First time visitor? Learn more.

Voter Fraud: We’ve Got Proof It’s Easy (From National Review)

by Mars ( 162 Comments › )
Filed under Corruption, Crime, Democratic Party, Elections, government, Politics, Progressives at January 15th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Voter fraud is discussed over and over and we keep being told by the same liberal talking heads that it is not happening and would be too difficult to achieve. Really? Difficult? Tell that to the City of New York. What is amazing is the response of the elected officials to the revelations from the investigation. Voter fraud and corruption always go hand in hand.

January 12, 2014 6:30 PM
Voter Fraud: We’ve Got Proof It’s Easy
Undercover agents were able to vote as dead people, but election officials are attacking the agents.
By John Fund

Liberals who oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud claim that there is no fraud — or at least not any that involves voting in person at the polls.

But New York City’s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a “John Test” so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.

The Board of Elections, which has a $750 million annual budget and a work force of 350 people, reacted in classic bureaucratic fashion, which prompted one city paper to deride it as “a 21st-century survivor of Boss Tweed–style politics.” The Board approved a resolution referring the DOI’s investigators for prosecution. It also asked the state’s attorney general to determine whether DOI had violated the civil rights of voters who had moved or are felons, and it sent a letter of complaint to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Normally, I wouldn’t think de Blasio would give the BOE the time of day, but New York’s new mayor has long been a close ally of former leaders of ACORN, the now-disgraced “community organizing” group that saw its employees convicted of voter-registration fraud all over the country during and after the 2008 election.

Greg Soumas, president of New York’s BOE, offered a justification for calling in the prosecutors: “If something was done in an untoward fashion, it was only done by DOI. We [are] unaware of any color of authority on the part of [DOI] to vote in the identity of any person other than themselves — and our reading of the election law is that such an act constitutes a felony.” The Board is bipartisan, and all but two of its members voted with Soumas. The sole exceptions were Democrat Jose Araujo, who abstained because the DOI report implicated him in hiring his wife and sister-and-law for Board jobs, and Republican Simon Shamoun.

Good-government groups are gobsmacked at Soumas’s refusal to smell the stench of corruption in his patronage-riddled empire. “They should focus not on assigning blame to others, but on taking responsibility for solving the problems themselves,” Dick Dadey of the watchdog group Citizens Union told the Daily News. “It’s a case of the Board of Elections passing the buck.” DOI officials respond that the use of undercover agents is routine in anti-corruption probes and that people should carefully read the 70-page report they’ve filed before criticizing it. They are surprised how little media attention their report has received.

You’d think more media outlets would have been interested, because the sloppiness revealed in the DOI report is mind-boggling. Young undercover agents were able to vote using the names of people three times their age, people who in fact were dead. In one example, a 24-year female agent gave the name of someone who had died in 2012 at age 87; the workers at the Manhattan polling site gave her a ballot, no questions asked. Even the two cases where poll workers turned away an investigator raise eyebrows. In the first case, a poll worker on Staten Island walked outside with the undercover investigator who had just been refused a ballot; the “voter” was advised to go to the polling place near where he used to live and “play dumb” in order to vote. In the second case, the investigator was stopped from voting only because the felon whose name he was using was the son of the election official at the polling place.

Shooting the messenger has been a typical reaction in other states when people have demonstrated just how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Guerrilla videographer James O’Keefe had three of his assistants visit precincts during New Hampshire’s January 2012 presidential primary. They asked poll workers whether their books listed the names of several voters, all deceased individuals still listed on voter-registration rolls. Poll workers handed out ten ballots, never once asking for a photo ID. O’Keefe’s team immediately gave back the ballots, unmarked, to precinct workers. Debbie Lane, a ballot inspector at one of the Manchester polling sites, later said: “I wasn’t sure what I was allowed to do. . . . I can’t tell someone not to vote, I suppose.” The only precinct in which O’Keefe or his crew did not obtain a ballot was one in which the local precinct officer had personally known the dead “voter.”

New Hampshire’s Democratic governor, John Lynch, sputtered when asked about O’Keefe’s video, and he condemned the effort to test the election system even though no actual votes were cast. “They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if in fact they’re found guilty of some criminal act,” he roared. But cooler heads eventually prevailed, and the GOP state legislature later approved a voter-ID bill, with enough votes to override the governor’s veto. Despite an exhaustive and intrusive investigation, no charges were ever filed against any of O’Keefe’s associates.

Later in 2012, in Washington, D.C., one of O’Keefe’s assistants was able to obtain Attorney General Eric Holder’s ballot even though Holder is 62 years old and bears no resemblance to the 22-year-old white man who obtained it merely by asking if Eric Holder was on the rolls. But the Department of Justice, which is currently suing Texas to block that state’s photo-ID law, dismissed the Holder ballot incident as “manufactured.” The irony was lost on the DOJ that Holder, a staunch opponent of voter-ID laws, could have himself been disenfranchised by a white man because Washington, D.C., has no voter-ID law. Polls consistently show that more than 70 percent of Americans — including clear majorities of African Americans and Hispanics — support such laws.

Liberals who oppose ballot-security measures claim that there are few prosecutions for voter fraud, which they take to mean that fraud doesn’t happen. But as the New York DOI report demonstrates, it is comically easy, given the sloppy-voter registration records often kept in America, to commit voter fraud in person. (A 2012 study by the Pew Research Center found that nationwide, at least 1.8 million deceased voters are still registered to vote.) And unless someone confesses, in-person voter fraud is very difficult to detect — or stop. New York’s Gothamist news service reported last September that four poll workers in Brooklyn reported they believed people were trying to vote in the name of other registered voters. Police officers observed the problems but did nothing because voter fraud isn’t under the police department’s purview.

What the DOI investigators were able to do was eerily similar to actual fraud that has occurred in New York before. In 1984, Brooklyn’s Democratic district attorney, Elizabeth Holtzman, released a state grand-jury report on a successful 14-year conspiracy that cast thousands of fraudulent votes in local, state, and congressional elections. Just like the DOI undercover operatives, the conspirators cast votes at precincts in the names of dead, moved, and bogus voters. The grand jury recommended voter ID, a basic election-integrity measure that New York has steadfastly refused to implement.

In states where non-photo ID is required, it’s also all too easy to manufacture records that allow people to vote. In 2012, the son of Congressman Jim Moran, the Democrat who represents Virginia’s Washington suburbs, had to resign as field director for his father’s campaign after it became clear that he had encouraged voter fraud. Patrick Moran was caught advising an O’Keefe videographer on how to commit in-person voter fraud. The scheme involved using a personal computer to forge utility bills that would satisfy Virginia’s voter-ID law and then relying on the assistance of Democratic lawyers stationed at the polls to make sure the fraudulent votes were counted. Last year, Virginia tightened its voter-ID law and ruled that showing a utility bill was no longer sufficient to obtain a ballot.

Given that someone who is dead, is in jail, or has moved isn’t likely to complain if someone votes in his name, how do we know that voter fraud at the polls isn’t a problem? An ounce of prevention — in the form of voter ID and better training of poll workers — should be among the minimum precautions taken to prevent an electoral miscarriage or meltdown in a close race.

After all, even a small number of votes can have sweeping consequences. Al Franken’s 312-vote victory in 2008 over Minnesota senator Norm Coleman gave Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 votes, which allowed them to pass Obamacare. Months after the Obamacare vote, a conservative group called Minnesota Majority finished comparing criminal records with voting rolls and identified 1,099 felons — all ineligible to vote — who had voted in the Franken–Coleman race. Fox News random interviews with ten of those felons found that nine had voted for Franken, backing up national academic studies that show felons tend to vote strongly for Democrats.

Minnesota Majority took its findings to prosecutors across the state, but very few showed any interest in pursuing the issue. Some did, though, and 177 people have been convicted as of mid 2012 — not just “accused” but actually convicted — of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Probably the only reason the number of convictions isn’t higher is that the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that the person must have been both ineligible and must have “knowingly” voted unlawfully. Anyone accused of fraud is apt to get off by claiming he didn’t know he’d done anything wrong.

Given that we now know for certain how easy it is to commit undetectable voter fraud and how serious the consequences can be, it’s truly bizarre to have officials at the New York City Board of Elections and elsewhere savage those who shine a light on the fact that their modus operandi invites fraud. One might even think that they’re covering up their incompetence or that they don’t want to pay attention to what crimes could be occurring behind the curtains at their polling places. Or both.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368234/voter-fraud-weve-got-proof-its-easy-john-fund/page/0/1

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

162 Responses to “Voter Fraud: We’ve Got Proof It’s Easy (From National Review)”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | January 15, 2014 8:17 am

    Opposition to Voter ID is implicitly endorsement voter fraud. We are the only nation in the Western world that doesn’t require voter ID. You have to have ID to do just about anything. I am at the doctor’s office right now (new doctor) and I had to have ID for them to run my insurance. There is no way that voting has to have less certainty of ID than buying a six pack of beer.


  2. Mars
    2 | January 15, 2014 8:47 am

    Or signing up for public assistance.


  3. 3 | January 15, 2014 8:48 am

    ….or signing up for ObamaCare.


  4. 4 | January 15, 2014 8:53 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    The funny thing is that we need i.d. to vote. Our leftists try to prove how “wrong” our system is by getting a second ballot and screaming about it to the press. Stupid really. happens in every election we have here in Toronto.


  5. rain of lead
    5 | January 15, 2014 9:05 am

    morning y’all
    something to make you go hmmm….

    rating plausible

    The 2016 Presidential Candidate That No One is Talking About

    It is my belief that a 3rd party candidate is being hand-picked and/or groomed as we speak. This is not just a normal 3rd party candidate that will get 1-2% of the vote. I believe this candidate will be more like Ross Perot and seriously complicate the election while guaranteeing that Hillary Clinton will become our next president.

    It was not necessarily the strength of McAuliffe that defeated Ken Cuccinelli. It was more the presence of a third party (Libertarian) candidate named Robert Sarvis, who was able to gain 6.5% of the popular vote. Most of those votes came from Cuccinelli and thus guaranteed a McAuliffe victory.

    I do not fault Sarvis or the Libertarian Party for competing in this election and trying to win, but people need to understand that most third party votes will come from the GOP, at least until third party candidates from the hard left (Socialist Party, Communist Party, etc.) start to become more relevant.

    OK, now here’s the point… Do you not think that the democrats know what happened in Virginia? Do you not think they took notes?

    Do you not think that Hillary Clinton will use this same strategy to win an election in 2016?

    Of course she will use it. Some say that she and Bill invented it.

    again, 2016 is a looong way out but I can see this happening


  6. 6 | January 15, 2014 9:06 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Some countries use finger prints to vote. There is even talk of using rectna scans in some countries.


  7. 7 | January 15, 2014 9:08 am

    @ rain of lead:

    It means Republicans will have to go more Libertarian leaning to prevent this. Cuccinelli’s problem is he was perceived as too rigid on social issues. The War on Women attacks work.


  8. rain of lead
    8 | January 15, 2014 9:10 am

    @ Rodan:

    politics as chess

    and the GOP is off somewhere sucking marbles


  9. Mars
    9 | January 15, 2014 9:12 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Some countries use finger prints to vote. There is even talk of using rectna scans in some countries.

    I’m all for retina scans but when scans go rect-anything, I’m out of there. //


  10. eaglesoars
    10 | January 15, 2014 9:15 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Cuccinelli’s problem is he was perceived as too rigid on social issues. The War on Women attacks work.

    That was NOT his problem. His problem is that the GOP establishment threw him overboard.

    *smack*


  11. 11 | January 15, 2014 9:15 am

    Abortion Barbie mocks a Paralyzed Republican.


  12. coldwarrior
    12 | January 15, 2014 9:20 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Some countries use finger prints to vote. There is even talk of using rectna scans in some countries.

    nope, ya aint scannin my rectna. nope, no sir.

    :lol:


  13. 13 | January 15, 2014 9:20 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    He should have held a press conference clarifying his positions and putting his statements in context. Letting attacks go answered was a dumb move.


  14. coldwarrior
    14 | January 15, 2014 9:21 am

    Rodan wrote:

    It means Republicans will have to go more Libertarian leaning to prevent this

    that would help to take back the suburbs and counter the urban vote.


  15. 15 | January 15, 2014 9:23 am

    @ rain of lead:

    The Democrats have their shit together. Republicans are a joke.


  16. 16 | January 15, 2014 9:24 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    I don’t get why the GOP does not adapt to today’s electorate. heck the GOP of the 1980′s was more libertarian than this incarnation.


  17. rain of lead
    17 | January 15, 2014 9:30 am

    @ Rodan:

    because they are the 2nd side of the same coin and are just happy to have a place at the trough?


  18. 18 | January 15, 2014 9:33 am

    @ rain of lead:

    That’s part of it. I think it’s arrogance and being out of touch with the America of 2014. It does not help you have loser consultants like Karl Rove calling the shots.


  19. coldwarrior
    19 | January 15, 2014 9:33 am

    go check the new special report


  20. rain of lead
    20 | January 15, 2014 9:34 am

    @ Rodan:

    yeah, because he’s sooo effective


  21. rain of lead
    21 | January 15, 2014 9:37 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    nice


  22. 22 | January 15, 2014 9:39 am

    @ rain of lead:

    Yeah, I don’t understand Rove getting the kind of treatment he does. Sarah Palin has a much better track record getting Senators elected than Rove. Nobody is going to be 100%, but Rove lost almost 100% last time. Time for him to shuffle off the stage.


  23. rain of lead
    23 | January 15, 2014 9:41 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    sorry, his hyper-inflated giant head won’t fit through the door
    afraid we’re stuck with him


  24. 24 | January 15, 2014 9:41 am

    @ rain of lead:

    He spent 300 Million and only had a 17% success rate. In the real world, Rove would have been hounded out of any business for doing that. There would also be pissed off investors that would take matters into their own hands. Rove is a very lucky man to be alive, to be honest.


  25. rain of lead
    25 | January 15, 2014 9:42 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    got a phone interview coming up in a bit
    probably won’t take the job but the interview will be good practice


  26. 26 | January 15, 2014 9:43 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I don’t like either of them. I wish Palin and Rove would go away.


  27. 27 | January 15, 2014 9:43 am

    @ rain of lead:

    Hey, yeah its good to do it as practice.


  28. coldwarrior
    28 | January 15, 2014 9:46 am

    rain of lead wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    got a phone interview coming up in a bit
    probably won’t take the job but the interview will be good practice

    you might take what you can get and work up from there. companies are more likely to hire someone who is employed than someone who is not.

    choose wisely.


  29. 29 | January 15, 2014 9:47 am

    @ Rodan:

    I’ve never understood the hostility towards Palin. You’ve taken the MFM’s caricature of her, and taken it to heart. She’s one of the better voices we have out there, really. That is why the Left attacks her so mercilessly.


  30. rain of lead
    30 | January 15, 2014 9:48 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    there is no shortage of take what you can get jobs around here
    looking to do just a little better than that

    I am looking to choose wisely


  31. 31 | January 15, 2014 9:49 am

    @ rain of lead:

    Good luck. Interviewing experience is always a plus. And who knows? It might go well for you. When I got the position here, they did a phone screen, asked me to come into an in-person interview the next day, and I knew before 5:00 that afternoon that they were going to make me an offer. It went so smoothly that it was scary.


  32. coldwarrior
    32 | January 15, 2014 9:50 am

    rain of lead wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    there is no shortage of take what you can get jobs around here
    looking to do just a little better than that
    I am looking to choose wisely

    oh, very good.


  33. 33 | January 15, 2014 9:56 am

    rain of lead wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:

    there is no shortage of take what you can get jobs around here
    looking to do just a little better than that

    I am looking to choose wisely

    Yeah, that’s a pretty good description of our economy- take what you can get. My cousin is pushing 60 and is working a CS phone bank for a local health care company until he can find something better….it’s been about a year now and he’s getting increasingly frustrated.

    Good luck, man, I hope you fare better…..


  34. 34 | January 15, 2014 10:00 am

    @ MacDuff:

    Yeah, the employment situation is pretty bleak. The contract my wife is working is coming to an end. She’s had a couple of interviews, but nothing solid. The last time she was out she had about 6 weeks between contracts. But she’s not been able to score anything but contract work for the last three years. It is good to have the money coming in, but it’d be nice for her to get some benefits. ObamaCare is going to make that less likely to happen, I am afraid.


  35. rain of lead
    35 | January 15, 2014 10:00 am

    @ MacDuff:
    thanks all


  36. rain of lead
    36 | January 15, 2014 10:02 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    yeah
    that throws a huge monkey wrench in the job search
    tomorrow I have an interview with amazon for warehouse work
    it’s my best bet so far as far as benefits are concerned


  37. 37 | January 15, 2014 10:03 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    She acts like a Mob boss issuing out hits. She’s a bully and goes after any Republican who does not conform to her wishes.


  38. coldwarrior
    38 | January 15, 2014 10:05 am

    rain of lead wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    yeah
    that throws a huge monkey wrench in the job search
    tomorrow I have an interview with amazon for warehouse work
    it’s my best bet so far as far as benefits are concerned

    great company…room to move up there as well. they are not anywhere near as big as they are going to get.


  39. coldwarrior
    39 | January 15, 2014 10:05 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    She acts like a Mob boss issuing out hits. She’s a bully and goes after any Republican who does not conform to her wishes.

    my only problem with her is that she quit. other than that, she is a net positive for the right


  40. 40 | January 15, 2014 10:06 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Obama claims the economy is booming. He would not lie!
    ///////


  41. rain of lead
    41 | January 15, 2014 10:07 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    downside though is they burn up their warehouse crew
    Friday they announced openings for 500 people
    yeah, I’m going for it
    but it is a tough gig


  42. 42 | January 15, 2014 10:07 am

    Rodan wrote:

    She acts like a Mob boss issuing out hits. She’s a bully and goes after any Republican who does not conform to her wishes.

    Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Frankly, I doubt that there is really any politician that can please you. Rand Paul will undoubtedly do something that you don’t like (didn’t he endorse McConnell?) at some point. I always get down the road about being 100% adamant on the Second Amendment, but you have your own purity tests. The difference is that your purity tests are mandated by pop culture. Pop culture doesn’t like something, and you fall in line to dislike it. Pop culture doesn’t like Palin, so you talk about her with talking points form Media Matters and the like. Palin is anti-Establishment Republican, something that I thought you’d be in favor of, but she isn’t the right flavor of anti-Establishment for you, so you want her taken off the political stage.


  43. coldwarrior
    43 | January 15, 2014 10:09 am

    rain of lead wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    downside though is they burn up their warehouse crew
    Friday they announced openings for 500 people
    yeah, I’m going for it
    but it is a tough gig

    its tough, but it would be pretty secure. they arent going to downsize anytime soon


  44. 44 | January 15, 2014 10:10 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    I disagree. She acts like an Aytollah issuing out fatwas.


  45. rain of lead
    45 | January 15, 2014 10:10 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    true dat


  46. coldwarrior
    46 | January 15, 2014 10:12 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    I disagree. She acts like an Aytollah issuing out fatwas.

    she has strong opinions, so what? we do too.

    i’ll take her over 90% of the current gopsters.


  47. 47 | January 15, 2014 10:13 am

    @ rain of lead:

    I had a recruiter for Amazon contact me a couple of months ago. It’d be security, but I’d have had to move either to Atlanta or Washington State. I wouldn’t move either place, so I didn’t even interview. I am pretty happy where I am now, anyway.


  48. 48 | January 15, 2014 10:13 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Rand Paul will undoubtedly do something that you don’t like (didn’t he endorse McConnell?) at some point.

    Of course, but Paul is trying to get converts to the Right. Palin is trying to purge people from the Right. Paul is a cool mellow fellow and Palin has an inflated ego. Paul wants to unify the country while Palin wants to divide us.


  49. 49 | January 15, 2014 10:15 am

    Mandarins, Ayatollas and Fatwas, oh my!


  50. coldwarrior
    50 | January 15, 2014 10:19 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    Mandarins, Ayatollas and Fatwas, oh my!

    i left you a video to waatch…lots of thompsons, pinstriped suits, and v-8 fords

    here

    MacDuff wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    I’d absolutely need a fedora, a pinstriped double-breasted suit and some two-toned shoes to go with it- bad-ass, 30s style! Hell, might as well throw in a ‘32 V-16 Caddy. “Machine Gun MacDuff”

    - See more at: http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2014/01/14/meet-this-years-liberal-pivot-economic-justice-its-not-just-for-deflection-anymore/#comment-1301283

    you could be in the vid.


  51. coldwarrior
    51 | January 15, 2014 10:20 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    Mandarins, Ayatollas and Fatwas, oh my!

    i like oranges.


  52. 52 | January 15, 2014 10:23 am

    @ Rodan:

    You look at things through very tinted glasses. You don’t think Palin is trying to get converts? What she isn’t doing is selling out principles. When winning at any cost is the only principle you have, you wind up doing things that are reprehensible in the name of winning. Like I continually say, I am about passing policy. Get the policy right, and the voters will come. I’m not saying Paul isn’t doing that, but your characterization of Palin is both untrue and unfair. It really is the same bullshit that the Democrats and the Republican Establishment are saying about her. She didn’t go to the right schools, so she isn’t worthy of being taken seriously.


  53. 53 | January 15, 2014 10:25 am

    @ cold warrior:

    Yeah, I saw that, great stuff, thanks! Dude even had the two-toned shoes!


  54. Speranza
    54 | January 15, 2014 10:32 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Of course, but Paul is trying to get converts to the Right. Palin is trying to purge people from the Right. Paul is a cool mellow fellow and Palin has an inflated ego. Paul wants to unify the country while Palin wants to divide us.

    I wish she would run for POTUS already (I will vote for her because the worst Republican is better then the best Democrat) and let’s see how popular she really is. I would expect she would get creamed in a landslide yet people will still claim she was the savior of the Republican party. Once she goes down in a historic landslide (as the alleged millions of disaffected Evangelicals fail to come out of the cornfields and vote), would it be asking too much for her to kind of disappear?


  55. 55 | January 15, 2014 10:32 am

    An interesting poll from Gallup:

    PRINCETON, NJ — Americans start the new year with a variety of national concerns on their minds. Although none is dominant, the government, at 21%, leads the list of what Americans consider the most important problem facing the country. The economy closely follows at 18%, and then unemployment/jobs and healthcare, each at 16%. No other issue is mentioned by as much as 10% of the public; however, the federal budget deficit or debt comes close, at 8%.

    Americans’ current telling of the top problems facing the country comes from a Jan. 5-8 Gallup poll. The rank order is similar to what Gallup found in December, although the percentage mentioning unemployment has risen four percentage points to 16%.

    Mentions of the government as the top problem remain higher than they were prior to the partial government shutdown in October. During the shutdown, the percentage naming the government as the top problem doubled to 33% from 16% in September.

    That doesn’t presage good things for the party of Big Government in this year’s election. We’ll see what actually comes of it, though. I can certainly see government as the biggest problem that we have. I’d include the debt as part of that problem, while Gallup broke that out into its own item.


  56. 56 | January 15, 2014 10:33 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Get the policy right, and the voters will come.

    I agree with you on that. But Palin’s rhetoric is disgusting. She pits Americans against each other. She is no different than Obama.


  57. 58 | January 15, 2014 10:36 am

    @ Speranza:

    She’s too much of a coward to put her skin in the game. She rather be like a Mob Boss having people kiss her ring in obedience. I can’t wait for someone on the Right to take her on and expose her for the demagogic fraud she is.


  58. 59 | January 15, 2014 10:36 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Get the policy right, and the voters will come.
    I agree with you on that. But Palin’s rhetoric is disgusting. She pits Americans against each other. She is no different than Obama.

    This from a person who calls those on his own blog he disagrees with, Jacobite’s and Ayatollah’s. Pot kettle, black dude.


  59. 60 | January 15, 2014 10:38 am

    doriangrey wrote:

    File this one under: Obama divorce, to goofy to be true.

    I think there is some truth to that. it is odd Michelle did not come back to Washington with Obama. Where there is smoke there is fire.

    The sad part is if it came out Obama cheated on her with a Man, his popularity would skyrocket.


  60. Speranza
    61 | January 15, 2014 10:39 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    She’s too much of a coward to put her skin in the game. She rather be like a Mob Boss having people kiss her ring in obedience. I can’t wait for someone on the Right to take her on and expose her for the demagogic fraud she is.

    2016 is the last chance to put up or shut up. If you are that popular and the country is in such dire straits (which it is now and will be in the future) then rise to the occasion and put it all on the line.


  61. 62 | January 15, 2014 10:40 am

    I kinda see shades in many (though not all) Palin enthusiasts the same “cult of personality” that is oft attributed to Obama enthusiasts.


  62. Speranza
    63 | January 15, 2014 10:45 am

    If she runs and loses as badly as I expect she would I actually would have some respect for her for putting her money where her mouth was, however if she loses that badly, she will disappear as quickly as Michael Dukakis did after 1988.


  63. coldwarrior
    64 | January 15, 2014 10:51 am

    she does a fine job cheer-leading and bringing $$$. and i have no problem with that. parties need those people.


  64. 65 | January 15, 2014 10:52 am

    @ Speranza:

    So if she isn’t going to run for the Presidency she should just shut up? There are a lot of people that you can put into that group then, starting with Rudy Giuliani. Frankly, she was the most qualified person on the stage in 2008, and unlike McCain she actually wanted to win. The Left set about destroying her because they saw her as a threat. She is still doing better at picking Senate candidates than pretty much anybody out there.


  65. 66 | January 15, 2014 10:56 am

    @ MacDuff:

    I see kind of the opposite in her detractors. They want to hate Palin because pop culture tells them that they must hate Palin, so they go about trying to justify what is really irrational. You don’t see people hating on Jack Kemp because he ran with Dole, do you? Nor do you see them hating Paul Ryan for Romney’s losing. They hate Palin because the Left wants them to hate Palin, and no rational thought goes into their assessment of her.


  66. coldwarrior
    67 | January 15, 2014 10:58 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Frankly, she was the most qualified person on the stage in 2008, and unlike McCain she actually wanted to win. The Left set about destroying her because they saw her as a threat. She is still doing better at picking Senate candidates than pretty much anybody out there.

    true.

    the left sees her as a threat because she didnt go to the right schools and therefore is not indoctrinated into the harvardyaleprincetonkennedyschool crap.

    anyone who throws the bullshit flag on those people is an immediate target because this would enlighten the citizenry to the crap that is being pulled on them by both sides.


  67. rain of lead
    68 | January 15, 2014 11:01 am

    I think she knows that she is damaged goods as far as being a candidate
    so she does what she can to move the gop to the right
    I’m good with that

    oh, and WHY did she quit again?


  68. 69 | January 15, 2014 11:02 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    Yep, and Harvard et al couldn’t justify their stratospheric tuition if they weren’t seen as gatekeepers on the higher ranks of “public service”, where the real power and privilege is in America today. My PolySci degree would be “worth” a lot more from Harvard not because of the level of instruction I’d have gotten (how many ways can you teach Leftist political theory?), but for the networking connections I’d have made with fellow students there.


  69. 70 | January 15, 2014 11:06 am

    @ rain of lead:

    She quit the governorship of Alaska because of multiple frivolous lawsuits that were brought against her by the Left. None of the suits had merit, but that simply isn’t enough in the legal environment. You have to defend against the suits no matter how frivolous, or they will enter a default judgment against you. We should do the same to Terry McAuliff, but I think that in Virginia the taxpayers would have to pick up the legal tab. As I understand it, under Alaskan law Palin had to pay for her own defense.


  70. rain of lead
    71 | January 15, 2014 11:10 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    As I understand it, under Alaskan law Palin had to pay for her own defense.

    and IIRC she was not allowed to set up a legal defense fund


  71. rain of lead
    72 | January 15, 2014 11:11 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    retreat is a viable tactic


  72. coldwarrior
    73 | January 15, 2014 11:13 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    @ rain of lead:

    if that were say…governor bill clinton in that situation he would have found a way out AND a way to make them pay dearly.

    she just didnt have the killer instinct at that time so she quit.


  73. coldwarrior
    74 | January 15, 2014 11:14 am

    rain of lead wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    retreat is a viable tactic

    not when you hold the strong position (governor) it isnt.


  74. 75 | January 15, 2014 11:19 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    So basically no one on the Right is allowed to go after Palin? She puts herself out there, that makes her a legit target. Many on the Right go after Rand Paul, why is Palin so sacred?


  75. 76 | January 15, 2014 11:20 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    I’m not really sure what she could do. She couldn’t force them to pay for her legal defense if they lost. Alaskan law doesn’t work that way. A “loser pays” legal structure keeps down frivolous lawsuits, but it also keeps those with merit from being litigated. We have a pretty bad legal system in America, but everywhere else is worse.


  76. 77 | January 15, 2014 11:21 am

    @ Speranza:

    If she ran, I would have some respect for her. She would go down in a 49 State landslide, but at least she put herself out there.


  77. 78 | January 15, 2014 11:23 am

    Let me get this straight. It’s ok to go after Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and others, but Palin is some holy sacred cow? Screw that, she’s fair game like everyone else.


  78. 79 | January 15, 2014 11:23 am

    coldwarrior wrote:

    if that were say…governor bill clinton in that situation he would have found a way out AND a way to make them pay dearly.

    Funny. Bill Clinton doesn’t have any morals, ethic’s or principals, and you think Palin should be like him.


  79. 80 | January 15, 2014 11:24 am

    @ Rodan:

    Oh, you are allowed to go after her. No one has said that you couldn’t. But when you start effectively quoting Left-wing talking points when you go after her, you are simply going to be tuned out. Calling her a “Mob Boss” or “Ayatollah” may make you feel better (since you clearly hate her), but you can’t expect your arguments to be taken seriously when you use such terms. And that will win you no kudos from the Left, either, because they demand a purity of ideology far greater than anything anybody on the Right expects. They’ll just quote you to say “See, even the Right doesn’t like Palin”, but all you are doing is mirroring the Left’s talking points.


  80. 81 | January 15, 2014 11:25 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Let me get this straight. It’s ok to go after Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and others, but Palin is some holy sacred cow? Screw that, she’s fair game like everyone else.

    Whatever you say Ayatollah Jacobite…


  81. Speranza
    82 | January 15, 2014 11:25 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    So if she isn’t going to run for the Presidency she should just shut up? There are a lot of people that you can put into that group then, starting with Rudy Giuliani. Frankly, she was the most qualified person on the stage in 2008, and unlike McCain she actually wanted to win. The Left set about destroying her because they saw her as a threat. She is still doing better at picking Senate candidates than pretty much anybody out there.

    Rudy ran for POTUS and was a successful Mayor of NYC (wait until Comrade Bill brings the city back to the 1970′s). She was a 1/2 term governor of Alaska who quit her job to go Hollywood. I want her to run for POTUS.


  82. 83 | January 15, 2014 11:26 am

    @ doriangrey:

    Apparently Bill Clinton is the Platonic Essence of what an American politician should be. That doesn’t bode well for the future of the country, though.


  83. 84 | January 15, 2014 11:28 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I am not trying to win kudos from the Left. In fact Palin acts like the Left using divisive rhetoric and pitting Americans against each other.


  84. coldwarrior
    85 | January 15, 2014 11:28 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I’m not really sure what she could do.

    a test of leadership and strategy, no?


  85. 86 | January 15, 2014 11:29 am

    @ doriangrey:

    :lol:


  86. 87 | January 15, 2014 11:30 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    Apparently Bill Clinton is the Platonic Essence of what an American politician should be. That doesn’t bode well for the future of the country, though.

    Yea, a whole lot of people have bought into the ” The End justifies the means” ideology, the only thing that count’s as they say, is winning. Getting them to understand that you can’t get your soul back once you have sold it, is like trying to describe Red to someone born blind.


  87. 88 | January 15, 2014 11:30 am

    @ Speranza:

    Rudy was a successful 2 term Mayor and left NYC in good shape. Palin is a 1/2 term quitter.


  88. coldwarrior
    89 | January 15, 2014 11:31 am

    doriangrey wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    if that were say…governor bill clinton in that situation he would have found a way out AND a way to make them pay dearly.
    Funny. Bill Clinton doesn’t have any morals, ethic’s or principals, and you think Palin should be like him.

    lets not put words in my mouth, ok?

    clinton would have found a way out, she quit.

    this has nothing to do with morals or anything like that.

    so lets not get on our high horse and put words in my mouth that palin should have no morals et cetera. thank you.


  89. 90 | January 15, 2014 11:31 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    I am not trying to win kudos from the Left. In fact Palin acts like the Left using divisive rhetoric and pitting Americans against each other.

    Have you tried reading your own comments over, say the last 3 years? You make her look like a Saint.


  90. 91 | January 15, 2014 11:31 am

    @ doriangrey:

    Did you ever read Machiavelli’s the Prince?


  91. 92 | January 15, 2014 11:33 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    I see kind of the opposite in her detractors. They want to hate Palin because pop culture tells them that they must hate Palin, so they go about trying to justify what is really irrational. You don’t see people hating on Jack Kemp because he ran with Dole, do you? Nor do you see them hating Paul Ryan for Romney’s losing. They hate Palin because the Left wants them to hate Palin, and no rational thought goes into their assessment of her.

    I’m not defending her detractors, I just see no real reason to be FOR HER. As has been said, above, she’s a good cheerleader, but she has no real list of accomplishments and the strongest line on her resume is Governor of Alaska, and she quit rather than defend herself against legal charges. In a campaign, it wouldn’t matter WHY she quit, or whether the merits of the charges were valid, it’ll only matter they she quit.


  92. 93 | January 15, 2014 11:33 am

    @ Speranza:

    Rudy expected to be coronated as our POTUS nominee, and when that didn’t happen, he took his marbles and went home. He ran in one real primary. He was not a successful candidate by anybody’s standards. And running NYC isn’t the same as running a State. He may have been better than who you have now. He may have even been great at it. That doesn’t mean he was what America needed as a President. As for Palin, you don’t want her to run for President. You want her to lose while running for President. If she were successful, you would be disappointed. And even though she is successful at raising money and picking candidates, you’d have her retire from public life because she doesn’t meet your purity standards for what you want to see the Republican Party to do.


  93. 94 | January 15, 2014 11:34 am

    @ doriangrey:

    I go after Left and Right equally. I speak only for myself, I don’t claim to be the voice of “Real American” like Palin does. I don’t view myself as leading a movement.

    I just call out the evil sinister forces destroying America.


  94. 95 | January 15, 2014 11:34 am

    doriangrey wrote:

    is like trying to describe Red to someone born blind.

    Good analogy.


  95. coldwarrior
    96 | January 15, 2014 11:36 am

    morals? leadership?

    she was elected by the people of alaska to be their governor. a majority voted for her to do their will, she did not meet their expectations because she let a small minority run her out of office. finding the way out is one of the challenges of leadership. she failed that test.

    i still like her as party cheerleader and money raiser tho. so she failed the big test, i dont hate her for that, i would be disappointed if i were alaskan and voted for her.


  96. 97 | January 15, 2014 11:37 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Rudy would have been heads above any of the last Republican Presidents except Reagan. He did try to run but people hated in in the GOP becasue he was Italian.


  97. coldwarrior
    98 | January 15, 2014 11:38 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Rudy expected to be coronated as our POTUS nominee, and when that didn’t happen, he took his marbles and went home.

    he quit as well. now both of them work for fox.

    pretty good gig if you can get it


  98. 99 | January 15, 2014 11:38 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    I would not mind her as much if she stuck to the cheerleader and money role. But my beef is this crypto-Messianic cult that has developed around her. It’s gotten to her head and now she demands obedience. I just want her to eat some humble pie and stick to cheerleading, money raising and going after the Left.


  99. 100 | January 15, 2014 11:38 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    I go after Left and Right equally. I speak only for myself, I don’t claim to be the voice of “Real American” like Palin does. I don’t view myself as leading a movement.
    I just call out the evil sinister forces destroying America.

    What a load of crap. Palin doesn’t and never has made those claims about herself, moreover, you are the Alinsky fratricide king attacking anyone who doesn’t like or get’s in the way of your favorite messiah.


  100. 101 | January 15, 2014 11:39 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    Seems to be a trend!

    :lol:


  101. 102 | January 15, 2014 11:39 am

    Rodan wrote:

    He did try to run but people hated in in the GOP because he was Italian.

    Where DO you get this stuff?


  102. 103 | January 15, 2014 11:40 am

    Rodan wrote:

    He did try to run but people hated in in the GOP becasue he was Italian

    That is absolute bullshit. His ethnicity had nothing to do with it. I really don’t know where you get some of your ideas. You believe that the Republican Party is racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on. How is it that you consider yourself to be on the Right at all? Giuliani lost because he didn’t run in the early primaries, lost in Florida, and didn’t connect with voters across State lines. It had absolutely nothing to do with his ethnicity.


  103. coldwarrior
    104 | January 15, 2014 11:40 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    Seems to be a trend!

    how do i get in on that?

    i can rant on tv for 100k a year. sign me up!


  104. 105 | January 15, 2014 11:41 am

    @ doriangrey:

    My only Messiah is Jesus Christ. In politics I am not looking for a savior. I want a winner who can smash the Left to pieces.


  105. 106 | January 15, 2014 11:42 am

    @ MacDuff:

    I saw comments people made about Rudy that were anti-Italian.


  106. 107 | January 15, 2014 11:45 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    ou believe that the Republican Party is racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on.

    You deny there is not that element in the GOP? These people need to be politically exterminated so the Republican party can crush the Democrats into oblivion.

    How is it that you consider yourself to be on the Right at all?

    I believe in Individulism, Free Markets, American Nationalism and Hate Islam. That puts me squarely on the Right.


  107. coldwarrior
    108 | January 15, 2014 11:49 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    I saw comments people made about Rudy that were anti-Italian.

    i saw them too


  108. 109 | January 15, 2014 11:50 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    I saw comments people made about Rudy that were anti-Italian.

    Comments on forums are a poor indicator of anything and, no offense intended, but I think you see a lot of “ethnic hatred” that really isn’t there. Christie’s Italian and, in all fairness, the only “anti-Italian” stuff I’ve seen is you calling him a “Guido”.


  109. 110 | January 15, 2014 11:50 am

    coldwarrior wrote:

    she was elected by the people of alaska to be their governor. a majority voted for her to do their will, she did not meet their expectations because she let a small minority run her out of office. finding the way out is one of the challenges of leadership. she failed that test.

    Maybe you should spend a little time acquainting yourself with the legal restriction placed on the Governor of Alaska while Palin was governor.

    Alaska had just gotten rid of an incredibly corrupt Governor and had placed legal restrictions on the governor regarding civil actions brought by Alaskan residents. Restrictions that no other state has ever had. She was legally required to show up in court in person and answer every single civil corruption charge, to pay her own defense and legally barred from soliciting any defense funds.

    She was spending 3 days a week in court fighting off and was a million dollar in debt from those false civil corruption charges. She wasn’t doing the job Alaskans had elected her to do, because she was spending all of her time fighting false charges. Yes, a corrupt would no doubt have found a way to stick Alaska with the millions of dollars in defense fee’s, even though doing so would have been completely illegal. Yes, no doubt Bill would have found a way to not appear personally in court 3 days a week as required by Alaskan Law to defend himself against frivolous and false corruption charges.


  110. coldwarrior
    111 | January 15, 2014 11:50 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    My only Messiah is Jesus Christ. In politics I am not looking for a savior. I want a winner who can smash the Left to pieces.

    politicians are whores. i dont go to whores for redemption


  111. 112 | January 15, 2014 11:51 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    He did try to run but people hated in in the GOP because he was Italian.
    Where DO you get this stuff?

    He pulls it right straight out of…


  112. coldwarrior
    113 | January 15, 2014 11:53 am

    @ doriangrey:

    she failed a challenge of leadership, its that simple.

    there are ways to win that fight. and that is what a leader figures out.


  113. 114 | January 15, 2014 11:53 am

    Rodan wrote:

    You deny there is not that element in the GOP?

    Can you find one person that fits that description in the GOP? Really? You can find what the Left sees as people fitting that description, but they define disagreeing with Obama as racism, and being against changing the definition of marriage to be “homophobic”. Ideologically, those terms that I used are a rallying cry for the Left. When someone uses them, they are demonstrating their ideology. That you defend them in, well, interesting. You consider yourself to be from the Right, but I am not so sure that ideologically you are. Oh, you are individualistic enough, but that alone doesn’t define someone as being from the Right. You give much credence to Leftist ideology, from the primacy of pop culture to the rhetoric of the Left (which is, really, what unifies the various disparate groups of Left-wing ideology). You say you are from the Right, but you use the arguments from the Left.


  114. 115 | January 15, 2014 11:54 am

    Rodan wrote:

    These people need to be politically exterminated so the Republican party can crush the Democrats into oblivion.

    Sieg Heil… and you dare to accuse anyone else of trying to purge the party of non purists.


  115. 116 | January 15, 2014 11:55 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    Christie’s Italian and, in all fairness, the only “anti-Italian” stuff I’ve seen is you calling him a “Guido”.

    I noticed this as well. Frankly, other than being used by some of the people here on this blog, I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen the term “Guido” used by anybody about anybody.


  116. 117 | January 15, 2014 12:00 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    she failed a challenge of leadership, its that simple.
    there are ways to win that fight. and that is what a leader figures out.

    Sometimes, believe it or not, leadership is all about knowing you have been lured into a trap. When every pissed off Indian in North America is waiting for you at Wounded Knee, the best strategy really is… DO NOT FUCKING GO to Wounded Knee…


  117. 118 | January 15, 2014 12:03 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ doriangrey:
    she failed a challenge of leadership, its that simple.
    there are ways to win that fight. and that is what a leader figures out.

    Sometimes, believe it or not, leadership is all about knowing you have been lured into a trap. When every pissed off Indian in North America is waiting for you at Wounded Knee, the best strategy really is… DO NOT FUCKING GO to Wounded Knee…

    Or must I remind you of a certain parcel delivery supervisor who managed himself right out of a job, because it was in the best interests of the company he worked for. :twisted:


  118. 119 | January 15, 2014 12:03 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    Maybe you should spend a little time acquainting yourself with the legal restriction placed on the Governor of Alaska while Palin was governor.

    Alaska had just gotten rid of an incredibly corrupt Governor and had placed legal restrictions on the governor regarding civil actions brought by Alaskan residents. Restrictions that no other state has ever had. She was legally required to show up in court in person and answer every single civil corruption charge, to pay her own defense and legally barred from soliciting any defense funds.

    She was spending 3 days a week in court fighting off and was a million dollar in debt from those false civil corruption charges. She wasn’t doing the job Alaskans had elected her to do, because she was spending all of her time fighting false charges. Yes, a corrupt would no doubt have found a way to stick Alaska with the millions of dollars in defense fee’s, even though doing so would have been completely illegal. Yes, no doubt Bill would have found a way to not appear personally in court 3 days a week as required by Alaskan Law to defend himself against frivolous and false corruption charges.

    I’ll stipulate every word, but in a campaign it would all be distilled down to the mantra“the biggest job she had, she quit in lieu of fighting corruption charges” and it would be repeated ad nauseum.


  119. 120 | January 15, 2014 12:03 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    I’d have used the Little Big Horn as the example, but yeah, pretty much. Springing the trap so you can destroy the attacking enemy may work well in the movies, but in practice it’ll generally get you cut to pieces. If you know where the trap is, go around it and hit them from the back.


  120. coldwarrior
    121 | January 15, 2014 12:03 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ doriangrey:
    she failed a challenge of leadership, its that simple.
    there are ways to win that fight. and that is what a leader figures out.

    Sometimes, believe it or not, leadership is all about knowing you have been lured into a trap. When every pissed off Indian in North America is waiting for you at Wounded Knee, the best strategy really is… DO NOT FUCKING GO to Wounded Knee…

    you go to wounded knee, with a division of infantry and cavalry and artillery and then you butcher your enemy.


  121. coldwarrior
    122 | January 15, 2014 12:05 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    Or must I remind you of a certain parcel delivery supervisor who managed himself right out of a job, because it was in the best interests of the company he worked for. :twisted:

    the voters didnt fire her, she fired herself.


  122. 123 | January 15, 2014 12:06 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    the only “anti-Italian” stuff I’ve seen is you calling him a “Guido”.

    I make fun of him wanting to be a Guido. If he really was one I would not make fun of him with that tem. You don’t see me mocking the Jersey Shore crew? I’m 1/4 Sicilian, so it’s more of a mock of someone who puts on an act.


  123. 124 | January 15, 2014 12:07 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    That is how it would be propagandized, sure. I am not the one saying that Sarah Palin must run for President, or she must shut up. I think she can do a lot for u where she is now. If I were to move her along in the hierarchy, I’d rather see her running the Republican Party than running for President. Let her replace Reince Priebus, who hasn’t exactly done a stellar job at that position. That won’t happen because the Republican Establishment can’t stand her, but it is a job that she could probably excel at.


  124. rain of lead
    125 | January 15, 2014 12:07 pm

    @ coldwarrior:
    @ doriangrey:

    there really are no-win situations
    we were not in the gov’s office during legal strategy meetings

    “can we do….”
    “no”
    “well how about…’
    “sorry, against the law”
    “I know…”
    “uh un”
    “well, you’re the lawyer, what can I do?”
    “hmmm,…quit.”


  125. heysoos
    126 | January 15, 2014 12:07 pm

    maybe the biggest problem with the GOP is that it doesn’t move on…Palin seems like a nice lady, beyond that she’s a zero, a face, a voice, a celebrity…there is no proof whatsoever that she is qualified for president


  126. coldwarrior
    127 | January 15, 2014 12:07 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    I’ll stipulate every word, but in a campaign it would all be distilled down to the mantra“the biggest job she had, she quit in lieu of fighting corruption charges” and it would be repeated ad nauseum.

    yep. that would be the monicker.


  127. 128 | January 15, 2014 12:08 pm

    @ coldwarrior:
    @ Iron Fist:
    @ MacDuff:
    @ doriangrey:

    Speaking of Christie, this is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The cruelest cut: Springsteen goofs on Christie over Bridgegate

    :lol:


  128. 129 | January 15, 2014 12:08 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ doriangrey:
    she failed a challenge of leadership, its that simple.
    there are ways to win that fight. and that is what a leader figures out.
    Sometimes, believe it or not, leadership is all about knowing you have been lured into a trap. When every pissed off Indian in North America is waiting for you at Wounded Knee, the best strategy really is… DO NOT FUCKING GO to Wounded Knee…

    you go to wounded knee, with a division of infantry and cavalry and artillery and then you butcher your enemy.

    Yea, tell me again how that worked out for Col. Custer, yea, that was his strategy…. Oh yea… his entire division ended up dead and bald.


  129. coldwarrior
    130 | January 15, 2014 12:08 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Can you find one person that fits that description in the GOP? Really?

    pat buchanan and rick santorum come to mind pretty quickly


  130. 131 | January 15, 2014 12:09 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Be careful, she will put out a hit.


  131. 132 | January 15, 2014 12:09 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    Steve King is another one.


  132. rain of lead
    133 | January 15, 2014 12:10 pm

    @ rain of lead:

    “oh, ahd here’s my bill for this week, that will be $10,000 please


  133. 134 | January 15, 2014 12:10 pm

    New Thread and please see 128.


  134. Speranza
    135 | January 15, 2014 12:12 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    maybe the biggest problem with the GOP is that it doesn’t move on…Palin seems like a nice lady, beyond that she’s a zero, a face, a voice, a celebrity…there is no proof whatsoever that she is qualified for president

    Always fighting the last battles and the last campaign. Dole should’ve been the nominee in 1988, McCain in 1996 or 2000, Romney in 2008, etc.


  135. 136 | January 15, 2014 12:12 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    That was the Little Big Horn, not Wounded Knee. Wounded Knee was a massacre of mostly unarmed American Indians whose only offense was demanding payment for the weapons that they were to turn in:

    The Wounded Knee Massacre occurred on December 29, 1890,[4] near Wounded Knee Creek (Lakota: Čhaŋkpé Ópi Wakpála) on the Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the U.S. state of South Dakota. It was the last battle of the American Indian Wars. On the day before, a detachment of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment commanded by Major Samuel M. Whitside intercepted Spotted Elk’s band of Miniconjou Lakota and 38 Hunkpapa Lakota near Porcupine Butte and escorted them five miles westward (8 km) to Wounded Knee Creek, where they made camp.

    The remainder of the 7th Cavalry Regiment arrived, led by Colonel James W. Forsyth and surrounded the encampment supported by four Hotchkiss guns.[5]

    On the morning of December 29, the troops went into the camp to disarm the Lakota. One version of events claims that during the process of disarming the Lakota, a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote was reluctant to give up his rifle, claiming he had paid a lot for it.[6] A scuffle over Black Coyote’s rifle escalated and a shot was fired which resulted in the 7th Cavalry’s opening fire indiscriminately from all sides, killing men, women, and children, as well as some of their own fellow soldiers. Those few Lakota warriors who still had weapons began shooting back at the attacking soldiers, who quickly suppressed the Lakota fire. The surviving Lakota fled, but U.S. cavalrymen pursued and killed many who were unarmed.

    By the time it was over, at least 150 men, women, and children of the Lakota had been killed and 51 wounded (4 men, 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead at 300.[3] Twenty-five soldiers also died, and 39 were wounded (6 of the wounded would later die).[7] At least twenty soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor.[8] In 2001, the National Congress of American Indians passed two resolutions condemning the awards and called on the U.S. government to rescind them.[9] The site of the massacre has been designated a National Historic Landmark.[4]

    Hard for me to see how you award a Medal of Honor for this kind of thing.


  136. coldwarrior
    137 | January 15, 2014 12:12 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    doriangrey wrote:
    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ doriangrey:
    she failed a challenge of leadership, its that simple.
    there are ways to win that fight. and that is what a leader figures out.
    Sometimes, believe it or not, leadership is all about knowing you have been lured into a trap. When every pissed off Indian in North America is waiting for you at Wounded Knee, the best strategy really is… DO NOT FUCKING GO to Wounded Knee…
    you go to wounded knee, with a division of infantry and cavalry and artillery and then you butcher your enemy.

    Yea, tell me again how that worked out for Col. Custer, yea, that was his strategy…. Oh yea… his entire division ended up dead and bald.

    700 light cavalry men does not a division make


  137. heysoos
    138 | January 15, 2014 12:12 pm

    @ doriangrey:
    huh?….google is pretty handy


  138. heysoos
    139 | January 15, 2014 12:13 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    coldwarrior wrote:
    doriangrey wrote:
    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ doriangrey:
    she failed a challenge of leadership, its that simple.
    there are ways to win that fight. and that is what a leader figures out.
    Sometimes, believe it or not, leadership is all about knowing you have been lured into a trap. When every pissed off Indian in North America is waiting for you at Wounded Knee, the best strategy really is… DO NOT FUCKING GO to Wounded Knee…
    you go to wounded knee, with a division of infantry and cavalry and artillery and then you butcher your enemy.
    Yea, tell me again how that worked out for Col. Custer, yea, that was his strategy…. Oh yea… his entire division ended up dead and bald.

    700 light cavalry men does not a division make

    Custer lost around 250 men dead


  139. Speranza
    140 | January 15, 2014 12:13 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:
    Can you find one person that fits that description in the GOP? Really?
    pat buchanan and rick santorum come to mind pretty quickly

    Check out Buchanan’s latest Israel bashing rant at Townhall.


  140. rain of lead
    141 | January 15, 2014 12:13 pm

    @ heysoos:
    I’m sorry
    we have a complete zero in office now
    he had never done so much as run a lemonade stand and after 5 yrs in office he’s still not

    so the whole qualified for president thing is just a bunch of bs at this point


  141. 142 | January 15, 2014 12:14 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    huh?….google is pretty handy

    Oh shut up… Next thing you know you’ll be claiming that the Germans didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor… :twisted:


  142. rain of lead
    143 | January 15, 2014 12:16 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    wait, what?
    you mean it was some one else?
    well, I”m just gobsmacked


  143. Speranza
    144 | January 15, 2014 12:16 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    I’d have used the Little Big Horn as the example, but yeah, pretty much. Springing the trap so you can destroy the attacking enemy may work well in the movies, but in practice it’ll generally get you cut to pieces. If you know where the trap is, go around it and hit them from the back.

    Little Bighorn was not a trap. It was superb leadership on behalf of the Lakota and a lot of bad luck by the 7th Cavalry. Reno actually caught the Sioux by surprise but they quickly recovered. The Little Bighorn is one of the most misunderstood battles in American military history. Sometimes it is ok to admit to losing a battle because the other side wins it.


  144. heysoos
    145 | January 15, 2014 12:19 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:
    @ doriangrey:
    I’d have used the Little Big Horn as the example, but yeah, pretty much. Springing the trap so you can destroy the attacking enemy may work well in the movies, but in practice it’ll generally get you cut to pieces. If you know where the trap is, go around it and hit them from the back.

    Little Bighorn was not a trap. It was superb leadership on behalf of the Lakota and a lot of bad luck by the 7th Cavalry. Reno actually caught the Sioux by surprise but they quickly recovered. The Little Bighorn is one of the most misunderstood battles in American military history. Sometimes it is ok to admit to losing a battle because the other side wins it.

    correct, well said


  145. 146 | January 15, 2014 12:20 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    Oh shut up… Next thing you know you’ll be claiming that the Germans didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor…

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI


  146. coldwarrior
    147 | January 15, 2014 12:21 pm

    rain of lead wrote:

    @ rain of lead:
    “oh, ahd here’s my bill for this week, that will be $10,000 please

    i’ll write ya a check!


  147. 148 | January 15, 2014 12:22 pm

    Later, peeps.


  148. coldwarrior
    149 | January 15, 2014 12:23 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Hard for me to see how you award a Medal of Honor for this kind of thing.

    medal of honor didnt mean much until during/aftger the spanish american war.

    it gained real respect and highest standards in ww1


  149. heysoos
    150 | January 15, 2014 12:23 pm

    whoa, check out the FOX headline


  150. 151 | January 15, 2014 12:24 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    Oh shut up… Next thing you know you’ll be claiming that the Germans didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor…

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE


  151. rain of lead
    152 | January 15, 2014 12:24 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    rain of lead wrote:

    @ rain of lead:
    “oh, ahd here’s my bill for this week, that will be $10,000 please

    i’ll write ya a check!

    and if it bounces I’ll write you another one just as good


  152. coldwarrior
    153 | January 15, 2014 12:24 pm

    so much for less politics on the blog!

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


  153. heysoos
    154 | January 15, 2014 12:25 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:
    Hard for me to see how you award a Medal of Honor for this kind of thing.
    medal of honor didnt mean much until during/aftger the spanish american war.
    it gained real respect and highest standards in ww1

    Belleau Wood, the Devil Dogs


  154. 155 | January 15, 2014 12:26 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    rain of lead wrote:
    @ rain of lead:
    “oh, ahd here’s my bill for this week, that will be $10,000 please

    i’ll write ya a check!

    Sorry, your last 10 checks bounced, we’ll take the Title of your house as collateral.


  155. 156 | January 15, 2014 12:26 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    we’ll take the Title of your house soul as collateral.

    Adjusted for inflation…


  156. 157 | January 15, 2014 12:30 pm

    Sometimes, a person really does just have to say… I told ya so…

    SILENT SPYING NSA reportedly able to snoop on offline computers

    The National Security Agency has placed software on nearly 100,000 computers around the world that allows the U.S. to conduct surveillance on those machines using radio frequency technology, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

    The secret technology allows the agency to gain access to computers that other countries have tried to protect from spying or cyberattacks, even if they aren’t connected to the Internet, The Times reported, citing NSA documents, computer experts and U.S. officials.

    The software network could also create a digital highway for launching cyberattacks by transmitting malware, including the kind used in attacks by the U.S. against Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to the report.

    The NSA describes the effort an “active defense” and has used the technology to monitor units of the Chinese Army, the Russian military, drug cartels, trade institutions inside the European Union, and sometime U.S. partners against terrorism like Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan, the Times reported.

    Among the most frequent targets of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, the Times reported, has been the Chinese Army. The United States has accused the Chinese Army of launching regular attacks on American industrial and military targets, often to steal secrets or intellectual property. When Chinese attackers have placed similar software on computer systems of American companies or government agencies, American officials have protested, the newspaper reported.

    The Times reported that the technology, used by the agency for several years, relies on radio waves that can be transmitted from tiny circuit boards and USB cards inserted covertly into the computers. The NSA said that the technology has not been used in computers in the U.S.


  157. rain of lead
    158 | January 15, 2014 12:31 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:

    rain of lead wrote:
    @ rain of lead:
    “oh, ahd here’s my bill for this week, that will be $10,000 please

    i’ll write ya a check!

    Sorry, your last 10 checks bounced, we’ll take the Title of your house as collateral.

    sorry, you will have to speak to the bank about that, they are no longer speaking to me


  158. coldwarrior
    159 | January 15, 2014 12:32 pm

    new thread, yinz


  159. 160 | January 15, 2014 12:36 pm

    rain of lead wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    coldwarrior wrote:
    rain of lead wrote:
    @ rain of lead:
    “oh, ahd here’s my bill for this week, that will be $10,000 please
    i’ll write ya a check!
    Sorry, your last 10 checks bounced, we’ll take the Title of your house as collateral.
    sorry, you will have to speak to the bank about that, they are no longer speaking to me

    Oh come on, what’s a mere million dollars in debt between friends… :twisted:


  160. 161 | January 15, 2014 12:37 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    new thread, yinz

    Can’t you see we’re still fighting the last war… :twisted:


  161. Speranza
    162 | January 15, 2014 12:46 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    correct, well said

    Merci.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David