Is Georgia Red or Blue?

Georgia remains Red… if you believe the pollsters. From a May 14, 2008 Strategic Vision poll:

If the election for President were held today, whom would you support, John McCain, the Republican or Barack Obama, the Democrat? (McCain – 54%, Obama 40%)

John McCain 54%
Barack Obama 40%
Undecided 6%

But whoa there, Nellie. Let’s now look at voting data from Center For Responsive Politics and Georgia Secretary of State as presented by CL today:

Amount Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign has raised in Georgia: $1,305,275

Amount Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has raised in Georgia: $2,458,219

Number of votes Obama received in 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary: 704,247

Number of votes McCain received in 2008 Georgia Republican Presidential Primary: 304,751

Number of votes Sen. John Kerry received in 2004 Georgia Democratic Presidential Primary: 293,265

Number of votes George W. Bush received in 2000 Georgia Republican Primary: 430,480

Painful as it is for ’em, pollsters are, at some point real soon, going to have to stop deflecting “the cell phone issue” and come to terms with this new Obama demo: young and wired and fired. I’d venture to say many Obama kids don’t even have land lines, the primary data trove trolled by political pollsters.

I know Georgia is about a half century behind the rest of the nation, but can we get some youth-y data ’round this place for once?


  1. Doug Deal says:


    Your unrivaled powers of unbiased observation are as sharp as ever.

    You guys go ahead and spend money in Georgia in the expectation that you win the state.

    Heck, go after Idaho and Montana too.

    You seem to forget that there were three equally matched candidates on the Republican side, which netted a total of 963,541 votes.

    The Democratic “dream” candidates combined for 1,060,851.

    In 2006, the Democrats scored 482,000 votes, while the Republicans got 419,254. For Governor Light, the D’s got 448,106, whilst the R’s got 406,758.

    Of course history has shown the Donkies went on to win both in landslides, almost getting 40% of the vote across both races.

    Primaries participation is such an awsome predictor of the general election.

  2. Romegaguy says:

    Ask that question to your idol Matt Towery, Spacey. Thanks for posting about something having to do with GA politics

  3. ChuckEaton says:

    It just seems patently unfair that your confidence in Georgia being an Obama state won’t result in a financial reward; other then the promise of future Federal handout programs. Perhaps you can get a Las Vegas bookmaker to take a bet for you, you’ll probably even get some odds with an “Obama win in Georgia” bet.

    I know there is an army of young folks ticked off because they are not getting harassed by pollsters and political autodials on their cell phones, but a respected pollster should have the appropriate demographic weights in his poll.

    Perhaps not enough statistical weight will be given to the “single and under 30 crowd”. In the future we can all refer to it as the Blackberry effect.

  4. CHelf says:

    What really makes me laugh is the guy who was packing out 75K plus in stadiums took so long to close the deal. Amazing how even after he was all but declared the nominee, Hillary kept winning numerous states. So while you have your head in the clouds about “wired and fired” note that “wired and fired” also fizzles and trickles by the time general elections transpires. Keep banking on the “wired and fired” and forget about those “racist crackers” in states like PA, OH, KY, and WV.

    And while we are on polling and accuracy, keep in mind the NH effect as well. Those who respond certain ways to live persons on a polling call may not actually vote that way come election day in the privacy of that voting booth.

  5. dudelove says:

    The problem is so many young people lost their lives in P Diddy’s 2004 “Vote or Die” campaign. I don’t know if America, or MTV, can stand to lose another generation idealists.

  6. Doug Deal says:


    I am not sure it will ever be updated. I use that web site for occassional projects, and also cram a blog in there, but with a newborn baby, it is way too hard to dedicate the time to write anything thoughtful.

    I am about 25 projects behind being current.

  7. dudelove says:


    There will be plenty of time for everyone when Obama / the Federal Governement institutes his dollars or blogging initiative.

    The funds will be issued by credit card, to avoid any food stamp like embarrassment, and will be administered by the same agency that distributes money for kite flying.

  8. IndyInjun says:

    Sorry, Spacey:

    I had steeled myself to actually vote for Obama and THINK the heretofore unthinkable about voting a straight Dem ticket for the first time in my life, but Obama is just too freaking nutso.

    This country is in a world of hurt financially and he only promises to make things worse.

    I cannot vote for McCain.

    I cannot vote for Obama.

    TO vote for either is to vote for the final destruction of America and I won’t do it.

    Barr is the only ‘choice’ left and that is not pleasant.

  9. Hank Reardan says:

    I do believe barr will effect the Georgia vote totals. In the past our statewide candidates have score in the 5% range where our presidential is in the 1-2% range. I believe Barr will pull in the 5-8% range or higher. This will effect overall number. also because Ga might be in play Obamba will spend more money here which will make his numbers better than the last candidates (Kerry). I do not know what you guys think but Kerry was a bad candidate for Georgia. Obamba will do better. he will pull number like Clinton not like Kerry and you will have Barr pulling some from the GOp along with resources and people. Also McCain Sucks as a candidate to get excited about. How is going to go out and do grass roots for him. What section of the GOP gets worked up over a MCain campaign. I willing to bet that Obamba will have more people on the streets than McWar

  10. CHelf says:

    I’m so excited for Obama! He’s the only candidate that has offered every possible solution to every issue mankind faces all paid for by the future generations. It’s New Deal Part II with tens of billions in more government. A profit tax on oil? Smart. Who pays for it in the end? We do. How does he plan on coming up with the money for all of these programs in a tight economy?

    Here’s a good lesson…notice a credit crisis now because people outspent their means? Note a crisis from that simple concept? Barry’s solution? Do the same thing.

  11. rugby fan says:

    As liberals go, however, opponents of Big Government could do worse. On economic matters, like the mortgage crisis, he’s more respectful of property rights and free markets than, say, Clinton. His health-care plan rankles many liberals because it doesn’t force everyone to buy insurance.

    While Obama has criticized various free-trade agreements, he’s also written that in today’s world, “it’s hard to even imagine, much less enforce, an effective regime of protectionism.”

    Don’t expect partisan Republicans to care about that though.,0,2742540.column

  12. reedja says:

    Can you ask that question with a straight face? I strongly doubt Obama will carry Georgia. Do you really think those people in Tifton, Pinpoint, and whatever else Georgia is going to elect a Black man. I don’t think so. Georgia is still decades behind the rest of the USA when it comes to black leaders. You still have people under the golden dome who cant stand the fact Atlanta is the capitol of Georgia.

  13. IndyInjun says:


    I was quite ready to vote for Obama. I cannot stand McCain.

    However, the windfall profits crap is totally counterproductive.

    If Obama loses, it will because he convinced folks like me that he is truly a wild-eyed liberal, not because he is black.

    Of course that will be the refrain ’til doomsday – that “racist” white folks beat Obama for being a black man.

    I thought tarring Obama for Rev. Wright was absurd, but he best not go proposing more economic damage or we fiscal conservatives won’t hold our noses for that.

  14. rugby fan says:

    “If Obama loses, it will because he convinced folks like me that he is truly a wild-eyed liberal, not because he is black.”

    Rather you convinced yourself of that.

  15. IndyInjun says:

    Or, rather, there is hope for reconsideration with Obama, unlike McCain who is resignatio ad infernum, politically speaking of course.

  16. John Konop says:

    You will never agree 100% with any candidate. But for me this election is simple. Issue by issue Bob Barr matches my views by far the most. I am curious why either side would not back Barr over McCain or Obama? And please real issues not X wives, Rev whoever….

  17. Icarus says:

    John, it’s pretty simple.

    The only two people who have a legitimate chance to be our next president are John McCain and Barack Obama.

    Anyone is welcome to make whatever statment they want with their vote, but the fact of the matter is, only one of those two men will be our next president.

    The choice is between those two. A vote for anyone else won’t change that.

  18. John Konop says:


    In all due respect is that not why we have this choice? And how does it ever change? I think the votes Ross Perot got scared both parties into balancing the budget. Perot may have lost the election but he did have a positive impact .

  19. AubieTurtle says:

    Be careful Reedja, Spacey can’t distinguish between the message and the messenger. For saying that there are some people out there who won’t vote for a black man, you’re likely to be labeled a racist, regardless of your personal opinion on the matter. Acknowledging that racism or any “ism” exists apparently makes you one of them.

  20. John Konop says:

    This was very interesting!

    George Will: Obama will crush McCain
    Is George Will right?

    HOTAIR-If, that is, he can mobilize turnout among blacks and young voters in the general election (and why wouldn’t/couldn’t he?). Two clips here, the first the bad news and the second the “good” news as Pat Buchanan fantasizes about the rise of a new conservative movement from the ashes of the Democrats’ victory and inevitable mismanagement. Let’s hope this new generation of paleocons remembers to put the blame for World War II on whom it belongs, i.e. Winston Churchill.

    Read Will’s op-ed for Newsweek, too, about the two shoes yet to drop. I think he’s overstating the extent to which the Obama/Muslim smear has penetrated (especially post-Wright) and how much it’s influencing people’s votes, but his point about Hillary’s women supporters turning their backs on McCain when they find out he’s pro-life is well taken. Or is it? Geraldine Ferraro reminds our favorite liberal that pro-choice Democrats had no problem handing 49 states to her opponent in 1984. And this Pew poll on abortion from 2006 finds not only no gender gap on the issue, but 51% of self-described moderate/conservative Democrats agreeing that the practice should be illegal in most or all circumstances.

  21. A Typical White Person says:

    I’d vote for JC Watts if he was running. I will not ever vote for Obama.

  22. CHelf says:

    And that “scaring” of balancing the budget lasted long didn’t it? Add to the fact Barry’s programs cost tens of billions of dollars and he’s not stated how he plans to pay for these “save us all” programs. There is no way any of his solutions will be put into effect especially in a downturn economy unless taxes are raised. When there is little money out there, how will taxing work? We’re still paying for the New Deal and Great Society. Any conservative who can keep a straight face and say they’d consider Obama is no conservative.

  23. A Typical White Person says:

    Anyone who thinks Bob Barr is a viable “choice” is living as Alice…as in Alice in Wonderland.

  24. Harry says:

    What “intellectual conservatives” are you talking about? Obama makes Bush look like a rocket scientist.

  25. Doug Deal says:


    Yeah, what a stellar list that is. The grand-daughter of Dwight David Eisenhower used as an example of a “leading conservative intellectual”?

    Her background is in foreign affairs, hardly a hotbed of conservatism, and if you read her endorsement, it reads like a teenagers diary entry about how her current crush is the truest and greatest love ever felt. Part of being an “intellectual” involves using the intellect.

    David D Friedman? The admitted atheist and deliverer of a talk entitled “In Defense of Anarchy”. That “leading conservative intellectual?”

    The intellectual dishonesty of the left knows no nadir.

  26. Doug Deal says:


    They just need to be certain they don’t ask him any questions for which he has no scripted answers.

    Did you see that debate (I think it was Ohio, or perhaps Pa) when the moderators asked Hillary who the new leader of Russia was going to be, as well as a series of other tough questions first? She mispronounced the name but was close enough for full credit. Obama, who had an “uh-oh” look could only muster what amounted to “what Hillary said” as his own answers.

  27. rugby fan says:

    Francis Fukuyama doesn’t count for anything?

    A classical Burkean counts for nothing?

    Douglas Kmiec?

    David Friedman you won’t count?

    It is fine to say you don’t like the list but to reject the entire list is stupid and intellectually dishonest.

  28. Doug Deal says:

    I mentioned David Friedman. Someone who classifies themselves as an anarchist and an atheist are not good candidates as “conservatives”. You might be able to put them into the libertarian category, but a think it is universal that eco-“conservative” believe in a rule of law behind the markets not anarchy.

    With limited time and resources, I stuck to the one’s I knew. Generally, if I do not know it off hand, I will not research it to post to a blog.

    Therefore, I will take your word for it that the others are indeed intellectual giants in conservatism (I would just not include Andrew Sullivan, as he is more bombastic than anything else), and let other comment in that regard if they choose.

  29. IndyInjun says:

    No conservative can consider voting for McCain, although a credible argument can be made that by electing him we destroy the lamentable GOP forever.

    This country is in deep, deep trouble and these morons are our only choices!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Maybe it the pain is bad enough from the collapse we can figure out how to get intelligent people with principles to serve…….maybe even figure out that who is President is more important than American Idol?

  30. Harry says:


    Politics doesn’t work that way. You can’t destroy the village in order to save it.

  31. Doug Deal says:


    Well, things that exist throughout the village in certain conditions previous to the enactment of the solution in question will remain in said condition following the completion to the solution with some small allowance for incidental damage that falls short of the classification of “destruction”.

    I hope that helps.

  32. Jace Walden says:

    I think its funny that as much as Icarus and others complain about the current state of the GOP, none of them are willing to do the ONE thing the GOP actually needs–VOTE AGAINST IT.

    That’s okay guys, keep coming back to that same well of more big-government, endless war, and less individual freedom. That’ll save the GOP for sure!!! 🙂

  33. Doug Deal says:


    Your problem is in your assumptions. You are assuming people are voting for the Republicans. What if we are in fact voting against the Democrats. The most effective way of voting against something is to support its most viable alternative, not a bunch of unelectable wallflowers. 😉

    Change the rules so that Presidential elections need a majority to take a state’s EV or force a runoff, and voting for Libertarians would be a real option. Until then, any vote not for the Republicans is a vote for the Democrats.

  34. Jace Walden says:

    You are assuming people are voting for the Republicans. What if we are in fact voting against the Democrats.


    With all due respect, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. 😉 You can talk your way into believing anything, but the fact is there is NEVER going to be a viable alternative as long as you folks keep whistling past the graveyard.

    Whether your voting for McCain or against Obama is completely meaningless. By pulling a lever for either of them, you’re only helping to perpetuate a broken system. A one-party system disguised as a two-party system. No matter which wins, four years from now you won’t be able to tell if you elected a Democrat or Republican. They’ll both give you the same–more government, less freedom. Period.

    All I hear are disgruntled GOPers griping about their party and their so-called “conservative values”, but none of them have the balls to do what is necessary to save their party or preserve those values.

  35. Doug Deal says:


    How many Federal programs are eliminated once enacted? How often are any of the Federal Government’s powers rolled back once they are expanded?

    You actually think that putting Obama into power with an overwhelmingly Democratic majority in the Senate is going to be good for the country?

    You actually think that removing any opposition to Democratic control of the government will lead to a positive outcome?

    At least 2 liberal justices will likely retire as soon as Obama wins. That means 2 more young liberal justices approved by a near super majority Democratic Congress to serve 30 years on the bench. How will that be undone by this mythical Republican conversion following a defeat in November? I guess your time scale for improvement in sometimes in 2200?

    I now know why Libertarians support the legalization of drugs as their one overriding priority-one issue. All of you are apparently on something.

  36. Jace Walden says:


    Go ahead. Keep going back to that same dry well. McCain will save you from Obama.

    Who is going to save this country from the blind obedience of the partisan lemmings?

    That could be a question for another thread.

    As for me, I’ll be laughing for the next four years while all of the GOPers are still whining, bitching, and moaning but still don’t have the balls to do something about it.

    So do your thing. Blame Bob Barr when McCain loses. Blame the Democrats for everything that will go wrong in the next four years. That’s fine. It’s what you GOPers do.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us will sit back and laugh while your party continues to self destruct.

    The truth hurts.

  37. Jace Walden says:


    How is McCain different from Obama again?

    Windfall Profits Tax
    McCain Supports It

    Cap and Trade Policy
    McCain Supports It

    Liberman-Warner Climate Bill
    McCain Supports It

    Oh, and also:


    Doug, if John McCain is your best bet to stop socialism, then you might as well get ready to have your newborn sent to a reeducation camp and your property turned over to the almighty state.

    But go ahead and rally behind your savior.

  38. Bill Simon says:


    You seem to forget that you have to live in America too. Let’s see how much YOU laugh when the Dems start levying more taxes on people like you, or start banning certain activites you like to do (e.g., hunting animals).

    You must be living in a plastic bubble down there in Milledgeville to presume that who is elected president will have ZERO effect on your life.

  39. Icarus says:

    Been in a meeting all morning fellas. Got a few things to catch up on. Since I was singled out by name, or at least, by fake name, I feel you’re owed a detailed response on how wrong you are. It will have to be a bit later, however.

  40. Jace Walden says:


    As always you are exactly wrong.

    I won’t laugh one damn bit when they start leving more taxes on me. Just like I didn’t laugh one damn bit when your party spent 8 years bankrupting the country. Just like I wouldn’t laugh when McCain’s cap and trade policies will cause “people like me” to spend even more on gas.

    I would give some money to the CFG to run ads against McCain about a month before the election but…oh wait, that’s right. I can’t.

    It seems as though the only thing you republican have these days is the old liberal boogeyman. “Hide your children, the Democrats are coming.”

    Boo. F*cking. Hoo. If the last 8 years is indicative of what happens when the Republicans are in charge, I’ll take anyone else.

  41. Doug Deal says:


    That’s a good nickname for Jace, Bubbleboy.

    One wonders if there was a Jaceian analog in 1917 Russia cheering on the victory of the communists because of how disappointed they were in conditions under the Tsar. Or cheered Stalin’s rise to power because Trosky and Bukharin did not meet expectations.

  42. Jace Walden says:

    Call me whatever you want.

    I’ll be laughing for the next for years while you guys whine, bitch, moan and complain under President Obama and his Democratic Congress. You really have no one to blame but yourselves…

    But hey, scapegoat us kooky libertarians all you want. Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

  43. Jace Walden says:

    If I wanted Barack to be President, I’d vote for Barack.

    I don’t want him or McCain to be President, so I’m voting for Bob Barr. But yes Doug, your communist analogy was spot on. I hope your newborn inherited your sharp wit.

  44. Bill Simon says:


    You said this: “Change the rules so that Presidential elections need a majority to take a state’s EV”

    That is how Georgia works now. What state’s EV doesn’t work this way?

  45. jsm says:

    “Barack Obama = John McCain”

    Incorrect. They may be similar in a few areas, but not equal. Not even close.

  46. Doug Deal says:


    You only need a pluralty, not a majority. A majority would have meant that several states would have gone to runoffs after the 1992 election when Ross Perot took 17ish percent of the vote.

    If there are 10 viable people running for President in a state, you could win the entire state’s EV’s by winning as few as 11% of the vote.

    Therefore, third parties do nothing on the Presidential election except help insure the victory of the party least like themselves.

  47. Jace Walden says:

    You’re right. Obama is more conservative.

    Because both have no regard for economic liberty, but at least Barack won’t try to inject goverment into my bedroom.

  48. Icarus says:


    Still not the time for the long, elequent post you so deserve. So I’ll start with the one point, since you believe Obama and McCain are the same on “economic liberty”:

    Given that the next president is likely to have a solidly democratic House and a fillabuster proof democratic Senate, would Obama and/or McCain sign legislation that would allow for

    1) Non-Secret ballot union elections, and
    2) A law keeping employers from hiring permanent workers to replace striking workers.

    Dems have tried to pass both recently. I have no doubt that Obama would be proud to hold a Rose Garden ceremony to trumpet this “achievement for working famlies”. I have no doubt that McCain would veto both.

    Given the backdrop of our vaporizing domestic auto industry, which can be largely, though not solely, blamed on the UAW, please tell me how giving unions more power to destroy employers demonstrates “economic liberty”.

  49. Jace Walden says:


    Please telling me how instituting a cap and trade policy will keep my gas prices lower and keep us competitive with the rest of the world?

    That’s something your hero favors…cap and trade that is?

    Please Icarus read below:

    McCain = Obama
    Obama = McCain
    Obamcain does not = Bob Barr

  50. Jace Walden says:


    The GOP at this point can only be described as the party least like the Libertarian Party.

    Both major parties have no regard for economic liberty. But at least the dems want to stay out of the bedrooms.

  51. Icarus says:


    It doesn’t matter how many ways they are similar if I can demonstrate substantive places where they are not.

    Do you really think 2-4 years of Dems passing pro-union legislation unchecked will increase our economic liberty?

    See above, try again.

    McCain does not equal Obama

  52. Inside_Man says:


    You are right about third parties ensuring that their opposites are elected. In other countries, this is called a reason to build a coalition. If libertarians can’t stomach the GOP anymore, and there are just enough of them to make sure the GOP perpetually loses, then what are the possible outcomes?

    1. The GOP can ignore the Libertarians, and keep on losing. Keep in mind the Libs have no problem with this as by now, the GOP is just as bad at the Democrats, to them.


    2. The GOP can change so as to attract the Libs back into the fold. Remember that “small government” stuff we talked about all those long years in the minority? GOOD NEWS! We’ll soon be in the minority again (for quite some time, it seems). Perhaps the GOP can catch up on it then.

    Sure, the instinct is to rally around McCain. But read the writing on the wall: our candidate received a pittance of primary votes, he is taking public financing, he has to be joined at the hip to the RNC to even have an organization, and his base doesn’t trust him. The Independents are voting for Obama, not McCain. Also, this time in 2004, the GOP was abuzz with the activities that laid the groundwork for victory in the fall. Now? Nothing is going on. The best we can do is protect Saxby and try to not hemorrhage too many seats in the legislature.

    Since we are going to lose anyway, why not take stock of our failures and clean house? You surely can’t be happy with the GOP elected officials, from the President on down, can you? Please say you aren’t.

    Back to something you said earlier, what credible conservative intellectuals are you referring to? The only ones I can think of have a strong libertarian streak. The GOP is intellectually bankrupt; even if it were not, the people in charge of it are too obtuse to listen to any good idea that might come along anyhow.

    Please tell me if I am wrong.

  53. Inside_Man says:


    If the UAW destroys the already uncompetitive domestic auto industry, then they will also destroy…the UAW. No auto industry = no auto industry union. Problem solved. Then someone else can come in and make decent cars in America at a competitive level. Propping up Detriot is also NOT economic liberty.

  54. Jace Walden says:


    2-4 years of McCain’s economic policies will put is in the same position as 2-4 years of Barack Obama’s economic policies.

    McCain = Obama.

    I’m not going to continue to argue with people who are being intellectually dishonest. You guys are backing McCain out of sheer partisan loyalty, not because you agree with his “conservative” credentials. Until you can admit that truth, we can’t continue this discussion.

  55. Jace Walden says:

    I’ll say it again:

    All of you who are supporting McCain are doing so out of blind partisan loyalty. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Until you can admit that, there’ s no point in engaging you in discussion.

  56. Icarus says:

    “Propping up Detriot is also NOT economic liberty.”

    Please correct me if I’m wrong (and I sincerely mean that, as I’m too lazy to look it up right now), but wasn’t it McCain that told Michigan voters during the primary that their jobs were gone and not coming back, when Romney was trying to tell the whole state he would give them all better and higher paying jobs.

    McCain isn’t trying to prop up Detroit. He’s also not interested in aiding and abetting the UAW’s deathwish on the domestic auto industry.

  57. Icarus says:


    Until you can admit that either McCain or Obama will be the next president, their isn’t any point in moving forward either.

    It’s great to be an idealist, but eventually you have to be a realist.

  58. Bill Simon says:


    “All of you who are supporting McCain are doing so out of blind partisan loyalty. Nothing more, nothing less.”

    What a fascinating statement from the person “blindly” supporting a guy like Bob Barr.

  59. Icarus says: has a banner announcing that Jimmy Johnson has resigned from Obama’s V.P. selection team.

    1) Why is Jimmy Johnson involved in selecting Barak’s running mate, and

    2) Do you think he’s quitting because they refused to vet Dionne Sanders?

  60. jsm says:

    “2-4 years of McCain’s economic policies will put is in the same position as 2-4 years of Barack Obama’s economic policies.”

    Wrong again. Barack would have the Fed paying for everyone’s healthcare, everyone turning in their guns, the oil companies paying way more taxes rather than pumping and refining more oil, our gov’t trying to make nice with known terrorists, global warming initiatives costing us an extra 50+ cents/gallon for gas, and middle class taxpayers getting soaked with even higher income and capital gains taxes. McCain’s policies, although flawed in some areas, won’t do these things.

  61. John Konop says:

    A tax cut without proper spending cuts is the worse economic policy. I warned years ego this would create all the issues we are facing today (falling dollar, real-estate, values, credit crunch, inflation, real wage issue….)

    We will have tax increases no matter who wins. The free lunch program is over. If we do not stop the bleeding the dollar it will be like a peso.

    The biggest entitlement programs cannot be fixed by stopping them. What some of you forget is most people paid into them for years and the biggest part of the shortfall is Lawmakers on both side blew the money. Also the economy would stop if entitlement checks stopped going out after most paid for it for years via pay roll taxes and Medicare tax and now depend on it to live.

  62. Goldwater Conservative says:

    I agree with you Mr. Konop. I usually do.

    Alot of the debate that we are seeing right now, when boiled down to the salt, is how much the government should steer the economy. The worse off the economy gets, it is obvious (as history has shown) that the government needs to steer a little more. McCain seems fine with the current state of things though. We can not afford, as a nation, to allow this hands off (laissez faire) approach.

    This is not the 18th or the 19th century. I don’t even invest much in the American markets, I can just as easily invest in stable European markets. Europe is being hit hard by the credit and energy problems that we are having, but their governments actually respond.

  63. Doug Deal says:


    You said

    Both major parties have no regard for economic liberty. But at least the dems want to stay out of the bedrooms.

    And have said something like it several times recently. What, exactly, is going on in your bedroom that this has become a nigh obsession?

  64. Doug Deal says:


    I respect where you come from on this, but until the rules of how elections are won are changed to require a majority (like non Presidential elections in Georgia) in every state, multiple parties will do nothing but scatter the people who support their side of the argument.

    I would love to see more candidates on the ballot, and would love to work to help anyone (whether I agree with their politics or not) to get on the ballot in Georgia. The reason is that whoever wins needs a majority, so splitting voting bloks is not an issue.

    The Presidency does not work that way, and only a fool runs as a third party candidate and doesn’t know that the only possible outcome is to harm people who share his philosophy.

  65. IndyInjun says:


    Great cities came to be built at great strategic points, on high grounds, on deep harbors, and at key points on coasts and waterways.

    At many junctures in history, it became necessary for ossified, corrupt societies occupying these dominant positions to be replaced by dynamic, thriving societies. Usually this entailed total slaughter of the inhabitants.

    In such instances, it probably was nothing personal, just that the vanquished were in the way, just that they held the dominant position.

    In our modern day the need to take places and things without damage has been seen on the development of the neutron bomb.

    We conservatives see that the GOP is holding OUR PLACE, to our extreme disadvantage. They are a corrupt, ossified bunch. Nothing personal, but we intend to take the dominant conservative position back.

    To us, eliminating the GOP is the greater priority, for we cannot do ANYTHING as long as this corrupt, criminal gang is in our way.

    19 million of us voted for Perot in ’92 and scared the GOP into adopting Perot’s positions in the Contract with America, resulting in the GOP taking of the House the next election. It scared Clinton into welfare reform, tax cuts, and surpluses (amazingly US Treasuries were being RETIRED early!).

    Y’all’s guilt trips ain’t working on me, Jace, John, and a bunch of others.

    We just hope the GOP leaves something standing as it passes from the scene.

    Killing off the GOP will make the Dems more attentive.

  66. Bill Simon says:

    “We just hope the GOP leaves something standing as it passes from the scene.”

    Ah, so Indy believes that if there are a few bad apples, the entire orchard (not just the barrel, but the ENTIRE orchard) should be burned in scorched-Earth fashion…BUT, he/she “hopes” there will still be enough saplings left to bring the orchard back up to production in a few years.

    AND, Konop here thinks that’s the “winning strategy” for life.

    You two clowns were probably with those idiots who declared that “YEAH! Adolph is talking RIGHT! We should get him elected to the leader of Germany and we will take back this country for us!” back in 1926.

  67. Jace Walden says:

    John Konop and Indy,

    Don’t you guys just love the Hannity logic coming from the likes of Bill Simon and Doug Deal. First it was Doug comparing me to the Bolsheviks in Russia, now it’s Bill Simon comparing us to the people who supported Hitler.

    Don’t worry guys, when they have to resort to bullsh*t like that, it means they don’t have a leg to stand on, and they know it. When we started this discussion, I wouldn’t have minded if McCain lost the election. After talking with these guys, now I HOPE McCain loses the election.

    It’s going to be very entertaining to see who they scapegoat then.

  68. Doug Deal says:


    That is bunk. You are willing to drive the country into a tree because you want to reform a party. I am willing to accept a bad party to at least apply some form of brake against ridiculously bad ideas from a horrible party.

    You can stick your head into the sand and hide from reality, but at least be honest and admit you guys don’t care one lick about the country,justhaving your way.

  69. John Konop says:

    Doug you sound Like a PC drug counselor who thinks feeding a heroin addict more drugs will cure the problem. The truth is cold turkey is never easy. As one who gave up smoking years ago I truly understand the problem.

    Why would the pork/lobbyist addicted lawmakers change unless they saw enough people have had it? Indy is right about what happen with the Perot scare.

    And I challenge anybody to look at Tom Price’s voting record after I ran against him. He has changed his position on almost every key issue I ran on.








    It does not take much to push lawmakers in the right direction. But if you do nothing expect nothing!

  70. jsm says:

    “The worse off the economy gets, it is obvious (as history has shown) that the government needs to steer a little more.”

    GC, with a statement like that, you really should remove “Goldwater” from your screen name.

    “To us, eliminating the GOP is the greater priority, for we cannot do ANYTHING as long as this corrupt, criminal gang is in our way.”

    Good luck with that, Indy. Let me know how that works out for ya.

    “When we started this discussion, I wouldn’t have minded if McCain lost the election. After talking with these guys, now I HOPE McCain loses the election.”

    Hey, Jace. May I refresh your memory: “Yes, I will be supporting John Sidney McCain III in the 2008 Presidential Election.” – Jace Walden


  71. Doug Deal says:


    Then you sound like a “zero tolerance” extremist who would deny cancer patients THC because some people might use it to become intoxicated, or deny a heroine addict methadone because it too is addictive.

    Regardless of you and Jace’s pie in the sky dreams (I think Indy is actually a bit more realistic in what he says), this election does come down to two people, Obama and McCain. The fact that you two claim that there will be no difference between the two means that you are not being intellectually honest.

    What type of nominee would McCain likely appoint to the Supreme Court? What type of nominee would Obama? That one decision alone is probably 30 percent or more of the importance of the influence of a sitting president. Policy is fleeting, the court endures.

    As much as I dislike McCain as a nominee, the fact is that he won. He got the most votes. I can then take my ball and go home and stew and blame him for the trouble caused by an Obama presidency and a super-majority Dem Congress, or I can compromise and realize that this is the best that we can hope for this time around, and save the county the decades of harm cause by unchecked Dem control.

    Or do you relish in the thought of having energy ration punch cards? Oil drilling continuing to be off limits in our country? New nuclear plants prohited?

    McCain is actually a strict deficit hawk. This is where he is actually good. Do you really think that Obama gives one lick about the deficit if reducing it stands in the way of “Great Society II”?

    So screw the county, as long as you make your little irrelevant statement.

  72. IndyInjun says:


    McCain cannot claim the ‘deficit hawk’ with 140,000 troops in Iraq…….oops, silly me, the war spending is not on budget and is therefore not in ‘deficit.’ Instead war funding comes straight from debt sold to the Chinese.

    This is how wild the semantics have become. One can have no deficits, but still bankrupt the country by going straight to the debt market for funding.

    Jace, isn’t it funny how Bill Simon labels us as Nazis after the Brown Shirt tactics used against Ron Paul delegates to state conventions, including Georgia’s?

    Looking at that has driven this old boy to the point of putting duct tape over the word “Republican” on campaign signs that he allowed GOP candidates to put up on his property.

    I won’t come back until this party is totally gutted.

    I have been warning every Republican that I like that I won’t support them under that party label after this election.

    As written many times, we are in the good company of a lot of ex-GOP pundits, especially Peggy Noonan.

    Peggy Noonan ain’t Eva Broun.

  73. Bill Simon says:

    Jace, John & Injun Joe,

    Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. That was the point of the reference to the support that Adolf had amongst a LOT of people who went for “Change!” without actually being Nazis themselves.

    And, when they saw Hitler’s rise to power, it is doubtful they all embraced it. Though, anyone who protested was, I think, put out of his misery.

  74. Bill Simon says:


    I suspect Jace, Indy, and Konop are not much different, actually, than Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter: They honestly would prefer a royal screw-up in this country so they will have something to point to and talk about for the next 4-8 years.

  75. John Konop says:


    Your logic is similar to using methadone to cure a heroin addiction. It will mask the problem yet never cure it!

    This debate is oddly similar!

    Can Drugs Cure Drug Addiction?

    When methadone was first introduced 24 years ago, it was hailed as a magic bullet aimed at the heart of heroin addiction. A neat, clean medical solution to a social problem. It has proved to be something less than that. Methadone is a treatment, not a cure, for addiction, and an imperfect one at that. But for some 100,000 of the country’s half-million heroin addicts, it offers an alternative to shooting up as well as the possibility of a productive life.,9171,959308,00.html

  76. Doug Deal says:


    To add to your Hilter reference. Forget his politics for a moment, but Hilter was known to draw huge crowds and was noted as bing very articulate and charsimatic. He ran against a war hero for chancelor who was much older and unable to run an active campaign due to health reasons.

    The young Hilter, who inspired throngs of youths and people fed up with the status quo, was then able to only muster about a third of the vote. His “excitement” and well attended speaking events amount to very little actual votes.

    I wonder if this has any potential lesson in this election?

  77. IndyInjun says:

    With Bob Barr on the ballot and Ron Paul’s revolutionaries likely to upstage the GOP convention, it will be a LONG 5 months for the Republicans and their miserable excuse of a candidate.

    McCain is another Bob Dole, who Gingrich accurately described as the tax collector for the welfare state.

  78. Bill Simon says:

    John, Jace, & Indy – Part 3

    For all of your points regarding all of the non-conservative bills passed by a GOP-controlled Congress, you are still forgetting one key duty of the next President of the United States: The appointment of 1-2 new judges on the US Supreme Court.

    Now, you can whine all you want about the corruption thta has taken place during the 1990s under Dem control, and during the 2000s under GOP control, but…the ONLY thing standing in the way of a complete meltdown of our American way of life is that 98% of the constitional construct of this country is still held in place by the decisons of the 9 people sitting on the USSC.

    If you honestly don’t care that Obama would offer Marxist-oriented judges that would likely get passed by a solidly Democrat-controlled Senate, then go piss away your vote on Bob Barr.

    And, if you’re going to do that, you should reexamine why the hell it is you even bother participating in the election process when all you continue to vote for (on the Libertarian side) is losers.

  79. Bill Simon says:

    It takes a majority on the Court to find a law is unconstitutional, John. I’m not sure there has ever been a true conservative majority on the Court.

  80. IndyInjun says:


    Most folks forget that the Nazi’s were a POLITICAL party and, face it, the tactics, dirty tricks, smears, stonewalling, manipulation, and other aspects of ALL political parties really are not much different. Therefore the Nazi label can quite accurately be applied to any and all political parties.

    The only difference in political parties are the excesses to which the worst ones in history have gone, generally fueled by socio-economic upheaval or war.

    Given that the economic stresses are raging and soon to be unbearable by the immolation of the American middle class, one can see the way we are headed under the GOP, who have made 7 years of war their proving ground for all manner of attacks on Constitutional liberties.

    Here in 2008 they wish to ‘swift-boat’ us, but that isn’t working too well, is it?

  81. John Konop says:

    Bill Simon

    Let me follow your logic. You want us to vote for McCain because he will appoint conservative judges to overrule his liberal bills?

  82. Bill Simon says:


    If you think you have a case to override a bill passed by Congress on the basis of the unconstitutionality of it, you should file a case.

    If you just don’t like the bills passed by Congress, the USSC is not there to remedy your feelings about those bills made into law.

    The McCain-Feingold bill has already been tested by a dominant liberal court, and its rules have been upheld. I don’t believe it was a 9-0 decision.

    I want you to vote for McCain because he will have a stronger propensity to nominate conservative judges than liberal judges.

    If you’re looking for some candidate to answer ALL of your problems, then you are a fool looking to be suckered…and Bob Barr is one guy who LOVES a sucker!

  83. Doug Deal says:


    You are insane. I am sorry, you go so far out on a limb looking for something to rail against, it has passed the point of sanity.

    I said to disregard his politics. I pointed out how popular he seemed at the time, drawing huge crowds with untold charisma. On a “perception” level it is very similar to the results that he gets from his political rallies.

    I am not talking about content; I am talking about appearances and results. Enthusiasm and numbers at political rallies mean nothing compared to votes.

    For all of the enthusiasm he evoked, for all the crowds he gathered, he still lost badly to an infirmed opponent who barely campaigned.

    However the strange world that goes on in your head is much more wondrous to behold that dealing with reality.

  84. Jace Walden says:

    I swear to God, Republicans have to be the most whiny little bitches under the sun. McCain hasn’t even lost yet and they’re already busy whining about the next four years under President Obama.

    They may whine, but I guess they’re not stupid. They see the writing on the wall, that McCain’s campaign is doomed. The GOP hopes of retaining the White House are doomed.

    Well, maybe they are stupid. The GOP is the Titanic. It has hit an iceberg. And they’re content to use buckets to try throwing water out. That’s fine. It’s all yours.

    But I’m going to get on a life boat.

    Barr ’08!

  85. John Konop says:

    Doug Deal

    You and Bill Simon used the Hitler analogy to inflame your point bottom line.

    Also Bill and you have very flawed logic! You trust McCain to appoint judges that will overrule his bills.

    You also trust McCain to change his views in immigration while McCain is begging for votes at a La Raza conference.

    Which of us are dealing in the real world?

    McCain to attend La Raza’s annual conference?
    The king of open borders!
    HOTAIR-An election-year pander aimed at shoring up the Latino vote by grudgingly patronizing Open Borders HQ? Why, no: As the boss reminds us, Maverick and the group that charmingly describes itself as “The Race” are old friends with plenty of allies and enemies in common. Can he outdo Obama’s mega-pander from last year? If Kos is right about Texas being in play, the sky’s the limit!
    Go read Michelle’s post on this, as needless to say McCain’s feet will have to be held to the fire on this subject regularly to keep him from indulging his natural, jerky pro-amnesty tendencies.

    BTW I still like you guys.


  86. Bill Simon says:

    Konop says: “Also Bill and you have very flawed logic! You trust McCain to appoint judges that will overrule his bills.”

    Doug Deal has it right about Konop: “John, You are insane.”

  87. John Konop says:

    Bill and Doug

    I said

    “You trust McCain to appoint judges that will overrule his bills”

    What part of this statement is false? Please do not tell me what you feel use logic and facts!

  88. Bill Simon says:


    It is a fallacious (and irrelevant) point to the subject matter.

    John McCain won’t be “judging” judges based on how they feel about the laws he has voted for. He will be basing his decision more on how well the judicial candidate has applied the principles of “interpreting laws” as opposed to “making laws.

  89. Doug Deal says:


    Your constant flying off the handle and accusing people of things that they haven’t done has really grown tiersome. Wasn’t it you that accused Erick of altering the title of a post even though several people posted to correct you, you were able to see reality and come to the real real real super secret motives behind Erick’s conspiracies.

    Stop accusing people of things they have not done in an inflamatory way and admit when you are wrong about such things once in a while, and you would go a long way in not being thought of as a loon.

    I know what I meant, you know what I meant, that’s the end of it.

    As for the Judges, it does not matter if they will strike down his laws, what matters is if they will be better than what would be appointed under Obama. Without a Senate to worry about, Obama as well as pretty much any national Democrat would appoint whatever far leftist they want. Or do you think Ginsberg and Breyer are the types of judges you want on the Supreme Court?

  90. Bill Simon says:

    Point of Note: It was also I who pointed out Erick’s changing of the title to that particular post way back when. Erick DID change it…and, in case you guys don’t know this about WordPress, you CAN change the title of a page once it is posted. It’s in the section called “Slug”.

  91. Doug Deal says:

    It would not change in the url path to the article though, and Erick’s title matched the URL pathway.

    In any event, let’s not open up that discussion again Bill. The real topic is how Konop has been slandering the motives of people by calling them racists or whatever at every opportunity.

  92. Bill Simon says:

    Yes, that is correct, Doug. John Konop is quite the quick one to apply labels to people without actually considering the substance of what is said.

  93. John Konop says:

    Bill and Doug


    “John McCain won’t be “judging” judges based on how they feel about the laws he has voted for. He will be basing his decision more on how well the judicial candidate has applied the principles of “interpreting laws” as opposed to “making laws.”


  94. IndyInjun says:

    I still like you guys, too, but if you come to me with campaign signs with “GOP”, an elephant, or “Republican” on them, you can expect me to duct tape over the party designator.

    Now if you have ‘666’ that calls for exorcism.

    Just don’t expect that I support Bush, McCain, Saxby, or Ralph Reed.

    I am truly an Indy, one who is proud of Paul Broun and John Barrow .

    BARR 08!!!!!

  95. Doug Deal says:


    I refuse to take anyone’s campaign signs personally, and I tell everyone I know well enough to call at least an aquaintence that I am not happy with McCain, Bush, and the Republicans in general. I just do not think one can say that they are as bad as the Democrats, and will defend them on that every time.

  96. John Konop says:


    Is this how you got your “whitey” attack?

    As I said I am no big Obama fan, but this will only hurt the GOP long term. The polling numbers show the race cared does not work with younger voters. In fact it had a boomerang affect for Obama. Bottom line it is flat out wrong to promote race baiting!

    Townhall-Michelle Obama never used word ‘Whitey’

    Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign said Thursday that Michelle Obama never used the word “whitey” in a speech from the church pulpit as it launched a Web site to debunk rumors about him and his wife.

    The rumor that Michelle Obama railed against “whitey” in a diatribe at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ has circulated on conservative Republican blogs for weeks and was repeated by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. The rumor included claims of a videotape of the speech that would be used to bring down Obama’s candidacy this fall.

    “No such tape exists,” the campaign responds on the site, “Michelle Obama has not spoken from the pulpit at Trinity and has not used that word.”

    Fox News Channel referred to Michelle Obama as “Obama’s baby mama” in a graphic on Wednesday, using the slang description of a woman who has a baby outside of a romantic relationship or marriage. Fox anchor E.D. Hill also referred to it as a “terrorist fist jab” when the Obamas bumped knuckles on the night he clinched the nomination. Hill has apologized…..

  97. IndyInjun says:


    Barrow was running against a greater liberal in Max Burns. Burns is of the same cut as Johnny and Saxby, having abandoned conservative principles decisicely over the time that the GOP held control.

    Conversely, Barrow told me that he was gonna vote with the Bluedog Coalition to reign in Pelosi. This he and they have done, with the result that the Republicans deride them as do-nothings.

    Until the GOP offers a real conservative in that District, Barrow is probably safe… no, John Stone doesn’t qualify. At least this time the campaign he wrecks will be his own.

  98. Doug Deal says:


    With your last comment, expect a visit from the Konop Anti-Defamation league. I think I remember the rule

    11-3-f(1)c – Any comment that references a minority of African decent and within the same sentence, paragraph, page, chapter, volume, or library also references Fried Chicken, Fried Chicken providers, Fried Chicken Derivitives, Fried Chicken By-Products, Fried Chicken related side items including, but not limited to mashed potatoes, baked beans and corn on the cob, chiken products of any other unspecified nature, or anything resembling the taste, texture, or color including but not limited to “The Other White Meat” (which also falls under Title 12 for the use of color references) shall be guilty per se of a violation of racial sensitivity and shall be punished under the procedures outlined under 11-2-4(c-f).

  99. John Konop says:

    Doug Deal let me help you with economics. Tax cuts without of control spending drove the dollar in the toilet! That is the current plan McCain still supports. Unless you use a PAY/GO concept with tax cuts you are selling out the future of the country.

    At the end the current fiscal policy you support tax cuts without proper spending cuts has caused more economic damage than if we had done nothing. Do you understand the net affect of the policy you support has been the largest tax increase ever!




    2) Real-estate values in the toilet ie equity

    3) Equity ratio (down payment) so high ie it has hurt the growth economy ie jobs and wages


    Do I need to spell this out for you anymore? Do you understand the joke is on you if you think this policy you support is conservative?

    Doug the free lunch program is over! You guys are worse than any liberal because you think you are conservative!

  100. IndyInjun says:


    Not only is the free lunch over, but now we must pay for 8 years of free lunches already gone plus paying our way going forward.

    Lenin said the way to destroy the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of inflation and taxation.

    The Dems are the party of taxation.

    The Repugs are the party of inflation and we left them in control long enough to create the greatest raging inflationary bonfire America has ever seen.

    ANY advantage most have seen in lower tax rates is being swiftly blown away. The Clinton/GOP Congress duopoly was vastly superior to the Bush terms with GOP control.

  101. John Konop says:


    You made it clear that you support McCain for fiscal reasons.

    The tax plan presented by McCain and Obama does not pay for itself.

    Do you understand with no PAY/GO both plans will hurt the economy?

    WP-A detailed analysis of the candidates’ tax plans confirms one of Barack Obama’s top arguments against John McCain: the Arizona senator’s proposals would offer substantial benefits to wealthy Americans.

    An analysis of both campaigns proposals by the Washington-based, nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that for people with incomes between $66,354 and $111,645, Obama’s proposals would cut their taxes by more than $1000, compared to around $300 under McCain’s plan. But for Americans with incomes above $603,402, Obama would raise their taxes dramatically, by more than $115,000 a year, while McCain would cut them by $45,000.
    “The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners,” the group concludes. “The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive…. It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution.”

    The group is skeptical about both candidates’ ideas about closing the deficit, suggesting McCain has not been detailed in which programs he will cut, while Obama might be overestimating how much can be gained by combating loopholes in the tax code that allow corporations to reduce their tax burdens.

    read more

  102. A Typical White Person says:

    What we need is another war. Let’s invade Mexico and capture all of their tequila production facilities.

  103. GOPeach says:


    Uh… okay… is this better????

    A tax-payer voting for Obama is like a sheep voting for a wolf.

    A little less “racial” and more Biblical.

  104. Doug Deal says:

    Well, GOPeach,

    I hope I do not have to remind you that sheep are white, and wolves are not. I am quite certain that the Obama “truth” squad is already penning its response to this outrageous use of racism.


  105. John Konop says:


    McCain mingles with Clinton supporters

    After his public conference call with Clinton supporters (covered extensively by Jonathan Martin) Saturday, John McCain met privately with some 75 of those supporters at his Virginia headquarters, two people who were there said.

    McCain’s staff extended the last-minute invitation to Clinton die-hards, including a founder of a group called “Party Unity, My Ass” (PUMA), and substantial numbers came from Washington and New York. They represented passionate campaign volunteers and supporters, but they’re essentially a marginal group in Clinton’s orbit, including no one with a prominent campaign role, public office or close relationship with the candidate.

    “He stayed for a good almost half hour afterwards shaking hands, listening to our concerns, talking to us,” said PUMA founder Will Bower, who said he thought many of the people there would vote for McCain.

    Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina stayed to mingle with the crowd, whose members also included Clinton backer Harriet Christian, made momentarily famous on YouTube for getting ejected from the Rules & Bylaws press area.

    Bower said he’d liked McCain’s answer on judges, in which he “pointed out that he supported Bill Clinton with both Ginsberg and Breyer.”

    Another person who was present, but asked not to be named to avoid conflict with fellow Democrats, said he’d pressed a McCain staffer on McCain’s position on same-sex marriage.

    The staffer “said it was the same as [John] Kerry’s position,” he said.

Comments are closed.