Last night I had dinner with four of my favorite Democrats. They were appalled, even given the incompetence of Horsford which all four readily admitted, that I would vote for Danny Tarkanian over Horsford. Their reasoning was very simple. Tarkanian is a tea bagger. He will join the other tea baggers in Congress to stop all progress. They also called him a “nut job” who can’t get over his father being a famous basketball coach. I listened carefully because they had valid points. However I stand by my original position. Unlike Horsford, Tarkanian not only has a college education, he’s a graduate lawyer who graduated in the top ten percent of his law class. Horsford has no meaningful education. I know Danny and know he genuinely believes in helping his fellow Nevadans. On the other hand Horsford only believes in helping himself.
In spite of Danny’s political views, which are different from mine, I believe he has the intellectual capacity and flexibility to become a very productive representative for Nevada. Horsford cares only for Horsford…Horsford…Horsford. I still intend to vote for Tarkanian.
Teabagger and nut job. Words only the uncouth would use in polite society. Nice, not.
ReplyDeleteTEA came about because the administration and the Congress were focusing on the wrong priorities at the time.
I want to be clear I am not for ACA, mainly for the same reason I am supportive of Massachusetts health care law. ACA was ramrodded by one party that couldn't even agree among itself without the political trick like the cornhusker kickback (sick and stupid that, Nelsen should have rescinded his vote once they removed the deal) Massachusetts law is and was fully bi partisan. And I personally know other former MA residents who voted with their feet after that went through. (I was raised in MA. Bob Drinan was our Congressman while I was in Highschool)
I fully believe TEA would not have risen at all had the President held off the ACA and made the domestic economy number one for the first two years. Had he done that, it would have shown leadership. had economic efforts even worked at the level are now, (once they they finally got on the stick) then the President would have gained political capitol and the House would not have changed hands in '10. The ACA would most likely have had the single payor option the President wanted had he simply made a better choice in priorities. AND he would not be sitting in a campaign split down the middle like he is now.
I am saying the focus on ACA when the domestic economy was suffering so badly was flat out wrong and was the primary force behind the TEA movement that remains very viable today.
Note I call it ACA not the other thing the President validated last night. Even as I disagree with it, I treat it with respect.
Do you know what that reference is?
Look it up if you don't.
Teabagger, nut job. Totally uncouth.
Meanwhile, spot on about Horsford and even I think Danny is not the best choice but in this world we have to make the best with what we are presented. Too bad your friends seem to hold party over principle.