Delaware Liberal General Election Endorsements

Filed in Delaware by on October 27, 2008

We’ll just skip US Senate because it will come as no surprise to anyone that DelawareLiberal is endorsing Joe Biden.

It won’t come as any surprise that DelawareLiberal is endorsing Jack Markell and Matt Denn for Governor and Lt. Governor, respectively. Even though there isn’t much surprise and there isn’t much doubt as to outcome, we do want to say a few words about this race. One of the things that every Democrat (and progressives!) can be proud of is the way that both Markell and Denn have conducted themselves thoughout this campaign. Jack Markell survived a bruising primary with John Carney and survived with his good ideas, dignity and honor intact. While there was plenty of tension (and some incidents that should not have happened) during the primary, Markell always conducted himself with respect for voters and their choices. Denn’s primary was truncated, but he similarly conducted himself with respect and dignity. Honor, respect, dignity and a ton of great ideas for State government are indicators of the kind of temperament and intelligence that would strongly indicate leadership worth trusting in. In contrast, both Bill Lee and Charlie Copeland have conducted themselves in a particularly craven manner — Judge Lee in skipping organized debates and forums during the primary season and both indulging in dishonest advertising (both attack ads and bio ads). Both seem to think that in this election season where Americans have largely decided on having a more serious political debate than usual, that the normal Republican playbook of misrepresenting your opponent’s history, ginning up attacks based on vaporware and trotting out the small government no taxes mantra without having a real plan behind it is simply not enough. Even the idea of splitting up the DN from the REC is an unspeakably small idea at a time when larger, more strategic thinking is needed.

Jack Markell and Matt Denn have demonstrated by their temperament and willingness to engage on issues, as well as by the extensive detail of their plans for governing, that they have more than earned the trust and confidence that the state will be in good hands over these next four challenging years.

US Congress

Delaware Liberal Endorsement: Karen Hartley Nagle

Delaware Liberal enthusiastically endorses Karen Hartley Nagle and believes that all Democrats and all people who put a premium on good government vote for her. Karen’s opponent in the race, Mike Castle, has been a disaster for this state siding with George Bush for the past eight years while claiming to be a moderate. During his time in Congress, Castle has been a useless non-entity as banks deregulated themselves into obscene profits through the 90’s and us into economic calamity.

His voting record is nothing less than horrendous where it concerning the major issues that faced the Congress. Mike Castle is either too old or too beholden to the far right wing of the Republican party to continue representing the deep blue Democratic state of Delaware in the US Congress. There is no need to argue about why he sucks as long as we all agree that he sucks.

Even if Hartley Nagle losses this election it is important for every Democrat to vote against Castle in order to register disapproval of Castle’s voting record and to make it easier for someone to beat Castle in the future.

Insurance Commissioner:

No endorsement.

Tags: , , , ,

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (55)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. P.I. says:

    Wise move. No winners in this race. I’m talking the Ins.Commisioner’s race.

  2. P.I. says:

    Sorry to see your KHN endorsement here.

  3. This is the cool in School, baby.

  4. Unstable Isotope says:

    I guessed right! No endorsement for Insurance Commissioner!

  5. Miscreant says:

    Biden, Markell, Denn, and Hartley Nagel were all very predictable. It’s also no surprise you don’t have the balls to endorse anyone for Insurance Commissioner. You know full well who the best candidate is. Could it be that your socialistl Greek Chorus isn’t singing in unison, or is it merely latent homophobia? This cowardly omission only reconfirms your status as an insignificant confederacy of useful idiots.

  6. Tom S. says:

    “Insurance Commissioner:

    No endorsement.”

    Weak.

  7. Joanne Christian says:

    HeartBREAKING NEWS on some DeLiB endorsements today!! Post by noon if I get this Monday to-do list out of the way.

  8. jason330 says:

    …or is it merely latent homophobia?

    That’s good. I’m going to think about htis comment throughout the day and chuckle to myself.

    Tom S,

    I guess none of the candidates were particularly impressive or revolting.

  9. nemski says:

    Any endorsement has to have 100% approval from DL posters and the Insurance Commisioner race did not meet this criteria.

    Must have been a weak batch of Kool-Aid. ;-)

  10. RSmitty says:

    Hey…crazy thought. Instead of skipping Paul Clark, like I was going to do, let’s all band together and write in Bill Dunn. Any takers?

  11. Miscreant says:

    “Any endorsement has to have 100% approval from DL posters and the Insurance Commisioner race did not meet this criteria.”

    Egads! … a weak link in the collective daisy chain.

  12. meatball says:

    Agreed. Weak. This progressive will pull the lever for the closeted progressive John Brady. The big guy (Mr. Brady) has always backed the little guy in unjust cases and causes.

  13. liberalgeek says:

    Actually, it takes 2 no votes to scuttle an endorsement, not one.

    There are certainly contributors that will not vote for the Republican (just as there are people at DelawarePolitics that are going to vote for Lee). There are also contributors here that will not vote for KWS. Thus the “no endorsement.”

  14. liberalgeek says:

    Smitty, unless Dunn is a registered write-in, the result is the same, no vote at all. You are welcome to do it, but Dunn will never know.

    I really wish I had started my write-in campaign for IC earlier.

  15. Unstable Isotope says:

    Bill Dunn is not registered for write-in. I might do it anyway because I can’t vote for Paul Clark.

  16. anonone says:

    Any signs of viable institutional life in the repub party, locally or nationally, needs to be crushed. Vote Democratic or vote third party, but don’t vote for ANY repub, whatever you do. Any burning embers left of the party should be extinguished this year.

    If John Brady had more integrity, he’d be an independent or a Democrat. Staying in the repub party, particularly given his personal preferences, is crazy considering that the vast majority of the members would like to take away his many of his civil rights (or stone him to death, if they could).

    All the possible reasons for staying or voting repub (fiscally conservative, small government, better on national security and the economy, etc.) have been shown to be utter lies and nonsense. Basically, they are united around taking away women’s reproductive rights and denying people their freedom and civil liberties.

    Crush ‘em at the polls until they’re dead, I say.

  17. RSmitty says:

    Bill Dunn is not registered for write-in. I might do it anyway because I can’t vote for Paul Clark.

    That’s my point, right there. At least show a discontent and vote for his primary opponent…again!

  18. RSmitty says:

    If John Brady had more integrity, he’d be an independent or a Democrat.

    You obviously have no idea why he went to the Republican party to begin with (he’s an ex-Democrat). Stop thinking nationally and look locally for your start. Stop your hating for maybe one minute and maybe you’d understand what happened…if you care, which I would risk saying you don’t.

  19. RSmitty says:

    All the possible reasons for staying or voting repub (fiscally conservative, small government, better on national security and the economy, etc.) have been shown to be utter lies and nonsense

    Does that apply when voting for stellar Democrats like Bill “Build With” Bell?

    This just goes to show why applying stereotypes and blind bias are far more dangerous than using critical thought process.

  20. delawaredem says:

    Jeesh, Jason. Two years and you can’t spell KHN’s name correctly? I edited.

  21. Miscreant says:

    “Does that apply when voting for stellar Democrats like Bill “Build With” Bell?”

    Or for Democrat John ” DUI, smack my wife, compulsive liar (but I’m really sorry for all the above) Atkins?

  22. anonone says:

    RSmitty,

    You are thinking tactically about individuals whereas I am thinking strategically about furthering the progressive movement nationally and locally.

    You want better choices in Democrats? So do I! Let’s get better Democrats by having better primary candidates. Let’s get better Dems by changing the party organization. It is ludicrous to think that voting repub is going to help get better Dems or improve government in Dover.

    “Blind bias” you say? Open your eyes up, man! If you can’t see what the repubs have done to the country today and project its current and future effects on LOCAL economies and budgets, than you’re the one who must be blind.

    I’ll take a few bad Dems in the short run to get rid of the repubs in the long run. And I am not saying that you should vote for the Democrat – vote third party, write-in, or don’t pull the lever. Personally, I would never vote for Atkins, for example. Just don’t vote repub!

  23. Disbelief says:

    anonone, based on your thinking, Daniello/Minner/Carper would control 100% of the Legislature and Administration. This would be a really bad thing, even from a Democrat’s point of view.

  24. RSmitty says:

    anonone…thing is, there are individual Repubs that are good people, but your argument would just as soon flush out a good person to allow a shitty one in, simply because of a blind bias. That’s my “flip-side” to your point on that.

  25. delawaredem says:

    Miscreant, Atkins is one of yours. A lying abusive drunk Republican.

  26. RSmitty says:

    A lying abusive drunk Republican

    Hee….don’t even want to admit it. Don’t forget that the Democratic Party already carried him to victory once (vs Lifflander).

  27. anonone says:

    Disbelief,

    Only temporarily, during the transition. A new generation of progressive politics is on the rise.

    RSmitty,

    there are individual Repubs that are good people

    Yes, that is true. My bias isn’t blind – it is strategic. We need to sacrifice some good people who happen to be repubs and tolerate some bad dems like Carper as we grow the progressive movement. My hope is that eventually we make all repubs and bad dems irrelevant.

  28. Miscreant says:

    Nope, I’m not a Republican, or a Democrat. I’ve always voted for what I considered to be the best candidate for the people. Individualism… try it, it’s liberating.

  29. RSmitty says:

    My hope is that eventually we make all repubs and bad dems irrelevant.

    so, you think there is no bias in your argument at all?

  30. anonone says:

    As I have said repeatedly, my bias is clearly against repubs because of their freely-chosen political party and what they have done collectively to our country. I don’t deny being biased, but I deny that my bias is blind. It clearly is not.

    Maybe I can simplify this for you: if Star Player plays for the Phillies this year, I want him to be successful because I want the Phillies to win. If Star Player is traded to an opposing team (say the Mets), then I am going to want him to fail miserably. Why? Because I am biased towards the Phillies and I want them to succeed, not the Mets.

    Does this help?

  31. RSmitty says:

    While I, as a die-hard Philly-everything fan, enjoy the illustration you made, it doesn’t work. Sports in no way affects my life like a politician potentially can. If it’s all about “winning” rather than the right person to effectuate good change, then that’s your perogative, but I disagree.

    I would happily vote for a good Democrat or Independent over a bad Republican, no matter the tide or the swing of the pendulum, or whatever cliche you want to give it. As a matter fact, not only would I do it, I already have in my life…every General Election I participated in.

    Your talking-down, from above, aside, I understand what you are saying. To me, it’s a blind bias, i.e.: not voting for a republican, because they are a republican (that IS a BLIND bias, because you can’t see the person, you only see a label). I think we understand each other, we’re just not going to share the same square on this grid, if you will.

  32. anonone says:

    RSmitty,

    I was using the sports team as an analogy. My bias against repubs isn’t about winning or losing, it is about doing what it takes to destroy a political political party and a movement that has terribly damaged our country. The repubs have damaged our country in horrible and previously (to me) unimaginable ways.

    I can appreciate voting across party lines, and I have done so in my past (pre-GWB). But I don’t vote on personality and likability. I vote on records, positions on issues, and judgement. If a person has joined or remained in the repubs during the past 8 years, that demonstrates very poor judgement to me. It is not the fact that they are a repub so much as the judgement that they have shown in freely making that choice and aligning themselves with that philosophy.

    We can disagree with how influential that should be is evaluating a politician’s judgement, but to me it is a deal-breaker.

    Another analogy: I’d never date somebody who smoked no matter what their other qualities – it is a deal breaker for me. I don’t think that is a blind bias, but you might.

    And I am OK not sharing the same square on the grid with you. It is people like you that make these threads interesting, and I appreciate the dialog.

  33. RSmitty says:

    Another analogy: I’d never date somebody who smoked no matter what their other qualities – it is a deal breaker for me. I don’t think that is a blind bias, but you might.

    Well, sheesh, c’mon already! It depends what that person is smoking.

    I KID! I KID! :-P

  34. anonone says:

    You have a point there… :)

  35. Liz says:

    It is a shame that Delaware Liberal did not endorse Karen Weldin-Stewart. Too bad you bought the garbage and lies spread about her. The Democratic Party supports her, the primary voters voted for her, why didn’t you? This is a shame.

  36. liberalgeek says:

    The Democratic party supports Harris McDowell, Tom Carper and Ruth Ann Minner as well. I am comfortable with the non-endorsement.

  37. Disbelief says:

    Didn’t the Democratic Party support Carney, too?

  38. RSmitty says:

    …AND…the state chairman.

    Who won that 41st RD primary?

  39. jason330 says:

    The hated union. Dave must be pissed off at Brady right now.

  40. RSmitty says:

    He’s a media-type now, Jason. He loves everyone…including you.

  41. liberalgeek says:

    Just like Rick Jensen.

  42. RSmitty says:

    He loves you, too, Geek.

  43. I think it will be better to write in a candidate against Paul Clark, Chris Coons or whomever you don’t want to vote for and yet don’t want to leave fallow.

    Is it better to have a ‘vote’ on record than if their record just shows a ‘lack of a vote’?

  44. Sedgwick says:

    Speaking as an activist in the Democratic Party, anonone’s logic is incredibly dangerous. I am supporting almost all Democrats this election cycle, with the exception of Congress and Insurance Commissioner. I have a lot of admiration for the Dems, but I also realize that we have a lot of vices. Be it in ideology or (all too frequently in this state) individuals, there’s nothing perfect about this party. It’s the most viable progressive force in American politics, but only when you’re voting for progressives. I, for one, will never cast a ballot for McDowell, Keeley, Adams, DeLuca, Minner or anybody else in the old guard.

    Meanwhile, there are perfectly good Republicans running. John Brady and Tyler Nixon come to mind on the state level. It’s frankly foolish to think that either party is monolithically good or bad. Furthermore, it’s dangerous. The two party system has already reduced the political arena to a bunch of sniveling babies trying to one-up one another and losing sight of their goal in the meantime, with no fear of repercussion. Imagine if there was only one party to work with. I’d rather not, myself. If Adams doesn’t have to concern himself with, at the least, a minimal reelection campaign, then what’s to stop him from personally raping Delaware?

  45. anonone says:

    Tyler Nixon is supporting McCain-Palin. You think that shows good judgement? He is also a supporter of Ron Paul (R, racist nut) and used to work for Newt Gingrich. Tyler is a nice guy, but he is no progressive or “perfectly good” republican.

    The repub party IS monolithically bad, just look around. Bush and Cheney have had the support of the vast majority of repubs (80%+) for virtually the entire last eight years. Bush and Cheney, McCain and Palin are who the repubs are. The repub party needs to be crushed and defeated like any other freedom-hating totalitarian political group.

    Primaries are the vehicle to use to keep a dominate political party responsive to people. Del dems need to learn how to primary better.

    You can call my “logic” dangerous, but I will say to you that there has been nothing more dangerous in the last 60 years of this country than the rise of the repubs to power. We need to crush them locally to defeat them nationally.

    You don’t have to vote for anybody you don’t like; nobody is forcing you to. Vote third party if you don’t like the Dem. Just don’t vote repub.

  46. Sedgwick says:

    Oh, dear God.

    “Tyler Nixon is supporting McCain-Palin. You think that shows good judgement? He is also a supporter of Ron Paul (R, racist nut) and used to work for Newt Gingrich. Tyler is a nice guy, but he is no progressive or “perfectly good” republican.”

    First of all, I never said he was a progressive, because he isn’t. He’s a libertarian. He doesn’t support Obama because of his proposed economic measures. Paul’s racism is up for debate, but ignoring that, do you really want to talk about associations? They make no difference, and if they did, you sure as shit wouldn’t be supporting Obama. It might be a bit much to ask, but look into his policy. He’s a perfectly good R.

    I’d like to see your poll saying 80+% of Rs support Bush-Cheney. I have one from 2007
    (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19209733/) saying that barely 60% support him. I have one from ARG saying that just under 50% support him. (http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/).

    “be crushed and defeated like any other freedom-hating totalitarian political group.”

    This is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve heard in quite some time. I can’t even begin to address it. Yes, social conservatism is largely depressing for civil liberties and the like, and yes, it’s recently taken the form of big gov’t, but to call them freedom-hating or totalitarian is utterly ridiculous. You want to give that label to Bush-Cheney, go for it. But those are neo-cons, not Republicans.

    “Primaries are the vehicle to use to keep a dominate political party responsive to people. Del dems need to learn how to primary better.”

    Elections are the vehicle to use to keep a government responsive to people. Too few parties or too many parties is an incredibly dangerous thing. And if you’ve got a way to get the DelDems to primary less savagely, please don’t hold back.

    “You can call my “logic” dangerous”

    You quoted it for me. Thanks.

    “there has been nothing more dangerous in the last 60 years of this country than the rise of the repubs to power.”

    Republicans like Richard Nixon, who presided over the creation of the EPA, who passed the Clean Air/Water Acts, who created OSHA, who ended the draft, who helped integrate school districts, who called for comprehensive health insurance in 1974? Maybe Gerald Ford, who gave us John Paul Stevens, who supported the Equal Rights Amendment? Or perhaps Eisenhower, who created the Interstate Highway System, who stood at the beginning of the modern civil rights movement? Pete DuPont, who gave you the prosperity Delaware’s enjoyed for decades? Russ Peterson, who gave us the Coastal Zone Act? Surely you jest.

    “Vote third party if you don’t like the Dem.”

    You know, if we didn’t have the rabid partisans that you embody so perfectly, that might be a viable option.

  47. anonone says:

    Ok, you’d like to see the poll? Go here:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/107128/Bush-Approval-Rating-Down-60-Among-Republicans.aspx

    As you can see it was above 80% for most of his term.

    Let’s see, under repub rule:
    Torture
    Detention without charges or trial
    War of aggression
    Massive killings of civilians
    Use of the Justice Department for political prosecutions
    Stifling free speech
    Stealing elections

    What part of totalitarian don’t you understand? And all this was supported by 80+ of the repub membership, not just neo-cons. (see above). And look how many support Mcinsane-Pain now.

    And citing Nixon and Ford doesn’t help your case at all. They were the beginning of the repub criminal enterprise. Yes, they did some good things, but Robert Kennedy or Hubert Humphrey or Eugene McCarthy would have done much much more.

    By the way, Russ Peterson left the repub party because he gets it. You don’t.

    In regards to Tyler Nixon, I didn’t say Tyler was a progressive, now did I? And I a wasn’t talking about his “associations”. I was talking about who he supports politically as a reflection on his judgement. And do you support him over his Democratic opponent?

    You say that you’re an an activist in the Democratic Party, and yet you slander Obama for his “associations”, right out of Palin’s playbook. I think you’re in the wrong party, Sedgwick.

  48. Sedgwick says:

    I’m not excusing the actions of the Republicans who advanced the neo-con agenda. Agreed, they were terrible. But saying that they’re terrible is entirely different from saying that the entire party needs to be crushed. You want to debate issues, fine. You want to debate ideology, fine. That’s separate from party.

    BTW, dipshit, “stealing elections” was the product of a campaign, a corrupt secretary of state, and a 5-4 ruling on a nonpartisan court, not a political party. I hate using the term “BDS”, but damn if you don’t have it.

    “And look how many support Mcinsane-Pain now.”

    It’s entirely feasible not to be of the same heinous caliber as Sarah Palin and still support the woman because she’s in your party. What about all the republicans supporting Barack Obama? Or all the Democrats who support people like Thurman Adams?

    “Criminal enterprise”? Really? You don’t think that’s a bit extreme? Jesus Christ, do you guys just have one moonbat posting under thirty names on the blogs, or are there meetings I don’t know about? I could see Nixon being called a criminal (I could also see Clinton or the four Dems in the Keating Five) , but Ford? What exactly did he do? Also, JFTR, leadership ability is independent of personal character.

    Whether or not McCarthy or Kennedy would have done more is totally irrelevant. I’m not disputing that Democrats are, by and large, preferable to Republicans. I’m disputing that Republicans are so reprehensible that they should be crushed as a party. You want to make the absolutist statement that Republicans are all bad, that they’ve been the biggest danger to this country for 60 years, you better as hell be able to back it up. Maybe you’re not a fan of the EPA.

    Peterson left the party, but he was elected within the last 60 years, and if what you’re saying is true, he shouldn’t have been. Strom Thurmond switched parties a couple times as well, you know.

    “In regards to Tyler Nixon, I didn’t say Tyler was a progressive, now did I?

    Nope, but you sure as shit made it sound like I did.

    “And I a wasn’t talking about his “associations”. I was talking about who he supports politically as a reflection on his judgement.”

    Associations go beyond personal associations. One doesn’t have to lack judgment to disagree with Obama’s fiscal policy and support a Republican because of it. He doesn’t have to lack judgment to support a fellow libertarian in the GOP primary. Again, how about you look at the issues, at his actual stances, rather than slapping the label on for him. And for the record, I do support Nixon over Brady. The Delaware Democratic Party is corrupt as hell, and I think Nixon’s a healthy dose of exactly what the hell we need.

    I’m not slandering Obama. I’m saying that he does have associations with people like Wright and Ayers, and your reaction proves my point: those associations are irrelevant.

    Oh! Thank GOD you’re here to choose my party affiliation for me! I was totally incapable of deciding who best represented my views, but now that I’ve come across this anonymous commenter (who, somehow, has made John Daniello and Liz Allen coalesce into one illogical pile of intellectual vomit), I totally realize that I simply don’t belong in a party where I could possibly insinuate that we’ve done something wrong or that–God forgive me for saying it–one of our own was simply too overzealous.

    You take a little bit of everything wrong with our party and use it smear the liberal name. Right out of the Pelosi playbook. Frankly, anonone, I think you’re on the wrong website. 911truth.org is a few doors over.

  49. anonone says:

    1) Ford pardoned Nixon, remember? Just like Poppy Bush pardoned all of his Iran-Contra co-conspirators and GWB commuted Libby’s sentence. (We’ll see the ink from GWB’s pardon pen flowing again before 1/20/09, I’m sure.) So it seems that every time the repubs got in power in the last 60 years, they got a criminal enterprise going. Does the name Abramoff mean anything to you? Stevens?

    2) So I show you GWB’s overwhelming support among the repubs for the last 8 years and list their crimes, and you ignore it. Furthermore, every good thing that the pre-GWB repub admins did that you listed in your first post, the current repubs have tried to roll back. Every single one, including the EPA. But lets not let facts get in the way when you can call me names, right?

    3) The SCOTUS judges that helped steal the election were ALL repubs. The theft had the support of the entire party. Not a single repub party leader spoke out against it.

    4) Tyler Nixon says that he hates Bush/Cheney yet he is supporting somebody who voted with Bush 90% of the time, including his economic policies. You think that shows good judgement? And add Palin on top of that? C’mon. What evidence do you have that Brady is corrupt? None, right? Some “Democratic” activist you are. Talk about slandering by association.

    5) Obama is not supporting Wright or Ayers. He has publicly disassociated himself from both of them. Nixon is still a repub supporting McCain-Palin. No comparison. You must love Sarah Palin seeing the way you parrot her talking points.

    6) Repubs are all about putting party over country, and Mcinsane-Palin are the perfect illustration of this. No sane person would ever consider Palin qualified to be POTUS, yet there she is at the top of the ticket with Mcinsane. Anybody who would vote for that ticket after what we have been through and are going through does not care about our country and does not belong in government, either locally or nationally.

    As I have said before, I don’t support all Dems. But I won’t ever support a repub. You seem to think that it is good to support a party that trashes the Constitution, ignores laws, and runs a criminal enterprise every time it gets in the White House. You can ignore the facts to instead call me names and say what a bad person I am for saying terrible things about repubs, but I don’t care. The repub party should be held forever in contempt and disgrace for its actions.

    Have a nice night.

  50. Sedgwick says:

    1) Sure, Abramoff and Stevens are crooks. So were plenty of Democrats. Again, you’re finding a connection between neocons more so than Republicans. And pardoning doesn’t make you a crook. It’s an explicit power granted to the president by Article II of the Constitution. Frankly, I agree with the pardoning of Nixon. The nation was divided, and it put the whole thing to rest.

    2) What, pray tell, am I ignoring? Your poll confirmed what I said before. And yes, Republicans tried to roll back these initiatives, no doubt. But this was spearheaded by neocons. Again, there’s a huge difference between a run-of-the-mill repub. and a neocon. And soooo sorry I called you a mean name. You poor little twit.

    3) You should really have a little bit of faith in the Supreme Court. It’s specifically engineered to make it as objective as humanly possible, and has very much held to that role. I have strong doubts that the case’s ruling was a partisan maneuver. I mean, really.

    4) Nixon is supporting McCain over somebody that has voted firmly against his economic views. That doesn’t require a lack of judgment. Just because you disagree doesn’t make it wrong. My argument isn’t that Brady specifically is corrupt, so much as it is that he stands in alignment with an incredibly corrupt party within the state. I think that certain Republicans are preferable to certain Democrats — namely those who don’t stand up when they should.

    5) Sarah Palin has a talking point saying that Obama’s associations with Ayers and Wright are irrelevant? Wow. And his support for McCain-Palin does not — I repeat, incase your one-lane mind passes over this — does NOT reflect upon his individual policy standpoints. I think his economic views are completely fair. I consider myself something of a libertarian, and while I’m somewhat more liberal, economically, than Nixon, I know he’s very forward-thinking socially. Again, if you took the time to look into people’s positions rather than simply group them together under one big “good” and one big “bad” label, you’d know that.

    6) Untrue. Entirely untrue. I’ll give you that Palin is not qualified to be POTUS and that Barack is better for the job than John McCain, but you’ve got to be shitting me. Doesn’t care about this country? Come off it. How arrogant could you possibly be? If you support conservative economical viewpoints, you don’t don’t care about this country. I think that the Founding Fathers might disagree with you on that one. That’s like saying that if you’re pro-choice, you don’t care about this country. Sure, pro-lifers may be convinced you’re wrong. But being wrong is your right. Do you suddenly no longer care about America because you support pro-choice candidates? There’s nothing anti-American about it.

    Also, you want to talk about party over country, take a look at Madam Speaker. That speech before the bailout vote? Way to fuck things up in the name of partisanship. For that matter, why don’t you look at virtually any DelDem? The problem isn’t republicanism, it’s being elected in a highly polarized, two-party system.

    I didn’t say it was good to support Republicans, I said it was stupid to support their elimination. A one party system is incredibly dangerous. Imagine if John Daniello ran this state, please. Those primaries you’re so fond of? They would never see the light of day.

    Also, stop whining about being called a bad name. We’re not 10 anymore, and even if we were, until you stop using stupid little monikers that only you and the fringe of the fringe think are funny (“McInsane, Failin’, McMad, McSame”… Christ, your rally chants probably bring tears of a different brand), you don’t get to complain about being called something mean. Fucktard.

  51. anonone says:

    You really have the repub talking points down, Sedgwick. Your name calling defines who you are, not me, and serves to reveals the weakness of your hand-waving defense of repub criminals and totalitarians.

    Political parties have come and gone throughout this country’s history. It is time for the repubs to go.

    Good day to you, sir.

  52. Sedgwick says:

    I SAY GOOD DAY.