Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Meet the "99ers": The 1.4 million who have now been unemployed for at least 99 weeks, reaching the limit of their insurance. Will this "drive cable's day"?

* Dems to lose 30 House seats? DNC chair Tim Kaine, on Morning Joe just now:

"If Republicans have an average night, the average since Teddy Roosevelt is, the party that doesn't have the White House wins 28 House seats and four Senate seats. And we know we're not living in average times."

Even if Kaine is lowering expectations, that's setting them awfully low, though he didn't allow that the GOP could retake the House.

* The new Washington Post/ABC News poll, coming only four months before the midterms, is grim for Obama and Dems. Key finding: Nearly six in ten have little or no confidence in Obama to make the right decisions for the country.

* Also: Only 43 percent approve of his handling of the economy, versus 54 percent who disapprove.

* And: Fifty one percent say it's more important for the GOP to control Congress, to "act as a check" on Obama's policies, while only 43% say it's more important to have Dems in charge.

* But: Dems hold an edge in which party is more trusted on the economy, 42-34.

* George Stephanopoulos reads the Post/ABC numbers and forecasts a "political tsunami."

* With Ben Nelson now wavering on whether to support FinReg just when Dems are close to 60, perhaps Dems should simply wait for the appointed replacement for Robert Byrd in order to render Nelson irrelevant.

* Jon Kyl keeps up his personal crusade against the evils of unemployment insurance.

* Ah, the alternate universe known as the U.S. Senate: It's looking like environmentalists may not even be able to get a utilities-only carbon cap as part of energy reform.

* Adam Serwer pokes a rather large hole in the ridiculous right-wing fantasy, er, nightmare that Obama's alleged racism led him not to pursue a criminal case against the New Black Panthers. Why is the right so desperate for this to be true?

* And tireless scandal hunter Darrell Issa, the Don Quixote of House Republicans, tilts his lance in the direction of yet another windmill.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  July 13, 2010; 8:23 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Climate change , Financial reform , House GOPers , Morning Plum , Political media , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: George Steinbrenner and the New York of my childhood

Comments

Glenn Greenwald notes a significant statistical difference:

"a NEXIS media search reveals that the word "disgraced" appears extremely close to the phrase "Eliot Spitzer" (within two words) a total of 394 times...

By blindingly stark contrast, ever since he got caught hiring prostitutes to wrap him in diapers while campaigning on the basis of Family Values, the word "disgraced" appeared within two words of the name "David Vitter" a grand total of 4 times -- all from small blogs"
http://www.salon.com/news/media_criticism/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/07/12/spitzer

Posted by: bernielatham | July 13, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Should have added the next graph as well:

"I thought about this issue because Newt Gingrich announced today that he was seriously considering running for President, and I virtually never see the word "disgraced" attached to his name; in fact, in the 3 years since he confessed to James Dobson that he was cheating on his second wife with his then-mistress-and-congressional-aide/now-third-wife, at the same time as he was leading the Clinton impeachment hearings, Gingrich was so described a grand total of 5 times, none from major news outlets"

Danged liberal media.

Posted by: bernielatham | July 13, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

(note: Greenwald adds a correction to the "diaper" element above given its poor sourcing)

Posted by: bernielatham | July 13, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

In the same vein, Conason notes the huge discrepancy between "Climategate" media attention and the widespread lack of attention to the multiple investigations clearing the scientists of malpractice, fraud, etc
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/07/08/climate/index.html

Posted by: bernielatham | July 13, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

@Greg

At some point, one is going to have to ask the question if ANY Democrat could see their favorabilites stay high in the White House. Given how influencial FOX News is on the rest of the media, and right-wing talk show's influence on FOX...it's been a non-stop bombardment of anti-Obama the likes of which no President has ever faced in the history of this country.

And let's not kid ourselves into thinking that this would be different if his policies were different, of if a different Democrat had won.

FOX has essentially turned into a 1984 style "five minute hate" which runs 24/7. All the other traditional media outlets jump on the bandwagon of FOX's stories about "controversy", and so we have non-sense attack stories (see: Death Panels) running all the time. Even saying there is a "debate" about it is giving creedance to flat out lies.

It's propaganda, tried and true propaganda. There's no denying that if you launch a full fledged propaganda campaign against someone, anyone, and if you have a loud enough microphone, then people will eventually succumb to it. The only defense against it is for people to not go along with it in the first place, and call it was it is - that's why the founders created a free press.

There is no doubt in my mind, none whatsoever, that if the press accurately reported on what Obama has been doing, and actually dimissed/called-out the lies and nonsense for what they are (political game playing)...if we had a press corp that actually did it's job in the country, I have no doubt that Pres. Obama's numbers would be in the 60's or 70's right now.

He's been far from perfect...but almost every single person I've talked to who's been anti-Obama (even Tea Baggers) who hasn't walked away thinking he wasn't that bad after talking to me. That's because they simply aren't informed about what is going on. Only the supremely (or willfully) ignorant couldn't be reached at all. Most can...they just need a news outlet to actually INFORM them of the FACTS, not the politics.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 13, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

edit:

"but almost every single person I've talked to who's been anti-Obama (even Tea Baggers) who hasn't walked away thinking he wasn't that bad after talking to me."

to...

"but almost every single person I've talked to who's been anti-Obama (even Tea Baggers) has walked away thinking that he wasn't THAT bad after talking to me."

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 13, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Republican candidate in Missouri advises as follows:

"One thing I like to say is: America is great, not because of our genetics. We're great because we created a place and space where people can be free. And they can choose Christ, they can choose to be faithful. They can worship, and they find their way to the Lord. And -- or some of them don't. We sure want them all to, but some of them don't.
Part of that freedom -- when you take a government and you impose, and take away all your choices. One of the choices you take away is to find the Lord. And to find your savior.

And that's one of the things that's most destructive about the growth of government. It's this taking away of that freedom. The freedom -- the ultimate freedom, to find your salvation, to get your salvation. And to find Christ, for me and you.

And I think that's one of the things that we have to be very, very aware of. That the Obama Administration and Congressman Carnahan are doing to us." http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/gop-candidate-obama-and-carnahan-want-to-take-away-your-chance-to-find-the-lord-audio.php?ref=fpa

One wonders what the fellow thinks of the Israeli government re its responsibility to pave the road to Jesus?

Posted by: bernielatham | July 13, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

"With Ben Nelson now wavering on whether to support FinReg just when Dems are close to 60, perhaps Dems should simply wait for the appointed replacement for Robert Byrd in order to render Nelson irrelevant."

Someone remind me again why Republicrats are good for the Democratic Party. BTW: WTF Russ? I don't believe ANY Democrat should vote against cloture. If Feingold hadn't been in hissy fit mode, FinReg could have have been spared the Scott Brown Is A Reasonable Moderate theme sure to emerge in Massachusetts, not to mention the extra hundred million Brown dumped on taxpayers.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 13, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Well, that was a horribly depressing Morning Plum. Thanks, Greg. Couldn't you at least throw in something about Angle, Palin, or Steele for a chuckle or two?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 13, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I'm still trying to understand who get's polled in these polls. I live and work in a Republican environment. These were Bush supporters for most of his 8 years and people who voted for Republicans through much of their lives. Most of them currently hate the Republican party and are vowing not to vote Republican again anytime soon because they understand Republicans bearly destoyed the country under Bush with a Republican Congress and that the Congressional GOP is offering nothing new.

If these were Democrats that would be one thing, but these are people in their 30s and 40s who always voted Republican - so where does this landslide come from? Who is getting polled here and what model are people using? Is this still that enthusiams gap being used to weight the polls? People in my Republican area in Michigan don't back what people are telling me in the news.

Posted by: zattarra | July 13, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

There's a DNC chair? I hadn't realized. Where's he been?

Posted by: mattslavick | July 13, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

"BTW: WTF Russ?"

I'm with you on this, wbgonne. Does he think he's going to get a better bill after November?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 13, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne

"WTF Russ?"

Seriously. There's no excuse for Feingold to vote against cloture - he's filibustering fincianal reform. This is the kind of crap we get when the GOP makes a proceedural cloture into de-facto support for a bill.

It's stupid and obstructionist when the GOP does it, and it's stupid and obstructionist when Feingold does it.

Again...it'd be nice if the media actually reported it as such. You know, factually.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 13, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

@bbq
"And let's not kid ourselves into thinking that this would be different if his policies were different, of if a different Democrat had won."

Not kidding. Not thinking. Absolutely KNOW that racism is a major factor in the hatred shown towards Obama. The same way that sexism would have been a major factor if Clinton,H had won.

Posted by: converse | July 13, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Here's the silver lining re: the bad polling numbers. As BBQ explains, Obama has been savaged relentlessly by the GOPers and their TV propaganda arm and explains some of the negativity for Obama and the Dems. But the public has even LESS confidence in the Republicans to govern. The GOP has gone all-in to destroy Obama. But if they don't take either Congressional chamber (and they won't) they will have failed. They will remain powerless and will be increasingly saddled with an obstructionist label if they persist in the slashing-and-burning. (After all, Americans do get bored quickly and there's only so long the GOP can manage if its raison d'etre is Obama hating.)

Now here is the good part. Assuming the GOP can't take the House or Senate and further assuming that the public tire of the GOP Obama-Is-The -Devil schtick, the Repubs will be presented a Hobson's choice: continue on an increasingly counterproductive political course or else grow up and start acting responsibly. And as soon as the GOP begins to reclaim its sanity, it will inevitably move TOWARDS Obama's positions, which as we know, are largely rational and moderate. That will necessarily boost Obama and the Dems by 1) ensuring greater legislative success; and 2) marginalizing the noisy whackjobs who now dominate GOP politics and are the vehicles for the most savage and MSM-ready attacks.

That's the hope anyway.

P.S., As I understand it, the new cap is in place and pressure-testing will take place this morning to see if it can safely remain in place. If so, the leak may finally be contained.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 13, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

wb said: "That's the hope anyway."

Yes. But there is an equal worry on the other side of the equation. If this strategy implemented by the conservatives proves successful, none of that hoped-for dynamic towards reflection and re-thinking will occur. The negative tendencies will be further entrenched in the culture of the right. This poses an enormous danger to real democracy in the US.

Posted by: bernielatham | July 13, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

And not that anyone will listen but here's a very simple idea for diminishing the debt: drastically raise the income tax rate for the SuperWealthy. As we know, the tax rate on the highest earners is at an historic low. I don't have the numbers handy but I imagine that if we even restored the rate to, say, 60% for people earning more than $1M (or whatever) that would be a lot of dough. Every time a Republican brings up the debt that's how the Dems should respond. I realize this is a nonstarter until after November but I hope the Dems are thinking it through.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 13, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Greg

Are we here to simply regurgitate the msm framing that the dems are doomed or are you willing offer some perspective on their wilful spinning ?

Posted by: amkeew | July 13, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

bernie:

Absolutely correct. If the GOP "succeeds" with this strategy it will continue. But I think at this point "success" must mean taking a chamber of Congress. If not, the Repubs will remain a whinig minority and I think (hope) that the American public will get sick of the Obama-hating obstructionism. No assurances on any of this, obviously. Just a thought (hope).

Posted by: wbgonne | July 13, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Some of you may have bumped into Digby's writing yesterday on a Boston Globe piece re correcting misinformation when held by strong partisans. She was, understandably, depressed by the results of the studies that were the subject of the piece. I've mentioned here a few times over the last year or so that Drew Weston's research shows the same results - for highly partisan individuals, information the counters deeply held believes commonly serves to solidify the belief rather than temper or correct it.

This morning, Yglesias offers a less depressing (but sound) take on this...
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/democracy-and-misinformation/

I'll add that over the last decade or so, I've moved to a counter-intuitive position on the matter of voter/citizen apathy or non-involvement. I now think that this provides a helpful inertia against extremisms as they arise.

Posted by: bernielatham | July 13, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Good article on BP's new cap at the Times Picayune:

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07/tests_of_new_containment_cap_t.html#comments

Posted by: wbgonne | July 13, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

This is my kind of minister. I could move to Wisconsin to be in his congregations. I found this link over at Dkos and since Bernie brought up religion, lol, I thought I'd throw this one into the mix. He has a lot to say about religion and the economy, worth a read.

"But they have even less imagination for what comes next. This is why the Fed pursues Hoover's austerity program, it's why the extension of unemployment benefits is going nowhere, it's why we have the insanity of the "catfood commission." Our ruling elites are so flummoxed by this economic collapse that they have utterly nothing to fall back on but the same-old, same-old. Until the message gets through that the old way of doing things is dead and gone and stinking up the cemetery, nothing's going to change."

"Now, the religious message is that it is God who provides the newness to move things along. Specifically, according to Brueggemann, God provides a risky and "just enough" economic alternative to the madness of the market idolatry. But take out the God piece, and you still have a useful insight: our current stuckness isn't a matter of political malpractice or corruption. It's a failure of the imagination on a grand scale, an inability to conceive that newness is needed, much less that it must be embraced. Some days, I think we'd all be better off if we called it what it is, a "failure of the moral imagination," as Hannah Arendt once said, real and meaningful evil. You don't have to believe in God to get that."

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/danielschultz/2950/why_is_the_economy_stuck..._theology_for_nonbelievers_/

Posted by: lmsinca | July 13, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

@converse

"Not kidding. Not thinking. Absolutely KNOW that racism is a major factor in the hatred shown towards Obama. The same way that sexism would have been a major factor if Clinton,H had won."

Here's the deal - the stoking of rasicm is certainly a tactic being used and exploited by those that are trying to take Obama's numbers down (FOX, GOP, etc). And like you said, if it was Hillary, they'd use Misogyny.

But we both know that if it was a white male, they'd still find SOMETHING to use for the same purpose.

When I say:

"And let's not kid ourselves into thinking that this would be different if his policies were different, of if a different Democrat had won."

...I'm talking about strategy, not tactics. I'm saying that it doesn't matter who Democrats had in the White House, the strategy by FOX and the GOP would be the same - scorched earth obstruction and personal destruction.

While I'm not deaf to the use of dog whistle politics...I'm more concerned with the overall strategy of propagandizing the "news" for political purposes. That's the underlying problem that I feel needs to be resolved.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 13, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

I read that Globe article. Here is the takeaway for me: political partisans on both sides tend to reject contrary factual information. BUT unlike Liberal partisans, conservative partisans not only reject the contrary factual information, the contrary facts actually make conservative partisans MORE entrenched in their erroneous views. That, to me, is not a normal cognitive process. It is a sign of pathology.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 13, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

@wb - I don't pay much attention to the pundit class (stephanopolis) re the future. But others (eg Dem Strategist analysts) are not sanguine about November and possible loss of a house. Personally, I don't know wtf is going to happen. The one thing that seems clear to me is that somehow the liberal vote has to be encouraged towards passion and activism.

I find myself too often speaking here with the aim of convincing folks that their dissatisfaction with this administration is a fundamental goal of Republican strategists - they need to suppress the Dem vote to get where they want electorally.

Posted by: bernielatham | July 13, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

@wb - re the difference you reference...yes, I think it is there too. And it seems quite appropriate to consider it a pathology in the context of the modern world (it probably served the species better in pre-literate, pre-permanent settlement periods).

Posted by: bernielatham | July 13, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

amkeew, I think I've offered plenty of perspective on the Dem plight on this blog. If you don't think that, well, I'll try to do a better job! :)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 13, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

"somehow the liberal vote has to be encouraged towards passion and activism"

Agreed, Bernie. As we discussed yesterday, however, once elected Obama intentionally cut his most motivated supporters off at the knees by going Democratic Party regular and cutting deals with pols and Big Business instead of appealing directly to the people. Terrible terrible decision. Can it be rectified by Nov? Do the WH and Dems even think this way? Beats me. But I see today in the NYT that Kerry (one of the worst offenders, IMO), is now trying to cut deals with the utilities on carbon. As Greg has noted repeatedly, it is simply inconceivable the that energy/climate change has REGRESSED since the Gulf Oil Disaster. But I have not heard one bold statement from Obama calling for a resurgence of the environmental movement. I truly think the WH and Dems are playing a winning hand very very poorly.

Good day, all. O&O.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 13, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I think the polls show us just how hard we have to work to turn this thing around. I'm more of a glass half full kind of gal and while I may get discouraged occasionally, it tends to make me want to work harder to achieve my goals. I definitely don't like to wallow in negative territory very long. Life's too short and there's too much work to be done. Honestly, Fox & Friends would love it if we just gave up.

Posted by: lmsinca | July 13, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

@wb
"the Repubs will be presented a Hobson's choice: continue on an increasingly counterproductive political course or else grow up and start acting responsibly."

repubs grow up and start acting responsibly

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: converse | July 13, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Dean Baker just keeps getting better and better. This time he annihilates the IMF's call for the US to get its SS house in order.

"The IMF both bears much of the blame for the imbalances in the world economy and then for failing to clearly sound the alarms about the dangers of the bubble. While the IMF has no problem warning about retired workers getting too much in Social Security benefits, it apparently could not find its voice when the issue was the junk securities from Goldman Sachs or Citigroup that helped to fuel the housing bubble.

The collapse of this bubble has not only sank the world economy, it also destroyed most of the savings of the near retirees for whom the IMF wants to cut Social Security. The vast majority of middle-income retirees have most of their wealth in their home equity. This home equity largely disappeared when the bubble burst. Maybe the IMF doesn’t have access to house price series and data on wealth, because if they did, it’s hard to believe that they would advocate further harm to some of the main victims of their policy failure.

The other reason that the IMF’s call for cutting Social Security benefits is infuriating is the incredible hypocrisy involved. The average Social Security benefit is just under $1,200 a month. No one can collect benefits until they reach the age of 62. By contrast, many IMF economists first qualify for benefits in their early 50s. They can begin drawing pensions at age 51 or 52 of more than $100,000 a year.

This means that we have IMF economists, who failed disastrously at their jobs, who can draw six-figure pensions at age 52, telling ordinary workers that they have to take a cut in their $14,000 a year Social Security benefits that they can’t start getting until age 62. Now that is real black helicopter material."

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/59622

Posted by: lmsinca | July 13, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Have a good day, all.

Posted by: bernielatham | July 13, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

@bbq

While some are, as you say, stoking racism as a tactic, for many it is simply their base reaction to having a black man in the white house. You know, they were willing to fight one of the bloodiest wars in history over this same thing. It's more than just a tactic; it's their credo.

Posted by: converse | July 13, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Follow-up from yesterday.

Look at voter enthusiasm--yesterday, y'all were stating that Republicans had created an "enthusiasm gap," largely based on a Pew poll asking if voters were *more* enthusiastic about voting in the midterms than they were in previous elections, which showed that Republicans were largely more enthusiastic than Democrats.

However, in the WP/ABC poll, voters of both parties were asked "How enthusiastic are you," rather than, "Are you more enthusiastic this election than in previous elections," and voters from both parties are both equally enthusiastic. What's the enthusiasm gap, then? That the GOP is less depressed than they were in 2006 while the Democrats are just as enthusiastic as they were in 2006?

Posted by: dkp01 | July 13, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

"With Ben Nelson now wavering on whether to support FinReg just when Dems are close to 60, perhaps Dems should simply wait for the appointed replacement for Robert Byrd in order to render Nelson irrelevant."
------------------------------------------

Or perhaps St. Russ of the Cheeses could be persuaded to descend from his mountain top to walk among we mortal sinners for a day and at least case a vote for cloture. Why does Feingold get a pass for his when at the end of the day, he effectively votes a lot like Nelson.* Just cuz we like the sound of his rationalizations better?

Anyways, the most obvious reason not to wait is that even with the additional round of concessions after the first conference report (which Feingold's vote could likely have prevented as well), the support of the three Republican is likely to be fairly soft and one assumes there's continuing pressure on them to back out. Best not to dally if Dem's can avoid it I think.

* http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nw_20100225_4841.php

Posted by: CalD | July 13, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

"George Steinbrenner, Yankees’ Owner, Dies at 80"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/sports/baseball/14steinbrenner.html?_r=2&hp

Posted by: sbj3 | July 13, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

All, my reminiscence about George Steinbrenner:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 13, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

"If Republicans have an average night, the average since Teddy Roosevelt is, the party that doesn't have the White House wins 28 House seats and four Senate seats. And we know we're not living in average times."
-----------------------------------------

True enough. In any general congressional election there tend to be somewhere around 40-60 districts that cold be considered at least marginally competitive for the out party. This one would appear so far to be no exception. The bad news is that this year the majority of those happen to belong to Democrats, by virtue of their having won most of the competitive races in the last two congressional elections.

The good news is that there are a lot of signs that the much-discussed Republican "wave" has crested. While leading indicators were all trending Republican throughout 2009 -- mainly due I think to the economy, the inevitable deflation of over-inflated expectations of the president (he's still a good man and a pretty smart guy, but he lacks magical powers as it turns out) and the fact that Republicans have been doing pretty much nothing for the last 18 months except campaigning against the president and the Democrats while the latter were doing their best to try and govern -- those trends appear to have flattened out in the last few months. Republicans have succeeded in pulling about even in the generic ballot and not quite even in the approve/disapprove ratio for the job their party is doing in congress (which seems to be a pretty reliable predictor for overall gains or losses) and then stalled there. And if Republicans do no better than break even on the most competitive races then Democrats keep control of the House.

The bad news is that every Democratic seat lost, even the bluest of the blue dogs, makes it that much harder to move the progressive agenda forward -- which is never as simple to begin with as a lot of people want to believe. (Hint: it isn't simply a matter of everyone we disagree with "growing a spine" or "urinating" less.) The good news is that nothing takes ideological purists' minds off the enemy within, quite like a barbarian horde gathering at the gates. So I would by no means rule out any possibility of things actually starting to trend back in the Democrats' direction a little between now and November 2. But of course, one of the reasons I love politics is that truly anything can happen in a political campaign.

Posted by: CalD | July 13, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"The bad news is that every Democratic seat lost, even the bluest of the blue dogs, makes it that much harder to move the progressive agenda forward"

You are wrong about that. Losing Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln would be just the tonic the Democrats need. It is they, even more than the GOP, that defeat the Progressive agenda.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 13, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne | July 13, 2010 1:42 PM:

Yeah. And tax cuts for the rich will actually *lower* the deficit... Oops, wrong magic spell.

Sorry, I forgot. All Democrats need to do is grow some spines and then Obama can use the bully pulpit and poof, all opposition to progressive policies will magically evaporate and we'll be able to make the world more progressive with *less* people in congress who aren't openly hostile to everything we believe in because the strength of those that remain will be as the strength of ten because their ideologies are pure...

Makes perfect sense.

Posted by: CalD | July 13, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company