at least consider some changes to the current gun laws to try and prevent lunatics like this guy from getting his hands on a gun? Is it going to stop every shooting? No. But it is clear that in comparable countries with similar socio-econommic and development levels, stricter gun laws do lower the murder rate. That is simply a fact.

        For the record, I own a gun and enjoy shooting and the occasional hunt. But my hobby is not worth the lives of my children or yours. If reasonable restrictions were placed on how many guns one can buy, the types of guns or the types of licenses one would need to own and buy a gun, I would have no problem what-so-ever. I am not paranoid of the “gubment” coming and taking my gun. Anyone who is either a criminal or a paranoid nut.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG, again incorrect data. First off, SS and Medicare are paid for by the citizens. It is mandatory but on the other hand, we are due it. I have been paying into that system for 40 years. I am not being given it, I earned the right to it.

        How about decreasing the departments. Eliminate the DOE, put education back with HEW, cut back on congressional staffs, cut out the needless grants, cut out the fraud, etc.

        Al long as there are crazy people in the world, we need the military. That simple.

      • John Galt says:

        And here we have the problem,. Kabuzz thinks he paid for his SS and medicare, so that becomes sacrosanct. Who promised you annual increases? Who said there wouldn’t be higher co-pays? Who said you could retire at 67? All of these things are subject to change, and they have in the past. People live longer, they should work longer (or self-fund their early retirement). Modest reforms will make this sustainable. But for you to say, “I want to cut all of the government that doesn’t impact me directly,” is just selfish.

        The DOE spends about $27 billion a year. More than a third of this is on the nuclear arsenal, which has to be spent anyway. This is the mathematical ignorance of the Tea Party, pretending that minor league cuts like this can be made to balance the budget without causing real pain. This is absurd. The budget cannot be balance without tackling the mandatory programs in a way that is politically feasible.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John has (maybe) finally figured out the difference between tax rates and tax revenues. Sure, if a man loses his job and has no income, he pays fewer taxes because he has no income to be taxed, and that reduces revenue. But the people that still have jobs are still paying higher rates than when Reagan entered office.

        House republicans have passed many bills and sent them to the senate that would helpn the economy, allow the private sector to thrive again, which would create more jobs and increase revenue without raising any taxes at all. The no-compromise democrats refuse to even debate them. They even shut down the federal government because they refused to compromise.

        75, here is a compromise on gun control: Fewer restrictions, allow law abiding citizens to purchase and own full auto rifles without any special license, require all states to recognize and honor concealed handgun licenses from any other state and most definately do away with any and all gun-free zones, which is where most of the mass shootings take place. Also, a state must honor what is a legal weapon in a person’s home state if they are simply visiting the other state. For that I will trade allowing the continued required background checks when purchasing from a licensed dealer and support putting it on record when a person is involuntarily sent to a mental institution. Fair enough?

      • DanMan says:

        oh look, perfessor Cuffy wants to lecture us on spending

        hey Cuffy, the EPA says the new coal rules will only cost us 1% of GDP annually. You got enough toes to cipher that amount ya big galoot? and if they are off by the typical fudge factor of an order of magnitude the g’ment works under it could become a real burden. Except libs don’t do maf anymore so its all just stuff right?

      • CaptSternn says:

        A coupole of other things …

        John, a promise was made concerning medicare and social security, a debt made. That must be paid, especially to those already recieving benefits or about to. I suppported Bush43’s privatization plan, even though it woud have affected my benefits.

        And to 75, rights are not licensed, privileges are licensed. To keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege. It has nothing to do with hunting. Maybe if you would examine the reason behind it you could start to understand the very foundation of this state and nation.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG, who promised me? My government.

        Not all people live longer. No male member of my family has even reached 65. My brother and I are trying to break that record.

        My government says I can retire at 65.

        GW Bush wanted to overhaul the SS system for future generations siting the same facts you do, but your party would have none of it.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        I find it especially ironic that Kabuzz asserts that he is “due” Social Security and Medicate because it was “paid for” by citizens but at the same time would lambast someone who was laid off from his job and now depends on food stamps to get by (even though, of course, that same person “paid for” the food stamps of others for years while working).

        Face it; Social Security and Medicare is a generational welfare program. I frankly don’t have a whole of an issue with either (although both need to be reformed in certain ways) but both programs are clearly a welfare program where the younger, working population pays for certain benefits enjoyed by the older, “retired” generation.

      • CaptSternn says:

        75, social security and medicare are entitlement programs, not welfare programs. Food stamps, Section 8 Housing and such are welfare programs. Unemployment benefits for six months is an entitlement program, after six months it is a welfare program.

        Entitlement means it has been earned and is owed, the person is entitled to their benefits. Welfare is just handouts that have not been earned and are not owed.

        Do you seriously not understand the difference?

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        There is no difference between entitlement and welfare programs from an economic perspective. The only distinction is political to attempt to make people not feel guilty.

        Both are social welfare programs. One is a transfer from the working to the unemployed. The other is a transfer from the working to the retired. Economically they are the same.

        And think about this Capt; what do you mean by “earned?” Does a person who works for 20 years, pays his taxes and then suddenly falls on hard times because of a job loss not “earn” housing assistence or food stamps? Hell, he paid for those programs for 20 years when working. Why has he not “earned” them when he falls on hard times?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Very simple, 75. You agree to work for a certain wage or salary, you do the work, tyou are entitled to your pay. Even if it is forced, such as social security and medicare, you are entitled to you return.

        Showing up with your hands out and not earning but demanding and recieving, that is a handout and welfare.

        You pay for your home, outright, rent or mortgage, you are entitled to your home. You show up without payment and demand housing, that is welfare.

        You earn it, you are entitled to it. You don;t earn it but get it anyway, that is welfare.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Capt said:

        “Showing up with your hands out and not earning but demanding and recieving, that is a handout and welfare.”


        Yes. You’re right. Retired Americans NEVER demand their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

      • CaptSternn says:

        They earned their benefits. That seems tio be something beyond your understanding, earning vs simply being given. This is nothing new for us on the right, seeing people that do not understand the differences between rights, entitlements and privileges, or entitlements and welfare, or capitalism vs communism. Or people like Owl and others making up definbitions of words to fit their agenda. Then rejecting science when it doesn’t suit their agenda.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Ah yes. Earned.

        But a man who works for 20 years, paying taxes and contributing to the tax base who suddenly losing his job in his 50’s and is forced into a life of poverty relying on the public dole, housing benefits and food stamps to survive did not “earn” his benefits. I get your logic now.

        By the by, continuing with your logic, a person born with a permanent disability who is unable to work and never works a day in his/her life and is supported by the state because of his/her physical condition….how did that person “earn” their benefits? Or, should they rely solely on private charities in your world? Perhaps locked up in some church, treated as a wretch and shunned by society like in the “good ole days?” Better to shut those people away. Nasty business but wouldn’t want to have to raise difficult questions. Besides, they were probably morally derelict anyway, right?

        Wonderful vision you have from this country. Thankfully, we have rejected your outdated, barbaric feelings toward the poor, indigent and disabled. You were born in the world century sir.

      • John Galt says:

        So many responses. A few thoughts…

        Sternn, I’ve always known the difference between tax rates and revenue. I see the important tax rate as the effective rate of taxation. This rarely has anything to do with the highest marginal tax rates due to the limitless loopholes, exemptions, and exceptions. This is why Warren Buffett enjoys a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, despite having a higher marginal rate. Given your obsession with tax rates, I thought you’d remember that tax rates have been this low for only a few years out of the last 100, and the beginning of St. Ronald’s term was not among them.

        Social Security is an entitlement program to which you pay in too little for the average benefits you receive. An actuarial adjustment to reconcile payments and payouts would be in order. If I were to design this, it would be in the form of lower COLAs combined with some progressivity in scaling down benefits for the wealthiest retirees. And please stop your naive bleating. You clearly don’t trust the government for anything – anything except getting your own piece of the pie. Pathetic.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG, you do know there isn’t a flat rate on SS. It is based on income over the last years. Also, many, many people died before collecting, the money should be in there but isn’t. Yes some live longer, but not all. You are all over the map on this issue. Bottom line, those that paid are do.

        75 you are off the charts loony. I am guessing you are the 50 year old that lost everything and is on welfare.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “You clearly don’t trust the government for anything …”

        What took you so long to figure that out? Not trusting government is the core founding principle of this nation.

        No, tax rates were not lower when Reagan took office, but they were a lot lower when he left than they are now.

      • John Galt says:

        All over the map? You guys are the ones that hate and distrust government, want it to be radically smaller, and absolutely are sure that you deserve every bit of the SS benefits you think you were promised. I’m the one who says the program needs to be reformed, ending up with higher retirement ages, lower benefits for wealthy recipients, and more modest COLA adjustments.

        Seriously, your view of reality is really whacked.

      • Crogged says:

        Not trusting ROYALTY was the founding principle, of reasonable men finding reasonable ways for governing themselves, not useless paranoia about any authority whatsoever.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, the founding fathers didn;t even trust the government they were establishing, which is why it was very restricted by the constitution. That is a most basic difference between the right and the left, the left always wants to turn to and trust a leader, central figure or government to tell them waht to do and care for them, to take the responsibility. The people on the right want the freedom to be adults, we will take responsibility for ourselves, our families and our choices.

    • “…my hobby is not worth the lives of my children or yours.”

      JohnofG, if you treat the defense of the lives of your children as a “hobby,” then you are a fool. I’m sorry to be so blunt and rude, but there is no other suitable term. I hunt; I shoot at the range and in the odd competition (which is usually quite humbling). Those are hobby activities. Being prepared to protect myself and the lives of my loved ones in most definitely not a hobby.

      I trust you maintain a fire extinguisher in your home and/or your vehicle(s), as do I. I trust you make sure you have best fire extinguisher available, and the largest capacity fire extinguisher you can readily handle and easily store in a quickly accessible location. You don’t do this for hobby purposes. You do this because you *know* that a fire can very quickly get out of hand and destroy your property and/or take your life or the lives of your loved ones *before* the fire department can respond. I trust you are intelligent enough to understand that you need to treat self/home defense with the same degree of seriousness.

      I collect guns as a hobby; I own dozens. I like old guns; most of my guns are 19th century designs. Not so my home/self defense/carry guns. These guns are the most modern weapons available, and offer the highest level of firepower available. They are equipped with high capacity magazines, laser sighting devices, tritium night sights and/or tactical illumination devices. Their sole purpose is to provide me with an overwhelming advantage against any adversary I might be so unfortunate as to have to face. I own them for exactly the same reason I own my fire extinguishers: should need arise, it’s very likely the issue will be settled long before the police will arrive.

      The UC Santa Barbara nutball complied with a very harsh set of CA gun laws (his mags were legal); that *did not stop him* from killing people. If such laws are ineffective, what is their purpose? Such laws serve *only* to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to effectively defend themselves and their families. Nobody is going to engrave my headstone with the words, “He obeyed the law,” if I get my head blown off by a home invader while reloading my Sig 556 with a 10-round magazine, when a 30-round magazine would have saved my life. Nor will my wife thank my cooling corpse while she is being raped, because I attempted to repel attackers with my Para Ordnance SF-45 stuffed with a 7-round mag, when it’s built to accept 14-round mags. My brutally murdered children won’t thank me because I faced better armed malefactors with my Winchester ’94 simply because I couldn’t legally purchase an AR. So thank you, Gov. Cuomo, but no, thank you. You can keep your un-SAFE act and stuff it where the sun don’t shine.

      I pray I never have to deploy either my fire extinguisher or my personal defense gun; if such a situation ever obtains then things will have gone very badly sideways indeed. However, it is both my *natural* right and my personal responsibility to protect myself, my family and my property. These natural rights predate the Constitution, and indeed any form of government. (In fact, this is why the Bill of Rights is a coda to the Constitution, rather than directly part of it.) I will not willingly surrender my natural rights to any individual, or any government. Ever. Nor should any American.

      Thus far, and no further.

      • DanMan says:

        and once again, what he said! methinks the bard JohnofG may choose his words more wisely in the future. That was a heckova bear trap he stepped in, and done so effortlessly it’s likely habit.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Amen to that, TThor. Too much has already been sacrificed in the name of compromise. The left’s idea of compromise is always to give up more of our liberty and rights, never to return what has already been lost.

        The expiration of the federal assault weapons ban is a rare example of when some of our rights and liberty has been restored. My disappointment is that it only expired and was not repealed.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        If you think that arming yourself to the teeth will protect your family, you are insane. Statistics prove you wrong.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        And when was the last time a child killed another child with a fire extinguisher. This is the pure stupidity of these arguments. A gun is not a hammer or a fire extinguisher. It is a entirely different object and on a scale more dangerous than the common items oft cited by gun extremists.

        The biggest threat to my right to own a gun is the extremists who think that everyone should have the right to a machine gun or that walking around with an assualt rifle to Starbucks. Because of the actions of these crazy people, guns might just be banned some day.

      • CaptSternn says:

        75, statistics show that being armed with a firearm stops or prevents up to 2.5 million crimes per year. Statistics say you are wrong.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Actual facts, 75.


        Also, violent crime and murder have been reduced as gun ownership and CHL states have increased. But hey, if you don;t want a firearm or fir extingusher in your home, that is your business. Don’t come to my home and try to contyrol me and take away my rights because of your fear and insecurity. Sacrificing liberty and rights does not make one more secure. Even the police will tell you that when seconds count, police are minutes away. The police officers I work with daily are the people that encouraged me to get a CHL.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        That is not a legitimate, peer-reviewed study.

        Nice try though.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Then your links are also garbage and have nothing to do with anything I have ever personally witnessed. Nice try.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        The Oxford Journal is a peer reviewed journal meaning that the studies are reviewed by other profesionals and statisticians.

        You just posted a bunch of one-off’s from a gun extremist website.

      • Tell you what, JohnofG, if you want to trust you life and your loved ones’ lives to statistics, and protect your home from bad guys with a fire extinguisher or a hammer, knock your lights out. I don’t think those are the best tools for the job at hand, but to each his own. If you feel you are too inept to safely and effectively store and handle a modern firearm, perhaps you *ought* to stick with the fire extinguisher or hammer. As the ineffable Clint Smith instructs, “Spray ’em with the white foam, then hit ’em with the red can.” It’s simple. See: http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/video/004392_using-a-fire-extinguisher-as-a-defensive-tool/

        For my part, or at least until idiots like yourself muster a majority (and let’s face it, probably even after), I’ll stick with my Sig. For those of us who prefer firearms to fire extinguishers and hammers for unpleasant social engagements, Clint offers this pithy advice, “Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he’s gonna have to beat me to death with it, cause it’s going to be empty.”

        And yeah, as I’ve pointed out in other venues, those Texas Open Carry knuckleheads are even bigger idiots than the gun-banners.

      • Oh, fuss and bother! Looks like we’re gonna need universal background checks now for fire extinguishers, too!


        Can’t some one please just stop the madness?

      • Oh… no… not hammers, too?

        Good Lord, take a gander at these FBI stats:


        So, why again, JohnofG, can’t I own an AR? It would appear that murder by blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc. – one assumes this number also includes fire extinguishers!) far outnumber murders by rifle (and that number certainly includes murders by non-semi-automatic rifles, too). And just look at those numbers for “personal weapons,” i.e. just pounding the tar out of somebody until they shuffle off this mortal coil. Wow! Kinda scary, huh? Talk about winning the lottery in a *bad* way…

        Oh well. They’re not Oxford stats; you probably ought to discount them.

        Tell you what, JohnofG, in the statistically highly unlikely event that a pack of drug-addled thugs breaks into your home and proceeds to beat you to death for sport, be sure to remind your assailants that, statistically speaking, this can’t be happening…

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Deaths by firearms are about 10,000 out of a total of 14,000. I am not a statistician but that is roughly 70%.

        Clearly failing to see the forest for the trees.

    • JG, you are the victim of a common logical fallacy of the left. You seem to think that because the federal government currently provides SS, Medicare and Medicaid, *only* the federal government *can* provide such services. If you think about this for the briefest instant, you’ll realize this is simply not the case.

      For my own part, I would much rather have the freedom to personally invest the FICA SS dollars currently garnished from my paycheck. If SS were ended today and I was given the opportunity for a cash out settlement equal to what has been coercively taken from me, I’d exercise that option in a heartbeat. Same goes for FICA Medicare dollars. There are oodles of options in the private sector that can do just as good, or better, a job. And without the coercion that comes with anything the government pokes its nose into.

      As for Medicaid, let the several states and/or private charities take over. This is the age of the Internet, after all. Let Sarah McLachlan do a couple of commercials where she sings sad songs as a backdrop to pictures of cute, adorable, sad, starving homeless people suffering from gall bladder attacks. Problem solved.

      • CaptSternn says:

        LOL, TThor. And I only say that when I literally laugh out loud. But I will go you one better, I would sacrifice all that I have paid in so far as to not have any more taken from me for those things. But not for much longer. When I hit 50 years of age, I figure I am owed something for my future at that point. At that point I could compromise what I am owed if it stops being taken, or owed nothing if it were to be all returned.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Yes. Let’s return to the Victorian model of public health. Wonderful idea.

        You want to see what would happen to this society if we did what you are advocating? Go to India or rural China. Tuberculosis, typhoid, yellow fever and other infections running wild…especially in the topical climate of the Southern United States (which is also some of the poorest regions of the country).

      • CaptSternn says:

        Well, 75, I suggest you move to Cuba and see how things go there.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Cuba actually has a very good public health system for a third-world country. Their life expectancy is higher than the US.

      • CaptSternn says:

        They have no real health care. Life expectancy has very litt;le to do with health care.

      • Oh, JohnOf. The answer is so obvious, my friend. Move to Cuba!

        And this is the age of the Internet, not the Victorian era. Back then Sarah McL would have been locked up in Bedlam for showing her ankles and sporting her dairy, let alone singing for poor urchins.

      • John Galt says:

        So Tracy…what private institution provides universal pensions for retirees? Waiting….waiting…waiting…

        SS was instituted in the aftermath of the Great Depression when private irresponsibility (banks, investors and Wall Street) trumped private responsibility (individual savers), leading to people too old to work ending up on the streets. The deep pockets of the government provided a guarantee against this outcome, one in which Americans in a civilized age embraced.

        Let’s say, Tracy, that you worked your entire life, building up a nest egg, and a fiscal crash wipes half of it out just as you are retiring. You can’t get a job, because of the unemployment rate, and you have to eat up your principle before it can recover because you’ve got bills to pay. This is what SS was instituted to prevent and a return to an entirely privatized pension system would risk returning to – people who through ignorance or bad luck end up destitute. Your answer is to suggest the least bad tasting cat food. Mine is to remember that we are a civilized nation.

        I’m not even going to dignify your Medicaid plan with a response. I live in a civilized country.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Why in the world would I want to move to Cuba? Simply pointing out that they have a health care system that works fairly well given the economic realities of the country. God forbid we try and look to the successes and failures of other countries and try and learn from their mistakes and success. Take a look at the education system in Sweden (oh not Sweden!), you may actually like what you find.

        Cuba is poor, largely un-industrialized state and has been run by a bunch of of idiots for the past 60 years who trump ideology over good governance. Just because their ideology is on the other end of the spectrum doesn’t make them any less wrong than you and your kind. You are two sides of the same coin.

  32. desperado says:

    Larry. Moe, and Curly. All present and accounted for.

    • DanMan says:

      hey looky here!! its the rootin’ tootin’ Pasadena Rasputin! may the hijinks begin!

      • objv says:

        Clear out, ya lily-livers … or I’m a gonna blow ya ta smithereens. Say yer prayers, varmint!

        Hey, Dan, according to Tutt, you may be giving desp more credit than he is due by calling him Rasputin.

        He’s already the roughest, toughest, root’nest, toot’nest, fastest gun-slinger west of the Pecos … (and hates rabbits apparently) 🙂

      • DanMan says:

        yeah I guess I’m giving him undo credit but he fearlessly shreds it anyway so there is that

  33. CaptSternn says:

    Sometimes I am optimistic, other times not so much. Democrats won control of the federal government is 2006, and things started going downhill. The people that voted for Obama in 2008 and gave democrats a super majority didn’t even know democrats controlled both houses of congress, they were still blaming republicans.

    I actually wanted democrats to win big in 2008, though I knew the nation would suffer for it, and it has. My thinking was that once people saw what democrats were like and the damage they would do, the nation would reject them. And here we are eight years after democrats won control, six years after winning absolute and total control, and people are still blaming Bush43 and republicans.

    The republicans got the house back in 2010 and started passing bills to help the economy and nation, the senate won;t even take them up for debate, and yet it is still the republicans that are obstructionists. The house passed a budget, the senate would not even debate it and the democrats shut down the government over it, even with the house passing and sending funding bills to the senate, but people still blame the republicans.

    Well, when we have people that are so deliberately ignorant and uninformed, people that live off of headlines, soundbytes and bumper stickers, people that still cling to WMD in Iraq as the reason for the 2003 invasion, this is what we will continue to have. The libertarian leaning tea party movement wants people to be adults. Question is, how many adults are left in this nation today? Not looking good.

    But maybe, just maybe, as democrats get more and more up into everybody’s personal business and micromanages their lives, people will turn away. Then again, I almost ex pect them to blame republicans for things like the PPACA. Oh, wait, they already do.

    • DanMan says:

      yep, I used to always have faith in the people to get it right. I no longer do. We are being dominated by the envious now that will accept and promote lies to justify their agenda.

      Here’s a prediction regarding the VA. The union that works within that agency will be the source of the mismanagement issues.

    • John Galt says:

      “Well, when we have people that are so deliberately ignorant and uninformed, people that live off of headlines, soundbytes and bumper stickers…”

      I’m sure I’m not the only one to find irony in this statement.

    • CaptSternn says:

      I am sure that all that live by headlines, soundbytes and bumper stickers would think there is irony there, and that is in and of itself ironic.

    • Churchill pegged it a long time ago:

      “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”

      We’re just shooting par for the course, that’s all. 😉

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Another Churchill quote:

        “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

        I find Churchill interesting as well but don’t put to much weight in the quotes of men long dead and living in a different time and place (especially quotes from Churchill that are disputed and likely something he never said).

  34. DanMan says:

    It sure looks like the dems have thrown in the towel this year doesn’t it?

  35. kabuzz61 says:

    Well, thanks to Harry Reid, the senate only needs to be a simple majority to get things done.

    I’ll give you the best reason why the GOP will get the WH in 2016. Obama. Just how you and the dem’s used Bush to brow beat the electorate, turn around is fair play. Dem’s are running from him in this years election. Who is the best the dem’s offer? Hillary, a complicit pawn in Obama’s den not to mention the failures she watched over.

    Obama’s latest stumble: Negotiating the release of 5 top level Taliban for one deserter. That is precious I tell you. Not counting breaking the law doing it. Wow!

    So go ahead, try to spin a dreary picture for the GOP. It has been done for decades.

    • John Galt says:

      The right claims that the reason McCain lost is that he was not sufficiently conservative. I’ve posted before that Bush fatigue (and Palin) was a big reason, and this was dismissed. Now Kabuzz says that the Dems will lose in ’16 because of Obama fatigue. So which is it? Are candidates saddled by the sins of their predecessors or not? Or are only Democratic candidates so burdened?

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, Kabuzz is right that McCain got a bump in poll numbers by chosing Palin as a running mate. That should speak volumes to any that care to listen. But McCain was too much a moderate, or RINO, and Romney as well. The left wanted Romney, and that includes the GOP establishment types like Lifer, because of Romneycare.

      • DanMan says:

        I knew very little about Palin but I got schooled in a hurry. DanMa’am was over the top pleased with her as the pick. I was no fan of McCain up to that point.

      • texan5142 says:

        Dan the Richard thinks Palin is smart, just shows how utterly stupid you are Dan.

      • DanMan says:

        did you come back just to wart me little boo-boo?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: