Why is it that when the Democrats absolutely must win, they always get cocky and run a completely shitty candidate?
Actually, I blame Obama. He did not go after the liars of the previous administration. His "stimulus" was timid and inadequate. He tried to be bipartisan well after it became clear that the Republican party was just going to block everything he wanted and hope they could blame him when nothing got done.
So I guess it's back to tax cuts, right? After all, if it didn't work for Regan, and it didn't work for Bush the first, and it didn't work for Dubya, then it's got to be the only possible solution, right?
I did, twice!
Actually once from me and once from my wife. The polls are very heavy which I think is good news for Coakley.
Not from Mass, but excuse me for not being excited about a politician who thinks it's okay to subvert the appeals process to keep an innocent man behind bars for 18 years based on a Satanic panic. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201001/martha-…
Boy, Croakley really got wiped out, didn't she? I mean, how bad is it when the Dems lose the bluest of blue states by 5 full points?
Too bad about that supermajority thang, too.
Well, looks like Coakley lost.
But the Dems would be sitting pretty if they'd only run a Leninist in Coakley's place and liquidated a few recalcitrant Senators, right?
Why is it that when the Democrats absolutely must win, they always get cocky and run a completely shitty candidate?
Actually, I blame Obama. He did not go after the liars of the previous administration. His "stimulus" was timid and inadequate. He tried to be bipartisan well after it became clear that the Republican party was just going to block everything he wanted and hope they could blame him when nothing got done.
So I guess it's back to tax cuts, right? After all, if it didn't work for Regan, and it didn't work for Bush the first, and it didn't work for Dubya, then it's got to be the only possible solution, right?