Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democratic bloodbath in November looking certain

Adam Serwer of the American Prospect is guest blogging on The Plum Line this week.

Yesterday, Gallup released a generic ballot tracking poll that showed a 10-point lead for Republicans, the largest in the 60 years since Gallup started the poll. Polling expert Nate Silver suggests the implications are as devastating for Democrats as they sound:

Making matters worse still for Democrats, Gallup's survey -- and some other generic ballot polls -- are still polling registered rather than likely voters, whereas its polls of likely voters are generally more reliable in midterm elections. At FiveThirtyEight, we've found that the gap between registered and likely voter polls this year is about 4 points in the Republicans' favor -- so a 10-point lead in a registered voter poll is the equivalent of about 14 points on a likely-voter basis. Thus, even if this particular Gallup survey was an outlier, it's not unlikely that we'll begin to see some 8-, 9- and 10-point leads for Republicans in this poll somewhat routinely once Gallup switches over to a likely voter model at some point after Labor Day -- unless Democrats do something to get the momentum back.

The "good news" for the Democrats is that the generic ballot almost certainly isn't the only metric you should look at when forecasting midterm elections, and the other salient statistical indicators, while poor for Democrats, are not quite this poor. More on that when we release our House model, which is coming soon.

Kevin Drum suggests that Republicans' lead may die down once August is over and their ability to control the news cycle is somewhat diminished, but even then it's hard to imagine Democrats coming up with something that might actually prevent Republicans from taking the House.

Should Republicans win, it's possible that Americans may get frustrated, as they did in the 1990s, with the endless investigations Republicans have promised to pursue, and still reelect Obama in 2012. But it's also true that Clinton sailed to reelection on a wave of economic growth, and few analysts see a recovery happening any time soon.

By Adam Serwer  |  August 31, 2010; 11:38 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Majority of GOP thinks Obama wants to impose Islamic Law?
Next: Boehner vs. reality on national security

Comments

@Adam: "Yesterday, Gallup released a generic ballot tracking poll that showed a 10-point lead for Republicans."

But wait! That Newsweek poll you just used to smear Republicans showed the generic ballot tied. What gives?

Posted by: sbj3 | August 31, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for all the positive and compelling positive news about the upcoming elections. If I wanted flippant garbage, platitudes and rhetoric I'd blast over to Cluster-Fox. It would be much the same.

Post positive news about opportunities that Dems have to make headway on REAL issues that effect all our lives or get the F*** out of town! Dems have enough spine-finding problems on their own without you piling on.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | August 31, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

@sbj

Adam neglected to mention the part of Nate's analysis that mentioned that the generic ballot was was generally ranging from tied to this, likely (Nate's words, not mine), outlier. Nate swears by the average which he says is holding around R +5. However, he is also correct in citing Nate's general pessimism about the Dem's prospects in November as well.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | August 31, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The GOP's War on Reality succeeds. The country? Not so much.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

@holy: You probably missed my earlier post in which I linked to an analysis that destroyed the credibility of that Newsweek poll that Adam used to smear Reps.

http://freestaterblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/newsweek-overpriced-even-at-1.html

Posted by: sbj3 | August 31, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Serwer, how about more posts about the self proclaimed idiots, the Republicans and right leaning independents.

I give you example A:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8PmEjxUfg

I honestly give up trying to figure out of these people are just dumb or are in on some big joke together. It's a toss up honestly. But it might just be a mix of the two.

That video is the kind of voter that is showing up to the polls in Nov.

God help this country and sbj, those are your team mates. Have fun with them in the history books knowing you sided with those idiots.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 31, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"Democratic bloodbath in November looking certain..."
---------------------------------------------

I hope no one will be ~too~ disappointed if it doesn't actually work out that way.

Posted by: CalD | August 31, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

@rbaldwin2: Seriously, don't cover the news unless it looks good for Democrats? Really, how does that help anything?

That being said, I'm dubious it'll be a bloodbath, and anything less than a bloodbath will be played as a victory. And things will proceed apace.

"with the endless investigations Republicans have promised to pursue"

In lieu of an actual agenda. ;)

Of all the things the Republicans could do if they secure power, they're going to start investigating Democrats. Awesome! Yay for our side. Tax cuts? Meh. Cut government? Nah. We never do that. Reform Social Security? Well, maybe after we investigate every Democrat still left for every potential misdemeanor! Because impeachment made us soooo popular during the Clinton presidency.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 31, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

sbj, I didn't dispute that (nor did I see your other post), and I agree wholeheartedly that the newsweek poll is probably bunk (the Obama- Islamist bit for one). My point was that Adam neglected to mention that Nate made it clear that he feels R+10 is well over the top, and although Nate didn't mention the newsweek poll, he said that he would expect OUTLIERS showing a tie just as likely as the Gallup outlier, as the averages show R+5, with most polls clustering in that vicinity.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | August 31, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I think that the Dems will retain both houses of Congress. Everybody is peeved with the political process but the party of NO is going to have a hard time governing, in the unlikely event that I'm wrong.

But what is certain is that unless he stumbles badly, Obama is a shoe-in for a second term. It will enrage conservatives, but the middle will see GOP histrionics for what they are.

No he didn't take everyone's guns, no he didn't raise taxes on the middle class, no he didn't put grandmom in front of a "death panel". No he didn't welcome the Taliban to the White House. How can the GOP run against him saying all the bad things that will happen if he is reelected when they said the same things before he was elected and they were wrong then.

Posted by: cyberfool | August 31, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

A true "bloodbath" will be if the GOP takes the House AND the Senate. Taking the Senate is highly unlikely. In a perverse way I want the GOP to take over the House. Holding irrelevant hearings and trying to shut down the govt. while our society is unraveling and circling the drain will be the perfect recipe for a 2012 GOP disaster. This is especially so if they nominate an empty suit like Romney. Obama would mop the floor with him.

Posted by: filmnoia | August 31, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

And McCain/Palin were ahead of Obama/Biden in October of 2008..


Looking Certain Ain't What It Used To Be.


Posted by: Liam-still | August 31, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

If you care to could you reply to the query I posed to you on an earlier thread?

Your position, so I'm clear, is that climate change is occurring, that we are causing it, and that it is a serious problem. Therefore, you are limiting your personal carbon footprint. Yet you object to the American people working cooperatively through their government to address the problem comprehensively.

Is that about right?

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

@holy: Agreed - no intention of calling you anything but truthful. (Adam's earlier post "Majority of GOP thinks Obama wants to impose Islamic Law?" should be considered an insult to all of this blog's readers.)

I think the Dems maintain control of both the House and the Senate but that the results are just a bit worse than usual for the party in power.

Posted by: sbj3 | August 31, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"while our society is unraveling and circling the drain will be the perfect recipe for a 2012 GOP disaster."

I wouldn't be so certain of that. Republicans have had the ability to spin positive into negative and suck up news cycles with Obama is a sekret Moslem stories. They will lie lie lie and when called out on their lies they will continue to lie and just repeat over and over. There will be a news organization that won't challenge them on anything and allow them to lie endlessly. Others that will be inundated with so many lies that would take hours to track down that by the time the truth is found, there are another 500 lies to deal with.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 31, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that the Tea Party is going to primary two moderate Republicans, Mike Castle in Delaware and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, who both stood good chances of winning. The challenge to Castle is particularly a wonderment. They kinda had a sure thing going, but I guess just flipping the seat to 'R' isn't enough? Puzzling.

Funny, too, the Castle challenger (Christine O'Donnell) ""owes back taxes, had her home foreclosed on, and never received a diploma because she didn't pay her tuition."

But I guess after the FL governor primary, all sins are forgivable?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025457.php

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025456.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 31, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

The thing I find truly disgusting is what the GOP will do if they win back either house of Congress: Spend tens (hundreds?) of millions investigating nonsensical non-issues, most likely involving Obama's genitals.

That is about the only thing the GOP has promised to do that they will actually be able to do. Well, that and shutting down the Government to protect health insurance companies...

Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

nisleib, what disgusts me is they've spent the last 4 years in the minority getting paid millions of dollars along with all their staffers finding ways to block legislation.

They aren't even there to do the job they were sent to do, and that's make law.

Like Inhofe for example, what the hell has he done in the last 4 years? Not a damn thing. Him and others like DeMint.

Those clowns probably sit around and play paper football at their desks and surf world nut daily for the latest Obama is a terrorist sympathizer story to snicker at.

What wastes of human space.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 31, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Pathetic.

I don't know what's worse, this article or the Professional Left.

And lmsinca, you're awesome but you are taking that term way too personally. If you want to continue to defend them, that's your decision. But you must admit that we have collectively FAILED at doing what the right is so effective at doing: DRIVING THE NARRATIVE.

We cannot rely on the media to tell our story honestly, obviously.

The right are masters at leading the press along, and who does it? Right wing bloggers, Breitbart and his cohorts, Newt and Palin and other politicians who are NOT in elected office.

The MSM looks to US to drive the left wing narrative. And when they see US chasing after Islamophobes they cover the Islamophobes.

It is truly pathetic how miserably we have all failed in driving the narrative and imho the left wing blogosphere shares a large large part of that failure.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 31, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"They will lie lie lie and when called out on their lies they will continue to lie and just repeat over and over."

It's a given that the 47% of the electorate that voted for McCain will vote for any GOP loser in 2012. There will be more younger and minority voters registered by 2012 that will give Obama an advantage in the states he needs to win.
We will still be in deep crap in 2012. As long as the middle of the road independent voter (who don't watch Fox) realize that Obama is doing the best he can with the rotten hand he was given they'll give him another shot.

Posted by: filmnoia | August 31, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse


WHITE HOUSE ISSUES TEXT OF OBAMA'S SPEECH TONIGHT

Me me me (look how intelligent I am) me me me wise me me me me me (look at me checking off a campaign promise) me me me me me me ("unprecedented", gotta work that one in somewhere) me me me me (I love MY teleprompter) me me me me me (blame Bush) me me me me me me me (gloss over my opposition to surge)me me me me me me me me me (insert token appreciation to troops statement here) me me me (blame Bush) me me me me me


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010


We all have been waiting all day for you to tell us what are the specific proposals of the democrats to get the economy moving again ???


Health care and its drag on hiring is about ALL Obama has done so far.


The stimulus has been a complete failure.

so - Ethan - what are the SPECIFIC PROPOSALS OF THE DEMOCRATS TO GET THE ECONOMY GOING AGAIN???

Is it possible that Obama and crew do NOT have an economic policy ???


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "If you care to could you reply to the query I posed to you on an earlier thread?"

All right. Remember, you asked.

"Your position, so I'm clear, is that climate change is occurring"

All the time.

"that we are causing it"

No.

"and that it is a serious problem"

Possibly, but I'm skeptical.

"Therefore, you are limiting your personal carbon footprint."

Waste not, want not. You don't have to accept as gospel that we're destroying the planet with our incessant exhaling to believe that wasting energy is a bad thing, and that it's probably not a good idea to pollute unecessarily. Or support green technologies.

"Yet you object to the American people working cooperatively through their government to address the problem comprehensively."

No, I don't think that's going to happen. If it happens, it will be amended, skirted, and repealed, in some form or fashion. Without a visceral boogeyman to remind people, ever day, what they are afraid of, anything that makes a serious dent in greenhouses gases (or requires increasing energy costs significantly, or increased taxes significantly) either won't come to pass, or will be dismantled at some point, and we'll be fairly close to where we started from.

The two best scenarios: 1. There is no anthropogenic global warming, so it's not actually a problem, so we're good.

2. There is anthropogenic global warming, but some sort of miracle happens--we discover how to convert gasoline cars to run off salt water--and that solves the problem.

The 3rd option: high taxes, shared sacrifices, energy rationing, gasoline at 8 bucks a gallon, everybody comes together and holds hands and sings songs about Mother Gaea--it just ain't gonna happen. In my opinion. It's not that I think it's a bad thing. Like making a time machine out of a Delorean, I think it's a great thing (well, the time machine definitely, the hight taxes and share sacrifices, maybe, maybe not). I just don't think it's actually going to happen in the real world.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 31, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest must be upset our troops are coming home or something... :/

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 31, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, I don't take it personally at all, I just think your anger is mis-directed. There's all sorts of stories and articles out there on the left everyday, and to blame the progressive blogosphere for Dem woes, it way too simple IMO. And to say that progressives drive media attention is down right absurd.

The problem has been and continues to be that no matter how many accomplishments or policy changes, the average American citizen doesn't feel much better off than they were two years ago. Maybe it's an impossible task in this political climate but it just doesn't feel right to a lot of people. That's where we lose both the narrative and the reality. People are waiting for something good to happen in the economy............................

Posted by: lmsinca | August 31, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Liam says, "It is truly pathetic how miserably we have all failed in driving the narrative and imho the left wing blogosphere shares a large large part of that failure."

Hmm, I think you overestimate our influence.

Blogs are nice and all, but they don't have the reach (imo) that hate radio does.

We just don't have the infrastructure the right has, we never have. Even if we did the Democrats just aren't as organized as the right is. Nor are the dems as ideologically homogeneous as the Republicans, the Dems don't agree on enough issues internally to push a message in the same way that Republicans do.

At times this is one of the Democrats strengths, at times a weakness.

Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

wbgoone and Kevin


Haven't you read the East Anglia emails? Global Warming isn't happening.


They were "cooking" the books.


In fact, the scientists even destroyed the logs of the temperature data they had - there is no evidence for anything.

Another report came out this week - the glaciers are NOT melting.

Global warming is a complete fraud - all to keep the grant money flowing.

The world is not in danger - only from the democrats.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

@mikefromArlington: "They aren't even there to do the job they were sent to do, and that's make law."

Well, arguably, you'd want them to try and stop bad law from being made, too.

However, if the Republicans get majorities, you can anticipate another Patriot Act. That would be "Patriot Act II: The Revenge (This Time, It's Personal)".

The Republicans are ready to get busy crafting those laws you want them to be working on. Just you wait.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 31, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

@SaveTheRainforest: "Haven't you read the East Anglia emails?"

Yes, but that's just a drop in the bucket. Not even a big drop. And remember, the East Anglia folks were cleared by an investigative team that only looked at the stuff the East Anglia folks said they needed to. All above board and straight-up and everything. :)

That being said, I thought you wanted to Save the Rainforests. Global warming is bad for the rain forests. You should err on the side of caution.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 31, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Hey SaveTheRainforsts, does the name Bjørn Lomborg ring a bell?

If you're a skeptic no doubt you've heard of him.

Read this article if you dare. He's now a firm believer and is asking the world to pledge $100 billion to help fight it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 31, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Nice headline, Adam. No, you're not being negative or anything. The "bloodbath" is "certain." Because people loooove the GOP. Hey, I know all about the enthusisam gap. But this is nonsense, especially on Aug. 31.

Posted by: Tangerine3 | August 31, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"1. There is no anthropogenic global warming, so it's not actually a problem, so we're good."

Though I recognize that the GOP feels no need to acknowledge unpleasant facts, that's simply wrong as a matter of science. Wishing it away is not going to solve the problem because the problem doesn't care whether we deny it or not.


"2. There is anthropogenic global warming, but some sort of miracle happens--we discover how to convert gasoline cars to run off salt water--and that solves the problem."

And that, of course, is where the War On Reality inexorably: hoping for magic. Not likely to help either.

"The 3rd option: high taxes, shared sacrifices, energy rationing, gasoline at 8 bucks a gallon, everybody comes together and holds hands and sings songs about Mother Gaea--it just ain't gonna happen. In my opinion. It's not that I think it's a bad thing. Like making a time machine out of a Delorean, I think it's a great thing (well, the time machine definitely, the hight taxes and share sacrifices, maybe, maybe not). I just don't think it's actually going to happen in the real world."

What is especially notable about this last comment is that it assumes that our lack of political will is an immutable fact, while actual science is relegated to the status of myth.

And, no, I flatly reject your assertion that America is ungovernable, that Americans can no longer solve difficult problems. That is defeatism at its most pernicious. It is, however, just how the GOP will govern once they return to power, thanks to folks like you. Deny reality, do nothing difficult, and hope for a miracle. That's the plan. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Carbon dioxide is harmless. There have been scores of times in geological history when carbon dioxide levels were much higher than today.


150 years of temperature prove nothing in the face of millions of years of Earth history, with hundreds of ups and downs in average temperatures.


Carbon dioxide levels do NOT lead temperatue change. If anything - geological history proves that temperatures lead carbon dioxide change.


The global warming theory has NOT been proven.


In fact, what has happened is that global warming has been disproven. There is a small group of scientists seeking to keep their grant money flowing - so they decided to whip up concerns of global crisis - to keep their grants.


That is about the whole story.


Why in the world would one be willing to base conclusions on the forces of the Earth on 150 years of data - when there are millions of years of geological data which is a much better and clearer data set ?


The whole thing does not make sense.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

The "Professional Left" is in no position to "drive the narrative." Nobody cares what the Left thinks or wants, not even the Democratic Party. The President and the party in power are supposed to drive the narrative. If the country isn't responding as you (and I) would like, I suggest you direct your frustration that way.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

re Lomborg:

"Lomborg denies he has performed a volte face, pointing out that even in his first book he accepted the existence of man-made global warming. "The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world," he told the Guardian. "That's why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."

"...If the world is going to spend hundreds of millions to treat climate, where could you get the most bang for your buck?" was the question posed, he added. After the analyses, five economists were asked to rank the 15 possible policies which emerged. Current policies to cut carbon emissions through taxes - of which Lomborg has long been critical - were ranked largely at the bottom of four of the lists. At the top were more direct public investment in research and development rather than spending money on low carbon energy now, and climate engineering."

Posted by: sbj3 | August 31, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne says, "What is especially notable about this last comment is that it assumes that our lack of political will is an immutable fact, while actual science is relegated to the status of myth."

Perfect. Reality, I guess, is subjective if you are right of center.

I'm shocked Kevin doesn't believe in climate change. That an otherwise sane Republican is anti science... On the other hand Kevin doesn't think the South is more racist than the rest of the country and absolutely nothing anyone can say will shake him from that belief. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

What are the odds that the Democrats will end up with as few as 40 seats in the Senate and 178 in the House?

Because, I'm just saying, that's how many Republicans are in the House and Senate now. So, no matter how bad things go for the Democrats, odds are they won't face the level of voter repudiation that Republicans faced.

And it's funny, I don't recall the media having the same reaction to voters' much greater repudiation of Republicans. Certainly in 2009 the Sunday shows were still almost 50/50 full of Republicans in spite of this repudiation, and the things the minority leaders said against the Democrats got significant coverage.

Posted by: theorajones1 | August 31, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"At the top were more direct public investment in research and development rather than spending money on low carbon energy now, and climate engineering."

I'm for this too. I think we should invest heavily in renewable energy creation. I'm talking creation of the atom bomb investing. Get a thousand of our brightest scientists, give them all the materials and funding they need, and get to to work with Steven Chu to move this monolith of a nation onto a new grid with new energy sources.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 31, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"Certainly in 2009 the Sunday shows were still almost 50/50 full of Republicans in spite of this repudiation, "

50% Democrats/50% John McCain

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 31, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm glad to see comments are being moderated. Hopefully, it won't be in the style of the NY Times.

Posted by: hellslittlestangel1 | August 31, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Nate Silver thinks that this is an outlier but we shall see.

60 days away the Democrats can cut their losses.

Posted by: maritza1 | August 31, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Interesting ... why don't we talk about this more?

For months, a civil war has raged between Tea Party activists and the GOP establishment for the heart of the Republican Party. While House Republicans have tried to co-opt the movement by creating a Tea Party Caucus, corporate Tea Party leaders like Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe scoff at the idea, declaring instead, “The movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party. It is aiming for a hostile takeover.” Meanwhile, despite public overtures, the Republican establishment has spent millions fending off Tea Party primary challenges.

It is no surprise, then, that in a multitude of races where Tea Party candidates have faced off against establishment Republicans in a GOP primary, the losing candidate is rejecting customary practice by refusing to endorse the winner. For a party that is supposed to have a banner year, immense disunity could spell trouble for the Republican Party.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/31/republican-party-disunity/

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 31, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Kevin

Money has to be spent wisely.


Global warming solutions really do not work.


Consider this - we do nothing - and according to the theory (which I believe is wrong) - temps increase 3 degrees by 2050.

OK - the solutions say Spend a 100 Trillion dollars - and what happens???


The solutions do NOT cure the problem - they delay it - those 3 degrees still come - in 2051 or 2052.

Is all that money WORTH the extra time ? NO.


Spend the money on feeding the hungry, helping Africa, saving the inner cities.


AND no one is really sure global warming is really happening.

The ONLY thing certain about global warming is that it has STOPPED - temperatures stopped increasing in 1998 and have been FLAT since then.


There is no acceleration problem - the temperaturs are FLAT.


We have decades to get everything right - there is no rush.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "I'm shocked Kevin doesn't believe in climate change. That an otherwise sane Republican is anti science... On the other hand Kevin doesn't think the South is more racist than the rest of the country and absolutely nothing anyone can say will shake him from that belief. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised."

Uh, guys, I'm standing right here.

@wbgonne: "What is especially notable about this last comment is that it assumes that our lack of political will is an immutable fact, while actual science is relegated to the status of myth."

That's a good point. However, there is an alternative interpretation, in which both actual science is an immutable fact, and our lack of political will is also an immutable fact.

"And, no, I flatly reject your assertion that America is ungovernable"

I flatly reject your assertion that I asserted that!

I was perhaps not as specific as I could have been, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't say America was ungovernable.

"that Americans can no longer solve difficult problems"

I don't think I said that. Nor, if anthropogenic global warming is a problem, is America the only country that would have to solve it.

"That is defeatism at its most pernicious."

Well, then, by all means. Prove me wrong.

"It is, however, just how the GOP will govern once they return to power, thanks to folks like you."

Oh, don't thank me. Since I fail the ideological purity test required for voting Democrat, I should really be thanking you. :)

"and hope for a miracle."

Wasn't that someone's campaign slogan recently?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 31, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Hmm, only *some* comments are being moderated? Sheesh, are *acronyms* being flagged as offensive now?

Posted by: hellslittlestangel1 | August 31, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

[Sewer whined: "the endless investigations Republicans have promised to pursue"]

Why didn't Pelosi's McCarthyistic threat to "investigate" patriotic Americans bother the media elitists? She is the most powerful woman in the world, afterall.

I've been waiting patiently all month for the ACLU to denounce the “chilling effect” on the 1st Amendment exerted by Pelosi's hamfisted attempt to intimidate the American citizenry and inhibit folks from freely expressing their dissent.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/114773-pelosi-new-yorkers-should-decide-in-ginned-up-mosque-controversy

But it’s still August, maybe they’re all still on vacation over at ACLU-HQ?

I’m sure they’ll all be chiming in on this any time now, you betcha.

*crickets chirp*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 31, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca, wbgonne, nisleib,

I guess you're right. We can't drive the narrative. It's the President's job. It's the economy.

Sorry guys, but that sounds like a bunch of lame excuses.

Sniveling freak Breitbart can drive the narrative.

But, no, we can't.

Sketchy scumbag Newt Gingrich can.

But, no, we can't.

Bigot Pam Geller can.

But, no, we can't.

Gotcha.

Yes We Can!

Has become:

No We Can't!

There's a reason they call this DEFEATISM.

You act like you are going to be defeated. And you GET defeated.

We need a FEARLESS, POSITIVE, PRO-ACTIVE AGENDA.

And we need that to be coupled with FEARLESS, RELENTLESS, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM (the job that the Professional Left is SUPPOSED to be doing).

That's what won us the majority.

That's what will sustain our cause.

That's what will convince voters.

Anything less is tinkertoys.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 31, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"However, there is an alternative interpretation, in which both actual science is an immutable fact, and our lack of political will is also an immutable fact."

Incorrect. We have no control over how the earth responds to massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere. We have complete control over how we govern ourselves (democracy and all that) and whether we stop putting massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Conflating the two is, however, a prerequisite for maintaining the War On Reality.

And I really don't see the alternative interpretation of your claim that we Americans are unable or unwilling to make sacrifices required for effective policy: you are saying the United States is ungovernable, whether you actually say it or not. If government cannot address problems just what is the point of government?

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama is going through a slow train wreck on his Iraq speech.


Meanwhile Ethan - we STILL have NOT heard from you on the SPECIFIC proposals from the democrats to get the economy going.

Obama's stimulus has been a failure - the democrats have control of Congress - WHAT are the democrats going to do about the ECONOMY.

Americans have been telling the democrats that we do NOT care about health care - we care about the ECONOMY - what are you going to do about the economy ???


So, the democrats are asking Americans to vote for them again - and the democrats are going to IGNORE THE ECONOMY AGAIN?


What wacky left-wing program is Obama going to be pushing next year instead of working on the economy???


How many more foreigners will Obama embarass himself by bowing to ????

Come on Ethan - let's hear your answers.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Ethan: I admire your warrior spirit and I also agree with you on most policy questions. I part company, though, when you suggest that the Left has power in this country. We don't. If that wasn't clear before the election it certainly is now. No one cares what the Left thinks and no one will until the Left manages to secure a power base.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Gotta run.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I guess just flipping the seat to 'R' isn't enough? Puzzling...
Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 31, 2010 12:52 PM

Puzzling??? Of course "flipping the seat" to "R" is not enough!

As I recall, having all those lukewarm pesky Blue Dog Dems caused lots of havoc for the majority party. When push came to shove, "just a 'D'" was almost as much a liability as a help.

Posted by: marybel9999 | August 31, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

That's a bit of a chicken/egg problem isn't it wb?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 31, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

@ Save the Rainforest

Normally I try not to engage Climate Change deniers, but as a geologist who's research focus is the chemical evolution of the atmospheres and oceans over Earth's history, I'm going to have to set you straight.

1) Yes, there have been scores of times when atmospheric CO2 was higher than today, typically these coincided with exceedingly warm periods of Earth history, or during the early earth when there was no free oxygen

2) In terms of Earth history, no it does not. However, in terms of human history, it means everything. Noone is suggesting AGW is going to affect the earth in any meaningful and lasting way, but it will certainly trigger massive changes to human's way of life and the current ecosystems in nature if the temperature goes up or sea level rises. The impact of temperature changes and sea level rise/fall is very well documented in the fossil record.

3)Dunno where you got this one, but you've been mislead- indeed this is one the first times I've seen anyone argue this one- but the bottom line is that CO2 DOES trigger temperature increases- do you somehow think that there is no scientific basis for the very idea of the greenhouse effect? Because if that's the case, there is no point in arguing with you (think Venus if you disagree), and carbon isotopes, taken together with oxygen isotopes are are sole tools for giving actual numbers to paleotemperatures.


Finally, and this goes back to point #2- Earth history bears us to exactly the same conclusion that climate scientists have made- that although any long-term impacts on the continued sustainability of life on Earth will be negligible, the sustainability of the current life econsystems, as well as our way of life will be horribly affected.

Also, are you against at least trying to use less oil and coal? These are extraordinarily limited resources, and if we wait until they are gone to replace them, I assure you it will not go well.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | August 31, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, I don't feel in the least bit defeated, I am working tirelessly on a progressive campaign in my own district, pushing for a "FEARLESS, POSITIVE, PRO-ACTIVE AGENDA" with my time and money, and working to highlight the FACT that the middle class is still sliding backwards even under Dem rule. We need to be doing a better job.

I don't have a lot of time to worry about Breitbert, Geller, Beck et al, I prefer to keep moving forward and let others deal with the side issues and who's shaping whatever narrative is out there. You complain about Greg and now Adam posting yet another "mosque" story but they are fighting back against the narrative you abhor, so what's the problem?

Personally, I don't see how continuously blaming the Professional Left or progressives for our Party woes advances anything. You're free to do it of course, but sometimes it does get old.

And I think rather than criticize the PL for posting a negative for Dems story that's already out there, maybe we should view it as a wake up call that we have a lot of work to do before November.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 31, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

wb, I appreciate your words and intent, but I just could not disagree more. We HAVE the power, we're just not using it effectively. Actually we are using it embarrassingly poorly imho.

To sum it up, whoever is on offense has the power.

We stopped being on offense the day of the Sarah Palin Death Panels lie and we've never been able to get it back. Maybe in a minor way on some issues we have, but on the macro scale, we've been basically relegated to defense since last year.

If we lose badly in November, the whole "Not Mosque" thing was our death knell. We spent an entire month -- THE MONTH 3 MONTHS BEFORE ELECTION DAY! SO CRITICAL!!! -- talking about a non-issue that was ginned up by the right. Obama had a great statement and that should have been it.

But the Left whipped that issue to death and because of it we've not only NOT gone on offense, but we've lost critically important time that we should have used to get our message across to voters. Now, instead of playing catch up, we are analyzing the leftovers and picking out useless stats like "Oh wow, 52% of Republicans think Obama likes Sharia Law" or whatever that poll said.

Meanwhile, we have a full slate of foreign policy issues and a whole whack of domestic issues (actually, MOST of them) that have been categorically ignored in favor of the bait of the week.

We are our own worst enemy and it pisses me off to no end. And I guarantee you that the White House and Dem Leadership feels the same way. THEIR support system in driving the narrative (the left wing blogosphere) has left them high and dry while micro-analyzing the right's bait and critiquing bills that were solid but imperfect due to the realities of sausage-making. Honestly, I would be soooo pissed off at the left wing blogosphere if I were them. And we know they are... And I am too.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 31, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Ethan

We are STILL waiting for your democratic economic policies.


Geeeshhh.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Again, lmsinca, YOU are GREAT. YOU are a HUGE ASSET to the Democratic Party. I'm not talking about you or really any of us progressive "commenters" specifically.

Mostly I am referring to the people who write, edit, publish the blogs. We need more REAL investigative reporting, not 2nd and 3rd hand recycling of MSM stories. And we need editors and writers with hides thick enough to totally bypass the right wing meme of the day. Respond when necessary, sure, but in reality, we need to focus on our own gig and let them shoot themselves in the foot if they want.

By making everything they say into a he-said-she-said issue it gets picked up by the AP and we're off. The Mosque thing is a perfect example. It was first reported last year (I forget the date), but as soon as we started entertaining the right wing scumbags and analyzing their statements as if they mattered one iota, it was over. And here we are STILL TALKING ABOUT IT!

Biggest waste of time ever and it happened at THE critical time. I blame the Left blogosphere entirely for this colossal distraction and editorial mistake of immense magnitude.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 31, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"If government cannot address problems just what is the point of government?"

Hmmm, let me think...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain perpetual problems, that among these are poverty, lack of health care, and anthropmorphic global warming. That to address these problems, governments are instituted among men...."

Yes, yes, that sounds much more reasonable than the original.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 31, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Things look hopeless for the Democrats. It is time for us Republicans throw caution to the winds and give our most extreme canidates a shot at the helm. Palin, Beck Bachman and the tea party at large have done a supberb job of redfining the Republican party. There is nothing left to do but sit back and coast to victory. I feel supremely confidant that nothing can possibly
go wrong
go wrong
go wrong....

Posted by: jake555 | August 31, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

holyhandgrenaid at 2:04 PM


Thank you for your response. I'm going to have to ask you to do some more research on these issues.


Earth history clearly shows that increases in carbon dioxide levels follow increases in temperatures.


However - I want to make an important point which I think you will get.


We have had scores of ups and downs of temperatures over the millions of years of Earth History - WHAT were the causes of the ups and downs ???


Specifically, something in the past made the temperatures go up - then something made the temperatures go down - then something made the temperatures go up - and then something made it go down - scores of times.


WHAT were those natural forces ???


How do you KNOW those natural forces are NOT at work now ???


There really is not scientific proof or consensus as to WHAT those natural forces were - so HOW can one say that they are NOT at work NOW ???


Perhaps it was a combination of forces - and we list those forces, and the relative strength of each - to be able to predict the ups and downs ???

NO - none of this scientific work has been done - and the proof is simply NOT there.


_________________________


Furthermore - I'll give you another one - what causes the Earth to retain heat ??


Everyday the Earth heats and cools with rotation. Every year, the Earth heats and cools with the seasons.


None of this is explained by global warming.


The global warming theory is actually attmepting to measure temperatures to the 1 and 2 degrees - when much wider temperature swings happen every day and evey season.


This is a question of Heat Dynamics - there has been no theory advanced by anyone on Heat Dynamics.


A static model - one which says "heat is building up" is ridiculous and quite silly.


The truth is carbon dioxide doesn't "trap" heat the way you think it does - heat energy moves - it is transferred to the other molecules in the air - and in the water.


Carbon dioxide is not "trapping" heat and holding it.


Anyway - the whole global warmig thing is a fraud - you will one day regard it as quite silly.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Yikes.

anthropomorphic s/b anthropogenic.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 31, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

sorry, but this is just plain wrong:
===========
And remember, the East Anglia folks were cleared by an investigative team that only looked at the stuff the East Anglia folks said they needed to.
==================

I was handed this line last week. I followed the links and found that the "exonerations" amounted to little more than faint praise equalling strong damnation.

Particullarly galling is the fact that in these investigations it was academics investigating themselves. Yeah, that's credible. Further, why would anyone believe Penn, who just hired one of the malefactors? Of course they are going to exonerate him, the other option is to admit that they hired a charlatan. Can you say Ward Churchill?

Further, in my reading of the "exonerations" no one touched the subject of pressuring peer reviewed journals into rejecting authors who didn't toe the line. Sorry, that's not science, its politics and money.

Then there is this:
The inter academy council a group of academics was also asked to review the IPCC's work. They again relied on faint praise to equal damnation.

here's addy:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Executive%20Summary%20and%20Front%20Matter.pdf

here's an example:
"Authors were urged to consider the amount of evidence and level of
agreement about all conclusions and to apply subjective probabilities of confidence to
conclusions when there was high agreement and much evidence. However, authors reported high
confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague
statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach “high confidence” to the
statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers contains many such statements
that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed
clearly."
Faint praise indeed

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 31, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, if you think Greg Sargent pissy blogger, just come out and say so. He's been the one pushing out Ground Zero Mosque stories and stirring you guys up into a tizzy.

Posted by: daveredhat | August 31, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Don't count them out yet, maybe we'll hear more outrageous racial and religious slurs from Glenn Beck Christians in the meantime.

Posted by: areyousaying | August 31, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

@STR: "Anyway - the whole global warmig thing is a fraud - you will one day regard it as quite silly."

Just out of curiosity, what exactly are your qualifications in this area?

I'm not saying you don't have the right to your opinion,- you most certainly do- but we've got you debating a geologist who specializes in atmospheric chemistry and while I understand many on the right believe that the label of "expert" or "scientist" is a slur, I think it's important to understand the qualifications of someone when deciding how much weight to give their arguments.

So, do you actually have credentials in this area or did you attend the University of Google?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 31, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

areyousaying at 2:42


Your comment is a False Charge of Racism


It is a disgrace.


You are trying to sterotype millions of people - and call them slurs.

Clean up your act.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

It will be like the later Clinton years, or worse, when the Republicans were investigating everything in sight? The threat of a veto will still limit what they can accomplish. The nation may be a little tired of the Conservatives and their tantrums by 2012.

Posted by: samsara15 | August 31, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

@37th&OStreet,

There you are still spamming, calling people racists. The same things that got you banned from the Fix, and yet now you pop up like a bad penny on Plumline.

We don't miss you on the Fix, I assure you.

Everyone know that Save.The.Rainforest is your worst nightmare. It took years to get him totally blocked from posting at the Fix.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | August 31, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Rainforest,

You've employed an array of lay-person's misconceptions about scientific terminology here. Of course the temperature goes up and down during the day, that's a matter of solar radiation. However, CO2 in the atmosphere can effect that by blocking escaping heat in the form of infrared radiation from being released back into space (CO2 works for infrared the same way ozone works for UV- albeit much less efficiently). It takes a long time for this influence to change temperatures, for as you point out, heat must transfer across mediums, the rate of which is dictated by enthalpy and the specific heat of the materials. It spreads out, takes time. Eventually, you end up with worldwide AVERAGE (this is all anyone talk about I remind you) temperatures- not dailies, hourlies or anything like that, but seasonal, regional etc influences. Some areas will see larger increases, some smaller changes- even decreases. Thus it is called climate change and not global warming (anymore), as global warming was/is an overly-simplistic and hopelessly vulnerable way of framing it.

Now, I'll be the first to go on about the global sinusoidal CO2 and temperature curves- of course there are innumerable things that can change these, have changed them in the past, and are likely playing a role now. Indeed, I am arguing that anthropogenic factors are only adding another function onto the already horrifically complex curve. Thus, by adding our own influence to natural processes, we can accelerate the curve, and trigger what is a near-guaranteed eventuality into a present reality much, much sooner than it otherwise would have occurred. By burning fossil fuels we are releasing large volumes of CO2 that all life that has preceded us in the last 4.5 billion years has worked hard to remove from the atmosphere and hydrosphere and safely sequester in the ground (humor my rhetorical framing here please, you know what I mean). If you honestly think that pumping all that sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere is a good idea, then I don't think I can carry on this discussion, because the way I see it, regardless of WHAT it will do (which clearly you and I could/would argue about all day if we went that route, I for one do not intend to) I think we can agree that it will do something, and that it is doubtful that that something will be good for us or the other organisms with whom we share this planet.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | August 31, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Ethan - While I appreciate the sentiment I don't think the reason the left has lost the media narative is because people like me have been silent. I, obviously, haven't been.

And I won't be. But I doubt anything I say will have any effect on anyone.

Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat at 2:44


Carbon dioxide is a harmless gas. Sorry, it is.


Carbon dioxide does not "trap" heat - which is building up over decades.


Heat Dynamics - the heat from the Sun is transferred to other molecules in the air - and to water in the oceans.


The Earth is heating and cooling everyday. The Earth is heating and cooling with every season.


The dynamics of how heat moves through the atmosphere on an hourly and daily basis - on a seasonal basis are not proven by a temperature average over the globe.


The whole thing makes no sense.


You have been fooled.

Taking a temperature record over 150 years proves nothing compared to the millions of years of Earth history.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

@samsara

All we expect Republicans to do is to prevent Obama from doing any more damage.

That, and prying Pelosi's bony fingers off the speaker's gavel.

Posted by: daveredhat | August 31, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

How entirely bizarre:

wbgonne asks: "Your position, so I'm clear, is that climate change is occurring"

Kevin answers: "All the time."

nislieb replies (inexplicably): "I'm shocked Kevin doesn't believe in climate change."

I am at a loss for words.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 31, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"Democratic bloodbath in November looking certain"???

If, as is usually the case, the media is mistaken, then reasonable people can expect little change in the elections this November. Media blowhards, that's all this puffery is. Polls are worth no more than the paper they're printed on.

Posted by: _BSH | August 31, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

holyhandgrenaid - You are attempting to have a discussion with a spambot; you'd have better luck discussing theology with your toaster.

Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama owns his horrific failure to fulfill what what was once considered a given - leadership leading to change. Instead the President has led us to the status quo.

Democrats are in malaise because Obama has wasted his and our time - talking like a Democrat and taking action as a Republican (satisfying neither). He will rattle off a list of accomplishments; however, when examined closely, those achievements are half-measures, corporate give-aways and half-truths. Obama won't even defend himself, let alone, Democratic ideals.

When the head is rendered useless, the body politic is paralyzed. Obama SHOULD be a one-termer. Let's hope the Republicans field a candidate as good as Nixon or the first Bush.

Posted by: rjmmcelroy | August 31, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Guys - if you want to think.

Everyday, the Sun heats the Earth - where does that heat go at night ???


Every summer the weather gets hotter - where does that heat go during the winter ???


It cools - the heat does not race around the globe every twenty-four hours.


It cools in the winter- the heat doesn't go to the Southern hemisphere every year, and then come back.

Sorry - think.


The heat is not "trapped" in the carbon dioxide building up over decades.


Heat dynamics doesn't work that way.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

holyhandgrenaid - You are attempting to have a discussion with a spambot; you'd have better luck discussing theology with your toaster.

Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 2:54 PM
-------------------------------------
I feel sorry for you guys, having the curse of Rainforest dropped on you. Posters at the Fix got so frustrated they finally organized a boycott to get Chris Cillizza to do something about the constant spamming and calling people racists. After YEARS of complaining, the Fix finally changed their Comments software and that was the only reason that Rainforest finally got banned. He was known there as 37th&OStreet, but he changed handles often to try to avoid detection. I'll probably get banned here for telling you all this, but I hope you guys can save this fine blog from the scourge of Rainforest.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | August 31, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3 - Kevins says GBC is happening "all the time" and that it is not the result of human activity.

Perhaps I should have been clearer, but to me that means he doesn't believe in the overwhelming scientific consensus of 97% of the world’s climate scientists.

I thought that would be obvious, you must not do nuance well.

Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Liberal Democrats seem to be unable to grasp the fact that America is much more conservative than liberal. Maybe they have a learning disorder.

Johnson went left-wing and got crushed by our old pal Nixon.

Carter went left-wing and was destroyed by Reagan.

Clinton went left-wing and had a near death experience. He made a hard right and survived.

Now Barack Hussein Obama has gone so far-out left that he is wiping out the whole Democrat party and has become a sure-fire, one termer.

Will they ever learn???

Posted by: battleground51 | August 31, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues - It won't happen. Greg likes his spambots for some reason.

You learn to ignore them, but it does cheapen the debate and make the experience less enjoyable.

Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Climate scientists should all recuse themselves from any and all climate change debate.

They are obviously biased and cannot render fair judgement in this matter.

Now get outta here you knuckleheads!!

Posted by: battleground51 | August 31, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib "...it does cheapen the debate..."

nisleib, you wouldn't know how to debate an issue if your life depended on it. You're a cut-and-paste monster from way back. Don't make me go back and find that quote.

Posted by: daveredhat | August 31, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues - It won't happen. Greg likes his spambots for some reason.

You learn to ignore them, but it does cheapen the debate and make the experience less enjoyable.

Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 3:03 PM
-------------------------------------
I hope you can ignore him. He's not like the flu--he's more like the Black Plague.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | August 31, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Arguing with climate change deniers is foolish. They argue from their heart, not their head - not listening to reason, logic or reality.

Instead, bait their little-black-hearts with the semi-nude photos of Palin in Sports Illustrated where she is sporting only a rifle and ear muffs. They'll spend all week scouring back issues.

Posted by: rjmmcelroy | August 31, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

nisleib: "Greg likes his spambots for some reason."

Probably because they drop lots of quarters into the slot.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 31, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Hi. You have reached Barak Obama. I'm currently either playing golf or on vacation, but your call is very important to me. At the beep, please leave me a detailed message, with your name, phone number and which District you are projected to lose this November and I'll get back to you as soon as possible."

"Para español presione por favor el número 2"

Posted by: luca_20009 | August 31, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 "2:52 PM |

Since you completely avoided the topic, I assume the answer to my question about your qualifications is "NONE".

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 31, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Independents do not necessarily vote along GENERIC party lines. As the man once said...all politics is local. As a Floridian I would have told you this time last year that the R's were a lock to retain the Governor's mansion as well as the Senate seat up for grabs this cycle. The R's hold both positions currently but they are no longer a lock to retain them.

They ran off their shoe-in Senate candidate in exchange for a crook who sold our state out to special interests...and they offered such a weak candidate..Howdy Doody McCollom that a man who had to rely on the 5th Amendment 75 times to avoid incriminating HIMSELF and let his company take the fall for a 1.7 Billion dollar fine for Medicare/Medicaid Fraud actually bought their nomination with 50 MILLION of his own money. These candidates are not appealing to the public at large and yes they can help the R's snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

In addition we still haven't even hit Labor Day the traditional kickoff for midterm campaigns. We are political junkies jonesing over every tidbit of speculation. If nothing..we should be aware that ANYTHING is possible this November..especially in light of huge disparities and swings in polling...sometimes by the same pollster just weeks apart. It's very, very, fluid out there right now and two months is a political lifetime.

Having said all of that I may be one of the progressives on the blog who invites this meme...yes the R's are going to kick butt...accomplishes two things...scares the beejeesus out of sane folks and will help GOTV...and of course puts the D's in a no lose situation after the election. We've already lost...what is their to report..unless of course the R's don't regain either the Senate and the House and then the hyperbole immediately does a 180 degree swap...Cover's of newsmags will feature old portraits of the Whigs..caption..Are the Republican's days numbered?

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 31, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I certainly hope and pray --- for the sake of our nation -- that there is a "Democratic (political) bloodbath in November."

Posted by: JakeD2 | August 31, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

daveredhat - Go ahead and find the quote. I linked to an article I thought my fellow bloggers might find interesting, we all do that.

What I don't do is spam the same nonsensical Mark Levin style comments every day. THE EXACT SAME COMMENTS EVERY DAY! I know it is a hard concept for you, but some people can actually form coherent thoughts of their own and put them on a blog. We don't have to result to cutting and pasting somebody else’s thoughts.

And most importantly, we aren’t unoriginal bores who are just here for a little “hippie punching.” We actually like to exchange ideas (if you don’t know what an “idea” is, look it up.)


Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

@luca...Obama has taken a FRACTION of the time off that Bush took. Perhaps you should change your name to hypocrite 2009.

And certainly you'll be sending a contribution to John Boehners opponent...and will campaign vociferously against Bonehead's getting the Speaker position even if the R's are victorious in November.

"Rounds of golf: 100 plus. Golf expenses: $83,000. Membership at all male club: $75,000. Special interest travel including golf junkets: $159,000. Raising the retirement age to 70 and voting to end unemployment benefits: priceless. For those who want an out-of-touch pro golfer for a Congressman, there's John Boehner.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/09/boehner-whacked-for-golf_n_675399.html

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 31, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

nislieb:

"Kevins says GBC is happening "all the time" and that it is not the result of human activity. "

No, Kevin says GCC is happening all the time and that it is possibly the result of human activity, but he is skeptical.

"to me that means he doesn't believe in the overwhelming scientific consensus of 97% of the world’s climate scientists."

To me that means that he admits to the possiblity that their beliefs are correct, but has his doubts.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 31, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "If government cannot address problems just what is the point of government?"

Certainly government can address problems. I'm just not sure we're going to solve *this* one. Consequences seem distance and amorphous, and there's lots of money to be made here and now. It's easy to say we can all come together to solve problems, but becomes quite different when we start saying that you have to significantly change your lifestyle. For this existential threat that is, on a daily basis, almost completely invisible to you.

And I suppose I should say it's not impossible, just, based on my reading of history, highly, highly unlikely.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 31, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

@12barblues...Thanks for the warning about rainforest...you are the second poster I've read that from.

I still like my solution to the spam bots...simply change the formatting...put the posters name at the head of the post instead of the end and we'll simply put our scroll wheels to work. I never read more than a line of kaddaffi or rainforest as it is..but I must confess if the posters name came at the top of their posts I would have to wait until I get to "quisling" or "socialist" to hit the ole scroll wheel.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 31, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to schrodingerscat: what are YOUR qualifications (and how do you know that "holyhandgrenaid" [SIC] is even a geologist)?

Posted by: JakeD2 | August 31, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib.. your fellow bloggers?

You have a blog nisleib? Please link. I would LOVE to see it.

Posted by: daveredhat | August 31, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3 - Sorry, when I read Kevin's post from 1:08 that was not the impression I got.

"that we are causing it"

"No."

Maybe he expanded upon that in a later comment that I missed, if so my bad. If not then my comment stands.

Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Scott:

I'm glad you mentioned the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Now please tell me how the Declaration of Independence is at all inconsistent with government being used to solve common problems?

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

nislieb (here's just one of many ideas that the GOP could push):

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10085

Posted by: JakeD2 | August 31, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

wbgone

Limitations on the federal government are enumerated in the US Constitution; not the Declaration of Independence.

Posted by: daveredhat | August 31, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
— James Madison

Posted by: daveredhat | August 31, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

daveredhat - You got me, it should have read “blog commentators.”

And by the way, I don’t mean to be accusing you of cutting and pasting. Mostly that is reserved for Kaddafi. Every day he floods these threads with the exact same nonsensical tripe.

You seem to be fully conscious and capable, but wrong about most things.

Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"Democratic bloodbath in November looking certain..."
---------------------------------------------

I hope no one will be ~too~ disappointed if it doesn't actually work out that way.

Posted by: CalD | August 31, 2010 12:31 PM

------------------------------------------

Actually about 70% of America would be very disappointed. Fortunately that won't be a problem. The dems are going to lose the house and senate in November.

Posted by: Straightline | August 31, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "No, Kevin says GCC is happening all the time and that it is possibly the result of human activity, but he is skeptical."

Highly skeptical that we're impacting climate on a global scale, to be clear. Though, please note, that does not mean I'm pro-pollution. Seems odd that I have to add the caveat, but I do.

'"to me that means he doesn't believe in the overwhelming scientific consensus of 97% of the world’s climate scientists.'

'To me that means that he admits to the possiblity that their beliefs are correct, but has his doubts'"

And it depends on what you mean by "incorrect". It's like saying because I'm skeptical--perhaps because of being a layperson--of a few of the answers I've gotten that I'm "anti-science". The reality is, they should know better than me, and I hope they do.

I may like most of the movies you like, but perhaps 15% of them I don't care for. That doesn't mean I'm anti-ScottC3's-movie-collection, or that I "deny" it. :)

I'm just not convinced there aren't a number of human epiphenomena involved during the trip from raw data to inevitable doom.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 31, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain perpetual problems, that among these are poverty, lack of health care, and anthropmorphic global warming. That to address these problems, governments are instituted among men . . . "

Get rid of that "creator" part and you'll really be cooking with steam!

That made me laugh. Thanks for that.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 31, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Aww. Thanks for the compliment nisleib. And in return, may I say that you're one of my very favorite fish in this barrel.

Posted by: daveredhat | August 31, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

That's a bit of a chicken/egg problem isn't it wb?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 31, 2010 2:03 PM

Maybe. Here's how I see it. There are 2 components of currency in today's politics: votes and money. To have clout one must either control one of those items or be supported by someone who does. While the Left has some money, it has nothing in comparison with its adversaries on the Right. Moreover, the Left is very loosely (too loosely) organized which makes coordinating fundraising difficult. And the Left is not a political party and, therefore, has lacked the capacity to deliver significant numbers of votes. Instead, the Left has aligned with the Democratic Party in the expectation that the Democratic Party will provide what it can't for itself: the power to make liberal ideas into real-world policies.

What, you ask, is the Left's contribution to the Democratic Party? It provides an ideological foundation, which is what gives the Democratic Party legitimacy as something other than a business corporation. The Left suggests policy decisions, it proposes new ideas. In short, the Left is the heart and soul of the Democratic Party which is why, for example, it is typically the Left that provides passion and enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. Just as it is the Right that does so for the GOP.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"P.S. to schrodingerscat: what are YOUR qualifications (and how do you know that "holyhandgrenaid" [SIC] is even a geologist)?"

MY qualifications? I'm a physicist - my B.S. is in Physics and my M.S. is in Health Physics, but most of my professional experience has actually been in Medical Physics.

"and how do you know that "holyhandgrenaid" [SIC] is even a geologist"

Oh, I don't for sure and I agree it's important to remain skeptical.....but based on my (admittedly limited) education in climate science, his/her comments make sense. STR, OTOH, sounds like someone who (in the words of one of my professors) doesn't know what he/she doesn't know.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 31, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Clueless Comrade Barry: I was against the war before I was for it.

Posted by: PauvrePapillon | August 31, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "Sorry, when I read Kevin's post from 1:08 that was not the impression I got."

Which was the impression I left, so that's certainly fair enough. Put this way: I am highly skeptical that mankind is having an irreversible climatological impact on a global scale that is going to result in widespread destruction, and perhaps the end of life on earth as we know it.

OTOH, I regularly peruse realclimate.org, and that helps me keep in mind that I may, in fact, be wrong. But I remain skeptical, and won't deny that, so judge me as you will.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 31, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

A Republican victory, while not good in the short run, would have a silver lining for Democrats - it would provide a stark reminder to the voters about why they voted the GOP out of office in the first place.

And for a bonus we could get the likes of Sharron Angle and Rand Paul. I'd definitely start tuning in to C-span more often just to hear the latest from their alternate universes.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | August 31, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

To you climate change deniers:

Instead of talking about the University of East Anglia (admit it, a year ago you didn't even know where East Anglia is, and maybe still couldn't find it on a map), why not see what those know-nothing liberal wimps at MIT have to say. After all, you're so-o-o-o much smarter than anybody at MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

Posted by: Virginia7 | August 31, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

areyousaying at 2:42


Your comment is a False Charge of Racism


It is a disgrace.


You are trying to sterotype millions of people - and call them slurs.

Clean up your act.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest
--------------------------------------
Like you "sterotype" millions of Muslims, Mexicans, "non-believers" and smear Obama? No way - as my father used to say, "You can dish it out but you can't take it"

Posted by: areyousaying | August 31, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Limitations on the federal government are enumerated in the US Constitution; not the Declaration of Independence.

Posted by: daveredhat | August 31, 2010 3:35 PM

Indeed. Both the powers and the limitations of the federal government are set forth in the Constitution. So let's turn to the Constitution. Please show me where the Constitution precludes the federal government from solving the American people's common problems.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Kevin - Fair enough.

Heck, "the end of life on earth as we know it," is pretty extreme. I guess that depends on how you define "as we know it."

I have no doubt life will survive on earth, but that can mean a lot of things.

Posted by: nisleib | August 31, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama doesn't want to take a "Victory Lap"


To be honest, I don't want a President who wants a "Victory Lap" - and say that our troops produced a victory.


Anything less will just be colored by Obama's TWISTED views of the War on Terror.


I don't know where Obama was on 9/11 - probably on some cocaine binge - but it is CLEAR that Obama doesn't feel the same way about 9/11 and terrorism that the rest of American does.

That is an uncomfortable position for Obama to be in - Obama doesn't exercise leadership - he is NOT representing American and how America feels.


Instead, Obama seems to have a grudge - he has something to complain about - some issue to make about something HE doesn't like. After all the sacrifice of our troops and the loss of life, no one cares about Obama's stupid little twisted views on the War on Terror.


That is about the truth.


The questions about the speech tonight center NOT on Iraq - instead they center on Obama's character - how partisan will Obama be, will he be man enough to give proper credit to the objectives of the war, and to President Bush.


HA - few people in this country have any confidence that Obama will be a man about this speech.


Instead, most expect Obama's ego to be obsessed with his own twisted views - partisan views. This is a military speech from the leader of the nation - sorry partisan views are not appropriate.


It is just that - Obama's partisan views on the War are entirely inappropriate tonight - and yet few people believe Obama is man enough for the task.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Certainly government can address problems. I'm just not sure we're going to solve *this* one. Consequences seem distance and amorphous, and there's lots of money to be made here and now. It's easy to say we can all come together to solve problems, but becomes quite different when we start saying that you have to significantly change your lifestyle. For this existential threat that is, on a daily basis, almost completely invisible to you."

I am puzzled and not only by your soldiering in the GOP's War on Science. You seem to suggest that the American people are incapable of solving the problem of fossil fuels because the American people are too dumb and greedy to realize the consequences of inaction, that the American people will pass these difficult problems to our children and grandchildren rather than address them ourselves. Is that what has made America great?

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

I don't know what you are talking about - I am posting at the Fix.


I haven't seen you there.


did you get banned ?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2

I've got a pretty long history of posting here, and have been pretty upfront about what I do, what university I'm at and my background. You, on the other hand are a relative newcomer (you may not have seen much of me, I was in the field in Northern Canada from june until last week). Ask some of the other long-time posters, such as BGinChi or lmsinca, I think they'll be willing to vouch for (at least) the honesty in my representation of myself, even though they too have to take my word on the validity of it.

Don't question whether or not I know what I'm talking about please, because in this case, more so than anything else, I most certainly do.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | August 31, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Rainforest,

If you are posting at the Fix, what is your handle? We both know that the moderators have worked overtime to block every handle you use. I'll be glad to report your posting.

Let's see just how proud you are.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | August 31, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"I am highly skeptical that mankind is having an irreversible climatological impact on a global scale that is going to result in widespread destruction, and perhaps the end of life on earth as we know it."

Well, that's one way of posing the question. How about this:

Do you think that carbon in the atmosphere is causing climatic change?

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne at 4:01

Congress has certain specific powers in the Constitution - if a power falls outside those specifically listed, then that power falls to the States, or to the People.


That is the law of the land.


Then you have Interstate Commerce - you can argue about what falls in "interstate" and what falls outside of "interstate"


A visit to the doctors' office is not interstate. Doctors' licenses have traditionally been handled by the States.


So - I don't see how Obama's health care plan falls under "interstate commerce"


Is health care even "commerce" - it is medical services - not "commerce"


Good luck on that one.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

You frigging moron, that same Gallup poll showed Republicans with a three point lead last week after having a SIX point lead the week before. God, do your research.

Posted by: jakemehoffer | August 31, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

You have a great deal of hate built up inside of you - is this because of your childhood?

Or is this because your family refuses to accept your sexual orientation ?


Just wondering what is causing such expressions of hate.


If you want to join the discussion, please do so in a civil manner.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

This Gallup poll is horse dookie!

Posted by: OHREALLYNOW | August 31, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile

Glen Beck had more people at the Mall this weekend than Martin Luther King had.


Tells you something, huh???

The networks were trying to make a horserace out of the two rallys - Glen Beck and Sharpton - at some point all that talk stopped - because Sharpton had less than 10% of the people Glen Beck did.

WE are taking our country back !!!


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile

Glen Beck had more people at the Mall this weekend than Martin Luther King had.


Tells you something, huh???

The networks were trying to make a horserace out of the two rallys - Glen Beck and Sharpton - at some point all that talk stopped - because Sharpton had less than 10% of the people Glen Beck did.

WE are taking our country back !!!


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | August 31, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

holy, JakeD2 is another troll.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 31, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"Now please tell me how the Declaration of Independence is at all inconsistent with government being used to solve common problems?"

It isn't, at least not necessarily. The trouble is that the only tool that the government qua government brings to the table of problem-solving is legal coercion. It can force people to do things that they otherwise would not willingly do. That is a dangerous tool that needs to be closely checked, not used willy-nilly to "solve" any problem that happens to crop up.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 31, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Come now. The bigotry here is just amazing. Calling people "Anti Science" because they doubt the validity of what the climate kids are offering is just symptomatic of what's ailing the American left. Treating those with whom you disagree as lesser mortals doesn't sell your POV at all.

there is good reason to doubt the climate "science". There are charlatans in the lead and the major work of the group is filled with inaccuracies. Why should the American people accept a dramatically diminished life so that Al Gore and Pachuri can make billions? How does that make sense to an everyday working person who struggles to pay bills?

when Obama said that under his plan electric rates would necessarily skyrocket, there was no reason not to take him at his word was there? Those of you who still support him still believe he's honest and means what he says right? So he means to have our electric bills skyrocket. And for what? A doom that even the kids in the "science" can adequately prove? I hardly think so.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 31, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Two weeks ago the GOP lead in this same poll was SIX points. Last week it was THREE.

Where were the wild stories of the Democrats' demise then???

Posted by: jakemehoffer | August 31, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"That made me laugh. Thanks for that."

De nada.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 31, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"The trouble is that the only tool that the government qua government brings to the table of problem-solving is legal coercion. It can force people to do things that they otherwise would not willingly do. That is a dangerous tool that needs to be closely checked, not used willy-nilly to "solve" any problem that happens to crop up."

All government acts by legal compulsion; that is what it means to make laws. That is what the social compact demands. I think you are attempting to deny Americans the power to use the federal government to solve their problems.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

If the Republicans are somehow voted back into Congressional majorities I can almost guarantee that we will end up in the Second Depression. It will be a Depression in which the rich and influential Republican buddies will continue getting even filthier rich, while everyone else will become more and more impoverished. I don't see any other way out, as the only thing the Republicans will even try to do is more ineffectual and unfair tax cuts for the rich. Hopefully, Obama will have the spine to veto the rest of the Republican right-wing agenda, so that not all of us will end up sleeping under a bridge.

Posted by: ejs2 | August 31, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "I am puzzled and not only by your soldiering in the GOP's War on Science."

Well, that's probably because pretty much everything you said after "puzzled" is imaginary. That confuses me, too.

"You seem to suggest that the American people are incapable of solving the problem of fossil fuels because the American people are too dumb and greedy to realize the consequences of inaction"

No, I don't think I did. First of all, I think I was referring to all of humanity, not just Americans. America is not only not the sole contributor of greenhouse gasses, we're actually a remarkably clean country, given our energy consumption.

However, I am dubious that we're going to cut carbon emissions globally, or even cut their growth, significantly. And by "we", I mean humanity.

"that the American people will pass these difficult problems to our children and grandchildren rather than address them ourselves"

Will humanity? We might. But it's not just because they are difficult problems, they are also difficult to see problems. A lack of a regular, real visceral experience of, say, several feet of ocean water standing on the streets of New York makes it easy to push back any attempt at change, particularly if it's going to inconvenience people.

"Is that what has made America great?"

What made America great was cowboys, Marlboros, and semi-automatic weapons. Not necessarily in that order.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 31, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Just like their counterparts in Afghasistan, Chechnya and elsewhere, the American taliban has got a 10 point lead in generic balloting. If Americans of all stripes allow this to happen, then they deserve the results.

Posted by: dozas | August 31, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

in response to this:
=================
All government acts by legal compulsion; that is what it means to make laws. That is what the social compact demands. I think you are attempting to deny Americans the power to use the federal government to solve their problems.

=================

In a democracy, the government must prove that the coercion it intends is worthy of the people.

No one is denying anything it seems to me. What is being said is that coercion should be limited to those things that the people think are mandatory.

The climate kids haven't made the case for massive reductions in the American life style. So you are basically advocating that the government do what you think is best, even though you can't get a majority of people to vote for it. How is that congruent with the words in the declaration? Simple answer: it isn't.

the social compact is a two way deal. We get to decide how the government should use its coercive power. Well we used to be able to determine that. Now with a huge unelected, unaccountable and unfireable standing government, the will of the people matters not. If some bureaucrat decides that amnesty for illegals is right, well he or she can just change the CFR, or ignore it. If some bureaucrat decides that Americans must pay dearly for all this carbon crapola, then new pages in the CFR magically appear, they bear the weight of law, but nobody in America voted on them.

As long as these folks do what the liberals want them to they will support this. But if by some act of God the bureaux begin acting like conservatives, well the howling will never end.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 31, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Right no the lunatic right dras the media attention but come the fall when more levelheaded voters consider the wreckage 8 years of Republican rule generated, the elction results are going to surprise these so-called pundits and experts...

Posted by: Jerryvov | August 31, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Don't kid yourself. The Democrats and Republicans take turns on either side of a blatantly transparent "Good Cop, Bad Cop" game. Both are destructively disingenuous in playing divide and conquer and using Weapons of Mass Distraction. Both will go to any end to prohibit, discredit or dismissively pooh-pooh true enlightenment such as is espoused by Peter Schiff and Ron Paul. They've both got a sweet, profitable, essentially corrupt gravy train that they take turns swimming in.

So don't kid yourself. Just blow 'em all out of office. Since they won't agree to term limits, no matter HOW much public accord there is for that, how about we save them the trouble.

It's real easy. All incumbents out in November. No party favorites - every single one.

Posted by: Texan7 | August 31, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"I was referring to all of humanity, not just Americans. America is not only not the sole contributor of greenhouse gasses, we're actually a remarkably clean country, given our energy consumption. However, I am dubious that we're going to cut carbon emissions globally, or even cut their growth, significantly. And by "we", I mean humanity."

So America can't act until the rest of the world does first or simultaneously? That is some global leadership from the greatest country on the planet. In America we used to solve problems. Now we pretend they don't exist or that they're too hard. So we leave our problems for later generations for whom the price will rise exponentially. Frankly, it is immoral.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"We get to decide how the government should use its coercive power."

Not when you lose the election.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse


The losses for Democrats will be significant but not a "bloodbath". The interesting thing will be how the media will play it. Moderate losses, as it happens in every midterm, means no big deal and not a referendum on #44. This all leads up to 2012 and that hinges on the state of the economy.

Posted by: edbyronadams | August 31, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Jerryvov, whether people get it right or get it wrong, it would be heartening to believe that they vote against wreckage from whatever source. Alas, nay, I fear; I believe that "what's in it for me" is the vastly dominant driver.

We're going to be in slop for quite some time before the entitlement mentality voting bloc is diluted, and candidates' concomitant pandering, while economically destructive overall. We've got to fix this mentality.

And crucially, teach children about "doing the right thing" vs. "what's in it for me." At least things may be economically survivable in the future it that succeeds. I frankly don't have much hope for the present.

At least, voting out all incumbents would put the fear of Jesus in them, that they hence better grow a spine in protecting our future. Regardless of party.

Posted by: Texan7 | August 31, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"Democratic bloodbath in November looking certain"

Today's fanciful headline is made possible by a generous grant from Koch Industries.

Posted by: HughBriss | August 31, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Does it look like the Republicans lead is going to die down by the end of August. The people aren't listening to scare tactics about the Republicans and what might happen if they get back in power. The American people are just remembering the country they had prior to the election of Obama. The people don't like to be ignored. They don't like to be forced to join anything like Obama's health care. They don't want a tone deaf president who truly believes he's the only one who knows what best for the American people and he's going to move forward because his judgment is better then the people's judgment on how they want to live their lives. Obama's propaganda isn't working anymore. The people don't want a socialist society. They don't want to be told what to eat by Michelle. They don't want to be told on a daily basis we've been wrong about everything, but that's OK because Obama is here and he's going to set everything right. The people woke up after Obama was sworn in and found out their were leftist now. Everything they knew as American's no longer mattered because we were all socialist now because Obama took it on his own to convert everyone without their permission. The Republicans is America. Obama is a combination of a socialist, Marxist, and communist. He hasn't made up his mind which one he likes best because none them work in the past and they won't work now. The Democrats are going to suffer because they also ignored the wishes of the American people and joined with Obama in transforming this country and the people into a European style socialist society. It's freedom with the Republicans or slavery with Obama and the Democrats.

Posted by: houstonian | August 31, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"All government acts by legal compulsion"

Yes indeed. That is pretty much what I just said.

"That is what the social compact demands."

I'm not sure what the "social compact" demands. I've neither seen nor signed such a compact myself. However, the notions under which our nation was founded called for government to secure the rights of individual people. That is what government force is supposed to be used for.

"I think you are attempting to deny Americans the power to use the federal government to solve their problems."

Well, yes, at least in some, perhaps even most, instances. Because the "power" you speak of is the "power" to coerce people. And that is a threat to freedom and rights that ought to be kept on a short, short leash.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 31, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

this is meaningless:
================
"We get to decide how the government should use its coercive power."

Not when you lose the election.

=================
It is still vox populi. This is just a throw away because the left actually prefers government coercion.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 31, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"So America can't act until the rest of the world does first or simultaneously?"

No, I'm saying that the ultimate lack of action that I predict is an artifact of human nature, generally, not any one nationality specifically. And I'm not saying that we can't act, or that we won't, only whatever we do will either be too little, smoke and mirrors, or hard-but-effective and repealed in part because it was working, so now nobody takes the threat seriously.

"That is some global leadership from the greatest country on the planet. In America we used to solve problems."

In all fairness, most of the problems we used to solve were ones that were viscerally apparent, and where solutions provided immediate feedback. Climate change is a different beast.

"So we leave our problems for later generations for whom the price will rise exponentially"

It's a long and storied tradition. It's not our generation that invented the combustion engine, after all. See what they left us with? :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 31, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"Because the "power" you speak of is the "power" to coerce people. And that is a threat to freedom and rights that ought to be kept on a short, short leash."

I still don't understand your objection. Everything the federal government does it does through the coercive power of law. The federal government has even enacted an entire directory of criminal laws. If you think taxes are coercive what do think prison is?

I question your conceptions of freedom and rights, as well as your idea of power. I think you mistake profligacy for freedom and selfishness for rights. A nation is a communal undertaking. If you want to go live in a State of Nature be my guest. But so long as you are an American citizen you necessarily agree to certain compromises. Otherwise, your rights and freedoms trample the rights and freedoms of others. And preventing that is one of the primary purposes of government, especially democratic government.

Let me ask the question by a particular example: Do you say the health care bill is unconstitutional? If so, why?

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

And you accept all that as inevitable failure? Sheesh, I thought I was cynical.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 31, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Democratic candidates can certainly count on my vote. The last thing America needs is to have a relapse and allow the repub practitioners of Voodoo Economics get another shot at the Treasury. Remember folks, this is the party that claimed "defecits are good for the country". Repubs, dishonest to their very core.

Posted by: VietVet68 | August 31, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Neither of the majorly inept political parties are fit to serve. However the citizens wrench the government from their hands does not matter. Getting rid of both of them is the prime objective. Little else in politics matters these days.

Posted by: Ospatt | August 31, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Bloodbath? You bet, the cowards all deserve it.
They didn't stop the banks, they gave in on health care, no banksters in jail. no free trade review, still in Iraq and Afghanistan, hired Geithner, Summers and Bernanke. No perp walks for wall street. No cut backs in Fed employment, no firings in the federal government, and they wonder why they will get tossed? Rethuglicans aren't any better, they don't listen to the voters that elect them either.

Didn't listen to Volcker.

Too maybe immature screw ups.

Send them all home. Losers all.

Posted by: wesatch | August 31, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to see the results of this poll broken down by state. That's really the only way of looking at it that matters.

The South, and a few other regions will large numbers of uneducated and easily manipulated voters, favor the Republicans by a huge margin. And this simply isn't so in other areas, e.g., La Jolla, North Virginia, the Eastern Slope of Colorado, and other places where an educated, professional class gathers.

This nationwide poll seems to be weighted by the Republican leaning south - leaning perhaps as much as 70% from the figures I've seen. This overwhelms other districts that may actually be showing a more 50/50 break down. And voters in the south won't be voting for representatives in these districts.

The poll may simply be telling us that the South will keep their Republican Reps, but now keep them by a larger margin.

Posted by: Deirdre_K | August 31, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are simply laying the groundwork to steal another election. first the corporate media makes it a foregone conclusion, and suddenly the real results don't matter. I'm older than 10 years old, so I remember how that works.

I will never trust an election to be free and fair again. And that includes the one in which I voted for Obama. Elections become meaningless when you have the likes of the Koch brothers and corporations running the media. Thanks, folks, for nothing.

Posted by: martymar123 | August 31, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Those who look to the 1996 Clinton model as an alternative to Armageddon in 2012 had better understand that Clinton won with only a plurality in a three-way race. The third party (the Perotistas) was essential in giving the "anti-Clintons" a way of expressing their disgust without endorsing the equally disgusting Republicans.

President Obama's only hope in 2012 is a telegenic, credible third party candidate well to his right and slightly to the left of the Republican nominee.

Posted by: wgmadden | August 31, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

"the overwhelming scientific consensus of 97% of the world’s climate scientists."

Fiction

I'm no scientist, but I've read a lot. I used to read realclimate.org all the time.

What is very obvious is that the warmers are adherents to a religion, or perhaps better described as wedded to the equivalent of a conspiracy theory. All evidence, no matter what it is, is twisted to "fit" the theory, all questions and challenges to the orthodoxy are ruled out of order ab initio, and warming is defined as the only legitimate science.

Whether or not there is any truth to their claims, the warmers are not trustworthy sources. They are anti-science zealots.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 31, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

"I'm no scientist, but I've read a lot. I used to read realclimate.org all the time. "

"Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 31, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

The November bloodbath that the Dumbocrats are in for is going to be hilarious. I'm looking forward to watching the news that night and seeing something even funnier than watching Susan Estritch melt down drunk as it became clear (even to her) that the idiot John Kerry was going down to ignominious defeat.

Yes, 2 November is going to be a real popcorn night as Obama's radical agenda gets shut down and Nazi Pelosi has to hand over the gavel to real Americans. Of course the real kicker will be watching liberals' heads explode when Sarah Palin sends Obama packing in 2012. So long Obamacare, hello tax cuts and welcome back to American prosperity and exceptionalism.

Posted by: oldno7 | August 31, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

"Democratic bloodbath in November looking certain"

Today's fanciful headline is made possible by a generous grant from Koch Industries.

Posted by: HughBriss

"Democratic bloodbath in November looking certain"

Today's prophetic headline is made possible by thinking Americans despite billions spent by George " I worked for the Nazi's" Soros

Posted by: Straightline | August 31, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

The fat lady has not sung yet and though of course she is white and a bigot seen at the Beckapalooza she will lose her voice in November and the House and Senate will stay with the Democrats. I do wish however the Democrats would grew some spine and brag about their own successes in spite of the NO bird obstructionists but hey that is for another day. OBAMA will whip anyone of the Repugnicans we know about today by even more than he whupped Mc Cain and his dunce. Just getting us out of Iraq and next year Afghanistan will bring about lots more dough in our pockets and therefore the economic recovery you don't see yet. Not only that but we wont be getting our heroic kids killed for Dubyas lies. OBMANOS!

Posted by: jbento | August 31, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Fiction

I'm no scientist, but I've read a lot. I used to read realclimate.org all the time…

Whether or not there is any truth to their claims, the warmers are not trustworthy sources. They are anti-science zealots.
Posted by: quarterback1 | August 31, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

---

Well, quarterback, I AM a scientist from a quite different discipline. It has been my experience that "science" is lauded until it reaches a conclusion that comes into conflict with a deeply held belief. Say… evolution, the age of the universe, stem cells or links between autism and vaccines. At that point, everyone thinks they're an expert and deserves equal weight.

Your statement would be akin to me saying I'm not a doctor, but I read web sites all the time. Now, if you'll just take a few deep breaths of this gas, I'll start operating. Don't worry about the anasthesiologist. He's a buddy of mine from the tire shop.

Presumably you have a job of some sort and are good at it. Why would you accept the opinion of someone off the street with no experience?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 31, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

This blog has been made possible by the generous support of David and Charles Koch.

Posted by: HughBriss | August 31, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

You don't suppose that the Democrats are in trouble because they ignored the economy for two years while they passed their healthcare program which just cost working people more money? Can you spell stupid?

Posted by: sportsfan2 | August 31, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

I do wish however the Democrats would grew some spine and brag about their own successes in spite of the NO bird obstructionists but hey that is for another day. OBAMA will whip anyone of the Repugnicans we know about today by even more than he whupped Mc Cain and his dunce.

Posted by: jbento

=========================================

That's a good question, what exactly are the achievements Obama and the Democrats can be proud of over the last two years and why aren't they bragging about it?

The answer isn't rocket science (even to rabid Obama partisans) and no, the fault isn't with Glenn Beck and Fox News.

Posted by: bbface21 | August 31, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

I HOPE, I HOPE, I HOPE, I HOPE, I HOPE, I HOPE, I HOPE, I HOPE!!!

Posted by: georges2 | August 31, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

I can understand people wondering what Democrats will do for them. I cannot understand anyone who does not understand what the Republicans will do to them.

Posted by: rusty3 | August 31, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

As an American having lived most of their life in Europe I hope that this economic crisis and this election will bring Americans back to what actually makes them so different:

"Getting" the difference between:

- ideology (canned solutions and demagogary so like Europeans, theocracies, extreme nations) and

- ideals (justice, equality, personal roles and responsibility, sacrifice, neighborliness etc., etc.) which are goals we can never reach completely but that make us better as we go forward and give us the chance of having a future for our grandchildren

Posted by: sally62 | August 31, 2010 11:52 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Maureen Dowd that it IS the fault of the "professional Left", as she said, "Fox built up a Republican president; MSNBC is trying to make its reputation by tearing down a Democratic one."

Because the right is HYPOcritical of it's own, and the left is HYPERcritical of it's own, during the Bush regime we heard 80% neutral to high praise (Fox) of the Bush administration, and as more corporate money was infused into the system and government became MORE broken, the left demanded MORE of what was LESS possible, so that coverage now is 80% negative to extreme negative (Fox).

All the whining on left has gotten us what...more damage from the right??

Although, if I listened to the pollsters, I wouldn't even vote, making it a self fulfilling prophesy.

Posted by: sickofthemall | September 1, 2010 7:24 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