Monkeyboy wrote:Some GOP guy just said that they must stand against Obama to serve the center/right nation the represent -- not work with Obama, stand "against" him. If the role was reversed, the GOP would say the dems are for the terrorists. First day after election and they are already signaling their obstruction. Disgusting. I guess we'll have to vote the rest of them out in 2 years.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying Obama shouldn't take the right's views into consideration. But the idea that Obama should cater to the right, the party that the electorate just roundly rejected, is just laughable. The country is ready to move back to the left, not the extreme left, but more left than where we are now. The right's policies, particularly their economic policies, have been rejected.

I think Obama and Emmanuel are pretty shrewd, and they understand that Presidential power is an elusive thing. Clinton made a hash of his first two years because he had no understanding of Congress. The result was the loss of Democratic congressional majorities, and 6 years of nothing. (And don't get carried away with the budget balance--it had a lot more to do with the dot-com boom than fiscal policy.

Bush destroyed his Presidency and did substantial damage to the nation because of his divisive and partisan method of governing. You can win some short term battle with that strategy, but you end up losing the war.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Don't lots of people who work for Republicans live there?

I think my neighborhood is probably 50% black, 20% hispanic, 30% white.

A lot of Republicans who live in the city still vote at home (which is legal I think if you work for your member of Congress). But the bigger factor I think is that most professional Republicans who work in the city live in Virginia.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Some GOP guy just said that they must stand against Obama to serve the center/right nation the represent -- not work with Obama, stand "against" him. If the role was reversed, the GOP would say the dems are for the terrorists. First day after election and they are already signaling their obstruction. Disgusting. I guess we'll have to vote the rest of them out in 2 years.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying Obama shouldn't take the right's views into consideration. But the idea that Obama should cater to the right, the party that the electorate just roundly rejected, is just laughable. The country is ready to move back to the left, not the extreme left, but more left than where we are now. The right's policies, particularly their economic policies, have been rejected.

I think Obama and Emmanuel are pretty shrewd, and they understand that Presidential power is an elusive thing. Clinton made a hash of his first two years because he had no understanding of Congress. The result was the loss of Democratic congressional majorities, and 6 years of nothing. (And don't get carried away with the budget balance--it had a lot more to do with the dot-com boom than fiscal policy.

Bush destroyed his Presidency and did substantial damage to the nation because of his divisive and partisan method of governing. You can win some short term battle with that strategy, but you end up losing the war.

One of the many reasons I voted for Obama was because I think he has the ability to bring people together, even those he disagrees with. I'm hoping he can pull it off, but comments like the one I referenced make me think the GOP has no intention of doing what's best for the country by wokring to get things done. I guess this shouldn't surprise me.

You know who's a classless a-hole? Ralph Nader. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

Monkeyboy wrote:Some GOP guy just said that they must stand against Obama to serve the center/right nation the represent -- not work with Obama, stand "against" him. If the role was reversed, the GOP would say the dems are for the terrorists. First day after election and they are already signaling their obstruction. Disgusting. I guess we'll have to vote the rest of them out in 2 years.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying Obama shouldn't take the right's views into consideration. But the idea that Obama should cater to the right, the party that the electorate just roundly rejected, is just laughable. The country is ready to move back to the left, not the extreme left, but more left than where we are now. The right's policies, particularly their economic policies, have been rejected.

Monkeyboy, will you please read the nonsense you just wrote? It's a mirror for what many GWB supporters were saying in 2004. And there were definitely people on the left who were saying crap about how they had to stand in GWB's way. Stop it. Every side does it, and until one of you decides to grow up (it'd have to be the losing party, because to some extend the winning party is right that their way of doing things was approved by the people, of course they always go too far and then us moderates have to vote the other way, but I digress). For the love of a God you don't believe in...stop the nonsense.

TenuredVulture wrote:I think Obama and Emmanuel are pretty shrewd, and they understand that Presidential power is an elusive thing. Clinton made a hash of his first two years because he had no understanding of Congress.

It will be interesting to see how Obama comes down on the "loyalty vs. competence" question. Each of the last two presidents went for loyalty: Clinton making Mack McLarty his chief of staff and bringing in people like Webb Hubbell (sp?), Bush with his Texas cohort (Gonzales, Miers, McClellan, et al). Rahm is a Chicago guy and they're friends, but I don't think he's at all a loyalist in that he owes his prominence to Obama. His value is that he knows both the executive and the legislature; the more I think about it, the more I'm happier about this than concerned about his intense partisanship.

Maybe this is part of what he really meant by the constant "Team of Rivals" references.

jeff2sf wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Some GOP guy just said that they must stand against Obama to serve the center/right nation the represent -- not work with Obama, stand "against" him. If the role was reversed, the GOP would say the dems are for the terrorists. First day after election and they are already signaling their obstruction. Disgusting. I guess we'll have to vote the rest of them out in 2 years.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying Obama shouldn't take the right's views into consideration. But the idea that Obama should cater to the right, the party that the electorate just roundly rejected, is just laughable. The country is ready to move back to the left, not the extreme left, but more left than where we are now. The right's policies, particularly their economic policies, have been rejected.

Monkeyboy, will you please read the nonsense you just wrote? It's a mirror for what many GWB supporters were saying in 2004. And there were definitely people on the left who were saying crap about how they had to stand in GWB's way. Stop it. Every side does it, and until one of you decides to grow up (it'd have to be the losing party, because to some extend the winning party is right that their way of doing things was approved by the people, of course they always go too far and then us moderates have to vote the other way, but I digress). For the love of a God you don't believe in...stop the nonsense.

No, Jeff. I said that I want to include conservative people in our government. I pointed out that one of the reasons I voted for Obama was because I thought he knew how to include people he/I didn't agree with. I support all those efforts as bipartisanship. Pointing out the GOP saying the exact opposite of that is, just that, pointing out how they probably aren't going to willing to work with Obama. This is the complete opposite of what happened in 2004 when the GOPers were saying that dems needed to bow down and take it up the butt. That's very different than pointing out that the country is ready to move to the left a bit. I even took pains to say "not the extreme left."

You seem to have already made up you mind that the dems are going to push it too far. Why don't you take a step back, take a deep breath, and wait to see if Obama is going to go back on his word of working with the other side. I happen to think there are plenty of good conservative ideas out there, which is why I spent most of my life voting close to 50/50 for dems and reps.

And if there's anyone who consistently acts like a juvenile ass, it's you. Are you even a baseball fan anymore? Where are your baseball posts? Or do you just sit at your computer waiting for me or one of your other whipping boys to say something you find objectionable? Where are your baseball posts, Jeff. Seriously, where are they? I had to go to your 5th page of posts to find one.

One other short thing. There's a big difference between someone saying they need to stop Bush on a baseball message board and a spokesman from the RNC saying it. Bush also had a record to oppose in 2004, which Obama doesn't have yet as the POTUS. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.


And what do my religious beliefs have to do with anything? Are you working for Liddy Dole and the GOP now? And when did I say I didn't believe in God?

Anyone know a good site with presidential results on a town-by-town basis?

GrizzledVeteran wrote:Anyone know a good site with presidential results on a town-by-town basis?

State election office sometimes has that stuff on-line. In arkanas, it's arelection.org.

I just checked the NJ state site. There's a PDF of results by county. Very lame.

GrizzledVeteran wrote:I just checked the NJ state site. There's a PDF of results by county. Very lame.

What towns are you interested in?

Cherry Hill, Haddonfield, Voorhees.

3 Things Mr. Monkey:

1. I LOVE Obama. Love him. So let's not go accusing me of stuff I'm not. I hope he'll reach out, but I don't even know what that means anymore. What I DO know is that Nancy Pelosi et al were not talking about how much they were thrilled to have GWB running the show in 2004. Messageboard dorks, people on the street, and people in the establishment were openly talking about how to get in the way (and god knows I supported that). I'm just saying the righteous indignation is too much.

2. I don't do baseball posts much anymore. That started out based on a business decision I had to make, and has sort of evolved to being the board conscience.

3. The for the love of god thing was just an expression, and then I realized you're an atheist/agnostic so I just threw that in

GrizzledVeteran wrote:I just checked the NJ state site. There's a PDF of results by county. Very lame.

Arkansas +1! Even if we're a backward state of redneck douchebags, we can figure out where they live--precinct level data available to one and all. Too bad they live everywhere.

But my Republican friend Anne Clemmer won in the state leg, so that's something.

GrizzledVeteran wrote:Cherry Hill, Haddonfield, Voorhees.

Doesn't look like Camden County has it broken out by town. I don't know where else to look.

If you really want to know, I'm sure you can call the county clerk's office. They would have that information.

I've dealt with the public records people in Cherry Hill before. They're pretty good.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cttV4Pjqbz0[/youtube]

jerseyhoya wrote:

GrizzledVeteran wrote:Cherry Hill, Haddonfield, Voorhees.

Doesn't look like Camden County has it broken out by town. I don't know where else to look.

If you really want to know, I'm sure you can call the county clerk's office. They would have that information.

I've dealt with the public records people in Cherry Hill before. They're pretty good.

Won't the newspaper print this tomorrow or so?

And Southpark is summing this up better than I could.

jeff2sf wrote:And Southpark is summing this up better than I could.

Amazing episode.