Matthew Yglesias

Nov 4th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Ohio

And that’s the presidential election, folks. McCain “could” win, but at this point in fact he can’t.

Comments
57

57 Responses to “Ohio”

WillieStyle Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Fox retracted that call.
cd Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I’m not sure how to put this, but FUCK YEAH!!
Keith Jone Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I’m going to buy the next Buckeye I meet a drink. Two drinks.
msw Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Hey Petey, Bite me!
gregor Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
all due to the charming spelling skills of a blogger! Who
would have thought!
chet Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
any exit poll news fom Minn?
Mixner Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Never mind that. How’s Cynthia McKinney doing? I’m predicting a big McKinney upset in Texas.
Anthony Damiani Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
We knew that when he won PA, right?
Jayhawk Max Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Don’t underestimate Karl Rove’s ability to steal Ohio away.
Ed Smithe Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Be sure to check out CNN…Apparently no one at the McCain “victory” party realizes what’s going on (they’ve got the news turned off).

This is a microcosm of my party. They live in an emotional bubble totally devoid of reality–because reality is just too much.

As a result the country has fallen apart, and men, women and children have lost thier lives…All for their mistakes.

We deserved to lose and we deserved to lose big.

It is now time to rebuild. It is time to purge our party of the nuts and the neocons. Hopefully, some day, we’ll once again be a party of principles.
Jayhawk Max Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
John King just showed the only way McCain can win this election is by winning one of either Washington, Oregon, California or Hawaii. Good luck with that Maverick.
Glaivester Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
What does “no such thing as voter fraud” Matt think of this?

If this type of fraud is going on, is there any way to prove it? Will the local officials even let it be proven?

This is why Matt’s claim that there has been no voter fraud, only registration fraud, does not particularly impress me. I doubt that most of the actual voter fraud would be traceable enough to prosecute.
Marshall Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
This is excellent news for John McCain.
Adrock Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
If he wins 2 out 3 with OH, FL and PA, he wins. He’s pretty much got that. CNN calls OH for Senator O as well.

The only problem is there is no real consequences if a network calls a state and has to retract it.

And with 72% reporting in VA, out of over 2.2 million votes cast, there is under 8K difference!

I would absolutely love for Obama to win NC.
kxf_in_dc Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
And now it’s time to grind the GOP into the dust. All we need to accomplish this is ensure that blue state’s federal taxes go to projects in blue states.
Glaivester Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
All we need to accomplish this is ensure that blue state’s federal taxes go to projects in blue states.

Best way to do that is to reduce federal taxes and have states fund their own projects.
qjk Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Virginia, please, and popular by 5%. These folks need a mandate.
WillieStyle Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
OK now I can celebrate.
Don Williams Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
News update for Brad:

With 28 percent of the precincts in , Obama leads McCain 65 percent to 34 percent.

In Philly itself, it’s more like 81 percent to 18 percent.
Not as stupid as Mixner Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Hey Mixner, ha ha ha ha ha. You fucking bloodthirsty loon. Your party lost as it should have four years ago and decisively enough that the five thugs in black robes won’t be able to steal it for you again like they did eight years ago.

Now we will have adults in charge for a change. No more entertaining wars for Mixners. Sorry, genocide is no longer American foreign policy.
Ban Johnson Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
the new Fox meme: the country is “center-right.”

What the hell does that mean exactly? Relative to Europe and Asia it’s center-right? Relative to some Platonic scale?

and, yeah, it’s over, ladies and gentleman. I’m not excited about it, just peaceful. A righteous wind is blowing.
Glaivester Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
If the GOP had lost four years ago, they would be in a much better position today.

Unfortunately, their victory in 2004 was like the Federal Reserve prolonging a boom by lowering interest rates. It just delayed the inevitable correction and guaranteed that it would be worse when it eventually came.
not-as-stupid is insane Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
“Not as stupid” is a genocidal maniac.
Cranky Observer Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
“I find it freakishly easy to line out the politics” – Petey

How’s that workin’ for ya tonight Petey?

Cranky
Jayhawk Max Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
“And now it’s time to grind the GOP into the dust. All we need to accomplish this is ensure that blue state’s federal taxes go to projects in blue states.”

Hey moron, you do realize that 35-49% of us in “red states” voted for Obama and have elected many Dem Senators, Representatives, Governors and state legislators?
blah Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Voters to GOP: “Suck. On. This.”
bleh Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
GOP to Voters: “You’ll. Be. Sorry.”
Brad Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Don Williams:

I agree that now that better actuals are coming in, I am satisfied that Pennsylvania will go to Obama.

I just hate to be disappointed, and the exit polls driving the decision to call a state brings me to worry about a Dewey defeats Truman scenario.

All I can say – is I will wake up tomorrow with a completely new feeling about this country.
kxf_in_dc Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Jayhawk,
Hey, just vote in more dems and I’ll care. Right now, not so much. Move to the coast while they’re still above water.
rapier Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Massive voter fraud in Ohio. Huge numbers of dead voters cast ballots for Obama in Ohio today. Here is the proof. A picture taken at a polling place, Flaming River Elementry School in Cleavland.

http://msfriendly.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/shaun_of_the_dead_zombies.gif
Kiril Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Incidentally, BBC America has been really entertaining tonight, although I have no idea why they have J Bolton on as an election analyst…he just didn’t like something a reporter said from Colorado and said it was an embarrassment to the BBC. The moderator said, but the reporter was right about his facts. Bolton said something, and the moderator cut him off and said yes, well you’ve had your say, now what about this other thing…
yep Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
al franken is ahead by a pretty large margin…
Not as stupid as Mixner Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Ha, ha, ha, all the lunatic Mixner has left is projection. Sadly for him, the electoral projections make it clear – McCain will not be bombing the fuck out of the Iranian people for Mixner’s twisted entertainment.

Suck on it Mixner. Your genocidal moment in the sun is over. No longer will the world live in fear of what the erratic American war machine will do.
yep Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
and michelle bachmann’s probably going to hang around a little longer… that sucks.
Neuroskeptic Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Congratulations to America’s first Black Christian, Muslim, Communist Arab-American President.
ha Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
to Cal, who consistently argued at this site during the primaries that Obama couldn’t win the working class white vote:
Obama won working class whites in ohio, and with that the election. You were fucking WRONG.
Marshall Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I just heard the first person (some journalist on WNYC) say that Obama doesn’t have a mandate and has to be careful not to over-reach.
blah Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Only retarded pundits worry about mandates.
Jayhawk Max Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I think gay single guys worry about man dates.
not-as-stupid is insane Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
“Not as stupid” is a genocidal maniac.
Not as stupid as Mixner Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
– ha, ha, ha, ha. Poor Mixner, obsessively posting the same bullshit projection. Care to elaborate? I’ve described in detail how you, Mixner, are a genocidal maniac. But I guess asking you to show your work is pretty much always asking you to go beyond your capabilities.

President Elect Obama. It has such a great ring to it. If I were more bored I would go through and find the idiots claiming that things would be different on Weds. Life is good.

The world thanks us for voting for Obama!
burritoboy Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
“I think gay single guys worry about man dates.”

Well, the ugly ones do, at any rate. The good-looking ones seem to get all they can handle.
not-as-stupid is insane Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
No longer will the world live in fear of what the erratic American war machine will do.

The world will instead live in fear that another genocidal Democratic president will starve them to death and bomb their countries in violation of international law, just like the last one did.

“Not as stupid” is a genocidal maniac.
Glaivester Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Ha, ha, ha, all the lunatic Mixner has left is projection. Sadly for him, the electoral projections make it clear – McCain will not be bombing the fuck out of the Iranian people for Mixner’s twisted entertainment.

As #43 says, it is Obama whom we now need to worry about bombing the Iranian people for Mixner’s twisted entertainment. Or the Dems can just go after the Serbs again.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Not As Stupid As Mixner: “No more entertaining wars for Mixners.”

Boy, are you in for a surprise!

Obama says it explicitly:

1) He will not allow Iran to have any centrifuges or enrichment on Iranian soil.

2) He will not take military action off the table.

3) He will not allow the UN to veto a US attack on Iran.

4) He will engage in an Iranian blockade – an act of war.

Anything more you want to know about Obama being EXACTLY THE SAME AS BUSH?

Rivals Split on U.S. Power, but Ideas Defy Labels
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23policy.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

For example, it is Mr. McCain — the man who amended the words of a Beach Boys song last year to joke about bombing Iran’s nuclear sites — who says he could imagine a situation in which Iran’s behavior changes so much that he would be willing “to consider” allowing Iran to enrich its own uranium, producing a fuel that could be used for nuclear power — but only under highly restrictive conditions that ensure it could never be
used for weapons.

Mr. Obama, the candidate who has expressed far more willingness to sit down and negotiate with the Iranians, said in an e-mail message passed on by an aide that in any final deal he would not allow Iran to produce uranium on Iranian soil, the same hard-line view enunciated by the Bush administration.

With the endgame slowly playing out in Iraq, the potential confrontation over neighboring Iran and its nuclear program has emerged as the No. 1 case study in how Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain would use diplomacy and the threat of military force against a hostile state. Based on their careers and their statements, Mr. McCain’s threshold for pre-emptive military
action seems lower than Mr. Obama’s.

For each candidate, the debate over Iran has been somewhat treacherous. Mr. Obama knew his interest in pursuing diplomacy could leave him vulnerable to criticism as a potential appeaser; Mr. McCain, known for his “Bomb Iran” ditty, had to demonstrate that he would not be trigger-happy.

In the end, both men have proved more comfortable in declaring that they would never allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons state than in explaining how they would obtain the leverage to stop Iran’s nuclear program peacefully. And neither has dealt publicly with the harder question of what to do if Iran assembles all the fuel and components needed for a weapon but stops just short of actually making one.

Mr. Obama’s declaration that he would engage Iranian leaders without preconditions has dominated the debate and opened him to Mr. McCain’s accusation that he is a naïf, willing to give legitimacy to the Iranian regime. Mr. Obama has backtracked a bit, arguing that he never suggested that the first meetings would be at the presidential level, and that preconditions are less important than “careful preparations.”

When pressed, Mr. Obama has said that “we will never take military options off the table” and that he would not give the United Nations “veto power” over deciding to strike nuclear facilities.

The harder question is how to force Iran to give up its uranium enrichment quickly, before it produces enough material to build a weapon — a threshold American and European intelligence officials say may be crossed fairly early in the next presidential term. Mr. McCain has been more vociferous in emphasizing that “we have to do whatever’s necessary”
to stop Iran from obtaining a weapon. In 1994, when North Korea was at a similar stage in its nuclear weapons program, Mr. McCain said on “Meet the Press” on NBC that if diplomacy failed to shut down the country’s production facilities within months, “then yes, military air strikes would be called for.”

But in a post-Iraq world, Mr. McCain has been more circumspect. He no longer talks about “rogue state rollback,” the phrase he used in 2000 to describe a strategy of undermining governments like those in North Korea, Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Mr. McCain said in interviews
last year and early this year that risking military action against Iran might be better than “living with an Iranian bomb.” Recently, he has expressed more interest in changing Iran’s behavior than changing the government, and has said that his Beach Boys ditty was a bad attempt at humor: “I wasn’t suggesting that we go around and declare war.”

But the main prescription Mr. McCain has offered relies on gradually escalating economic sanctions, the same path taken by the Bush administration. So far that strategy has been a complete failure: Iran has 3,800 centrifuges, up from a few hundred experimental centrifuges when the administration began, and enough, in theory, to make a bomb’s worth of fuel in a year.

Questions to both campaigns in the past few weeks have yielded another example of role reversal. While Mr. McCain seems willing to consider that Iran might someday be trusted to produce its own nuclear fuel, Mr. Obama does not. The director of foreign policy for the McCain campaign, Randy Scheunemann, said that if Iran was in compliance with United Nations resolutions, “it would be appropriate to consider” letting it
produce uranium under inspection, which Iran has said is its right.

Mr. Obama’s position is closer to the zero-tolerance approach adopted by the Bush administration. “I do not believe Iran should be enriching uranium or keeping centrifuges,” he said in an e-mail message passed on by aides.

Mr. Obama does seem more willing to dangle in front of the Iranians a “grand bargain” that would spell out benefits — diplomatic recognition, an end to sanctions — as a reward for halting its enrichment of uranium and allowing full inspections of the country. Richard J. Danzig, considered a candidate to be secretary of defense in an Obama administration, said Mr. Obama was willing to “put out a more positive side to the agenda to lead the Iranians toward making the right choices here.”

But Mr. Obama has also been more specific in describing the kind of sanctions he might reach for if the Iranians continue on the current path. “If we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need, and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis,” he said.

Some experts have counseled caution about such an approach, one that the Bush administration has stopped short of taking. A blockade, however, could constitute an act of war, and most experts believe Iran could respond in kind by cutting off oil exports, increasing prices and leading to shortages.

The Limits of Change
What to expect from the Obama administration on the foreign policy front
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13709

The most troubling possibility here is Dennis Ross, a career foreign policy bureaucrat who was instrumental in shaping America’s Israel-centric policy in the Middle East under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He is a longtime associate of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the scholarly adjunct of AIPAC, Israel’s powerful lobbying organization in the U.S., which he co-founded.

The beginning of Ross’ career as a civil servant is a good indicator of what we might expect from him, and from the Obama administration when it comes to setting Middle Eastern policy. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, he brought in Paul Wolfowitz to run the policy planning at the State Department, and Wolfie brought in his neocon buddies: I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, James Roche,
Stephen Sestanovich, Alan Keyes (yes, that Alan Keyes!), and Ross. In short, Ross has always been a reliable member in good standing of the neocon foreign policy cabal, the very same group that lied us into war with Iraq – and is now intent on doing the same with Iran. Although the neocons who came to Washington were mostly ex-Democrats, Ross stayed with his old party, although partisan allegiances seem not to mean much
to him. He has served under three secretaries of state: James Baker, Warren Christopher, and Madeleine Albright.

As special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton, Ross was responsible for managing the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, a process described by former negotiating team member Aaron David Miller as follows:

“With the best of motives and intentions, we listened to and followed Israel’s lead without critically examining what that would mean for our own interests, for those on the Arab side and for the overall success of the negotiations. The ‘no surprises’ policy, under which we had to run everything by Israel first, stripped our policy of the independence and
flexibility required for serious peacemaking. If we couldn’t put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be? Far too often, particularly when it came to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one – Israel.”

“Without critically examining what that would mean for our own
interests” – that’s the key phrase here, one that fully describes the effect (and also, perhaps, the intention) of our Middle Eastern policy, one that puts Israel, not America, first.

Ross recently signed on to a plan, being pushed by something called the Bipartisan Policy Center, that is nothing but a roadmap to war with Tehran. The report, written in the form of recommendations to an incoming president, says he must begin a military buildup directed at Iran from “the first day [he] enters office.” The plan is to begin “pre-positioning additional U.S. and allied forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers, placing other war material in the region, including additional missile defense batteries, upgrading both regional facilities and allied militaries, and expanding strategic partnerships with countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia in order to maintain operational pressure from all directions.”

Yes, Georgia, America’s Israel of the Caucasus, is to be used as a forward base of operations against Iran. Then there’s the oil-rich tyranny of Azerbaijan, which is locked in a vicious ethnic war of attrition with Armenia (and its own Armenian population). The U.S. footprint, instead of shrinking under Obama, promises to grow even larger.

So you wondered why, during the debates, Obama was so belligerent on the Georgian question. Obama and McCain both hew to the War Party’s Orwellian view, which grotesquely inverts the truth, decrying “Russian aggression” when it was the Georgians who started that war. One would normally expect this of McCain, whose chief foreign policy adviser was,
until very recently, a paid lobbyist for the Georgians, but Obama, too, refuses to acknowledge Tbilisi’s aggression against a “breakaway province.” Ossetia has been de facto independent for more than a decade, and the supposedly smart Obama is no doubt aware of this – never mind the hundreds killed in the siege of Tskhinvali, the Ossetian capital
city mercilessly assaulted by Georgian troops.

It gets worse, however. Underscoring the point we have long made at Antiwar.com – that it is impossible to separate these various “theaters” of U.S. aggression, and that the Iraq and Afghan wars are bound to spread – the report goes on to note:

“The presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan offers distinct advantages in any possible confrontation with Iran. The United States can bring in troops and material to the region under the cover of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, thus maintaining a degree of strategic and tactical surprise.” [Emphasis added.]

Obama has long stressed he would immediately begin escalating the Afghan campaign, and perhaps open up a new front in Pakistan. Certainly the Bush administration has laid the groundwork for this eastward shift of U.S. military resources – and so the stage is set.

When Rachel Maddow asked Obama the other day why our intervention in Afghanistan wouldn’t end up like the Iraq war, or more so, he emphatically rejected the comparison, yet he never addressed her underlying concern. She just smiled, rather wanly, and went on to the next question. I have another question, however, and it is this: what if the Afghan “surge” is a feint, directed not at some vague Taliban-affiliated tribes in the godforsaken wilds of Waziristan, but at the mullahs of Tehran?

Under the pretext of going after Osama bin Laden, they can sneak enough troops into the region through the back door, then easily launch an attack from the east, and also from the north, where the Azeris and the Georgians are talking about entering NATO. (Obama, by the way, fully endorses Georgia’s NATO membership application, although he hasn’t said anything, as far as I know, about the Azeris’ ambition to join the club.)

Whether or not Ross gets the national security post, the fact remains that the War Party, far from being banished from Washington, will have an inside track in the new administration. What’s different about Obama, however, is that the other side also has a seat at the table – or, at the very least, isn’t completely locked out of the deliberations. I was
astonished to learn that none other than Gen. Anthony Zinni, retired Marine commander and trenchant critic of the neocon influence on the making of American foreign policy, is up for the job. A 2003 Washington Post profile of Zinni reports:

“The more he listened to [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist ‘neoconservative’ ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn’t understand. ‘The more I saw, the more I thought that this was the product of the neocons who didn’t understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground.’ …

“The goal of transforming the Middle East by imposing democracy by force reminds him of the ‘domino theory’ in the 1960s that the United States had to win in Vietnam to prevent the rest of Southeast Asia from falling into communist hands. And that brings him back to Wolfowitz and his neoconservative allies as the root of the problem. ‘I don’t know where
the neocons came from – that wasn’t the platform they ran on,’ he says. ‘Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president.’”

I wouldn’t bet the farm on Zinni getting it, but the fact that he’s in the running at all is astonishing. If that’s the amount of change you want in American foreign policy, then you’ll be happy with the Obama administration – even as they escalate the conflict in Afghanistan, spread it to Pakistan, and prepare for war with Iran.
Not as stupid as Mixner Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
333+ Mixner. Your boy lost big. And your policy of genocide with him. Funny how you can’t bring any facts to the table you warmongering genocidal nutcase.
Not as stupid as Mixner Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Poor little Republicans like Glaivester reduced to defending genocide. Hey, here’s a clue, when there is a humanitarian emergency there is a reason to use military force. I don’t have to agree with the form to agree that allowing people to commit genocide is a bad idea.

Now, I’m not 100% certain that Obama will not bomb the Iranians, and I cannot, at this time, see any reason to believe that it will be a good thing. But when your idiot candidate goes around joking about bombing innocents – your candidate is a warmongering asshole who deserves to lose.

It is certain that I will not be entirely pleased with Obama. He is, after all, constrained by the fact of a massive unproductive sector of our economy that is our war machine. But he isn’t, like Bush and McCain, a supporter of war for war’s sake. If I am wrong about that, I will oppose him. But we’ve just had eight years of wars for the entertainment of sick fucks like Glaivester and Mixner. That’s over.

And, for those too stupid to tell the difference (I’m looking at you Glaivester, Mixner is just insane – that’s why he keeps calling an opponent of mass murder a genocidal maniac) Clinton’s actions left the world better off in most regards (there were some things done wrong, and they did cost lives – but not nearly on the scale of Bush’s active pursuit of death for no reason ever explained). Clinton eased the WWI level punitive sanctions against Iraq – saving lives. Clinton intervened to stop genocide. Can you point to similar results from Bush’s unprovoked aggression? No? Then STFU.
not-as-stupid is insane Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Now, I’m not 100% certain that Obama will not bomb the Iranians

Maybe Obama will just try starving the Iranians’ children to death, like Bill Clinton did to the Iraqis. Or maybe he will bomb them, in violation of international law, like Bill Clinton did to the Yugoslavians.

“Not as stupid” is a genocidal maniac.
Hector Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Not as stupid as Mixner,

That genocide would never have happened if the US had not encouraged Bosnia and other republics to break away. Once that much blood had been spilled then yes, it was reasonable to think that Serbia and Bosnia would never again be able to be united. But it still makes me sad. Bosnia had no abstract ‘right’ to exist, it had no historical precedence for its existence, and by rights it belonged to Serbia.
Glaivester Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Not as stupid as Mixner:

Please, please make sure you know what my views are before trashing them. I am very different from Mixner on foreign policy.

Poor little Republicans like Glaivester reduced to defending genocide.

Er… I am defedning Serbia, not genocide. I think the genocide charges were overblown.

But when your idiot candidate goes around joking about bombing innocents – your candidate is a warmongering asshole who deserves to lose.

John McCain is not my candidate. And I agree that he is a warmongering a**hole who deserves to lose. I was a Ron Paul supporter, and wrote in Chuck Baldwin for the general election (Hell, I headed up the Baldwin campaign – no, I was the Baldwin campaign in my state [Maine]).

But we’ve just had eight years of wars for the entertainment of sick fucks like Glaivester and Mixner.

If you ever read my comments on issues regarding the war, you’d know that I opposed the Iraq War. In fact, before the war I was one of the contrarian commenters on FrontPageMag who liked to bait the pro-war people.

Clinton’s actions left the world better off in most regards (there were some things done wrong, and they did cost lives – but not nearly on the scale of Bush’s active pursuit of death for no reason ever explained).

Clinton gave Kosovo away to the Albanians.

By the way, I have NEVER EVER voted for Bush. I voted for Howard Phillips in 2000 and Michael Peroutka in 2004. So please get your facts straight before you think that I have any love for Dubya.

Hell, much as I dislike Obama, I am actually glad in some ways that he won because I want to see that son of a bitch McCain and everything he stands for thrown to the curb.
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:49 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
buy viagra online Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
Bryan Watson Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
Thanks for the tip!!
cheap viagra Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Great site. Good info
viagra

Matt Yglesias

Ohio

57 Responses to “Ohio”

Blogroll