The Barber victory vs. the walker victory.
A few quick thoughts before I dash off to work this fine AM.
Let's see. scott walker's campaign outspends us by 8 to 1, wins by about the same margin as he did in 2010 and, according to some polling, got the votes of some who don't like him but disapprove of recalling a governor for political reasons. In the meantime, the same polling shows President Obama with a comfortable lead.
The media response? Democrats are doomed...Doomed I say, DOOMED! 
Barber wins a special election for Gabby's seat defeating the teabagger that she beat in 2010 after the rethugs cast the election as a referendum on President Obama and we show that the repubs are as hostile as they are to anything even barely resembling a social program.
The media response? If I listen closely I may be able to hear the crickets. 
There goes that damned liberal media again! 
Horseshit! 
That;s my 2 cents, and quite possibly over priced at that!
PEACE! 
= new reply since forum marked as read
The Walker recall was a national story that lasted for months.
The Arizona election was barely discussed by the national media prior to this week.
The media still sucks though.
...we may very legitimately question WHY it wasn't a national story. 
Perhaps a media boycott of any story that may be good for Democrats? 
The "guddam libril megea" is only as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them. WE have to be the media! Piss on them! 
PEACE!
Last week, when Walker won 53% to Barrett's 46%, the commentary was that it was a "near landslide" for Walker, and that it was "confirmation of his mandate".
This morning, when Barber won 52% to Kelly's 46%, the commentary was that "Arizona Democrats barely hung on to the seat of former Representative Gabrielle Giffords."
So, that 1% is the difference between an overwhelming mandate and barely hanging on??? 
...george w moron did in both of his?
Horseshit!
PEACE!
You weren't responding to me, but your idea is fantastic! 
Thanks for reading my thread! 
PEACE!
