Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* If Obama's argument can be boiled down to "things could have been worse," as some have noted recently, then perhaps it's worth mentioning that a new study finds that this is entirely true, to a greater degree than we thought.

* Jonathan Capehart says the Dems' best hope for the fall is to successfully force Republicans to clarify what precisely they're for.

* A Federal judge has temporarily blocked key parts of the Arizona immigration law, but the underlying problems and explosive political tensions remain entirely unchanged.

* And: If the goal of some proponents of the law is to get rid of Latinos, then it's already working beautifully, though some local businesses may not be too happy about it.

* Since filibuster reform is clearly not a matter of "if," but "when," you'd think Democrats would want to do it while they're in the majority.

* For the first time, Harry Reid takes a slight lead over Sharron Angle in Rasmussen polling, and Rasmussen shifts the race to Leans Democratic.

* And: Angle appears to claim that the DISCLOSE act is law.

* Now it looks like even the scaled down energy bill may not pass the Senate this summer. Dems are blaming Republicans, blah, blah, blah....

* A group of House Dems is getting attention for criticizing the Dem leadership for not dealing with the deficit, but they can't quite bring themselves to say we should let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

* Charlie Crist isn't moving left on everything: He strongly supports extending those Bush tax cuts.

* Newt Gingrich is giving what is being inexplicably billed as a "major speech" on Obama's foreign policies tomorrow, and it's safe to assume that he'll do a fair amount to say about mosques and sharia law

* Adam Serwer says Newt is mainstreaming Islamophobia. He's not the only one.

* And speaking of transparent efforts to pander to the Tea Party right by bashing Muslims, I'll be on Keith Olbermann tonight at around 8:50 p.m., to chat about Sarah Palin's artfully constructed bubble.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  July 28, 2010; 6:25 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Climate change , Happy Hour Roundup , House GOPers , Immigration , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans , Tea Party , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Harry Reid's goal: Localize, localize, localize
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Greg: "I'll be on Keith Olbermann tonight at around 8:50 p.m."

:o) WTG!

I'll be watching!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 28, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Good luck on KO tonight, Greg. Stay loose!

Posted by: jzap | July 28, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "If the goal of some proponents of the law is to get rid of Latinos."

That's just a ridiculous thing for you to write, Greg.

Posted by: sbj3 | July 28, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Greg! You go!

A couple of articles from Politifact:

On "Meet the Press", David Gregory says financial sector equals 25 percent of U.S. economy

* BARELY TRUE *

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/28/david-gregory/meet-press-david-gregory-says-financial-sector-equ/

People in the top tax bracket, "these so-called wealthy, most of them are small-business owners." ~ Stephen Hayes on Sunday, July 25th, 2010 in on ABC News' "This Week."

* BARELY TRUE *

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/27/stephen-hayes/so-called-wealthy-are-actually-small-business-owne/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 28, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

While I'm on the PF site and the topic is immigration:

Immigration law author claims 60 percent of Arizona Hispanics support the measure

* PANTS ON FIRE *

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/21/russell-pearce/immigration-law-author-claims-60-percent-arizona-h/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 28, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Whew! I was worried we wouldn't get a 'Cuda link. Kinda small though, did you get enough clicks yesterday to keep the wolves at bay for today? Or at least to compensate for the comment killing daily Reid link?

Also,

"Since filibuster reform is clearly not a matter of "if," but "when," you'd think Democrats would want to do it while they're in the majority."

Do you really think this is gonna happen when even Akaka wont touch it? I think the left is being teased with this to either increase fundraising (any requests from the Democratic Senate Election Committee or Progressive Democratic Senators mentioning that they need the donations to help effect this?) or encourage base turnout for the election. They wouldn't do that would they? That'd be like saying "If you vote for us we'll investigate and Impeach Bush and his evil master Cheney on torture". You didn't mention you opinion Greg, but i'd say the good money is on filibuster reform = Kabuki versus real filibuster reform. I mean, believing that filibuster reform has momentum in the Senate is like thinking that Boehner will blow it and let house investigators take it to the impeachment stage. The Obama haters (heck, i'm probably one of 'em) are in love with the idea but I gaurantee they/me are being led around by the nose on that one!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 28, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Greg, good luck and please try to find a better backdrop than Benen's shiny bookshelf. Maybe that's just a Vermont special....

Combine the Capehart strategy with the Palin bubble phenom, and you've got a nearly impossible situation for her and other candidates like her. What do they have to offer? Their ideology is based on Obama-opposition and policies that a great majority of this country understands to be a disaster.

Hell, she won't even be able to survive the primary debates.

Posted by: BGinCHI | July 28, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

No filibuster or hold reform because senators of either party don't want to give up their right to stop the senate dead in its tracks (unanimous consent) and make everyone pay attention to them every time they get the vapors about a nominee or bill. It is the rankest form of hubris. With no filibuster, being the 60th vote will lose all its charm, so those "moderates" who get their egos stroked every time there is a close vote would lose their specialness. I fear for our country with the senate as messed up as it is...

Posted by: srw3 | July 28, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Sarah who?

Posted by: CalD | July 28, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Just don't piss off Scarborough.

Posted by: joeff | July 28, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey Greg, I'm busy busy this week but wanted to check in and say you did a great job on Countdown. Missed it in real time but caught the vid. Maybe you'll become the Palin expert on the left. I hope you're right about her not running, I don't know if I could survive it. I don't think anyone can come close to the presidency without being vetted by the media and I don't believe she would survive it.

I guess I'll have to throw my boycott out the window though.

Anyway, congrats.

Posted by: lmsinca | July 28, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

"House GOP leaders: 9/11 first responders aid bill 'a massive new entitlement program'"

"House Republican leadership is advising its members to vote against a bipartisan bill that would, among other things, bolster medical support to Sept. 11 victims.

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009, sponsored by New York City Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D), provides medical monitoring to those exposed to toxins at Ground Zero, bolsters treatment at specialized centers for those afflicted by toxins on 9/11 and reopens a compensation fund to provide economic loss to New Yorkers."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0710/House_GOP_leaders_911_first_responders_aid_bill_a_massive_new_entitlement_program.html#comments

Posted by: associate20 | July 28, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey, thanks, all. Appreciate it. I'm still alive, I think.

Posted by: sargegreg | July 28, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Great job on Countdown tonight Greg. You looked calm, cool, and collected, as if you did this every night.

Posted by: rukidding7 | July 28, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Hah. I'll be watching the rerun momentarily as I was out doing house stuff.

I hope you say Sharon Angle is the new Sarah Palin in that neither of them make sense, ever.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | July 28, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Good job. Better than I could do for sure, I think. OK....Daily Show time.

cheers

Posted by: mikefromArlington | July 28, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Very cool, Greg.

I think you overstate the Palin effect altogether (both + & -), but hey, everyone has to have an obsess..er hobby. ;D

Here's a local (UNH) poll with a smaller sample but some interesting tabs and commentary.

Ayotte: +8%.

Hodes negatives are high, Concord folks don't like 'im. NH is still pretty conservative so he can't do issues (taxes, shhh). His strat is to diminish Ms. Ayotte's popularity...sound familiar? Palin definitely polarizes, but does the DNC (& Plumline) bet that she polarizes sufficiently locally to spend big$$$ beating Griz. Or maybe its some kind of collective (giggle) addiction.

http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/gsp2010_summer_senate072810.pdf

Congrats on the air time!

Posted by: tao9 | July 28, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

"Calm, cool, and collected"?! LOL. Greg looked stoned on Olbermann (O'Donnell sitting in):

"I mean, you know, it's funny. I got some pushback from Re ... operatives on the Republican AND Democratic side who said, you know, 'caution, caution, don't read too much into this' you know, a local race like this isn't going to be decided by an endorsement. But the fact is that that data, you know -- yes, it's amendably (?) it a--a--a Dem firm and all the rest of it -- but [pause] but they directly polled on, you know, a, a, what do you, how would react to a Sarah Palin endorsed candidate and a, a majority looked on it unfavorably. So [pause] you know, you've got it, I, it's hard to see how it helps in a general."

Did you ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE DATA?

BTW: does Chris Hayes look like Rachel Maddow in a suit (I think Rachel has bigger, more manly hands ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 28, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Since when did the junior high school kids take over MSNBC?

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 28, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Elmer Fudd on MSNBC now.

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 28, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Gosh, here's a shock! LOL

Rasmussen: Nevada Senate Race Now “Leans Democrat

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has edged ahead of his Republican opponent Sharron Angle in his bid for reelection in Nevada. Both candidates are seen to hold extreme views by large segments of the population.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Nevada finds Reid with 45% of the vote, while Angle earns 43% support. Seven percent (7%) favor some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

But 48% of the state’s voters have a Very Unfavorable view of Reid. Forty-one percent (41%) say the same of Angle. Overall, 55% have at least a somewhat unfavorable opinion of Reid and 56% view Angle at least somewhat unfavorably.

Sixty-two percent (62%) describe the longtime Democratic senator as a liberal, and 50% characterize his views as extreme. Forty-one percent (41%) put Reid in the mainstream.

Angle, who is seen as a conservative by 81% of the state’s voters, is viewed as holding extreme views by 58%. Thirty-seven percent (37%) see the GOP nominee in the mainstream.

All of which has caused Rasmussen to place the Reid-Angle race into the “Leans Democrat” column for now

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 29, 2010 3:56 AM | Report abuse

Given that Phoenix is in the top four safest big US cities according to the FBI, how can Arizona argue any compelling reasons for this law?

Posted by: rhallnj | July 29, 2010 6:43 AM | Report abuse

All, morning roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/the_morning_plum_62.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 29, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Dodd's still talking about Warrens lack of confirmation prospects while a few Republicans are praising her work. Here's a statement by two Congressional Republicans, Troske and McWatters who served on the TARP oversight panel with her. I don't think it's as much of a problem as Dodd would have us think. Her criticism of the failed HAMP program may have more to do with it than anything else IMO.

"Although we do not share many of Professor Warren's views and opposed the creation of the CFPB, we have found our dealings with her to be collegial and professional. We often debate a wide variety of issues with Professor Warren and have found her quite willing to modify her views if presented with well-reasoned cogent arguments.


For example, as the Panel undertook its investigations on the 'investment' of TARP funds in GMAC and AIG, we raised a number of specific concerns with Professor Warren and the other members of the Panel. She was presented with a clear choice -- accept Treasury's tepid analysis or conduct a rigorous de novo review. She -- without hesitation -- chose the latter and the Panel produced what we believe is the definitive analysis of the GMAC and AIG misadventures. Although Treasury has not welcomed the Panel's reports on GMAC and AIG -- not to mention its continuing criticism of the Home Affordable Modification Program -- any lesser undertaking by the Panel would have run contrary to its Congressional mandate and ill-served the taxpayers who stand to lose tens of billions of dollars of TARP funded public resources.

It is important to note that the Panel has been critical of policies and decisions implemented by Democrats and Republicans alike. There is great virtue in that, because, while it is easy to question the decisions made by members of the other political party, it takes courage to publicly question the decisions made by members of your own party."

Posted by: lmsinca | July 29, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company