HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » stevenleser » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

stevenleser

Profile Information

Name: Steven Leser
Gender: Male
Hometown: New York, NY
Home country: USA
Current location: NYC
Member since: Tue Jan 4, 2005, 05:36 PM
Number of posts: 29,372

Journal Archives

President Obama's State of the Union address was like hitting three grand slam homers in one game

and I am a Yankees' fan, so I know what that is like!

It looks like the GOP nominee will be Newt the Snarkapotamus

I have to admit that I am a bit disappointed in the GOP base. They had 9 candidates from whom to choose and at the end of all of the sound and fury, they seem to have settled on the meanest and nastiest candidate and zounds isnít Newt both of those things in spades. Some of you out there, fellow Democrats and Progressives in particular reading this would probably admonish me and say that I should know better than to expect anything different, but I did have some hope.

From the perspective of a Democrat, except for Ron Paul, there isnít any material difference in policies between any of the nine candidates who started out running for the GOP Presidential nomination. When Republicans seemed to be turning to Rick Santorum in Iowa, I thought, OK, channeling the perspective of someone who comes from the conservative viewpoint, that makes sense. Like all the rest of the GOP candidates, the things he stands for alternately anger and disgusts me or simply make me sad and concerned for the country, but I could understand that choice coming from voters who believe in the current American incarnation of conservatism.

I cannot understand the choice of Newt the Snarkapotamus.

Of all the people to carry the message of your point of view, why pick the meanest and nastiest person, the king of the sarcastic remark (Snark). Why pick someone who embodies the exact opposite of what you are trying to say in terms of family values. Excuse me, nearly the opposite. The only way Gingrich could have been closer to 180 degrees off from the Family values crowd would have been if the affairs he had behind the backs of both of his first two seriously ill wives would have been with men.

As a Democrat, all of what I just outlined in the above paragraph, and the rest of Newtís copious baggage is good news. It means getting my candidate re-elected is going to be that much easier. As a plain citizen, I have to deal with an unpleasant, nasty, snarky individual on my television screen and in the rest of the news media for the next ten months. This is what we are in for:



That snark by Gingrich has nothing to do with policy, nothing to do with how someone would govern and gives you no real insight into anything about Mitt Romney. Itís a nasty and vacuous remark and frankly, a waste of the time of the audience watching.

Now, some Conservatives, like those over at Free Republic, are of the mistaken opinion that those kind of nasty remarks if delivered by Newt against President Obama, will make the electorate like him and vote for him. That is not going to work like some conservatives think it will. Throughout American history, Presidential candidates like Newt who are snarky debaters and orators never win the general election. Americans do not like that kind of person as their President. Americans like Presidents who are well mannered and with whom they would feel comfortable coming to their home and having dinner. As the trite expression goes, Americans want their President to be someone with whom they would like to have a beer.

The last thing people want to do is go out and have a beer with a snarky person because that person might get snarky with you. But thatís who Gingrich is, it has been his best weapon in Republican debates so far and the Conservative base seems to like it. Unfortunately for them, I donít think it plays with independents and swayable moderates. The interesting part of the campaign if Newt gets the nomination will be the point where Gingrich and his campaign realize what I am talking about and that he cannot use that debate style.

If you take that away from Newt Gingrich, he has nothing.

Actually, he has worse than nothing, he has his baggage.

I always wondered what would happen if Freepers ever turned on Ann Coulter. Now I know

The misogynistic and homophobic remarks are flying by at a mile a minute

On Edit: This was because she appeared on O'Reilly vigorously advocating for Romney.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2836881/posts

--------------------------------
To: stockpirate
She really just needs to come out of the closet



4 posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 8:45:59 PM by al baby (Hi Mom)

.
.
.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: stockpirate
I just heard her too. Sounds like olí Ann is due for another box of wine tonight.



6 posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 8:46:39 PM by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: stockpirate
My gosh, it looked like she was/is going completely insane. What a vile vicious asp.

7 posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 8:46:54 PM by annieokie


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: stockpirate
I just saw her on OíReilly. Coulture is despicable. She is a screaming, ranting, post-menopausal fanatic.

What has happened to her?



14 posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 8:49:26 PM by map


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: stockpirate
Just saw it.

That Adams Apple was going a thousand miles per hour.



15 posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 8:49:39 PM by SnuffaBolshevik (In a tornado, even turkeys can fly.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL, I just saw this on a Freeper's tagline, "Newt - God tested him for a reason"

I'll have some comments as soon as I can get full typing and breathing back on line from the rolling around laughing on the floor.

Newt Gingrich now way out in front in Florida. I think he is the GOP nominee

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_republican_presidential_primary-1597.html

Last two polls, the only ones since South Carolina, have him up on Romney by 9 and 8 points respectively.

Newt Family Values - Do as I say and not as I do, and do, and do...

To reassure voters, Newt Gingrich recently took a "no adultery pledge" from the Iowa-based group "The Family Leader".

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-12-12/news/30509625_1_newt-gingrich-iowa-group-pledge

I'm trying to figure out how that pledge was different from the vows he took in 1962 when he married Jackie Battley on whom he promptly cheated. Or the vow he took in 1981 when he married Marianne Ginther. Yes, he cheated on her. How about the one he took in 2000 when he married Callista Bisek? All during the past 50 years, he has taken pledges/vows and broken them during which time he was on the lecture and campaign circuit hawking family values.

It's kind of like the late Ted Bundy preaching non-violence, or George W. Bush speaking out against war and torture.

Jerk who said Children with Disabilities are punishment for women who aborted running for US Senate

See this post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002177519 where I discuss that he said it.

I just realized he is running for US Senate to represent Virginia.

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wtvr-delegate-robert-marshall-confirms-his-plans-to-run-for-us-senate-20120113,0,1368565.story


Richmond, Va. (WTVR)- It appears the GOP field for the U.S. Senate race isnít quite set. Leading Republican candidate, George Allen, is getting more competition from a well-known lawmaker.

Delegate Robert Marshall is planning to once again fight for the position. Marshall confirmed with CBS 6 News, he will battle for the position although he has yet to make a public announcement.

On January 9th, Marshall registered his corporate name ďBob Marshall For Senate, Inc.Ē with the State Corporation Commission. With Marshall officially throwing his hat in the ring, this will be his second attempt in four years to nab the Republican Senate nomination. The ultra conservative legislator will battle several candidates, including Allen, for the nod.

Virginia State Rep (R) - Children with disabilities are Gods punishment for women who have aborted

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/02/22/83337/disabled-abortion/?mobile=nc


On Thursday, Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall (R) spoke at a press conference against state funding for Planned Parenthood. He blasted the organization for supporting a womenís right to choose, saying that God punishes women who have had abortions by giving them disabled children:

ďThe number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,Ē said Marshall, a Republican.

ďIn the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. Thereís a special punishment Christians would suggest.Ē

Marshall is also fighting against health care reform, saying that ďObamacareĒ is trying to take ďyour soul.Ē Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has been pushing back against high-profile figures and entities who have been attacking people with disabilities. Will she speak out against someone in her own party? (HT: Right Wing Watch)
----------------------------------------------------------------

As I wrote on my Facebook page, as far as I am concerned, this lands Delegate Marshall on the disgusting scale somewhere between pig vomit and goat excrement. Then again, compared to what Marshall said, pig vomit and goat excrement dont seem so bad.

Classless Republicans attack Michelle Obama on day #1 of her being on Twitter.

Beware, some of these are really ugly, racist and offensive. The link below has the 25 most offensive tweets.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-25-most-offensive-tweets-at-michelle-obama

Mitt Romney and the New Hampshire GOP Primary Results



Partial Transcript:

Thank you for joining us. My name is Charles Howard. Iím here with Steve Leser from Democrats for Progress. Steve, youíve been watching this race for the Republican nomination. You watched the returns from New Hampshire. What are your initial thoughts on the result last night?

A couple of things, first, like everyone else, I knew Mitt Romney was going to win the New Hampshire primary.

That was never the question.

The things I was most interested in were how big would the margin be, and in the crosstabs and exit polls, would Romney poll the most out of any candidate when it came to self-described conservatives, because that is where Romney has had the most trouble. Romney needs those conservative voters to want to work for him if he is going to have a chance at prevailing in the general election against President Obama.

New Hampshire is basically Mitt Romneyís home state and he is the national presumptive frontrunner, has the most money and all of that. You would think in a situation like that, that Romney would not only win but that he would be able to really push up the winning margin and take a huge share of the votes.

I was looking to see if he could exceed 50% of the vote. That to me would have been an impressive margin of victory.

If he didnít get 50%, the next question I had was would he exceed 40% of the vote. I really think in the position Mitt Romney was in that he should have been able to exceed 40% of the vote. He didnít do that. The fact that Romney came in under 40% in what amounts to his adopted home state and facing an opposition that is fractured and in disarray to me is a signal of how weak of a candidate he is.

Itís great to be winning and winning definitely beats the alternative, but the object of running for President isnít to win your partyís nomination, itís to win the general election. I can talk more about that later, but the margin here tells me that Mitt is a weak candidate polling the best among weak candidates.

As I mentioned, the second thing I was looking for last night was whether Romney could win either an outright majority of or at least get the most of any candidate of the votes of self-described conservatives. This is a group that Romney had trouble with in Iowa and is expected to have trouble with wherever he is challenged for the nomination.

It turns out that Romney polled even with Rick Santorum with self-described conservatives.

In any other state, with the possible exception of Massachusetts, if Romney polls even with the top conservative vote getter out of the Santorum, Gingrich and Perry crowd, it would be a good thing. You would expect, though, that in New Hampshire, he ought to be able to win that demographic and that that result would give him some hope that he could win conservatives over to his side, but even there he just canít do it.

The verdict is in. Conservatives donít trust him and they donít like him.

Many things can change over the course of a campaign, but we are seven or more months in and Romneyís problems with conservatives seem to be something that he will not be able to shake.

I assume, though, that you think he should get credit for being the first Republican in History to win both the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries? Also, does this mean the race for the nomination is effectively over, or can someone stop him?

Hey, like I said, a win is a win and it beats the alternative any day of the week. Winning both Iowa and New Hampshire is impressive from a historical standpoint. There is no question about it.

Itís hard to imagine at this point, when you look at the South Carolina polls and see Mitt leading everyone there by ten points, how he can be stopped if all three of Perry, Gingrich and Santorum are still in the race by the time the South Carolina primary happens on January 21st.

Mitt is going to get a bounce from his New Hampshire win on top of the already commanding lead. Something really profound has to happen to give anyone else a shot. Assuming that Mitt doesnít do or say something really dumb, the only way that Romney can lose in South Carolina is if there is some sort of backroom deal and, for instance, Gingrich bows out and endorses Santorum and campaigns for him. That is the only chance I see for stopping Romney.

If that doesnít happen, Romney wins South Carolina, and then with wins in the Midwest, New England and the South, I donít see an argument for anyone else winning or staying in the race. Itís over at that point. Some other folks might stay in past South Carolina, but if Mitt wins that state itís over except for the exact delegate count.

Incidentally, by the way, from indications, Ron Paul intends to say in to the bitter end and attempt to accumulate delegates.

If Romney does for all practical intents and purposes win the South Carolina primary and in your view becomes the presumptive nominee, how does the race shape up between him and President Obama?

I have to say as a Democrat that I am looking forward to the campaign against any of these folks running for President. They all seem unelectable to me in most normal circumstances.

I like the idea of facing a candidate like Romney where he does not have the solid backing of the most crucial part of his base. You can claim someone has independent and crossover support, but if they donít have the enthusiastic support of the traditional worker bee part of their base, they are going to be in trouble. The most generally conservative and also the religious right wings of the Republican party do not like Romney. They didnít like John McCain much and look what happened to him. They like Romney even less than they liked John McCain, by several orders of magnitude.

Most of the enthusiastic volunteers in the campaigns of Republican presidential candidates in the past have come from the religious right. Iíve seen plenty of discussions on conservative websites where grassroots conservatives are essentially saying that if Romney wins the nomination, they will stay out of this election and wait for 2016 and work to get a real conservative nominated then.

I donít want to beat this point into the ground, but there is zero enthusiasm for a Romney nomination on the Republican side. That is why you saw all of this chaos over the last seven months with the base trying out different anti-Romney frontrunners. They wanted someone else.

I think a lot of the far right are looking around dazed and confused and are asking themselves: How did we get here with Mitt Romney? How did we let this happen?

Compare this to if a Democrat won the nomination some day who had crossover and independent support but had alienated the unions and the African American community, for instance. I donít see how such a Democrat would prevail in the general election.

You have to have your base solidly and enthusiastically behind you to win the Presidency, particularly to beat an incumbent. Look at the last two times an incumbent was beaten. Bill Clinton beat George H. W. Bush in 1992 and his base was wildly enthusiastic about him, and Ronald Reagan beat Carter in 1980 and his base was similarly very enthusiastic about him.

Romney doesnít have that.

To emphasize the point, 55% of New Hampshire Republicans said they would be dissatisfied if Mitt Romney is the nominee. How do you win with that? You canít.

What are some of the other problems that Romney would have going up against President Obama? What would happen in that race?

Well, the base issue is all he needs to be unelectable, but it does get worse for Romney.

First off, Republicans thought they would be facing a President with an economy that wasnít showing much movement. That isnít the case. Unemployment has been trending down for the last year and a half. With the problems he has with his base, the only way Mitt Romney wins the Presidency is if there is a reversal in the unemployment trend and it heads north of 9.5% again. The opposite seems to be happening. There is every indication that the unemployment numbers will be at or below 8 percent when election time comes.

Then you have what I call Mitt Romneyís unique talent. I donít know what else to call it. He is the all-time, world heavyweight champion of waffling. Iíve never seen anything like it. No other person has been so all over the place on issues as this guy.

Look, every politician has changed their minds on something. I think people will forgive a small amount of that. But people want their President to stand for something.

When the Obama campaign starts making videos of Romney being of two or more minds on every issue, sometimes with radical swings of opinion in a matter of days or weeks, I think people are going to ask themselves what, if anything, this guy stands for.

I criticized Gingrich for some of this a few weeks ago, but Newt isnít close to as bad Romney is when it comes to flip flops. When you see similar criticisms of a candidate on Democratic Underground and Free Republic, some of the biggest liberal and conservative websites on the internet, you know that candidate has a problem. There is a picture of Mitt Romney seen on both websites where Romney has four mouths, is reading from a list of policy positions, and Romney is saying to the public: Stop me when you hear something you like.

You cannot win the Presidency with that perception.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »