http://thomas.loc.gov/

He wants to have a talk with you about something called “doing research before spouting hyperbole.”

Obama’s record for the 109th congress (2004-2005, before Obama’s presidential big picked up speed):
http://obama.senate.gov/votes/109/index.cfm?start=1

And a comparison of the 110th with another Presidential candidate from the Senate:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/

Assertion: Obama never used his Senate seat except to vote “present.”
Fact: Obama voted over 50% of the time in the 110th congress. Which is more than zero. In fact, it’s a “majority of the time”. He voted over 98% (!) of the time in the 109th, which was more than Hillary, Ted Kennedy, Robert Bird, Arlen Specter, John Sununu, Rick Santorum, John McCain, Trent Lott… you get the idea.

Come on what happened to the conservatives who prided themselves on a well-researched position about issues? You sound like the liberals who spent the last 8 years yelling about everything Bush did.

Writing a post about “the impact of race in choosing Obama’s replacement” might have been great, but you opted for sarcasm instead. Or maybe discuss the politics of choosing a replacement? But no, writing baseless screeds is easier.

But I guess we’ll keep seeing posts that follow this formula:

1) Quote Obama, or reference a recent action.
2) Use this as self-evident proof that Obama is Socialist/Elitist/Dangerous/Stupid/Racist/Terrorist/Liberal without referencing any facts.
3) Throw in a second assertion with little factual backing in order to muddy the post’s point
3) Get angry and self righteous.

That’s not an argument. It’s not even an opinion. Opinions take work; this is just whining.

Personally, I think a Palin/Keyes ticket in 2012 would be the shizz. But what do I know; I’m just a bitter-clinging bigot.