Responses to this post...

1. I can’t fully comprehend her babblings, therefor don’t have anywhere near the intelligence to think of and cogently articulate a position on this.

   Why? Why post this, Alan? I never solved the Rubix Cube, for ^!@^%#@& sakes!

   Posted by W F G
   July 24th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

2. Isn’t that what they always say when their policies can’t stand up to questioning?

   Posted by OldLefty
   July 24th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

3. There is a power push by the competing media “owners” to see who can get Obama elected. From everything I read and hear, Obama isn’t the hands down favorite (and neither is McCain, I am being fair and balanced) yet to watch network news you’d be led to believe he is. These media owners have decided to one up themselves…they no longer decide who has the largest penis by the size of their yachts. Now it’s to see who’s network can elect a US president. Katie should have never left the Today show. Maybe she’s turning to reality because she’s pissed off at CBS leadership for pushing her towards the exit door.

   Posted by LV Lives
   July 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

4. This post emboldens the terrorists…

   Posted by FuRyUs
   July 24th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

5. Ah fury, everything we do will embolden them. They have small penis’

   Posted by LV Lives
   July 24th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

6. Vince P,
   I hope your catching the underlying humor within some of my blogs. I purposly put it in because the liberals hate it. However, I hope you enjoy it.

   Posted by The Conservative
   July 24th, 2008 at 5:51 pm

7. You must ask no questions of anything! You must not doubt our glorious military! You must applaud the genius of our leaders and swear your undying loyalty to the homeland! Sieg heil! Sieg heil! Sieg heil!

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq37aIZ_IR4&feature=related

   Posted by RC from Smithtown
   July 24th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

8. All Hail the Bush War Machine!

   Posted by FuRyUs
   July 24th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

9. FuRyUs,
   Since you have nothing but contempt for Bush and his “war machine”. I guess those new to this blog could assume you support the enemy? Or is an invisible overwhelming entity trying to convince you of the possibility of being better off in a cave?

   Posted by The Conservative
   July 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm

10. I hate to use this much space, but as long as we are saying things like;

    “Since you have nothing but contempt for Bush and his “war machine”. I guess those new to this blog could assume you support the enemy?”…..

    Here’s what Republicans said about Clinton and Kosovo:

    “No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.”

    -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

    “I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”

    -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

    “You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.”

    -Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

    “Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”

    -Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

    “It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring “wars of national liberation.”

    -Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

    “If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”

    -Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W.
    Bush

    “Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may
    come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”

    -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

    “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face,
    that’s his problem.”

    -Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

    “For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in
    Operation Allied Force is a farce”

    -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

    “Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague
    objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international
    respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the
    bombs fly.”

    Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

    Posted by OldLefty
    July 24th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

11. old lefty: while long posts can be annoying, yours are among the few that i bother to read.

    Posted by sky
    July 24th, 2008 at 8:39 pm

12. OldLefty,
    I’m a conservative. While I disagree with the left almost entirely it by no means is a measure to gage my agreement with the right. I don’t fault the President as liberals do for some of the problems our nation faces. I do fault him for attacking Iraq, when it was Saudi Arabians responsible for 911. Although, Saddam was a murderous tyrant, he should have been dealt with at a later date. There’s plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the fence. However, those who blog here are all one sided, and it’s the liberal left who wouldn’t dare make the statement I just made. Liberal lefties just like you.

    Posted by The Conservative
    July 24th, 2008 at 10:15 pm

13. Conservative: I agree with you. I blame Bush for a lot of things.

    So it’s absolutely no defense of someone else’s bad ideas to say “well Bush did x , y , z”

    So what if he did? that doesnt’ mean I support that. and even if I had, that doestn’ justify the future bad ideas. The idea shuold be to learn from the mistakes of the past and not make more mistakes.

    Posted by Vince P - Chicago
    July 24th, 2008 at 10:39 pm

14. “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”– Governor George W. Bush (R)-TX

    “I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”–Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

    “You can support the troops but not the president.”–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

    “Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”–Sean Hannity.

    Posted by RC from Smithtown
    July 25th, 2008 at 1:41 am

15. “You must ask no questions of anything! You must not doubt our glorious military! You must applaud the genius of our leaders and swear your undying loyalty to the homeland! Sieg heil! Sieg heil! Sieg heil!”

    LOL

    RC, you’ve been on a roll the last few days. Excellent quotes above.

    Posted by Cheryl Carroll
    July 25th, 2008 at 2:24 am

16. And I’m sick of hearing this accusation that liberals question the troops. I’ve never heard any liberal question the valor or honesty of a soldier (except for those involved in Abu Graib).

    Posted by Cheryl Carroll
    July 25th, 2008 at 2:25 am

17. McCain was always critical of the way President Bush handled this war. He was calling for more troops the day the war was launched. He wasn’t calling for a Surge. The Surge was the product of bipartisan thinking following the request of President Bush for Democrats to help. The Surge began as “The Hurricane.” The thought behind it was to used the increased forces to create a calm center and expand that center so our forces could get out of Iraq. President Bush took the idea and embedded our troops even further. McCain wants to use this occupation to continue to keep Iraq’s oil off the market for 100 years. Iraqi Freedom means no occupation. McCain and Obama aren’t that different in their visions. Will America keep permanent bases in Iraq? That’s the angle McCain should be using to expose Obama’s double speak. I want Obama to win, but the truth is becoming more about Obama’s ego and not sharing credit where credit is due. Obama came out of nowhere to get where he is. Somebody inside the Democratic Party with the ability to speak to power helped Obama. Yes, We Can win that’s clear; but give credit?

    Posted by Cecil Jones
    July 25th, 2008 at 8:09 am

18. It is extremely important to take to heart that Obama’s campaign theme and his campaign speeches are not the real Obama.

    They are David Axelrod.

    Notice the parellels between Obama and the current Gov of Massachusetts , Deval Patrick, another clinet of Axelrod.

    He may, at least, take heart from what happened in Massachusetts just two years ago, when that state’s first-ever black gubernatorial candidate endured a media firestorm not unlike the one Mr. Obama is now facing—and lived to score a historic landslide.

    Much like Mr. Obama now, conventional wisdom in the Bay State regarded Deval Patrick as a risky choice for Democrats in their gubernatorial primary in 2006. His campaign was driven by his optimistic and unifying rhetoric, with a life story to match it, but Republicans—who, don’t forget, hadn’t lost a gubernatorial race in the state since 1986—saw him as a dream come true.

    As soon as he won the September primary—with a strategic assist from the G.O.P., which aired ads critical of his Democratic opponents—Republicans began an unrelenting campaign to play up Mr. Patrick’s ties to Benjamin LaGuer, a black Hispanic man who was convicted in 1983 of tying up and repeatedly raping his 59-year-old neighbor. Mr. Patrick had donated to Mr. LaGuer’s legal defense fund and, The Boston Globe reported in early October, pleaded Mr. LaGuer’s case to the State Parole Board in letters in 1998 and 2000. In one letter, Mr. Patrick referred to the convicted rapist as “thoughtful, insightful, eloquent [and] humane.”

    Given Massachusetts’ dicey racial history—busing riots were barely 30 years old when the ’06 campaign rolled around, and socially conservative attitudes still prevail in many Boston neighborhoods and in the white working-class communities that surround the city—this represented a grave threat to Mr. Patrick. That he changed his story about the letters several times only made matters worse.

    The G.O.P. launched a vicious ad showing a white woman walking alone in a parking garage while a narrator rehashed the grisly details of LaGuer’s crime. The media piled on, too.

    “The bottom line is this,” Brian McGrory, a Globe columnist wrote. “If Deval Patrick had his way, a thug who bound a 59-year-old woman and repeatedly raped her over the course of eight hours would have been granted parole. There’s no other way to see it.”

    But apparently there was. On Election Day, Mr. Patrick won by 20 points. The reason was simple: His story and his style had already connected with voters, and when he spoke directly into the camera in fall ads asking voters to believe the best about him, they wanted to and they did.

    Notice the common theme… Axlerod knows that if he makes the campaign be about giving the candidate the benefit of the doubt that this plays right into American notions of fairness and redemption.

    Thus any and real concerns that there may be about the candidate is neutralized by this emotional fog established by calls to give benefit of the doubt.

    For Hope and change. He ran the same campaign that Axelrod has Obama running… an amorphous ,abstract, non-traditional campaign of style..not about issues but about feelings about issues.

    The people of Mass. voted for Patrick overwhelmingly because of this.

    However, as soon as he got into office, they discovered that he was not the man of those words. He himself was not about any of those values that filled his speeches. he just read them well.

    Nine weeks into his four-year term, Patrick is struggling to keep his balance amid a wave of mini-scandals and bad press days.

    The normally composed governor seemed rattled yesterday when asked what he would say to core supporters who may have begun to question his judgment. “Don’t give up on me yet,” he said.

    Many grass-roots supporters haven’t; they remain fiercely loyal to the chief executive they helped elect. His missteps, they say, were at worst innocent blunders that should not eclipse his positive agenda.

    “I myself and people I talk to around here are just as strong,” said Paul Hush, a campaign volunteer from Brewster. “They still see a real person behind all these stories and are convinced he’s going to be a wonderful governor.”

    But there are emerging hints of displeasure and unease among some supporters.

    “He was going to shake things up,” said Lisa Willis, 36, of Waltham, who voted for Patrick. “I knew he was a lawyer and he had money, but he seemed to be able to talk to people and to take an interest in a grassroots approach. Now, that all seems to be gone. It was a facade.”

    and a year later

    Gov. Deval Patrick rode into office 16 months ago on a wave of hope and optimism, but the public’s patience for change in the politics of Beacon Hill appears to be waning.

    A new poll released yesterday shows that Patrick’s approval rating is at an all-time low, with just 41 percent of adults over 18 saying they approve of the job Patrick is doing as governor.

    Another 56 percent of responders said they disapprove, just a month after those numbers were reversed with 53 percent approving of Patrick’s work from the corner office.

    The poll, sponsored by WBZ-TV and conducted by Survey USA, surveyed 600 adults earlier this month and has a margin of error of 4.1 percent.

    While Democrats still have faith in the governor, the poll shows that 60 percent of Independent voters are unhappy with the results they are seeing from the Patrick administration, and even self-identified liberals are evenly split on the governor’s job performance.

    a reporter says

    The second week of April was, by the roller-coaster standards of the Patrick era, a pretty good one for the governor. He won legislative approval for some of his long-sought corporate tax hikes, touted progress on several job-development initiatives, and won plaudits for a widely-covered speech on the economy. But when Survey USA went into the field the weekend of April 11 for its regular tracking of the governor’s job approval rating, the results marked an all-time low.

    Here are the numbers, just reported to us by Survey USA today. They show Patrick winning approval from an anemic 41% of registered voters, while an astonishing 56% give thumbs down.

    A special survey we commissioned with a smaller sample on April 9th had the spread at 41-49%. But it’s probably better for direct comparison purposes to match these results up with the last 600-adult tracking poll taken in mid-February (before Bookgate).

    Back then, Patrick’s approval/disapproval was 47-45%, not great, but not that bad. But now, his disapproval is off the charts, especially among men: 61% of them now disapprove of his work, up from 47% in mid-winter. All age groups are markedly less satisfied with Patrick’s performance now than they were two months ago, none more so than the 35-54 demographic, where his approval has collapsed from 44% to 30% and his disapproval has jumped an eye-popping 18 points to 68%, George W. Bush-like numbers. Democrats are losing patience, too; his 61-31% spread of February has dwindled to 53-44%. In the ideological categories, moderates continue to desert Patrick. And get this: even liberals, who approved of his work by a whopping 70-25% spread back then, are now evenly divided on the topic. And one final note: with the warning that they’re only about 20% of the sample in each survey, a relatively small slice that could skew the numbers somewhat, voters in southeastern Massachusetts (including the Cape) seem to be especially alienated. His rating there was 47-44% in February; now, it’s 31-66%.

    About his false promises

    Gov Patrick’s Approval Ratings Sink
    Gov Deval Patrick promised Massachusetts the world when he campaigned. I can’t think of any of his campaign promises he’s kept yet. So, not surprisingly, a new poll from SurveyUSA shows that 56% of Massachusetts voters disapprove of the job Governor Patrick is doing, a new high.

    Rob Willington of the MassGOP responded, “Governor Patrick is sinking under the weight of failed campaign promises that he clearly had no intention of fulfilling. Candidate Deval promised us the moon, but Governor Deval has shown us that the Democrat party is the party of higher taxes, less transparency, and bigger government.”

    A FEW OF DEVAL’S BROKEN PROMISES

    Cut Government Waste

    Candidate Deval: “Patrick has repeatedly said he can find $735 million in wasteful spending in the yearly budget.” (Boston Globe, 12/15/06)

    Governor Deval: “According to audience members, Travaglini said when he objected to the figure, Patrick backed off and said he didn’t really mean it.’ (Boston Globe, 12/15/06)

    Transparency

    Candidate Deval: ”Patrick had pledged a transparent administration during his 19 month election campaign.” (AP, 12/12/06)

    Governor Deval: ‘The Boston Globe reported that Patrick aides passed out the confidentiality agreements during the first meeting of the 15 transition ‘working groups’ the governor-elect has created. Though not backed by any punitive action, they state: “I hereby agree to maintain the confidentiality of any information that I may learn…..and not to disclose any such information to anyone outside the Patrick/Murray Transition Committee.”’ (AP, 12/12/06)

    Property Taxes

    Candidate Deval: “I believe a rational revenue structure, sensible tax policy and fair distribution of state resources to cities and towns – so that property taxes can be lowered and kept low – are essential elements of a true partnership between state and local government” (Deval Patrick – ‘Moving Massachusetts Forward’ p. 36)

    Governor Deval: “At the same time, the outgoing financial official for the Massachusetts Port Authority [Leslie Kirwan] said she isn’t sure the state can cut property taxes” (AP, 12/8/06)

    End the “Big Dig” Culture

    Candidate Deval: “Throughout the gubernatorial campaign, Patrick promised to be an alternative to ‘the Big Dig culture’ on Beacon Hill and continually criticized the project’s management.” (Boston Herald, 12/14/06)

    Governor Deval: “Gov.-elect Deval Patrick said he would be “crazy” not to consider longtime Big Dig insider Jim Aloisi for transportation secretary, even though Patrick demonized the project’s political culture during the campaign for governor” (Boston Herald, 12/15/06)

    Anyone thinknig about Obama , but who has doubts about him.. and who also might be pursuaded by appeals to think the best of him… please look into the track record of Patrick. He is the model that Axelrod is using for Obama’s campaign.

    We can expect the same thing to happen if Obama should win. But only this time the damage wont be limited to Massachusetts .

    Posted by Vince P - Chicago
    July 25th, 2008 at 9:11 am

19. “A denial-of-service attack (DoS attack) is an attempt to make a computer resource unavailable to its intended users. It generally consists of the concerted, malevolent efforts of a person or persons to prevent an Internet site or service from functioning efficiently or at all, temporarily or indefinitely.”

    “A DoS attack can be perpetrated in a number of ways [such as by] obstructing the communication media between the intended users and the victim so that they can no longer communicate adequately.”

    Posted by RC from Smithtown
    July 25th, 2008 at 11:55 am

20. RC- LOL LOL LOL

    Wait, I’m not laughing anymore bc it’s true.

    Posted by Cheryl Carroll
    July 25th, 2008 at 2:14 pm