Uh-oh...Specter the commie....

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:31:13 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:


wrote


the "radical partisanship" of the last 10-15 years
is VERY detrimental to the US, and both parties engage in it.


I agree with all I've quoted above and ...fwiw ... very, very, seldom make a
post 'aimed' at anyone, including anyone I quote. Your previous post
reminded me of something that I then commented on ... and I didn't even
really quote it, since I was NOT replying directly to it. I just said my
piece ( which admittedly was on a topic varied from your original ) on
something I find interesting ... mine is a very 'stream of consciousness'
type of thinking and I'm often misunderstood because of that 'weakness.'


As a further fwiw ( ffwiw? ) I think people like ~beancounter~ are the very
best recruitment tool for the Dems and people like Ken, for the Repubs.
Nobody that actually does think for themselves wants to be associated with
"radical partisanship" and it clearly non-productive and even offensive to
most people.

FFWIW, that is one of the key reasons Obama won, IMHO ... NOT because he was
supported by the loony-left, rather by the "can't we find a middle' ... an,
middle. McCain might well have beat him if he hadn't tied himself so
closely to the Rush/ Palin/ wackjob right. I, personally, would have
still voted for Obama, but McCain has been one of the Republicans on my list
of respected people, .... at least until part way through this last campaign

FWIW, Obama _won_ because of urban non-whites in a key districts nailed the EC
down for him. OTOH, his general and broad support across a wide spectrum, I'd
agree, speaks to the "middle" of the US. And frankly, I don't think Palin is as
"right whackjob" as many, influenced directly or indirectly by certain media,
think (she's not exactly "middle," but she's not all _that_ far away). Rush
isn't a "right-wing whackjob," he's just a pandering idiot.

I don't know if you recall, but I steadfastly maintained that the extremely
unlikely "McCain/Obama" ticket in 2008 would have been the best thing to happen
to the US politically (followed by, if he proved himself, an Obama/whoever
ticket in 2016 and 2020), and I believe it now more than ever. I see the
potential for a real backlash when Obama can't live up to the promise his hype
(unfairly) created for the middle - nobody could, it's totally unrealistic - and
when he can't, it could get politically ugly for him (and no, he won't "deserve
it" other than as a contributor to the hype).

TC,
R

TC,
R
...

wrote:

FWIW, Obama _won_ because of urban non-whites in a key districts nailed the EC
down for him. ...

The old clandestine, racist, wink wink strategy cleverly
employed by the Obama team in total secrecy and kept under
the radar of all but the most astute observers. (Most of
whom have eyeholes cut in their sheets.) Urban non-whites,
the euphemism is a dead give away.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:52:12 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:

FWIW, Obama _won_ because of urban non-whites in a key districts nailed the EC
down for him. ...

The old clandestine, racist, wink wink strategy cleverly
employed by the Obama team in total secrecy and kept under
the radar of all but the most astute observers. (Most of
whom have eyeholes cut in their sheets.) Urban non-whites,
the euphemism is a dead give away.

Wow, you're really going for it, trying to fill those file cabinets...

Um, euphemism, Gracie...? Lessee here...for example, Wayne County, Michigan is
about 10% white, 90% _non-white_ (including blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.),
and I'd hardly it "rural" or "non-urban"...and if I'm a racist merely for using
the term "urban non-whites," so is David Axelrod and Obama hisownself, along
with about everyone who deals with polls and the data, censuses and the data,
etc., etc.

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
FWIW, Obama _won_ because of urban non-whites in a key districts nailed the EC
down for him. ...
The old clandestine, racist, wink wink strategy cleverly
employed by the Obama team in total secrecy and kept under
the radar of all but the most astute observers. (Most of
whom have eyeholes cut in their sheets.) Urban non-whites,
the euphemism is a dead give away.

Wow, you're really going for it, trying to fill those file cabinets...

Um, euphemism, Gracie...?

Yeah, euphemisms. The more euphemisms the lamer the argument.
"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", there's a good example
of a euphemism employed to obfuscate a rather simple concept.

When the copyright expires on that expensive data analysis of
the polls you be sure to let me know. Until then I'll consider
Obama's victory an electoral landslide.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:39:02 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
FWIW, Obama _won_ because of urban non-whites in a key districts nailed the EC
down for him. ...
The old clandestine, racist, wink wink strategy cleverly
employed by the Obama team in total secrecy and kept under
the radar of all but the most astute observers. (Most of
whom have eyeholes cut in their sheets.) Urban non-whites,
the euphemism is a dead give away.

Wow, you're really going for it, trying to fill those file cabinets...

Um, euphemism, Gracie...?

Yeah, euphemisms. The more euphemisms the lamer the argument.
"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", there's a good example
of a euphemism employed to obfuscate a rather simple concept.

When the copyright expires on that expensive data analysis of
the polls you be sure to let me know.

The actual analysis will likely remain private for a long while, but the
underlying data is there for anyone who wishes to look it up, provided they have
the objectivity and intelligence to rea...ah...yeah, I see your problem...

Until then I'll consider
Obama's victory an electoral landslide.

Aw, now, come on - you sell yourself short - I have no doubt that you'll still
consider all sorts of partisan crap and other incorrect stuff to be true
regardless of the information provided to you...

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Until then I'll consider
Obama's victory an electoral landslide.

Aw, now, come on - you sell yourself short - I have no doubt that you'll still
consider all sorts of partisan crap and other incorrect stuff to be true
regardless of the information provided to you...

Well, there's the thing. You post crazy conspiracy theories
about some sort of top secret, wink wink strategy supposedly
employed by the Obama campaign and the only information you
provide to substantiate this fairy tale is "the analysis is
private".

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
the only information you
provide to substantiate this fairy tale is "the analysis is
private".

which, I strongly(VERY strongly) suspect translates into:
"the analysis was made by folks far from the campaign, with no clue of state
politics" Sticking to that strategy outlined by Rick, as the SOLE strategy,
or even the DECIDING strategy element, is sheer lunacy. The numbers just
won't add up. Obama's team is/was very good at reading the rules well before
the first planning meetings, and attacked this campaign accordingly. They
did, from state to state, what needed to be done to win the EC, easily. They
attacked largely rural/suburban states with traditional GOP leanings,
forcing the GOP to play virtual constant defense. They DID utilize big
margins among non-whites in cities to their advantage. They maximized
turnout by use of cutting edge techniques never really used before in
practice(many were straight out of political theory classes at the
University level). And, they won. Now, let's all get back to whatever the
original topic was......
Tom