1. Shorter version of Dem Convention:

Hate rich people.
Love abortion.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 5, 2012 01:58 PM

2. This about sums it up.

Posted by: Palouse on September 5, 2012 02:06 PM

3. I've been watching a livestream for about 20 minutes now and I'm hearing words like "opportunity" and "progress" and "forward" and "giving ordinary people a leg up."

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on September 5, 2012 02:32 PM

4. I just want to sincerely thank the Democrats for their convention.

Hubris and hilarity soften the blows of the Obama economy.

Lies and liars publicly exposed.
God dissed.
Government glorified.
Empty chairs.
Abortion glorified.
Verbally bashing 11yr olds.
Irony, Kennedy and Clinton.
$16,000,000,000,000.
Phony Cherokee's

... and we haven't even heard from Biden yet!

Conservatives and Romney/Ryan thank you.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on September 5, 2012 02:40 PM

5. Jim,
On your home site posts, you don't define "deserving poor" and "non-deserving poor". Who are these folks? I do agree that the Democrats should be addressing the issue. I would also state that we need new thinking in this area. Romney-Ryan seem to believe we can address by passing the problem off (to states or private enterprises). This however doesn't address the question of why in a country as rich as are do the "poor" exist? It will be interesting to see if the Democrats address or not.

Posted by: tc on September 5, 2012 02:42 PM

6. And it just gets better: Monica Lewinsky's Former Rabbi To Deliver Benediction After Bill Clinton Speaks At DNC

Mary Jo Kopechne unavailable for comment.

War on women!

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on September 5, 2012 03:00 PM

7. tc - That's a fair question, but would require an answer far too long for a blog post, much less a comment. So, I'll just sketch a few ideas for you.

Deserving poor is an old -- I think it dates back to at least the 19th century -- phrase I used to outline a general principle. (A somewhat similar, and more modern, phrase would be: "works hard and plays by the rules".)

We should encourage conduct that benefits all of us, and discourage conduct that doesn't. On the high end, for instance, we should discourage "crony capitalism" and rent seeking.

On the low end, for instance, we should do more about crime in our poorest neighborhoods.

(If you want to know more, you might look for an article or book by Gertrude Himmelfarb.)

Posted by: Jim Miller on September 5, 2012 03:03 PM

8. Liberal covens are too much fun: under the bus you go! ... especially when you refuse to fill the seats on the bus to the stadium!

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on September 5, 2012 03:07 PM

9. Democrats vote on the existence of God, then fix the result. Your DNC, ladies and gentlemen!

Posted by: Palouse on September 5, 2012 03:23 PM

10. I can think of two reasons why in nations as rich as America we have has an explosion of "poor" people. Number one is we are led by an administration that would rather offer welfare than opportunity and jobs to indigent people. Number two is we have millions of people who seemingly could not be made to work if the other alternative was to be shot to death. Couple such a government with such a people and you have $46.7 million collecting food stamps. Dimocrats have fed, clothed, housed, medicated and otherwise cultivated their "victim class" for 50 years with no end in sight...excepting the impending bankruptcy for our nation.

Posted by: Saltherring on September 5, 2012 03:35 PM

11. Does anyone besides me find it interesting - and a bit curious - that our loud lefty's are talking about Jim's home page rather than the SUBJECT of this post?

What are you afraid of loud lefty's?

Shriek your pride for your God dissing, mind changing, empty seat, abortion palooza. Be as bold as your mouths are loud.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on September 5, 2012 03:45 PM

12. The Rabid Rodent says Dimocrats are offering up words like "opportunity" and "progress" and "forward" and "giving ordinary people a leg up. My question is where have all these words (and policy that accompanys them) been the past 3.5 years? I guess if your voting base is comprised of rodents it is easier to talk big for the cameras/microphones and then borrow more money to pacify the masses with food stamps.

Posted by: Saltherring on September 5, 2012 03:56 PM

13. The Rabid Rodent says Dimocrats are offering up words like "opportunity" and "progress" and "forward" and "giving ordinary people a leg up.

My response is WORDS are cheap.

President Downgrade has given us nothing but words and where are we for it?
-- Annual budget deficit: November 2008 : $459 billion. Now: $1.2 trillion.
-- Federal debt: November 2008 : $10 trillion. Now: $16 trillion.
-- Federal debt as a percentage of our total economic output: November 2008 : 69.7 percent. Now: 104.8 percent.
-- Poverty rate: November 2008 : 13 percent. Now: 15 percent.
-- Food Stamp Recipients: November 2008 : 30.9 million. Now: 44.7 million.
-- Average price for a gallon of regular gas: November 2008 : $2.07. Now: $3.80.

"A little less talk and a lot more action" ... and NOT on the golf course.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on September 5, 2012 04:04 PM

14. Ragnar @11
As I stated in another post, I am not watching either convention and only reading speeches or summaries of the conventions after the fact. There is too much hyperbole (to put it politely) on both sides to stomach actually watching the circuses that the conventions have become.

From last night's big show (to use circus term), I see we have a bunch of hyperbole and the cursory wife's speech about the candidate (to counter Ann Romney's speech, I guess). Tonight the question will be is can Bill Clinton actually keep his ego in check and talk about Obama or will he make the speech about him? Stay tuned for the rest of the story.

Posted by: tc on September 5, 2012 04:27 PM

15. tc@5: "This however doesn't address the question of why in a country as rich as [sic] are do the "poor" exist?"

You think everyone should be rich just because they happen to live in America???

That's right. Your side believes that private individuals "didn't build that" so everyone should have exactly the same results in life.

You must have misread the Declaration of Independence. It said "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", not that Marxist slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Can you even see the difference?

Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on September 5, 2012 04:36 PM

16. Here's the fact-checker evaluation of Michelle Obama's speech last night - arguably the best speech so far. It was good speech and she came across favorably. However, I had some nagging issues with what she said about her's and Barack's upbringing, etc. and also the way she has spent more taxpayer money than any other first lady ever on her vacations, entourages, etc. Joel Pollak, Breitbart fact-checked her speech and a had a good number of valid points. The progressives here won't like it, but everyone needs to be accountable for what they say and whether they speak the truth or not. With that said, can you who disagree resist the temptation to label the fact-checker as racist ? (I'll believe when I see it)
"First Lady Michelle Obama's pitch to voters last night relied on the premise that she and her husband understand what it is to struggle to make ends meet. She spoke movingly about their early years--about how a young Barack Obama drove a car that was "rusted out" and found his furniture "in a dumpster," how they both came from families that had to "scrape by." Her fairy tale--however well-delivered--was one great, big, colorful lie.
Both Michelle Robinson and Barack Obama began their adult lives with a leg up on the rest of America. They attended elite schools: Michelle went to Whitney Young, the public magnet school for Chicago's upper class, while Barack attended Punahou, the private prep school for the top stratum of Hawaiian society. They were accepted to Ivy League schools despite undistinguished credentials, and both attended Harvard Law School.
"[B]elieve it or not, when we were first married, our combined monthly student loan bills were actually higher than our mortgage," Michelle said. That sounds like a raw deal--but in fact reflects their fortunate circumstances. They had both just graduated from a very expensive law school, and their combined income from cushy law firm jobs dwarfed the repayments. Barack also soon enjoyed a second salary from the University of Chicago.

They had expensive tastes, reflected in the $277,500 two-bedroom condo they bought in 1993--a high price even by today's standards. Several years later, they moved into their $1.65 million mansion in Hyde Park--with the help of fraudster Tony Rezko. Barack often told a story of hardship on the campaign trail in 2008 about having his credit card declined--once. The fact that he thought this counted as real hardship speaks volumes.

As her husband moved onto the national political stage, Michelle Obama began to enjoy a lavish lifestyle at taxpayer expense, directly and indirectly. When Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he obtained a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago Hospital--and his wife's salary as Vice President for Community Affairs jumped from $121,910 to $316,962. Her job: pushing poor, uninsured patients to other hospitals.
As First Lady, Michelle Obama has lived high on the hog while the rest of the country has suffered through an extraordinary recession. In 2010, she and her entourage decamped to Spain for a lavish vacation. That summer, the Obamas encouraged Americans to visit the Gulf coast after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which threatened tourism in the region. They promptly jetted off to Maine for their own summer holiday.
This summer, the Obamas skipped their usual summer trip to the wealthy playground of Martha's Vineyard--months after Michelle and her daughters had enjoyed an expensive winter skiing trip in Aspen. And, of course, there are the frequent pilgrimages to Hawaii, Some of their family's comfort, of course, comes from private income, principally Barack Obama's book sales--yet even that wealth is a spin-off of Obama's political career.

If, as the Democrats eagerly pointing out, Mitt Romney enjoyed the privilege of private wealth, the Obamas have enjoyed privilege funded by public money and public life. And until entering the national spotlight, they gave little to charity, contributing instead to a church that preached racial grievance. "[T]ruth matters," Michelle Obama told the nation last night. That, too, is a lie--because so far, she has evaded it without consequence."

Bring in your own fact checks if you wish, but if you have no credible facts, your's will be superfluous.

Posted by: KDS on September 5, 2012 04:37 PM

17. It's rich---first the Democrats kick God out of their platform and diss Israel. Goes national and doesn't get well-received. THEN, Antonio Villaraigosa has to ask multiple times if they can put God back in and gets BOOED when it happens (I think b/c a majority did not want the re-instatement!)

The Democrat party, ladies and gentlemen!

Posted by: Monterey on September 5, 2012 04:38 PM

18. Let's see, no God, no Jerusalem, no wait, yes God and Jerusalem are back on the platform... 2/3'rds vote my butt! so sad... flip flop... transparency my butt...

No to stadium (20% chance of rain), no wait, no, they'll have it indoors only... Now no balloons... No wait... maybe they can find 5 trillion IOU's to drop... I know they have those around somewhere...

Oh and tonight's speech by the come back kid... low TV ratings will be the fault of the NFL starting tonight... too funny...

Posted by: Doug C. on September 5, 2012 04:38 PM

19. Ragnar @13
How many of your numbers are driven by the recession and other factors?
Let's see:
Budget Deficit: Take away loss in revenues due to recession, cost of Bush Tax Cuts, and cost of wars, and the number if very small.
Federal Debt: Driven by first item (Budget Deficit)
Debt as %: Driven by first item (Budget Deficit)
Poverty Rate: Driven by Recession
Food Stamp Recipients: Driver = Recession
Average Price for gallon of regular gas: Not driven by recession. Set by global marketplace with main driver being demand by both US, Europe, and now Asia (China becoming major factor).

The last one is one area you can cite current administration policies, so I will give you that one. The others the major driver is the depth of the 2008 Recession. We as a country still have not addressed the impact of the housing collapse and the loss of jobs in the construction arena.

One area where this Administration could have been more aggressive in its policies is the area of trade. Closing the Trade gap and expanding markets could have been a focus area to increase jobs. This area, I would rate the current administration low. Overall, however, you fail to factor in how big of impact and the depth of the Great Recession was. A lot of jobs were loss in 2008 and early 2009 until the first stimulus started to turn the direction of the Great Recession. How do you, Ragnar, factor this into your numbers? Do you even consider it? Are you thinking there is some magic pill that will right the system immediately? It sure won't be Romney's policies which will throw more people out of work (government employees) and have meaningless impact (increasing availability of capital). The problem with Romney's approach is it is a cure for a different problem. It doesn't address the Demand side of the Economic Equation. Business won't build products for non-existent customers, no matter how much capital they have access to. The construction industry (associated with housing) was a major employer. Those jobs won't come back until housing policy is addressed and we clean out the underwater properties. Just my take.

Posted by: tc on September 5, 2012 04:39 PM

20. tc@14: What's the big deal? Bill would just be following Barack's lead. Are you saying your party doesn't have room for both their egos? I thought it was all inclusive (unless you believe in God, Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, pro-life, pro-gun, small government, minorities can be racist, you built your own business, work requirements for welfare, voter id laws, etc.).

Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on September 5, 2012 04:44 PM

21. tc@19: So what was the driving force of the recession? Could it have been the housing bubble popping?

What caused the housing bubble? Could it have been all the sub-prime mortgages?

Why were there so many sub-prime mortgages? Could it be that minorities sued for being red-lined?

Who was one of the first to sue? Could it be Barack Obama?

Obama's 1995 lawsuit against big banks started inflating the housing bubble that created the mess he says he inherited.

For a minute there I almost channeled the Church Lady and said, "Could it be Satan?".

Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on September 5, 2012 04:59 PM

22. tc,

A large part of the continuing recession is entirely the President's fault. Because Smart Money knows not to follow up the failure of the housing bubble with more bad investments in uncertain times. Due to the abundance or regulation and the Obama nepotism towards many companies like Fisker and Solyndra, Smart Money is on the sidelines waiting for more certainty.

If you and the rest of the left really want to end the recession, the best way to do so is to vote in a new President which will give the all clear sign for Smart Money to engage. The boom begins as soon as Obama's presidency ends.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 5, 2012 06:09 PM

23. Obama will be the Man on the Moon on November 7, 2012!!

Posted by: Tim on September 5, 2012 06:25 PM

24. the best way to [end the recession] is to vote in a new President which will give the all clear sign for Smart Money to engage. The boom begins as soon as Obama's presidency ends.

Well stated, Jeff B. and exactly on the money for pragmatists.

As for Demopalooza, it's more akin to a 3 ring circus. It's hard to imagine that such a fractured party can be in touch with the American public when they, as a party, can't even agree on a party platform before, after or during the DNC convention. In sumnation, it's been DysfuNCtional, just like its leadership the last 4 years in this country.

Posted by: Rick D. on September 5, 2012 06:32 PM

25. .
Hey, there's Jim Senegal.

Like the host of this "blog", Jim Senegal was not born in western Washington, but came to Democratic controlled western Washington to build a very successful global business.

Funny, I don't recall any of the billionaire successful business "job creators" from western Washington at the Republican convention.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on September 5, 2012 07:08 PM

26. TC @ 19,

Pull out the Bush tax cuts - assume they are 100% expense (no economic benefit to even partially offset them). Pull out the costs of the war. You've lowered the deficit by about $180 billion - it's still well over $1 trillion.

The Federal Government receives, today, TWICE the per-capita dollars as it did back in the 50s and early 60s, on an inflation-adjusted (constant dollar) basis. In fact, it's receiving as much today as back in the hey-day of the "Clinton Boom" on 1998 and 1999. The difference is the sheer amount of spending has exploded way out of proportion.

And the bulk of the spending - 100% of all Federal receipts - are on social spending. All that 'evil stuff' of corporate tax breaks, defense (which is Constitutionally mandated), etc. is less than 30% of the budget. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and income guaranty (welfare/unemployment/food stamps) eats 100% of our receipts - because we've expanded all those programs way beyond original scope.

It's not "the war" or "tax breaks for the rich". It's massive overspending that is doing nothing but breaking down the work ethic our fathers and grandfathers had...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 5, 2012 07:09 PM

27. I've been watching on the "Fair and Balanced" MSNBC. What I have learned so far - Everything the Republicans said was either a LIE or a Race Based Comment - Everything the Democrats have said is spot on the truth.

Chris Matthews still has that warm and tingly feeling running down his lag. Suggestion - get depends. Last time I had a warm tingly feeling running down my leg I found I was pissing myself.

Posted by: Ken on September 5, 2012 07:32 PM

28. George W. Bush just got mentioned in a positive light more at the Democratic convention than at the Republican Convention.

Posted by: Lionel Hutz Esq. on September 5, 2012 07:41 PM

29. What highlights dysfunction more than an out of touch party having an impeached and disgraced former US president attempting to carry the water for an incompetent and delusional one (who can't run on his record) by asking for 4 more years of the same?

Yup, that's the present day democrat party for you, folks.

Posted by: Rick D. on September 5, 2012 07:55 PM

30. Better than Red Skelton - and he was trying to be funny! These people are wonderful, just great stuff. You couldn't write it. Here's your standard-bearers: Fluke, who wants to fuke, and demands freedom from consequences that everybody else should buy for her; then comes Princess Fauxcahontas; and ol' I-Did-Not-Have-Sex-With-That-Woman, revered elder statesman. Or revered something-or-other. You couldn't pay for this stuff! The DNC is the only place you could see a show like this, and it's free! How can you complain?

Posted by: jj on September 5, 2012 08:03 PM

31. Better than Red Skelton - and he was trying to be funny! These people are wonderful, just great stuff. You couldn't write it. Here's your standard-bearers: Fluke, who wants to fuke, and demands freedom from consequences that everybody else should buy for her; then comes Princess Fauxcahontas; and ol' I-Did-Not-Have-Sex-With-That-Woman, revered elder statesman. Or revered something-or-other. You couldn't pay for this stuff! The DNC is the only place you could see a show like this, and it's free! How can you complain?

Posted by: jj on September 5, 2012 08:04 PM

32. USA Slips Down the Ranks of Global Competitiveness... for the fourth straight year. Forward!

Posted by: jimt on September 5, 2012 08:14 PM

33. Well, the Big Dog has spoken. Romney is surely curled up in a ball weeping about all the money he has wasted. Let the Conservative whining begin:

Posted by: Lionel Hutz Esq. on September 5, 2012 08:20 PM

34. Some former prez was speaking tonight? Sorry, I was watching the opening of the NFL season, like most other people. I heard zombie Ted Kennedy spoke last night. Scintillating. What did living zombie Jimmy Carter say? "Heckuva job, Barry!"

Posted by: Palouse on September 5, 2012 08:50 PM

35. Boos for God and Israel -- quite a party goin' on there, Dems...How do you spin that fiasco?

Posted by: m on September 5, 2012 08:56 PM

36. @35 That would be terrible if it were true.

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on September 5, 2012 09:07 PM

37. In case any of you missed it, Barry Goldwater's granddaughter cast Arizona's delegate votes for Obama. By the way, I actually met Barry Goldwater in person, and got to briefly talk with him one-on-one, when I was a college student. And those of you who are longtime regular readers of my comments on Horsesass.org probably are aware that I was a Goldwater Republican in my early years.

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on September 5, 2012 09:11 PM

38. "@35 That would be terrible if it were true."

So the following sources are wrong?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-dnc-obama-god-jerusalem-20120905,0,3260786.story

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/09/05/democrats-fumble-israel-issue-put-jerusalem-as-capital-back-in-platform/

http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-change-platform-add-god-jerusalem-211928130--election.html

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3872849

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-rapidly-revise-platform-include-god/story?id=17164108#.UEgkQI2PWJQ

Posted by: m on September 5, 2012 09:17 PM

39. No one here realy gives a rip what you once were you silly little Marxist rodent. Crawl back into your Horses Ass hole and hibernate.

Posted by: Saltherring on September 5, 2012 09:21 PM

40. DNC convention so far= whinefest

waaaah, I had it hard in the early part of growing up and that's why I can't succeed in life.

waaaah, the taxpayer's should have to pay for my $9/mo birth control even though I want you to stay out of the personal choices I make with my body.

waaah, The taxpayer's should foot the bill to send every kid born into poverty to Harvard or Yale.

waaah, showing my photo ID in order to vote is oppressive even though I have to show it when I'm boarding a plane, buying cigarettes at a 7-11 or when I'm entering the 2012 DNC convention.

Can this party grow up already?

Posted by: Rick D. on September 5, 2012 09:28 PM

41. In between the speeches , the democrat convention goes down as an embarrassment for their having to downsize Obama's speech venue by way more than 1/2, a platform that reveals how NOT middle-class the party really is for how extremist and out of touch with most americans the democrat party really is. And a sham attempt to pretend that the democrats were way too divided on "God" and Israel, and the unmistakable booing that came when those two got put back into the Platform.

Politico reports Obama saw the language prior to the convention but apparently felt no need to put anything back in at the time.

This is going to go down as a big embarrassment for the too-honest-for-our-own-good democrats.

Posted by: Monterey on September 5, 2012 09:33 PM

42. ...and you knew when the dems disinvited God and dissed his beloved Israel from their platform, yet still were saying "God bless America" etc. that it wasn't going to go down well from that point on.

Posted by: Monterey on September 5, 2012 09:35 PM

43. What is a Goldwater rebublican mean? Nothing really I think, but I do want to know. What woudl if mean to be a JFK Democrat? Would JFK even be someone that Dems today would listen to? I don't think so. Scoop Jackson? He'd be called a baby killer and racist....oh and homophobe. So really, what does that mean today? Nothing, unless you can do whatever you want without any consequences....ever. We all should be rich and never have to work. Damn....candyland isn't a game it's the DNC platform.

Posted by: Denlge on September 5, 2012 09:49 PM

44. Bill Clinton always gives good speeches. This one was quite long, but effective - as he posed as the capable defense lawyer defending the criminal (economic terrorist) Mr. Obama,, who is as guilty as sin.

His argument reminded me of the wagging his finger at the camera and saying ;
"I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky". His speech was no more believable - but the goodness of his propaganda put him in the good graces of the Democratic/progressive marxist party - that thrives solely on propaganda. Like Michele O's speech which had low credibility - they made for good theatre and both would win Emmys.

Posted by: KDS on September 5, 2012 10:07 PM

45. Oh, and speaking of Democrat vote fraud:

http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story/Ark-lawmaker-pleads-guilty-to-election-charge/qjc8PtXwfkC8frDCgwLNrg.cspx

"Prosecutors said (Democrat) Hallum and his father, Kent, tasked Carter and Malone with obtaining absentee ballot applications for certain voters and assisting voters in filling out the ballots, "actually completing absentee ballots in some instances without regard to the voter's actual candidate choice."

The ballots were typically placed in unsealed envelopes before being mailed to local election officials.

"If a ballot contained a vote for Hudson Hallum's opponent, it was destroyed," prosecutors said in a bill of information filed with the court."

Yep, uh-huh, of course there is NO vote fraud happening in vote-by-mail. None at all. None. Did we say none? Uhh............

Posted by: Monterey on September 5, 2012 10:09 PM

46. Romo and the Cowboys looked strong! And Manning ended up finishing it out respectably for the Giants. Certainly a much better game to watch than the Democrats vs Themselves in Charlotte.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 5, 2012 10:41 PM

47. After the Dems were found out to have excised God from their platform, a friend reminds us of this verse:

Psalm 9:17--The wicked go down to the realm of the dead, all the nations that forget God.

Posted by: Monterey on September 5, 2012 11:29 PM

48. So far, the headline speeches at the DNC have blown the doors off the RNC speeches. I suspect Obama is going to get a better bounce after the DNC. Romney's bounce was small if any.

Posted by: Wayne on September 6, 2012 12:03 AM

49. Damn, Wayne. You're such a kidder.

Did you lose a bet or something?

Posted by: Hinton on September 6, 2012 02:15 AM

50. Oh, yes, Wayne, and BO is a great and effective leader too...right up there with Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev.

Posted by: Saltherring on September 6, 2012 06:41 AM

51. http://www.brandviagra.net/#74182 - brand viagra from canada - виагра состав

Posted by: Nibblifsclolf on September 6, 2012 08:34 AM

52. @36 Roger,

You must have been busy role playing as a rabbit when the booing and rejection of the change in platform occurred at the convention. Here is a link so you can check it out.

Roger, maybe you can help us understand why the Left has to hide so much? Why the careful language on class warfare and wealth redistribution? Why all of the politically correct nonsense to justify racial preferences for certain skin colors? Why the obvious unease with religion, but only certain religions? Why the continual reference to choice instead of just coming out and saying that you think killing unborn babies is fine?

The video shows that there is a tension in the party between what you all truly believe and what you can market to the normal people in the rest of the USA. If the Left had to adhere to truth in advertising standards, there would rarely be a Democrat elected.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 6, 2012 09:13 AM

53. .
Sympathies to all in the peanut gallery who are tasting so many bitter tears.

Be sure to go in to cone of silence tonight, because if nights 1 and 2 caused you this much anguish, tonight will give you PTSD.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on September 6, 2012 09:22 AM

54. Another topic that should be talked about more is Foreign Policy, especially Wars, like Afghanistan.

Great piece in News Tribune of one candidate that is mention it, Michael Baumgartner.

Posted by: tc on September 6, 2012 09:55 AM

55. @53 No tears here. We are laughing at you, not with you.

Posted by: Palouse on September 6, 2012 10:06 AM

56. If you need another example, here you go.

DNC delegates: "Let's ban profits"

Posted by: Palouse on September 6, 2012 11:07 AM

57. An unmitigated disaster for the Dems and Obama, thank goodness!

Posted by: Warren on September 6, 2012 11:29 AM

58. From a Kirby Wilbur tweet:

"Per Jay Nordlinger at National Review, "If D's are so good for working people, why are so many people not working?"

Posted by: Monterey on September 6, 2012 12:12 PM

59. Will somebody tell Barack they can move his speech back to the original larger venue? The weather will be A-ok.
http://www.weather.com/weather/hourbyhour/graph/Charlotte+NC+USNC0121:1:US?pagenum=2&nextbeginIndex=6

Posted by: Monterey on September 6, 2012 12:22 PM

60. Watch and see if Obama gives any bold detailed jobs/economic plan - which he has never done before, as David Brooks says he must do to be worthy of reelection.

That would be a good post in itself !

Posted by: KDS on September 6, 2012 12:29 PM

61. Uh oh, another democrat caught committing vote fraud using absentee ballots. But of course there is never ANY fraud with mail-in ballots.

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/09/06/mississippi-naacp-executive-given-jail-time-for-voter-fraud/

Posted by: Monterey on September 6, 2012 12:36 PM

62. Mike-Boy says tonight's Dimocrat Hate Fest "will give you PTSD". Too bad it won't give Mikey a brain large enough to figure you what these criminals have done (and are doing) to our country.

Posted by: Saltherring on September 6, 2012 12:38 PM

63. One thing is for sure, the DNC convention hasn't convinced any independent's that things will improve if they give the empty suit 4 more years to continue more of the same. Nothing says tone deaf more clearly than having 68% of America believing the country is "not headed in the right direction" whilst Capt. Obama is yelling "Full steam ahead!!".

Posted by: Rick D. on September 6, 2012 02:03 PM

64. Ted Cruz of Texas (R nominee for US Senate) pointed out that the big difference between Bill Clinton (who got "shellacked" just like Obama after his first two years) is that Clinton decided to work across the aisle with republicans, after getting the message from voters.

Obama's response to being shellacked by voters who hated his far-left agenda was to double down with even more far-left actions. I think congressional shellacking #2 may be around the corner regardless of what happens in the POTUS race.

But many Americans had to be as horrified as I was to see throngs of angry democrats booing God and Israel.

Posted by: Monterey on September 6, 2012 02:24 PM

65. Why were the Democratic delegates booing after the three votes on amending the platform to return Jerusalem and God?

Most of the explanations I've hear have been that they were against the changes. But I think it likely that some of the delegates were unhappy with the decision on the vote, since the "Ayes" did not sound anywhere near the 2/3 needed.

(If they were in groups that opposed the changes, the "No's" might have sounded even louder than they would have from some neutral point.)

Maybe one of the umpteen (where umpteen equals approximately 15) thousand reporters will ask some of the delegates why people booed. They might not all give honest answers, but it wouldn't hurt to ask them.

Posted by: Jim Miller on September 6, 2012 02:42 PM

66. Neo-Cons, I have a question concerning the Democrat's convention platform. What's all the kerfuffle about decalring Jerusalem the capital of Israel? Why is this even brought up in a national convention? Who cares if we declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel when it's the perogative of the Israelis to declare their own capital. Americans have no say-so in the matter.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on September 6, 2012 03:00 PM

67. @66 Because the US has been involved in Israeli-Palestinian "negotiations" for decades, and the Palestinians want part of Jerusalem as their capital. We send millions (billions?) of dollars to Israel every year. By stating specifically Jerusalem belongs to Israel, it sets the tone for any future negotiation. That's important to a lot of Jewish people here in the USA.

Posted by: Palouse on September 6, 2012 03:16 PM

68. PI @66
Because it is a mixing of one end-times philosophy with politics. A certain faction believes it has to act (and don't trust God) to carry forth their end-times interpretation. See John Hagee for more on this frame of mind.

BTW, I agree with you. This decision should be Israel's and not the US. For state's rights proponents, certain factions sure like messing around with other government's affairs. Note, this isn't all. For example, Ron Paul was very vocal along your line of thought.

Posted by: tc on September 6, 2012 03:16 PM

69. Because it is a mixing of one end-times philosophy with politics.

While there may be a sect of people where this is true, that's not why Republicans (and now Democrats) state it specifically.

This decision should be Israel's and not the US

No one has ever stated otherwise.

certain factions sure like messing around with other government's affairs.

By affirming support for Israel's capital does in no way interfere in their affairs. It's just that, support for their right to name their own capital.

Posted by: Palouse on September 6, 2012 03:22 PM

70. @67,

Yeah, we've been in the middle of that fight for decades. I think it's time we excuse ourselves and declare neutrality.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on September 6, 2012 03:22 PM

71. I think it's time we excuse ourselves and declare neutrality.

I think the Democrats should go ahead and adopt that in their platform. :)

Posted by: Palouse on September 6, 2012 03:24 PM

72. I think the DNC used the wrong song in finishing up Obama's speech tonight. The more aprapos song for this president would be one from the 80's by the Thompson twins- Promises.

"Promises, promises, knew you'd never keep"

Posted by: Rick D. on September 6, 2012 08:40 PM

73. After all is said and done, I doubt the conventions will move the electorate much. Contrary to Rick D's wet dream that independents are turning towards his candidate. Independents are still going to be skeptical of both sides. Maybe the debates will be a game changer. Right now, it will be a close race, but one in which Florida, Florida, Florida, rules the day. The winner of Florida will most likely win the election. Why did Romney choose Wisconsin's Ryan over Florida's Rubio will be the question that probably decides the election?

Posted by: tc on September 6, 2012 09:32 PM

74. @72,

Rick D. Good song choice for your point, but wrong band. That was Naked Eyes, not the Thompson Twins who recorded the President's anthem.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 6, 2012 10:11 PM

75. tc@ 73. Contrary to Rick D's wet dream that independents are turning towards his candidate.

I seem to recall a certain DNC operative (Carville) saying "it's about the economy, stupid". If that's the litmus test in not re-electing a president, then by all metrics applied, independent's will fall Romney's way, tc. Funny thing is I don't hear a lot of that from Democrat's these days.

@ Jeff B. - Thanks for the correction on the band. In my defense I would point to my affinity for metal bands back in the day and not so much the top 40 one's. But like you said, the point was the song's lyrics as they rang out in my head when President Obama spoke tonight.

Posted by: Rick D. on September 6, 2012 10:52 PM

76. Rick D@75
I was referring to your overly optimistic prediction that independents are deciding towards Romney (your guy), and not the economy. Of course its the economy, which has been sending mixed signals. It isn't robust or great, but it also isn't hemorrhaging 800K jobs per month. Could we be at a better place right now (economy-wise)? To quote Sarah Palin, "You Betcha!" We could also be at a lot worse place right now if we continued the trend of losing 800,000 jobs per month which we were 4 years ago. No, to me, the conventions didn't sway anyone either direction. It was more of the status quo, partisan bickering and name-calling that has led to the stalemate in government.

Posted by: tc on September 7, 2012 08:09 AM

77. @76 Reagan took office when jobs were rapidly being lost too. In fact, unemployment went up from 7+% to around 10% after his first year (very similar to Obama). But the difference was after that - Reagan cut taxes and instituted pro-growth policies. The economy grew by 5+% every year after that and unemployment dropped by nearly 4 points in his first term. It was just over 5% by the time he left office.

Sorry, not buying the "it could have been worse" argument. History has shown us, it could have been a lot better with a different President. Romney will be wise to make this comparison during the debates.

Posted by: Palouse on September 7, 2012 08:32 AM

78. Palouse@77
Give me a break. You are comparing apples and oranges. The size of the job losses from the 2008 Great Recession dwarf the early 80's Recession during Reagan's term and the GW Bush Recession in the early 2000's. Look at the data. Further, the causes of the Recessions are vastly different. Dr. Deming had a saying about copying with out understanding, you need to look it up. This is the problem with Romney's approach it is the wrong solution for the problem because it doesn't address the cause of the 2008 Great Recession. The cause was not a lack of capital (supply side), but it was a loss on the demand side. There is plenty of Capital for businesses to add jobs, the issue now is the lack of demand for their goods. Businesses have learned (painfully from the 80's) that you just don't build inventory without a demand. Inventory is a cost. Without potential sales, there is no sense to build products. Demand can only come by giving the middle class (not the rich) more disposable income, increasing external/foreign markets tapping unmet demand, or creating new market (like alternative energy market). The latter one however, does displace workers in the older market, but in the case of energy that is okay as far as the US is concerned because a significant chunk of the current systems costs flows to OPEC nations.

Deming: "To copy an example of success, without understanding it with the aid of theory, may lead to disaster."

Posted by: tc on September 7, 2012 09:28 AM

79. @78 Yes, the job losses were greater because the overall workforce was bigger than in 1980. When comparing unemployment rates, they are very similar. And Obama did not have rampant inflation to deal with, Reagan did.

Liberals love to have us believe this recession was so much worse than every other one because it excuses Obama's failures to deal with it. Fact it, it was bad, others have been bad too. 10% unemployment is 10% unemployment, whether it happened in 1981 or in 2009.

As for creating more demand, Reagan did it by pro-growth policies which created more jobs and more taxpayers. Obama has failed miserably at this task.

Posted by: Palouse on September 10, 2012 07:24 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?