11 thoughts on “The Folks At Hillbuzz”

  1. They’re former Hillary supporters who have become ABC (Anyone But Barack), to the point of defending Sarah Palin, and willing to support her if Hillary can’t knock off The One in 2012..

  2. Ok, Obama supporters do include some seriously rough folks (like ACORN). Beatings on camera is not unknown — but why do these folks think they are that high on their S**T list?

  3. The HillBuzz folk have been seriously steamed since some of the early caucus states Hillary lost in the primaries. Accusations of thuggishness, etc.

  4. Hillary isn’t the only one who got shafted. Also Reed and others in the Senate she thought weer supporters who behind the scenes pushed Obama forward as a stop Hillary effort must have really burned.

  5. Off topic, there’s a very interesting article there by Sebastian, in Gray Matters: “The Real Difference Between Democrats and Republicans — 6/11/09.” Every Republican and (especially) Independent should read it, because it shows us what we are up against.

    It’s written by a life-long Democrat, and is completely honest. It gave me a whole new way of looking at the opposition.

  6. I found the article you referred to, MfK. My view is that this article is wrong in subtle but profound ways. First, the claim that Democrats know how to play the system and Republicans do not, is wrong.

    One needs look no further than last year. Consider the pathetic legislative progress by the Democrats given one of the strongest executive/legislative positions in history. They didn’t know how to play that system when there was a dedicated, disciplined foe ready and able to thwart their will. Second, I imagine there’s a lot of Republican lobbyists and businesspeople that know how to play the system for federal funds. These sort of people don’t hobnob with deadbeats (such as the author) who can protest a driver’s license suspension on a moment’s notice and who thinks that is something to boast of.

    Second, my view is that “The System” was created specifically by and for people who like to play the system. In words, it’s rules made by parasites for parasites. Think about the example the author gives for law schools where “narrative” replaces merit and competence as a criteria for admittance. That’s a huge opening for parasites to get in. And does the law school explicitly state their decision criteria so as to warn potential applicants what the criteria really are? I doubt it.

    As for me? I don’t like playing the system, and I don’t play it well when I have to. If Democrats really are people who know how to work the system (and who created the system that they like to work), then that fact alone would make me an implacable enemy. What’s the incentive for me to work the system rather than destroy it?

  7. What came across to me is that members of the Democrat party get what they want by never, never, ever stopping whining, wheedling, and pleading. Sebastian seemed to be proud of it, and of course he didn’t use the terms I just did. If he had, it might have given him pause to consider that a Democrat party member is just a spoiled child who has reached voting age. Emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually, they are lifelong residents of the “terrible twos.”

    We don’t have to resort to those tactics. We just have to say “no,” and be prepared to back it up with every fiber of our being.

  8. >Karl Hallowell Says:
    > January 24th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
    >
    > ==Consider the pathetic legislative progress by the
    > Democrats given one of the strongest executive/legislative
    > positions in history. They didn’t know how to play that
    > system when there was a dedicated, disciplined foe
    > ready and able to thwart their will. ==
    >

    What foe is that? The fights were all Dem liberal vrs Dem moderate. The republicans were completly shut out last year, since the dems could pass anything they want if they could all agree on it. If they couldn’t pass anything with 60% of the house adn Senate — you really need to look at what your trying to pass!.

  9. The thing is they couldn’t get a single Republican vote to offset those Democrat votes they were losing. My bet is that they originally thought they could pick up a couple of Republican votes, so they didn’t try hard to court some of their own party.

  10. > My bet is that they originally thought they could pick up
    > a couple of Republican votes, so they didn’t try hard to
    > court some of their own party.

    Well eiather way they had more then enough votes to pass it – they just didn’t have enough votes to block ahny debate adn/or filibuster. They seem unwilling to proceed no that basis.

Comments are closed.