HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » calimary » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 796 Next »

calimary

Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 38,486

Journal Archives

"G" in GOP, in this case, stands for Grifter.

Btw - LOVE LOVE LOVE this, louis-t! "GOP party money"! Of course! It wasn't for the POLITICAL party, it was for the shmoozy, drinky, hors d'oeuvres-y, hang-out-and-watch-the-ball-game-in-the-fancy-seats-with-the-VIPs party. The party with the free-flowing drinks and platters of tasty num-nums and hot 'n' cold-running high rollers. THAT party.

Actually, if I may, it was NOT a cakewalk for her in New York. NOT IN THE LEAST.

Anybody remember that? She was laughed at, sneered. Cue the eyeball rolling. There was a TON of that - from New Yorkers who were already cynical and distrusting of her and CERTAINLY the media. Yeah, First Lady thinks she can come in here and take over. Yeah, who the hell does she think she is? Yeah, she's a fucking carpetbagger! Doesn't live here! NEVER lived here! Knows nothing about New York. Why is she here? She doesn't belong. Outsider. Not one of us. Just using her big name to pad her ego. Who asked HER? Who the hell invited HER? Nothing but an elitist. She was First Lady so now she thinks she's a Senator???? Just looking for a nice cushy new job... Dilettante of the first order. She's so entitled! She doesn't get it. Not like us. Can't understand New York. Spoiled. Coddled. Out-of-touch. ALL THAT. ALL THAT. AND MORE.

She was badmouthed and scorned and trashed and dismissed and demeaned and laughed at. And she got humble, buckled down, rolled up her sleeves, put on her "traveling pants," and went to work - all over the state on that listening tour, meeting people, hearing them out and taking note of what they said and the issues they spoke about, a huge education she gave herself. Just did nothing but work work work work work. And more work. Studying what the people said, collecting input everywhere she could, trying to learn everything that the people she presumed to represent wanted and needed and were concerned about. She worked like a dog. I don't know where or how she found the energy, especially in that DECIDEDLY uphill battle, with all that derision and doubt and cynicism raining down on her at every step. GOD, the cynicism! As bad as I see now.

And guess what? She won them over. The hard way. YES she lucked out when giuliana bailed and rick "Who?" lazio stepped in, instead. But she did the work. She didn't just slide into that job on some royal litter, like some visiting empress. Nobody handed it to her. She worked for it, and evidently, sufficient numbers of New Yorkers were convinced that she'd earned it.

It was NO cakewalk, my friend. And nobody handed it to her. Hell, nobody WANTED to hand it to her! Don't know if you remember, but I sure do - you could almost literally SEE the eyeballs rolling all over everywhere when she announced. Especially throughout New York State. Everybody from the "Yeah, SUUUUUUURE" Caucus came out and threw stink bombs. And it just didn't phase her - which I found rather remarkable. She worked - and worked HARD - for every bit of it. She deserved to win - because she took it seriously and worked her ass off. The second time around, she got reelected by a lot of the same people who turned their noses up at her the first time. Why? Because the majority opinion was that she'd done a good job in her first term, and earned the right to have her lease renewed. The reviews of her work, some of them begrudging, turned out to be favorable - that she'd done a very good job representing the people of New York.

Yeah, no shit. That's "comforting" as hell. NOT.

How many purported "rules" were bent or flat-out broken for this guy? So this rich sheriff's sugar daddy could go play dress-up out in the field? Fully armed? AND EXCEEDINGLY dangerous? SHEESH. Were they really that hard-up for money in that sheriff's department? A few tax increases could have covered their expenses rather than looking for a bunch of wannabes with big bucks to spread around. If he was a buddy of the sheriff, NO WONDER they'd give him all kinds of passes and covers and favorable treatment and leniency! Wonder how much has been swept under the rug to try to cover for this guy? AND/OR others like him? How many other aging male groupies with open checkbooks have they done this for, too (but they just didn't get caught because maybe they weren't out on some sting operation that day)?

"Deputy" Robert Bates and others like him should have been NOTHING MORE THAN CROSSING GUARDS - if ANYTHING. And absolutely, without ANY doubt - UNARMED. He had NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER out on dangerous sting duty with the pros. SHEESH. It's really just horrendous to think that this kind of shit goes on and MIGHT only stop after they needlessly and negligently kill somebody.

I suspected as much, but what's remarkable is how the dog mouths the words on cue.

THAT is pretty impressive. Really helps sell it. The dog is totally on it. Don't know how he managed that!

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah. "Nuisance flooding."

Un-freakin'-believable.

Oh but nobody wants to think about those silly things.

Besides, it's bad for BIZness... No profit in it.



Hey, did you hear the one about "nuisance flooding" in coastal Florida? Calling it what it is - "CLIMATE CHANGE" and even "rising ocean levels" must not be spoken in the Sunshine State.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141071038

Pretty pathetic, not to mention annoying, to think that it all boils down to THAT.

That ONE thing. That single thing is just so powerful and WILL strongly influence the next 20, 30, maybe 50 years. At least a generation or two. We've got three on there who aren't exactly spring chickens. Whether it's scalia or thomas or RBG, at least one of 'em is gonna give up the ghost one of these days and retire. At least one of 'em is gonna need to be replaced.

This is a Presidential Election year. Dems tend to come out to vote more. So THIS would also be the time to make as strong a showing as possible in the Senate. And farther down-ticket, too. If you can possibly bring yourself to do so, vote ALL "Ds". I have found over many years voting in many elections that some general themes tend to show themselves again and again. You CAN pretty much make generalities, a lot of the time. If you dig down deep enough, you'll see the GOP is reactionary or old-fashioned on multiple issues, where most of the people who see things differently and want to look ahead tend to wind up with the Dems. You'll notice the business interests that sponsor the "r's" versus those who support "D's". And look at what the organizations are who are lining up on each side. And the people. Are these a bunch of wish-you'd-go-away's from the last term run by the other party? Are too many of 'em from the Heritage Foundation or some such? Sometimes the research is easy. There are all kinds of "tells" that tip their hand and blow their cover and their attempted subterfuge. Look at who they hang out with or which names keep coming up on the same issues. When I looked down the list of PNACers and found Michael O'Hanlon's name on there - I was SHOCKED! During the run-up to the Iraq War (and during the war too), when you could barely find ANYBODY on the left getting any face time on TV. Except Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, at the time the ONLY even mildly leftward-leaning organization out there, compared with an expanding collection of right/far-right outfits. And he's got a mark on his soul, with jeb bush and one of his foreign policy advisors - paul wolfowitz, and richard b. cheney and the kagans and the "Dark Prince" richard perle and the whole rotten stinking rest of those weasels, too. Election by election I've noticed that this is a common thread.

It would also be intriguing to study the governorships and state legislatures in various states while it's still early. Which one's on the brink of going red? Which one's on the brink of going blue? Which needs to be shorn up and by how much? Where do we have a shot at turning an "r" to a "D"? And for four-year terms that start or end in 2018 - it might be smart to start lining some things up ahead of time. Or at least studying and analyzing more closely.

And ANOTHER thing about this next one being 2016: It's a KEY election cycle. That will begin to set us up for the next Census. That always happens on a zero year. 1980. 1990. 2000. 2010. 2020. 2030... Which CON positions are six-year terms? That'd take us OVER the 0-year mark and there'd be a D in power when the Census is taken and Congressional districts are reapportioned to reflect changes in population that the Census will reveal. YOU DO NOT WANT THE GOP IN CHARGE ON THOSE YEARS!!!!!! Haven't we seen enough of that ridiculous snaky gerrymandering of districts? They look like what you have to trace in the sky while you're trying to spot the stars that will allow you to put constellations together. Ridiculously ridiculous!!! OUR team has to be in charge for the Census and the impact it has on Congressional districts. The GOP so far has very shrewdly stacked the deck.

Fortunately, SOME Dems have finally been shaken awake about this. Freakin' FINALLY!!!!!

http://dlcc.org/news/dlcc-launches-advantage-2020-key-success-next-round-redistricting-70-million-plus-effort

I just hope it's not too late.

Iz Not Sunday without Sunday LOLCats!

Iz not black rug without eyes!

And I do like that guinea pig takeover. Looks like she broke out in big furry warts or something!

MAN, Ohio Joe! Holy Cow! What a story!

Glad you lived to tell the tale!

I'm told people who go through an experience as profound as this - come back and notice a new, or renewed, appreciation for the little stuff. The sights, the smells, the sounds, little miracles in every little day. You perceive things fresh, with new eyes and new ears, and maybe a whole new mindset.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 796 Next »