Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Tuesday, November 6, 2012






It's the best revenge against the lie that President Obama is not an American.

Against the lie that President Obama is a Socialist.

Against the lie that President Obama is a Communist.

Against the lie that President Obama is a Marxist.

Against the lie that President Obama is not a Christian.

Against the lie that President Obama is anti-business.

Against the lie that President Obama hates America.

Against the lie that President Obama hates the Constitution.

Against the lie that President Obama hasn't accomplished anything in his presidency.

Against the lie that President Obama wants to take away your guns.

Against the lie that President Obama is a threat to religion.

Against the lie that President Obama is weak.

Against the lie that President Obama is a failure.

Against all the lies and slanders thrown at this president that have nothing to do with his policies, and everything to do with his race.

Vote to send those who promote these lies and slanders back to the dark swamp of ignorace and hate, where they were spawned.

Vote as though your life depends on it.

Because it does.  


skudrunner said...

No matter who wins I hope the country will rally behind the winning candidate and work together to get the country headed in the right direction.

There are differences, this has been too long a campaign with no proposed solutions but plenty of attacks, I am just glad it is over.

Get out and vote because to quote Joe Biden Thia is a big F----n deal.

Silverfiddle said...

President Obama has provided us a valuable service. Progressivism is not about "Hope and Change," that was opiate for the mush-brain masses, hopium.

No, progressivism is about "revenge" and "punishing your enemies."

Infidel753 said...

Pretty good form of revenge against the $#!*&% trolls, too.....

Shaw Kenawe said...

SF: "President Obama has provided us a valuable service. Progressivism is not about "Hope and Change," that was opiate for the mush-brain masses, hopium.

No, progressivism is about "revenge" and "punishing your enemies."

SF, you couldn't bring yourself to just say people should get out and vote?

Your last gasp had to be an hysterical reading of a throw-away line?

No one in their right mind takes what you wrote seriously. Or sees the president as malevolent because of that remark.

Afterall, it was the right side of the aisle who, even before Mr. Obama was inaugurated for his first term, promoted the hope that he fail.

It was the right side of the aisle who, in the face of America's enormous financial meltdown, proudly declared that the most important goal for the GOP was to make Mr. Obama a one-term president, not cooperate and solve our problems.

And it was the right side of the aisle who allowed idiots like Trump to keep alive the idea that President Obama is not an American.

Talk about revenge and punishing your enemies!

Encouraging people to vote isn't "punishing" anyone.

It will, I hope, be the voice of the American people and their judgement on which party is truly the party that promotes "revenge" and "punishing" one's enemies.

Perhaps, if Mr. Obama wins a second term, the other side of the aisle will stop their destructive behavior and learn to compromise and put the best interests of the American people first, instead of putting party loyalties first.

When one of the GOP's leading pols did just that, the overwhelming consensus from the right was that Christie was a traitor.

I hope the American people saw how that sort of thinking has been a destructive force in our coutry, and I hope the American people send those who hope to continue that destructive behavior a very loud message.

Now stop your bellyaching and go out and vote.

BB-Idaho said...

The objective voters are not about revenge...just common sense....

Jerry Critter said...

SF is example number one that if you want to see what the right is doing, look at what they are accusing you of doing.

They are the party of projection.

Anonymous said...

"No matter who wins I hope the country will rally behind the winning candidate and work together to get the country headed in the right direction"

That hope was destroyed after the last election, by the Republicans. They declared it to the American people publicly.

"No, progressivism is about "revenge" and "punishing your enemies.""

Correct, only conservatives took that attitude after the last election.

JC is absolutely correct.

Dave Miller said...

Silver, do you have any thoughts on Sen. McConnells comments and whether the party will do the same thus election is our Pres. is reelected?

As a conservative, how do you feel about those in your party that have been critical of Gov Christie for praising Obama?

We're they right to do so?

Anonymous said...

a vote for the president would be revenge against all the lies put out there by the haters...there's nothing wrong with righteous prove the haters wrong...

KP said...

@Anonymous November 6, 2012 12:23 PM

<< That hope (working together) was destroyed after the last election, by the Republicans. >>

Assuming that is true, would you say that our only hope to end some gridlock would be to have a President elected at the same toime as a same party House and Senate majority?

Is there any chance a leader will be elected that can overcome the hurtful trend toward partisan politics we see in Congress?

Or, is Congress doomed to rancor, inactivity, a 10% approval rating, liars and takers?

I tend to think over coming gridlock will take one party rule -or- an obvious emergency threat to the United States that was agreed upon by both sides of the aisle; agreed upon being key.

I suppose one party rule for a couple years would result in movement. The key then will be the motivation at the time. In the most recent case it was health care rteform; a noble gesture. Probably misplaced given the economic conditions at the time but too tasty to pass up.

Tom C. said...

I travel internationally a lot. When Bush was President, it was horrible, we were universally hated. Not us as people, but our government. When I travel now, Obama has such a great reputation, it is an honor to travel as an American. I know I will get heat for saying this, but it's a fact. I actually DO think it's important for our leader to be liked around the world. THIS is how you build coalitions.

Dave Miller said...

Tom, I work half my year in Mexico and the attitude is the same there among the Mexican people and the large European tourist crowd... we are better respected in the world with Obama...

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dave, I don't know if Silverfiddle will be back here, but I don't think he'd mind my telling you that he did say [I think here on this blog] that he had no problem with what Christie did in working with Obama.

To KP,

It is true that Democrats worked with George W. Bush in the last administration; and during the Obama administration, there were Democrats who did not vote in lock step with Mr. Obama's agenda.

Taking those facts into consideration, I would say that the Congressional Republicans are more likely to continue their obstruction. There was one, maybe two, Senators who broke on some policy issue, and I think it was Susan Collins of Maine? But she will not run again. Lugar, the same. The reasonable GOPers who were willing to compromise have left or are leaving Congress.

Saying they will not compromise on taxes is not a way to govern. Everyone who is serious about getting the deficit under control knows you can't cut without having an increase in taxes and expect to solve the problem.

Even when President Obama gave the Reps. 10 tax cuts to one increase, they said NO!

It's a bit lopsided and not something one can say is the same on both sides.

Anonymous said...

One party rule is not a good idea.
It takes serious negotiating between the parties, which Republicans ruled out the day Obama was elected, and made that their public position. Republicans told the country defeating Obama was their priority, not getting something done for America. The reason the House approval ratings reached single digits.

Holy Crap! said...

A voting machine in Pennsylvania was “taken out of service” for flipping votes for President Barack Obama to Republican challenger Mitt Romney, MSNBC reporter Zachary Roth confirmed Tuesday afternoon.

RELATED: Oregon election worker fired for altering ballots to straight Republican ticket

The shocking error was revealed by a YouTube video published by user “centralpavote,” an account apparently created solely to share this particular video. In a description, the video’s author explains:

My wife and I went to the voting booths this morning before work. There were 4 older ladies running the show and 3 voting booths that are similar to a science fair project in how they fold up. They had an oval VOTE logo on top center and a cartridge slot on the left that the volunteers used to start your ballot.

I initially selected Obama but Romney was highlighted. I assumed it was being picky so I deselected Romney and tried Obama again, this time more carefully, and still got Romney. Being a software developer, I immediately went into troubleshoot mode. I first thought the calibration was off and tried selecting Jill Stein to actually highlight Obama. Nope. Jill Stein was selected just fine. Next I deselected her and started at the top of Romney’s name and started tapping very closely together to find the ‘active areas’. From the top of Romney’s button down to the bottom of the black checkbox beside Obama’s name was all active for Romney. From the bottom of that same checkbox to the bottom of the Obama button (basically a small white sliver) is what let me choose Obama. Stein’s button was fine. All other buttons worked fine.

I asked the voters on either side of me if they had any problems and they reported they did not. I then called over a volunteer to have a look at it. She him hawed for a bit then calmly said “It’s nothing to worry about, everything will be OK.” and went back to what she was doing. I then recorded this video.
There is a lot of speculation that the footage is edited. I’m not a video guy, but if it’s possible to prove whether a video has been altered or not, I will GLADLY provide the raw footage to anyone who is willing to do so. The jumping frames are a result of the shitty camera app on my Android phone, nothing more.

Raw Story (

Raw Story (

skudrunner said...

"I suppose one party rule for a couple years would result in movement"
It wasn't that long ago that we had one party rule and what happened, nothing except they threw away 800 billion dollars and jammed a healthcare system through that the majority didn't want.

It takes two sides in a negotiation and both sides are guilty of non-compromise. The Republicans should deal with raising revenue through a tax reform. We have a president who said, I won you lost so we will play by my rules and has said I will make the entire country suffer unless I get my way.
Shaw, Before you call that a lie,
"The White House confirmed Thursday that President Obama is prepared to veto legislation that would skirt the so-called "fiscal cliff" -- a battery of tax hikes and spending cuts -- unless Republicans consent to raise taxes on top earners"

There are numerous job bills in congress that slimy won't bring to the floor because it was republican sponsored.

Compromise is a two way street and hopefully we can get there again.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner, wrong again.

When Mitt Romney and Republicans say that Barack Obama had a supermajority in Congress for two years, they are lying. In an interview with The Des Moines Register, President Obama debunked that favorite talking point of Mitt Romney's.
Mitt Romney, conservative commentators and folks commenting here on DJ, are fond of saying President Obama held a supermajority in both the House and the Senate in his own party for his first two years. Romney’s statement is absolutely false, and President Obama thoroughly debunked it in an interview with The Des Moines Register.
Because Republicans were contesting the election of Al Franken, when President-elect Obama was sworn into office there were 58 Democrats. A supermajority is composed of 2/3 the Senate, and since 60 voters are required to overcome the filibuster rules, Obama didn’t even have the basic majority that he needed in order to pass legislation when he took office.
The idea that Obama had a two-year supermajority is yet another Romney and Republican lie.

I cannot be sure how Mitt Romney defines a super majority, but the truth is that Mr. Obama and Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority from July 7, 2009 whenAl Franken (D-MN) was ultimately seated , until August 25, 2009, when Ted Kennedy (D-MA), passed away.
That's only seven weeks, not two years.That is par for the course for Mitt Romney and his fuzzy arithmetic. Just like Tax-Evader in Cheif Romney's tax plan does not add up, Barack Obama never had a two year supermajority in Congress.

For Romney, who needs to be properly schooled once again , here is a more precise account:


Shaw Kenawe said...

For Romney, who needs to be properly schooled once again , here is a more precise account:
- In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two (2) independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy, who was ailing and unable to serve. So in actuality, in the early months of Obama's presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

- In April 2009, Pennsylvania's recently deceased Republican Sen. Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy absent, there were still only 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.

- In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber back down to 57.
President Obama never had a two year supermajority. The President never had a one year supermajority. There was never a supermajority for Obama or Democrats. It is yet another lie told by a man and a campaign that need not be concerned with fact checkers or truth.

Read more:

KP said...

@Anonymous << One party rule is not a good idea. >>

I am not hot about the idea of one party rule either. Having said that, we would not have Obamacare without Dem dominance when it passed (that might be a bad or good thing depending on who you ask).

We do get one party rule occassionally and most of us survive it. However, when it happens about 25% of America lives daily with a strong stomach ache.

KP said...

@Shaw << It's a bit lopsided and not something one can say is the same on both sides. >>

Perhaps, but Reid has successfully fought valiantly to lower himself to a similar stature.

Anonymous said...

And Obamacare is not fairing well in public opinion.

There are ideas from both sides that when melded (negotiated) would work for solving problems and making laws. A hard compromise leaves both sides complaining.

Obama is conservative, for a Democratic president. If Republicans stop filibustering, they might find they can get things compromised and done.

Shaw Kenawe said...

WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - Voter support for President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul has increased following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling upholding it, a lthough majorities still oppose it, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday showed.

Among all registered voters, support for the law rose to 48 percent in the online survey conducted after Thursday's ruling, up from 43 percent before the court decision. Opposition slipped to 52 percent from 57 percent.

The survey showed increased backing from Republicans and, crucially, the political independents whose support will be essential to winning the Nov. 6 presidential election.

S.W. Anderson said...

Victory is the best revenge. Of course, that requires getting enough votes.

A troll opined, "progressivism is about 'revenge' and 'punishing your enemies.'"

Yes, I remember how Obama spent the first two and a half years of his presidency punishing his political enemies mercilessly. There they were, anxiously awaiting the chance to sit down and find common ground with the president, and in return he bashed them constantly, refused to meet with them, never returned their calls, rejected every one of their plans and ideas out of hand, derided them in every speech he gave.

Silverfiddle, the difference between your troll comments and dog doo on the lawn is that dog doo has some value as fertilizer.

S.W. Anderson said...

Re: progressivism being about revenge and punishing enemies.

A defining feature of the so-called Reagan revolution, thanks in large part to Lee Atwater, GOP strategists like him and movement conservatives, was treating Democrats, liberals especially, not as opponents with differing views and goals, but as enemies to be demonized at every opportunity as anti-American, as morally lacking, even as traitors.

Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, John Sununu, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, both Bush presidents, Dick Cheney, Michelle Bachmann, Allen West, Darrel Issa, John Kasich and Rick Scott, to name a few, have done just that.

That kind of mean-spiritedness is not something liberal politicians and strategists started, nor is it something most of them have pursued.

KP said...

@ Anonymous November 6, 2012 7:06 PM

Insightful comments, thanks.

KP said...

More and More it's looking to me that after $6 Billion dollars in campaigning and endless discussion and NAS-T comments that we are right back where we started; a Rep House, a Dem Senate and Obama as President. I guess we will see if the race to the bottom for the the Congress dips below 10% approval rating.

Anonymous said...

It's up to the House Republicans, as it has been for 2 years.
Their decisions go against what they use to support, before Obama was elected (like not raising the debt ceiling, health care mandate, etc.).

Infidel753 said...

Revenge achieved. Lies repudiated. Liars and slanderers re-swamped. Trolls' nuts solidly kicked.

It's been a good night. Let's celebrate, not waste time on bad losers.

Republican Racism said...

Time to highlight their hate and diminish them to a party with no power.

Anonymous said...

Republicans don't deserve Obama.
After all the sick attacks on him, he still seeks to include them while America progresses past their hate

Paul said...

Obama said, "And we have to fix that!"
Referring to the voting problems caused by Republican vote suppression attempts.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The Katherine Harris of the 2012 election:

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted is the Katherine Harris of 2012. Few, if any officials in the country did more to skew a state’s vote to increase Mitt Romney’s chances of winning this election. Husted advocated firmly and repeatedly to cut early voting in Ohio, potentially disenfranchising thousands of voters who lack the job flexibility to vote on election day. He openly defied a court order requiring early voting hours to be restored, although he eventually backed down after a federal ordered him to attend a court hearing regarding this refusal to comply with the law. And he retaliated against his opponents by firing them. To top it off, Husted issued a last-minute directive that directly conflicts with Ohio law which could lead to thousands of provisional ballots being trashed.

Shaw Kenawe said...


Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner is Tea Party Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) hand-picked chief elections official, so he played a leadership role in Scott’s discredited plan to purge thousands of Florida voters from the state’s voter rolls. According to the Tampa Bay Times, “Hispanic, Democratic and independent-minded voters [were] the most likely to be targeted” by this purge. About 58 percent of the voters targeted by the purge are Hispanic, a demographic that overwhelmingly favored President Obama. The list of supposed non-citizens proved unreliable, however, and the purge was eventually shut down after the state’s local elections supervisors refused to move forward with it. Nevertheless, Detzner vowed to restart the purge at one point saying it was his “moral duty” to purge people from the voter rolls. To date, Florida’s purge caught just one non-citizen voter.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The shame continues:

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler is currently under investigation for allegedly misusing taxpayer dollars to travel to a Republican National Lawyers Association event. Even if these allegations prove false, however, Gessler has still distinguished himself through his efforts to restrict the franchise. As a candidate for his current job, Gessler campaigned on a promise to fight the wildly exaggerated problem of election fraud. As Colorado’s chief elections official, Gessler spearheaded a voter purge targeting thousands of alleged non-citizens on his state’s voter rolls. He was eventually forced to largely abandon this purge, however, after his efforts revealed that non-citizen voting is a virtually non-existent problem.