Ted Busiek is a Republican running for the Middlesex and Worcester state-senate seat now held by Jamie Eldridge (and once held by Paul Cellucci). Today, he tweeted:
DONALD TRUMP. Putting self-righteous faggots in their place since 1993. How I love this fellow.#MAGA https://t.co/wqCxfa4pI2
— Ted Busiek (@TedBusiek) July 2, 2016
And then doubled down with:
Just imagine what an unsafe world we'd live in if not for the language police to tell us what words we can't say. https://t.co/k7xurz3aOe
— Ted Busiek (@TedBusiek) July 2, 2016
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Guess....
By dpalomares
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 8:04pm
He is not talking about cigarettes.
No...
By Irma la Douce
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 8:24pm
In Britain "faggots" are meatballs, "fags" are cigarettes.
Self-righteous meatballs are
By brianjdamico
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 1:24pm
Self-righteous meatballs are the worst kind of meatball.
What do people know about Ted Busiek now?
By Chris Lynch
Tue, 07/05/2016 - 2:58pm
I don't think I've heard the word faggot since I was in high school. Kids I know from a job I have who are ages 13-17 don't use it. There is one gay boy in the group. The rest of the kids in the group accept him as they do each other. Another boy teased him once. I asked him if that bothered him. He said no so I let the kids work it out. I think asking the question made my point: Don't tease to oppress.
Ted Busiek is allegedly a grown ass man. Using the word faggot as a cudgel against liberals, Indeed praising Trump's disregard for ethnic and sexual pref. groups as what he likes about him. Disrespecting Mexicans, Muslims and gay people seems to be high on Ted Busiek's list of things to admire. In truth, Trump has not shown the disregard for gay people Busiek has.
I don't know how you represent your constituents when you disrespect many, not because you know them, but because they identify as a person of Mexican heritage, Muslim faith or gay. To me, this is simply ignorance. As a campaign tactic I find it cynical, off point and destructive.
Check out his campaign site
By Bill
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 8:11pm
His "Issues" tab will entertain you for 5-10 minutes.
http://www.tedbusiek.com/
Lowlights
By Irma la Douce
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 8:43pm
From the "Issues" page:
Wants to prohibit same-sex couples from adopting children, since we have so many "healthy normal couples" available
$15 min. wage for workers who don't reside in MA and reduce min wage for state residents to Federal minimum, so residents are more attractive to employers
Anti-choice, it probably goes w/out saying.
We can all agree to eliminate daylight savings, right??
By RobbC
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 9:35pm
As it turns out my wife and I just move from Rozzie to Acton. So we have the power to not vote for, how do they call Trump in Scotland, ah yes, this jizztrumpet.
It might be easier for this knucklehead to relocate to NH instead of trying to bring NH to us.
On one condition
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 10:15pm
We stay "daylighted", as it were.
I will not tolerate 4am sunrises with 7pm sunsets. We are geographically in Atlantic time.
So, we just
By roadman
Wed, 07/06/2016 - 9:19am
move the clock half an hour the next time the change comes up and leave it there. People will adjust to the new cycle pretty quickly.
There are some sensible ones in there
By anon
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 9:45pm
But mostly stupid ones.
It's like he doesn't actually want to get elected, but wants attention. Does he have a talk radio program or book coming out?
More entertaining....
By Irma la Douce
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 11:04pm
are the replies on his twitter account.
Issues
By dan_p
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 3:11pm
Yeah, this guy certainly has "issues."
*sigh* I will never get that
By anon
Mon, 07/04/2016 - 11:34pm
*sigh* I will never get that time back.
Ted Busiek is a pathetic
By Matt Frank
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 8:32pm
Ted Busiek is a pathetic excuse for a politician.
I would like to see if anyone from the Acton Republican Town Committee has anything to say about this. According to Wicked Local he was elected to the committee in 2008.
Welcome to Donald Trump's Republican party!
And everyone who votes D just because is to blame
By Roman
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 8:40pm
You can't have it both ways.
You can't keep on re-electing Democrats and letting them run unopposed, equating conservative politics with racism and bigotry as a knee-jerk reflex, shutting down debate with PC language codes that go way beyond simple propriety and politeness, and then complain that what's left of the opposition is weak and composed solely of people who aren't shy about being angry racists and bigots.
Democracy is a two-way street.
Oh please, don't blame this
By Matt Frank
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 8:49pm
Oh please, don't blame this on the Democrats for the stupidity of candidates like this. Maybe this state is mostly Democrat because the National Republican party is way too extreme and lots of the reasonable semi conservative people have either jumped ship to the Libertarian Party, became unenrolled or in some cases became Democrats.
There you go again
By Roman
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 9:04pm
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the attitude is that only nutters and racists could possibly vote Republican, then guess what: only nutters and racists will be on the ballot as Republicans.
And So
By Irma la Douce
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 9:11pm
The Libertarian Party rises.
One might hope
By Roman
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 9:44pm
I can tell you I'll be voting for Johnson if he gets on the MA ballot, even though I'm in no hurry to see weed legalized or Snowden get a pardon.
He'll be on the ballot in 49
By bostonbob235
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 10:42pm
He'll be on the ballot in 49 states.
https://www.reddit.com/r/libertarian
50, plus DC, Guam, Puerto Rico
By Suldog
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 11:32pm
Johnson and Weld will be on every ballot.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
That's a neat trick
By Roman
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 11:34pm
Guam and Puerto Rico vote in D and R party primaries but not in November.
OK, I Overstated (excuse the pun)
By Suldog
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 11:45pm
The point is he'll be on every available ballot, not just 49.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Overterritoried
By Roman
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 11:53pm
to be exact
Why not?
By Ron Newman
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 10:45pm
Those both seem like eminently reasonable (and libertarian) positions to me.
Not a Snowden fan
By Roman
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 11:18pm
Not a bulk-surveillance cheerleader per se, but just plain not a Snowden fan. And that's all I'll say about that on an online forum.
Weed? Idunno. I hear the liberatarian argument for it, but in my head it just sounds like a bunch of stoners wanting to get The Man Off Their Backs. I could come around to it, but I'm just not there. I voted against the ballot question in 2012 for pretty much the same reasoning.
Not much of a user myself
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 12:17am
However, the vast majority of problems caused by marijuana are not caused by using it per se, but arise as a result of its illegality. That illegality, in turn, is vastly disproportionate to the hazards posed by using the drug itself.
In other words, it is both a waste of money to make a very benign substance illegal, and a waste of resources to end up combatting the crime that arises because it is illegal. Legalization and taxation is a far saner route of control that (as we have seen already) raises money for other things - like that heroin epidemic mess.
And that may all be true
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 12:18am
but in my mind at least, context matters. Legalize marijuana, and then it'll be on to decriminalizing (for instance) cocaine for reasons of safety, or revenue, or unburdening the legal system, or whatever.
Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with your facts, but I'm not there. Not enough to not vote for Johnson, but enough to not be in a hurry to legalize weed.
No, it wouldn't
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 12:39am
Slippery slope is a fallacy, for starters.
Look up the work of a UK doctor David Nutt, who pissed off politicians because he got law enforcement and medical and addiction experts to determine the risk levels for various drugs, then attempted to set policy accordingly: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/...
Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, etc. are highly dangerous (as is alcohol, but we have run that prohibition experiment before with dim failures).
Science and law enforcement and medical science taken together should determine drug policy - not the agendas of idiot politicians grandstanding on dated and irrelevant moral arguments and erroneous beliefs about drugs.
I'm not grandstanding on anything
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 1:05am
I'm saying I don't like the idea of legalization and am voting for Johnson despite of, and not because of, his stance for it.
I'm also allowed to have my own moral opinions and am not required to conduct scientific measurements to justify them to ten decimal digits of precision.
Edit: your link says Nutt asked experts to rank the drugs' harmed based on their experience. Naturally alcohol would be at the top of the list since it's commonly consumed. In other words, that's not exactly a scientific measurement either.
Who said that you were?
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 1:26am
Politicians, however, do grandstand on their "moral standards", and that gets in the way of systematic, scientific thinking on the subject.
And, yes, Alcohol would be at the top BUT marijuana is pretty commonly consumed, too, and it is near the bottom of the list.
Do some googling and you will find a separate rating scale of "net harm to society" in one of the peer-reviewed papers. This was just the lay friendly version from the Economist, a known liberal lefty rag ;-)
Nutt was a cause celebre after some indignant politician decided that he was not doing his job at his post because he was supposed to do only science that supported the government policies ... wrap your head around that one.
You do realize that alcohol
By anon
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 10:48am
You do realize that alcohol is deemed the most dangerous drug out there?
Let me just say this: I have worked since I was 14 - I won't go into how many decades that is. I am a tax paying homeowner in the state of MA. I give to charity. I am a great neighbor. I give to my community. I shop locally. I'm a vegetarian (this really isn't a point but I'm feel self righteous right now:) I do not drink or smoke ciggies. I smoke weed and yes, I like it.
It's not a gateway drug. You could say anything is a gateway drug. Caffeine, cigs and alcohol are promoted to kids/people far more than pot will ever be and yes, those are the gateway drugs you should worry about.
The only thing wrong with pot is the lies a handful of handful of white men decided to tell lies about it over 50+ years ago.
Are you seeking validation?
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 12:13pm
You're not going to get it from me. I don't really care how you spend your free time, but I'm not going to tell you it's all OK either.
Hint: arguments that end with blaming everything on a group of white men, especially dead white men, aren't really arguments. They're dogwhistles too. Except they're not really good ones, since the other side can hear them loud and clear.
Hey Roman
By anon
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 2:53pm
If you are capable, please read about the real history of marijuana and why is was criminalized. It was in fact due to racist white men going after black and Latino users of marijuana for racist reasons. Facts matter. And denial of racism is one of the most virulent forms of racism.
And prohibition was racist against Jews and Irish
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 3:39pm
and guess what: I don't care. Legalizing it is just plain not a priority for me, especially not in a presidential election.
This is so sutpid
By anon
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 7:00am
Charlie Baker is the most popular governor in the country so from the word go, your argument is stupid and reductive.
Complete and apparently uncurable delusion
By anon
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 11:46am
Roman
You cant possibly believe the words you are typing unless you are totally delusional or trolling us all. Today's Republican Party welcomes with open arms...... religious bigots, racists, homophobes, misogynists conspiracy theorists, the profoundly stupid, gun nuts, and other haters and wackos of all kinds. As a result you have Republican leadership saying they don't agree with anything Donald Drumpf has to say, but they support him and will vote for him anyway. You cant make this stuff up.
And your theory is that Democrats are to blame? Reminds me of the concept of Bizzaro World in the old Superman comics. Black is white, up is down, wrong is right, and Democrats are to blame for what Republicans say and do.
Republicans, and their propaganda machine of Fox News, Brietbart, Drudge, etc all are reaping what they have sown. It's ugly, dangerous, and frightening. And no, it's not the fault of Democrats
Libertarianism is just another branch of the Republicans, despite placing themselves on some kind of "intellectual " pedestal. Racism is racism, even when it is "justified" by allegedly lofty idealism. The truth is that Libertarianism is fundamentally fraudulent.
No, Democrats are not to blame. Your line of reasoning is breathtakingly bizarre.
There's that impedance mismatch on full display
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 1:55pm
I'm not saying individual racists and nuts aren't responsible for their opinions. I am saying that the concerted and continued campaign of delegitimizing all right-of-center positions (on fiscal policy, on guns, on trade, on defense, on everything) by conflating it with racism and homophobia, a campaign that's on full display on college campuses right now, and has been there for a good deal longer than a news-cycle memory...has succeeded in starving the Republican Party of anyone other than the nuts. That's not bizzaro world, that's reality.
Ha!
By anon
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 2:28pm
That's hilarious, and also not true. The right of center positions you enumerate stand on their own lack of merits.
Prove it without accusations of bigotry
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 2:49pm
ad hominem atracks, or left wing dogwhistles. Otherwise, hold your peace
Republican state and federal economic policy and soocil issues
By Chris Lynch
Tue, 07/05/2016 - 1:42pm
Kansas Tax Cuts: A Close Look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliMwipXoiA
These policies don't help anyone but the top 1% who fund GOP campaigns. The budget director of the Reagan Administration has called trickle-down a fraud.
Women's right-to-chose to have an abortion. GOP passed trap laws in 23 states to effectively block that right. The supreme court struck down their cynical attack after half the clinics in Texas were closed.
Using the bill to fund CDC & NIH research and response to Zika as a vehicle to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, a Medicaid provider, and permit the placement of Confederate flags in military cemeteries. The president was already on record about vetoing cuts to planned parenthood funding (Medicare reimbursement.) A baby was born in Florida with Microcephaly and GOP house is on summer break, no Zika funding appropriated 6 months after request was made for $1.6 billion.
Wants to cut funding for free school lunch for poor kids in school. Over half of the kids in the US in school are from poor families. Income Inequality in America is as high as it was in the 1920s. GOP passes tax cuts for the rich cuts free lunch for kids living in poverty.
Republicans refuse to vote to raise the min wage at all, never mind to a living wage thus placing all low wage workers on taxpayer funded assistance for food, housing, healthcare and if they want education to get a better paying job, debt they would otherwise have no means to pay back.
Will not authorize war against ISIS. Will not authorize the closure of Gitmo a successful recruiting factor for ISIS. Will not work with President Obama. Will not advise and consent on SCOTUS nominee.
It isn't accidental or incompetence, it's malicious. I find it hard to believe anyone supports this.
Your post sounds like daily
By Patricia
Tue, 07/05/2016 - 2:30pm
Your post sounds like daily talking points. I'm not going to argue all points, but there are some that are just vague enough to fit your narrative.
policy critque
By Chris Lynch
Tue, 07/05/2016 - 3:10pm
it's a policy critique on the merit. feel free to respond to the policy critique with a policy critique
Okay, point by point
By Roman
Wed, 07/06/2016 - 12:43am
Has jack shit to do with fiscal conservatism and was not being discussed. Next.
And why is it the Federal government's job to pay for "free" school lunch? And how much is enough, exactly? Whom do you declare to be "poor?" I got fifty cent lunches when I was a kid. Then my parents got on their feet and got normal jobs. But the way the statistics keep flying around, people making 50k+ would be eligible under some proposals. That's not what the social safety net is for.
Minimum wage doesn't help anybody except for grandstanding politicians. Prices will either rise to the point where the new min wage is worth the same as it is today or work will be driven to the black market, composed of both illegals and native-born unable to be hired otherwise.
I thought to you libs didn't like foreign wars. Also, do you remember what happened last time we meddled in an Arab civil war? Hell, do you remember what happened when we last kicked over a hornet's nest in Iraq (and pulled out too damn early?). Do you mean to tell me that Afghanistan is a pillar of stability now (and that one was out-and-out 100% justifiable revenge, not nation-building).
You've got it turned around, pal. It's the president's job to work with Congress. Holding press conferences (from foreign countries, no less!) that complain about how Congress isn't doing its job without actually sending them bills and negotiating with both parties for bipartisan support does not count as making an overture.
Even a broken clock is right every once in a while.
100% wrong
By anon
Wed, 07/06/2016 - 8:30am
So minimum wage doesn't help anybody except grandstanding politicians?
This is an obvious lie. You should be ashamed of telling lies like this, but you obviously have no shame and no moral compass. Disgusting.
That's because...
By John-W
Wed, 07/06/2016 - 11:44am
...he's a troll. No point in arguing with it.
I think....
By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 07/06/2016 - 3:11pm
... this guy actually BELIEVES the heartless, Ayn-Rand-inspired rubbish he spouts.
Bbbbut...bbbut
By Roman
Wed, 07/06/2016 - 11:58pm
how could anyone believe something that I *don't* believe? :'-(
I'll play along: what's heartless?
Is not chomping at the bit to jump into the middle of yet another Arab civil war heartless?
Is not wanting to spend more money than we have coming in is heartless?
Is not pretending that artificial hikes in the wage floor will magically turn burger-flipping into a solid middle-class career and produce absolutely no downsides heartless?
Is not believing that families making six figures deserve government freebies heartless?
OK. Guilty. I'm heartless. I even have a copy of Atlas on the bookshelf to prove it! And having no heart, I hereby declare myself immune to emotional appeals. I will only listed to actual arguments from now on.
Your turn.
There you go again
By anon
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 2:44pm
Even when a Republican is admittedly at fault, the real reason is because a Democrat made him do it. Now that's some powerful logic. Awesome.
Make reading comprehension great again
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 3:27pm
I'm saying it's the Dem's fault the nut is the only one left standing. I'm not absolving anyone of any responsibility for their statements and actions.
Straight from the Republican playbook
By anon
Tue, 07/05/2016 - 3:02pm
Make something up that's not true, deny you said it, pretend you said something else, and criticize or insult anyone who points it out. Rinse, repeat, ad nauseam
Yes, I'm a Republican
By Roman
Thu, 07/07/2016 - 1:02am
I'm registered as a Republican, I voted in the primary, and everything.
Are you really so sheltered that you think of 'Republican' as an insult that can work against...wait for it...an actual Republican?
I can't even
By erik g
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 10:33pm
So, equating Republicans with bigotry and racism is wrong, because the guy running as a Republican in Acton is a big ol' racist bigot? And that is somehow the Democrat's fault for pointing out that he's a big ol' racist bigot?
If the Republican party wants to pull itself back from the margins, it can start running on platforms that aren't dogwhistle racism and economic games of chicken. It can do that with or without the help of the other party. So far, the MA GOP has done a pretty OK job locally (see: Baker, Charlie), but can't hope to compete nationally because the average Republican voter outside of the northeast is completely unhinged.
I thought the same thing. Don
By Matt Frank
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 10:59pm
I thought the same thing. Don't blame the Democrats for the Republicans being out of control lol. Classic Republican answer though. Blame everything on the Democrats, even when their own party malfunctions.
Oh no
By Roman
Sat, 07/02/2016 - 11:32pm
You don't get to twist out of it so easily.
It's the left's fault for delegitimizing right-wing positions by repeatedly and incessantly conflating them with bigotry and playing the race card with abandon.
Example I've seen on this very forum in regards to Baker, Charlie:
Putting the brakes on a billion-over-budget greenline extension for a fiscal reassessment, not going all-in for a north-south rail link, and imposing a fiscal control board on the same MBTA that screwed up so fantastically in 2015. Good management? Careful evaluation? Sensible caution?
Nope. All racist against the poor people that ride the T and aren't white.
The purpose is quite deliberately to starve the opposition of talent by making smart people embarrased to vote or run for office as Republicans. And guess what, you've won. The national party got itself Trumped because it couldn't come up with anyone better. Now you get to enjoy your victory.
Projecting much?
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 1:29am
Seems to me that you are doing in this exchange exactly what you accuse the Democrats of doing.
The Republican party has been marginalized by its own name calling - not because Democrats reframed anything. Dogwhistle and teaparty politics were fine with the leadership so long as they didn't get funny ideas about actually taking over the party - which they appear to have done.
The GOP wasn't framed as a monstrosity - it turned itself into a monstrosity.
Not much. Just the right amount.
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 1:53am
Tea party is a perfect example. It started out as generic grass-roots anti Obamacare. Obama's surrogates deemed the them racists (Obama's the first black president, you see). And it turned into the Michelle Bachman Show (remember her?).
Even now, Obama still gives interviews where he ascribes nearly all (not some, not a bit, but nearly all) of the opposition to his policies to the fact that he's the first black president. When he doesn't give campaign speeches in foreign countries, that is.
The Tea Party was a grassroots movement for about five seconds
By MC Slim JB
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 11:19am
before it was co-opted by professional astroturfers Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity, both funded by the Kochs. I would be amused by the irony that the monster is now terrorizing Dr. Frankenstein, but there's nothing funny about the prospect of Trump getting elected.
Tea Party was never grass roots,
By anon
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 12:01pm
not even for 5 seconds. It was fully created by, and funded by Republican and right wing money, and fully promoted by the Republican propaganda machine, Fox News, assisted by CNN, because "both sides" nonsense.
Yeah, five seconds.
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 12:09pm
And just after those five seconds rolled over Scott Brown won in '10 because the vast right-wing conspiracy did it. It had nothing to do with winning a majority of votes cast in of all places Massachusetts.
Sometimes you need to be at peace with the fact that your side did something stupid and got boxed on the nose for it by the voters.
Brown didn't win because of a grassroots movement,
By MC Slim JB
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 12:25pm
whether real or a fake one like Tea Partyism. He lucked into running against Martha Coakley, who was jaw-droppingly awful.
She was awful enough to win state-wide before
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 12:46pm
and his campaign platform explicitly and repeatedly stressed his planned 'no' vote for Obamacare. Spin it how you want (and I don't disagree that Coakley phoned it in) but Brown won the first time around because people generally liked what he was selling.
Coakley didn't just phone it in: she was actively terrible.
By MC Slim JB
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 1:08pm
When Brown took his alleged Tea-Party populism up against a slightly more formidable candidate, he showed his juvenile, Trump-level-taunting true colors, and got his ass handed to him. Buh-bye, featherweight. Maybe that shit will play in your real home in New Hampshire? Errrr....
Not wrong, but not relevant
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 1:51pm
We're talking about '10, not '12 here. And yeah...I was more than a little disappointed when Brown brought out 'Fauxcahontas' as his campaign platform when there were so many other good and substantive ways to go after Warren.
Yes, I know '10 vs. '12: my point was
By MC Slim JB
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 2:09pm
that if Brown allegedly rode a grassroots wave in '10, it had utterly fizzled a mere two and half years later. I imagine part of it was that MA voters got to see how much of a boot-licking Wall Street toady he turned out to be, mint-in-box barn coat notwithstanding.
I'm not disagreeing with you
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 2:13pm
Obama won in '12, didn't he?
My point was that first came the grass roots, then came the charges of racism, and then came the nutters, in that order.
The Tea Party, even in its first five seconds, always
By MC Slim JB
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 2:24pm
stank of racism to me. Just curious timing, that the great populist debt and deficit hawks stayed quiet during eight years of W, only to suddenly emerge the moment the brown guy got in.
Thanks for making my point for me
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 2:52pm
And for accusing me of supporting W's socialism. Kerry would've definitely held the line on the deficit.
Take it easy. I wasn't accusing you of anything.
By MC Slim JB
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 3:16pm
But I stand by my observation about the very odd timing of the rise of the Tea Party. W started ballooning the debt and the deficit (from the starting point of a Clinton surplus) very early in his administration. Where were all those angry old white people then?
Oh no?
By Roman
Sun, 07/03/2016 - 3:37pm
To borrow your phrase, there's a very odd timing to your repeated allusions to racist motivations for opposition to Obama. And it's odd for you to keep referring to any opposition to large-scale deficit spending as the sole provenance of "angry old white men," who incidentally would have been voting against W in the '00 primary.
To the point: The timing of the opposition is not odd at all. Obama ran on a platform of more spending, more taxation, casually flirted with the idea of authoritarian imposition of single-payer healthcare and mandatory national service, and made no effort to dispel any notion that he was some messianic figure who would turn back the oceans and heal the planet.
McCain ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism. McCain lost, Obama won. The opposition that voted for McCain was still there and still had the same opinions. Obama said he didn't care and didn't feel like compromising because he thought he had a mandate for Hope And Change. And it was only racism that could possibly motivate continued opposition.
Pages
Add comment