Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Reid's next target: Angle's "extreme and dangerous" legislative record

As followers of Sue Lowden and "chickens for checkups" know well, Harry Reid's political operation can be relentless and quite systematic in grinding up foes, and after highlighting a series of very eccentric Sharron Angle quotes, his operation is now turning its attention to her legislative record.

Reid's campaign is up with a new spot blasting Angle for siding against victims of domestic violence, in a vote she took as a state legislator to "prevent restraining orders from other states from being enforced in Nevada":

The goal of the ad, obviously, is to continue driving up Angle's negatives with women. There's a sense in Reid's camp that female voters are very receptive to the Reid campaign's use of Angle's own quotes to paint her as extreme, dangerous and temperamentally unfit for the Senate.

Also: The new ad represents something of a shift for the Reid campaign. After relentlessly targeting her with ads featuring her quotes, it will now begin to carpetbomb her voting history, which has gotten comparatively less attention. Says Reid spokesman Kelly Steele: "Her extreme and dangerous legislative record will be fully explored."

All this comes as yet another poll shows that Angle retains a decent shot at being the next Senator from Nevada, despite having a history and beliefs that might ordinarily be disqualifying in a major party candidate for Senate. It's as clear a sign as you could wish for of just how stiff a headwind Reid and Dems are facing.

By Greg Sargent  |  September 13, 2010; 1:54 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: "The Obama tax cuts for the middle class"
Next: Why Republicans don't fear fight over tax cuts for rich

Comments

Mike from Arlington


"They haven't taken the War on Teror seriously."


__________________________________

If you are more concerned with giving a terrorist a lawyer - than FINDING OUT IF THERE IS ANOTHER BOMB ON ANOTHER PLANE, then there is a problem.


Clearly, Al Queda has a history of multiple plane attacks.

Obama was more concerned with giving the terrorist a lawyer and TELLING HIM TO REMAIN SILENT.

Sorry - what is worse, there appeared to be confusion within the FBI as to what Obama's new policy was last winter.


The whole thing smacks of a stupid national security policy - misguided legalistic theories - AND putting American lives AT RISK.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Greg,

You now have forced SBJ to cut another check for Sharron Obtuse Angle's campaign.(snark)

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforests,

I want you to look at this chart composed of data this blog highlighted some time ago.

It represents terror suspects prosecuted at trial in civilian courts over the years. Yes CIVILIAN COURTS.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_59luVgxXa9Y/S60TVILIEPI/AAAAAAAAAKM/ePHOsODLLGs/s1600/untitled.bmp

Here is Greg's entry it came from.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/justice-department-chart-shows-hundreds-of-terror-prosecutions/

Explain that one.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

This should be good...

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

All those terrorists were Mirandaized and given, gasp, lawyers!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

@Liam: "You now have forced SBJ to cut another check for Sharron Obtuse Angle's campaign."

Sigh. Yes he has. Consider it done.

Anyone else who wants to counter Greg's relentless shilling can donate to Angle's campaign here:

http://sharronangle.com/septembertoremember/

Posted by: sbj3 | September 13, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Oh thank God, another breathlessly reported piece on the minutia of the Reid campaign. Dues paid to the Majority Leader for the day. 

Can you please get your other obligatory posts up for the day?  There must be something on the mosque you can retread, er write about. And I'm sure Sarah Palin has said something that will make lefty heads explode. 

Once you meet the rest of your obligations you can do some more interesting things like Jerry Brown's struggle dealing with the Whitman/Clinton add. I know, it's only the most populous state in the Union. 

Signed,
bUford (it's been over 24 hours, it would be unfair for Jenn to retract
right?)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 13, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

A British teenager who sent an email to the White House calling President Obama an obscenity was banned from America for life, The Sun reported Monday.

The FBI asked local cops to tell college student Luke Angel, 17, his drunken insult was "unacceptable."

Angel said he fired off a single email criticizing the U.S. government after seeing a TV program about the 9/11 attacks.


______________________________________

What happened to Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment ???


What happened to Obama saying the First Amendment was so absolute ???

Apparently WHEN Obama wants an exception to the First Amendment - he HAS ONE - but when Obama wants the mosque at Ground Zero, OBAMA IS SILENT ON THE EXCEPTIONS.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"how stiff a headwind Reid and Dems are facing... IN NEVADA"

Nevada is f'd.

How much of that has to do with one particular Senator is anybody's guess.

Maybe a better way of looking at it -- if you're going to look at it through the lens of Senate representation -- is to compare the records of Harry Reid and John Ensign.

Now THAT would be an interesting blog post if anyone's up for it or seen anything like it.

One thing we can be sure about is that Ensign was a RUBBER STAMP for the Bush agenda.

If Nevadans didn't like the results of the Bush agenda, then to blame Harry Reid and not John Ensign would be totally ridiculous.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

This is a hard hitting ad...but I'm wondering if we'll see an ad hitting her on her crusade against Nevada public schools?

In the early 2000's, she banded a group together in an effort to halt ALL state funding for public schools. If she had her way, there wouldn't be a public school system in NV.

An ad telling voters that if Angle had her way, they would have been forced to pay for their kids to go to a private school (on top of the massive job losses for teachers) seems like it would be pretty effective.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | September 13, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Notice how SaveTheRainforest ignored that chart and data.

It completely destroyed his ill-informed little theory he has been taught from right wing misinformation propaganda sites.

And in regards to this ad. It doesn't seem powerful but I'm not the target demo obviously. It's not time to turn all women against Angle's extremism.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

@mike,

You don't understand STRF. He's got this president skipping philisophy, sort of like generating skipping trusts. Here's how it goes: if Obama looks good, it doesn't count because Bush actually set the whole thing up (but didn't get the time to get credit). If Bush looks bad, it doesn't count because Clinton actually set the whole thing up (but didn't get the time to get blame).

So, blame gets pushed back in time to pre-Bush. Credit gets pulled back in time to pre-Obama.

See, I can explain it better than STRF does. More straightforward.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

@sbjr: I'm not donating to any politician, until one actually impresses me for who they are, not why I'd want to vote against their opponent (which, in the case of Angle, I still think I'd vote against Harry Reid). That's why the only campaign I'm willing to donate to would be Zombie Reagan. Just waiting for him to make the decision to run.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington

I looked at your chart - and read the article.


However, all those cases are different - and the article really does not tell us the details of the cases.

Clearly, Obama has been SEEKING to change the Bush policies - and Obama has made an ISSUE of the "enemy combantent" classifications - and the military court procedures which were set up.

So - to try to say that Obama is trying to do the SAME thing as Bush - that just flies against all of Obama's statements over the years.

AGAIN - let us recap the concern - Americans do NOT want civilian courts to START to find TECHNICALITIES to let off terrorists - and that is the CONCERN WITH OBAMA.


We all know that Obama's friend - Bill Ayers - was a terrorist, set off bombs - and GOT OFF ON A TECHNICALITY.

I want to make one thing CLEAR: instead of prosecuting the terrorists and perhaps losing in Court, Obama has been RELEASING THE TERRORISTS BEFORE TRIAL.


Obama has been sending terrorists BACK TO YEMEN.


Obama has been making several changes in how terrorists are treated - to try to say that Obama hasn't been making changes from Bush - that is just DECEPTIVE.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest thinks the First Amendment applies to British nationals. That's pretty funny.

Also, when SaveTheRainforest said: "sent an email to the White House calling President Obama an obscenity was banned from America for life" he forgot the part about the threats in the letter.

Either SaveTheRainforest doesn't know how to read or is just ill-informed. I'm guessing both considering his first post on this blog entry isn't based in reality.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

For a large majority of Nevadans to consider Ms. Angle a viable candidate is simply earth-shattering. IQ's have plunged 30 points since the 1960s. WOW!

Posted by: Taylorsucram | September 13, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"I want to make one thing CLEAR: instead of prosecuting the terrorists and perhaps losing in Court, Obama has been RELEASING THE TERRORISTS BEFORE TRIAL.

Obama has been sending terrorists BACK TO YEMEN."

Lies lies and more lies from the habitual liar.

Do you ever tell the truth or is everything you spout just your personal "feelings" after reading World Nut Daily posts?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

Which leads me to something that I have been pondering about recently;

I would like your perspective on who you see, of the rumored Republican candidates for President,that appears to be actually presidential material?

I can not pick one or two out. They all appear drab and grey to me, with the exception of the Granny Grizzly, who is all flash and no subsistence.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Newsflash, SaveTheRainforest doesn't know wtf planet he lives on, let alone has a grip on reality.

Now back to your regular scheduled programming, Highlighting Republican Extremism.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

STRF wrote: So - to try to say that Obama is trying to do the SAME thing as Bush - that just flies against all of Obama's statements over the years.
--------------------------------------
See, I told you. All credit flows to Bush, all blame flows to Obama or Clinton (or both).
My explanation is the string theory of STRF--it explains everything.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"I looked at your chart - and read the article.

However, all those cases are different - and the article really does not tell us the details of the cases."

Sure it does, right here.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/March-26-2010-NSD-Final-Statistics.pdf

You need to learn how to read. That provides the charges of each trial.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Newt Gingrich says that all credit flows to The global Colonial Powers. He yearns to return to those good old days. Which means that he probably would like to restore segregation and apartheid too. Wait; what am I saying. Of course he does. He already said that he wants to segregate American Muslims, to keep them from engaging in social activities, in a restricted zone, set up to keep out only them.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Most conservatives out there are satisfied with the way Obama has prosecuted the wars and asserted executive power. I would think that it would be honest liberals and progressives who would be somewhat upset that Obama is now embracing tactics that he once criticized.

"As the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, much of President Obama's counterterrorism policies and his understanding of executive power closely hew to the last administration, which he criticized as a candidate for the White House."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/9/obama-uses-bush-plan-for-terror-war/

He's quite the neocon, actually, "in the sense that neoconservatism has argued for aggressive American involvement in the world both for the world's sake and for the sake of extending American freedoms in order to enhance and preserve American security."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/barack_the_neocon_brsZZIP4IIEMbYsUR9w5wI#ixzz0zR6mA4fO

Posted by: sbj3 | September 13, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"He's quite the neocon, actually"

Neocons want to attack Iran right now and possibly go to war with Russia, see 'we are all Georgian's now' phrasing being pushed by Scheunemann, who is now traveling around with Princess Sarah.

There are necessary wars to protect the homeland and right the wrongs of past neocon influenced administrations and there are wars of ideology, see regime changing in Iran/Iraq.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "I would like your perspective on who you see, of the rumored Republican candidates for President,that appears to be actually presidential material?"

That is actually planning on running probably?

Well, as I may have mentioned, I do like Sarah Palin, but I don't think she's planning on running. I don't like Mike Huckabee. Mitt Romney is "meh".

Tim Pawlenty has a good chance now, but the campaigns haven't started. Plenty of time to screw that up.

I like Haley Barbour a lot, but I don't think he's going to run. And he's a big guy. It's been a long time since we elected a fat president. My favorite for 2016 (assuming an Obama win in 2012) is Chris Christie of New Jersey. So far, that's my kind of guy. Although he's a big fellow too.

Trying to take out an incumbent president is a risk. And very hard. Even Ronaldus Magnus had Ted Kennedy, who ran a primary campaign against Carter, on his side. Unless some nice Democrat softens Obama up by running a primary campaign against him, Obama is unlikely to lose in 2012. Not impossible, just unlikely. It would take a Chris Christie, in my opinion, to beat an Obama, and it's too early for Chris to abandon the NJ governorship, ala Palin in Alaska. So, we're going to get a weak candidate like Huckabee, a bland candidate like Romney, a polarizing candidate like Palin, or a unknown (to me, anyway) candidate like Pawlenty. I don't think Barbour is going to run in 2012, and he may be a little old (or at least look it) for 2016. Jindhal might run in 2016, but he's going to have to step up is oration if he plans to win the primary.

And, like Forrest Gump, that's all I've got to say about that.


Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Remember: "The Unitary Executive" combined with the "Unitary VP of the Executive" who was also "a member of the legislature" at the same time.

Dick Cheney claimed that he was two Breath Taking Jim DeMints, in one.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis said, "I do like Sarah Palin...and it's too early for Chris to abandon the NJ governorship, ala Palin in Alaska...a polarizing candidate like Palin."

So, in other words, Kevin likes polarizing candidates that abandon their posts, lol!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington


Don't listen to her - she is just trying to start a fight


>>> I looked at your chart and some of the details - some of those prosecutions are for perjury and making false statements

All those prosecutions are not people who have a bomb and they were caught on their way to killing people.

Having said that - apparently Bush and crew were using these civil prosecutions as way to "round up the suspects"

Anyway - the details reveal a different picture - if you want to look go ahead - this link was WITHIN one of the links you gave me.

Having said that, I am obviously in favor of a tougher stance on terrorism - tougher than maybe Bush was. However, one really has to look closely at what Bush was doing with these civil prosecutions - PERHAPS it was a good way to "get them off the streets."

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/March-26-2010-NSD-Final-Statistics.pdf

,.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

@sbj3: "He's quite the neocon, actually"

Not entirely. His administration seems to believe more in the aggressive use of surgical strikes, small-scale tactical counter-terrorism, and the heavy use of drones. The theory is to pick off the top people, leave the organization headless, disrupt the command structure and monitor communication. The neocon philosophy (at least of the New American Century variety) advocated for more topping of states, nation building--essentially, more boots on the ground. And while Obama hasn't just abandoned Afghanistan and Iraq, I think he's (or his administration) is much more "forget the shock and awe, let's just give 'em two to the head, and we're done".

Lots of conservatives complain about the diplomatic side of Obama's foreign policy as being to anti-American and too appeasement-oriented, which I understand. However, actions speak louder than words, and Obama seems to be (as far as I can tell, observing at a far distance) doing as much damage to Al Qaeda as Bush did, with less loss of blood and treasure. It's a good strategy (at least, it certainly seems so, so far) and I hope future administrations adopt it.

As far as the left being inconsistent in regards to how they treat Obama's foreign policy. Well, many are complaining. Many aren't, wiling to over look it because at least he's not a Republican. Such has always been the nature of politics!

That's fine with me. The more people who supporting blowing up terrorists by remote control, the better off we are. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington


The news report I read had no threats, just an obscenity which begins with P


And I don't know what that is

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/offbeat/uk-teenager-banned-from-america-for-life-over-obscene-obama-email-091310

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

I think Palin will seek the nomination, and I think she is the odds on favorite to get it.

She will be the one woman, amongst a crowded field of Men. There is not a lick of charisma in any of the people you mentioned, as ones you would favor.

Palin's handlers have laid the groundwork for her to have a lot of established organizations in place, in a lot of states, by having her endorse those tea party candidates in a lot of states. In the presidential caucuses and primaries, the right wing activists will control the outcome. Her handlers have positioned her to have a lot of support organizations beholden to her. She already commands a lot of support among Right Wing men, so her handlers have tried to broaden her support among socially conservative women. That was what all that Mama Grizzly stuff was all about.

I see it as Palin's nomination to lose. Only she can stop herself, and that would be hard to do, since the activist base, she is counting on, feel she can do no wrong.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"My explanation is the string theory of STRF--it explains everything."

Oh, that's good stuff.

Except, of course, unlike real string theory which consists of 11 separate dimensions, STRF struggles with one.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Has John Boehner flip flopped yet, on his agreeing to let the Tax Cuts for Needy Billionaires expire? I have already predicted that he will do so, within the next twenty four hours.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

OOPS!

* Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says *

Hand the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more.

“I would tend to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior,” said Chris Cornell, an economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody’s Analytics. “Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues.”

The Moody’s research covering couples earning more than $210,000 found that spending by the wealthy is more likely to be influenced by the ups and downs of the stock market than changes in income-tax rates.

Stock-market performance is the “primary factor that is driving the savings of the top 5 percent of households,” said Mustafa Akcay, economist and co-researcher of the savings data.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html

A few more times:

"The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy."

"The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy."

"The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy."

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington

You really should read up on the links that you provide.


I am willing to have an intelligent discussion with you - even using the facts you provided in your links.

The "terrorism" cases you cited in your links are terrorism-related - but they are not cases of people getting caught with a bomb - or even those who have been caught after a bombing.

The "terrorism" cases you cited were basically part of a "round them up and clean up the streets" effort by Bush in the years after 9/11.


What Bush and crew did then was round everyone up - and throw something at them - like perjury - or lying in citizenship applications - and threw them all in jail.

That round-up operation - those cases were brought in civil courts and those people had lawyers.


The Gitmo cases Bush tried to handle by military tribunel - many were enemy combatents - and then one set of procedures was thrown out - so they had to start all over.

I'm not going to fight with you as to whether Obama was releasing the GITMO terrorists to Yemen - Obama was doing that - and even up to the December Detroit plot there were terrorists set to go back to Yemen - and those were delayed - I don't know what happened to those cases.


Well - to take ALL the above actions by Bush - and say that somehow supports giving a guy like the Detroit bomber a lawyer BEFORE we know if there are other bombs on other planes - that is RIDICULOUS.


So, please read up on your links - and please do not try to be deceptive -


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"My explanation is the string theory of STRF--it explains everything."

Oh, that's good stuff.

Except, of course, unlike real string theory which consists of 11 separate dimensions, STRF struggles with one.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 3:04 PM
........................

I ascribe to the well known theory, (which I just now made up) that STRF emerged from The Very Tiny Bang.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

http://www.myfoxdc.com

That is your problem right there. Also, the Sun is another Murdoch publication.

Of course they would like their readership to believe the Obama Department of Homeland security bans people ONLY for calling the President names.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Curious why no mention was made if Angle's backing out of debates as part of her irratic behavior. I understand Nevada being upset about their economy but can t understand why in the world they think anything she would do would in anyway help their situation. She opposed Unemployment Venetia , SS, alcohol, and assistance to the MGM to complete their City Center projects. Any one of those positions should disqualify her from holding ANY elected position in Nevada much less being their US Senator. I am ready to start a boycott if they should end up being so stupid as to elect her.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 13, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Newt Gingrich Wants To Ban President Obama for not fully supporting Colonialism, and because he looks like someone who is too dark to be in "our very White House"

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington

Your hostile attitude is silly - especially since your own information does not support what you are saying.


Clearly you are trying to make a point which does not make sense


http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/March-26-2010-NSD-Final-Statistics.pdf

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

liam wrote: I ascribe to the well known theory, (which I just now made up) that STRF emerged from The Very Tiny Bang.
-----------------------------
More good stuff. Maybe STRF is the human equivalent of the Eeny Teeny Black Hole.

STRF, excuse the allusion to being Black since I know you'll take offense.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1,

Sharron Obtuse Angle actually backed out of a debate, that she had proposed!

No wonder SBJ keeps sending her more campaign contributions. It is like he had a twin sister.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Man, you guys are really off the deep end today.


See - this is what 12barblues does to the conversation.

Obama HAS been releasing the Gitmo detainees to YEMEN -

Mike - this is YOUR chart - it is filled with perjury - and making false statements on a citizenship application - charges like that.


Totally different from those cases in which a terrorist is caught with a bomb - and we have to find out if there is another bomb on another plane.


http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/March-26-2010-NSD-Final-Statistics.pdf

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

@kevin: "That's fine with me. The more people who supporting blowing up terrorists by remote control, the better off we are. ;)"

Be careful what you wish for. At some point we all might be considered "terrorists" by some nation that also has drones that can kill from the air without any regard to rights. I'd also argue that drone attacks are not so "surgical" as you seem to believe.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 13, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"The "terrorism" cases you cited in your links are terrorism-related - but they are not cases of people getting caught with a bomb - or even those who have been caught after a bombing."

298 Reid, Richard DMA 16-Jan-02
18/2332a(a)(1), 2332(b)(1), 924(c), 49/46505(b)(3) &
(C), 49/46506(1), 49/46504 18/32(a)(1)&(7), 18/1993 I 04-Oct-02
18/2332a(a)(1), 2332(b)(1), 924(c), 49/46505(b)(3) &
(C), 49/46506(1), 49/46504 18/32(a)(1)&(7), 30-Jan-03 Life

That's the obvious one. I'm sure if you go through the rest of the life sentencing you'd find others that were in the act of committing while and then caught.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Greg

I would have to say that anyone who tries to defend this blog based on the "quality of dicussion" - really has nothing to stand on after today.


Look at how these posters have acted today.


It is complete hostility - a refusal to discuss any facts.

Name-calling and mocking.


So - if any poster in the future tries to say that this blog has such a high quality of discussion - that other points of view just disrupt the converstaion - that position is ridiculous.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Bush/Cheney released Gitmo detainees that got back into the terrorist network and killed U.S. troops and citizens abroad.

That's what I'd call failed national security policy.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

iam wrote: I ascribe to the well known theory, (which I just now made up) that STRF emerged from The Very Tiny Bang.
-----------------------------
More good stuff. Maybe STRF is the human equivalent of the Eeny Teeny Black Hole.

STRF, excuse the allusion to being Black since I know you'll take offense.

Posted by: 12BarBlues

..................

I wish to revise and update my theory. After having observed his most recent remarks, I now feel that STRF is viable confirmation of The Kitten Playing With A Ball Of String, Theory .

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"Your hostile attitude is silly - especially since your own information does not support what you are saying...

a refusal to discuss any facts."

That's rich coming from the person who makes the same claims over and over without siting or referencing anyone.

And SaveTheRainforest, sorry if I hurt your wittle feelings. I'll try to be more damn sensitive next time you emotional wreck.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

siting = citing.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington

You are really a deceptive person


I said: All those prosecutions are not people who have a bomb and they were caught on their way to killing people."

"ALL THOSE" - then in another post you say I can not read.

What is wrong with you ?


Anyway - you are citing about 400 cases - and ALL are not cases of people caught with bombs.

So, your little graph going up and down - that was your original point - and the original topic of the conversation.


In fact - the information YOU gave says there are 150 cases in category I and 250 in category II.

I can not help you if you REFUSE to have an intelligent conversations


AND do not have the RESPECT to allow other people to make a valid point.

You attitude is hostile and inappropriate.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

STRF is like all dimwitted Skin Head bullies. They can dish out the abuse, but once someone lands a punch on them, they turn into bed wetting little cry babies.

STRF was the inspiration for the Nelson Muntz character.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry too, STRF, for calling you an Eeny Teeny Black Hole. Maybe you are not eeny.

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!

Banks, investment firms and hedge funds are giving millions of dollars more to Republicans, and abandoning the Democrats they had been supporting just a year ago.

[...]

"We noticed a very dramatic shift right around the beginning of this year, which coincided with financial reform," said Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. "This is not just a blip at all; this is a major shift in the opposite direction and one that has persisted ever since."

[...]

The rest of the top 20 are Republicans, many seeking Senate seats. Former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina of California tops the list for Republicans, followed by Dan Coats of Indiana and Marco Rubio of Florida.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/13/big-business-and-wall-street-bet-on-gop/

HEDGE FUNDS IN DA HOUSE!

Big Wall Street sure is lucky they have the GOP, because the Dems are obviously serious about mitigating the economy-destroying effects of their gluttony and greed.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Where do we go to buy tickets to drink Greg Sargent's tears of unfathomable sadness when Sharon Angle beats Harry Reid?

I imagine they will taste yummy and sweet. And maybe Radiohead will stop by to call Sargent a crybaby.

Posted by: etpietro | September 13, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"Where do we go to buy tickets to drink Greg Sargent's tears of unfathomable sadness when Sharon Angle beats Harry Reid?"

Please, pop the champagne already. haha

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Oh jeez, my last comment went into moderation. The jist was this.

STRF calls me deceptive when he states there were no bombing cases, I highlight one, and then I'm being deceptive!

Genius!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

He sheds no light ever, just like a Black Hole, so maybe he is one. He clearly passes the Density requirements.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington

The truth of the matter is Obama is WEAK on terrorism.


Sorry - warnings come and warning go.


However, this time sure feels like the 5 years before 9/11 - there were Congressional hearings, task forces - and all sorts of experts warning about terrorism.


They were never really taken seriously. Bill Clinton had "other things" which he was giving his attention.


In the 1990s, our Middle East policy was sorely LACKING.


In the 1990s, our terrorism policy was sorely LACKING.


The democrats have REFUSED to consider the recent history. The democrats have ONE VERSION OF IRAQ, and that is it.


The democrats think that "if we are only nicer to them" then the war would "go away."


Anyway - yes Obama is WEAK on terrorism

Let's just hope no one dies because Obama has let up the nation's guard.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

All, Republicans explain why they relish the fight over the Bush tax cuts for the rich:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/why_republicans_dont_fear_figh.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 13, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "I think Palin will seek the nomination, and I think she is the odds on favorite to get it."

I think you're right. I'm just not sure she wants to run for elected office. If she does, I think she really shouldn't have bailed on the Alaska governorship. That's just not something you do if you want to run for higher office.

I see her anticipating a cabinet position in the next Republican administration. Just my opinion, could be wrong, but I don't think she's behaving like a future presidential candidate. Head of Homeland Security? Could be. She may think she can run and win, but I'm not even sure she could win the nomination. If she does, and she's doing it in 2012, without a primary challenger for Obama to weaken his re-election bid, Obama almost certainly wins that fight.

She's such a lightning rod. I don't think she takes the primary. Just don't see it, even if she runs, its going to be too clever by half like Fred Thompson or Rudy Guliani (once an odds on favorite) and she'll end up at the bottom of the primary heap. She'll wait to long to get it, get in, get out, get back in, threaten to get out . . . I dunno, I just don't think she takes the primary. If she runs, which she may not, as she is a nice, protective, money-generating cocoon right now. I wouldn't, if I were her. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Eric Cantor promises to protect Deprived Billionaires from John Boehner.

It is a great day to be a Democrat, America!!!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Of interest to Ethan?

"* Nancy Pelosi has raised almost twice as much money from lobbyists this election as Boehner has?

* At least 18 House Democrats have raised more lobbyist cash this election than Boehner has.

* Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have pocketed more lobbyist cash in the past 18 months than Boehner has raised in the past 6 elections, combined?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/pelosi-has-pocketed-nearly-twice-as-much-lobbyist-cash-as-boehner-102778009.html

Posted by: sbj3 | September 13, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

All, SaveTheRainforest just used ALL CAPS on the word weak, meaning in his mind, this must be the case.

I think I'm starting to understand SaveTheRainforest. All caps is meant to be interpreted as undeniable truth. Lower case could be disputed. A mixture, I'm still trying to pinpoint that one.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid's ads are 10x better than Angle's BUT they are full of distortions and statements that have been chopped-off to give the listener a different context than what was really said. Bottom-line is this: Do you, the voter, want to be free and independent or do you want the government to rule your life and your future? If you think the government is too big and controlling than vote for Angle. If you like "Big Brother" than vote for Reid. Forget the rest, it's that simple. Big Gov't = Reid or less Gov't = Angle. All the rest of the debate is just an ad-man's way to waste your time.

Want more Gov? - Vote Reid!

Want less Gov? - Vote Angle!

Posted by: hangtown1 | September 13, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

mike wrote: STRF calls me deceptive when he states there were no bombing cases, I highlight one, and then I'm being deceptive!
----------------------------
Mike, mike, mike--here's the STRF scoop: Richard Reid didn't actually ignite his bomb. He just TRIED to. So, technically, it's not a bombing case. It's an ATTEMPTED bombing case.

There, I can explain it better than STRF.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The topic is why Sharon Angle is ducking debates and reporter's interviews not some rabbit trail. Perhaps bloggers here can now appreciate what we dealt with every day at The Fix.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 13, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

She does not operate like that. She is driven by Beauty Pageant contestant impulses, and thinks that she can shape shift her history, to convince people that Quitting was the act of A States Women, who needed to devote her time to saving America.

She will run, and I expect her to be the Republican nominee in 2012. How can any of those men, actually go about attacking her, without alienating all those men, who are crazy about her, and come across like a bunch of men, picking on the only women in the debates.

I hope that my health holds up long enough, to sit back and watch The Republicans all trying to figure out how to compete against the Mama Grizzly.

Meanwhile President Obama can run a Rose Garden campaign, until the Republicans have stopped carving each other up.

By the time it is all over, Newt will be calling for The Death Penalty for Women, who even think about one day purchasing birth control pills. He has to keep trying to get to the right of the charge of The Right Brigade.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Of interest to SBJ?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!

Banks, investment firms and hedge funds are giving millions of dollars more to Republicans, and abandoning the Democrats they had been supporting just a year ago.

[...]

"We noticed a very dramatic shift right around the beginning of this year, which coincided with financial reform," said Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. "This is not just a blip at all; this is a major shift in the opposite direction and one that has persisted ever since."

[...]

The rest of the top 20 are Republicans, many seeking Senate seats. Former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina of California tops the list for Republicans, followed by Dan Coats of Indiana and Marco Rubio of Florida.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/13/big-business-and-wall-street-bet-on-gop/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Once again, Mr Sargent seeks to arrogate to himself the right to decide which candidates are worthy of votes.

As I pointed out last week, the disqualification of candidates is the job of the voters, NOT the liberal punditry. It was silly of Mr Sargent to trot out ms Madow as a bastion of even handed assessment in this election year. Just plain dumb. It amounts to "See, Rachel and I agree, no one should vote for Angle". Yeah, that's definitive.

As for the head wind, well Mr Reid has much to answer for, as has most of the DC establishment. While Angle might not be the squeaky clean candidate that Sargent demands, she's hanging tough despite reid's millions.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 13, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Skippy,

Try telling that same complaint to Sean Hannitty, or Rush Limbaugh. You would not even be allowed to voice that opinion on their programs. Greg lets you spout your spurious complaints, unlike Murdoch's Control Freaks.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

So what's your point liam?

My point is simple: Mr Sargent believes that he has the ability to determine who is qualified to run. Of course the fact that he sees everything through a liberal filter shouldn't disturb anybody, right?
I wonder what objections to the candidacy of Marion Barry Mr Sargent raised.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 13, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Sharon Angle is a charmer compared to the sleazeball the Florida Republicans have unleashed upon my fair state. They've actually nominated a crook for Governor...notice I didn't say felon...he let his former company take the fall while HE claimed 5th Amendment privilege 75 TIMES
so as to not incriminate himself...Please help us here in the Sunshine State..

www.WhatIsRickScottHiding.com

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 13, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Here again, I think that the portrait you'd ideally like to paint of Angle is actually a pretty accurate picture of her. I hear tell that even the Republicans in the Nevada state legislature think the woman is frankly nuts.

Posted by: CalD | September 13, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't think its Greg who is trying to "determine who is fit to run", skip. He's comparing her to other candidates presently and historically from both *major* parties who seem to be missing the crazy gene that Angle has.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 13, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

That's just not correct Chuck. Re read his blog entries, especially the one about Madow.

Of course his liberal prism will cause him to denigrate Ms Angle.But I asked a pretty straightforward question: What was his opinion of the candidacy of Marion Barry? Or aren't we allowed to discuss not so savory Democrat candidates on this blog?

He finds Angle to be too far to the right for his tastes. yeah, I get that. So what?

Ultimately the voters in Nevada get to decide. In the interim this is just more bell ringing for the pavlovians who comment on this blog.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 13, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Want more Gov? - Vote Reid!

Want less Gov? - Vote Angle!

I am going to sit back and laugh my head off if Angle wins and is able to hold up the social security checks and Medicare reimbursement for physicians treating the old folks who are chomping at the bit to put this kabob in national office.

Don't think many, or any physician will be bothered with treating old folks when they are not getting paid.

Aren't there a lot of old folks in Nevada?

Going to be a blast. And funny.

Posted by: Sammy2 | September 13, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

"My explanation is the string theory of STRF--it explains everything." Oh, that's good stuff. Except, of course, unlike real string theory which consists of 11 separate dimensions, STRF struggles with one. Posted by: schrodingerscat"

37th has had more dimensions, all far out and almost all so far right they need yet more dimensions even to exist.

And, like all the dimensions in classical string theory but the four they add up to, they are of such incredibly niggling size that most of us can't find them by any way one might measure or conceive of measuring.

And they so often accidently end up in other realities that we lost track of them all over at the fix when that was where he mostly intruded on objective reality.

Posted by: ceflynline | September 14, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

"More good stuff. Maybe STRF is the human equivalent of the Eeny Teeny Black Hole. Posted by: 12BarBlues"

Oh how I wish, but Hawking proved long time gone that teensey weensey black holes are fuzzy and evaporate in far less time than STRF has been annoying people in this continuum.

Although the theory that the teeney weeny bang is a miniscule white hole where a real black hole of possibly solar mass got fuzzy and bled into this reality DOES possibly fit in at the Well of Souls.

Posted by: ceflynline | September 14, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

ALL PRO-AMNESTY INCUMBENTS--OUT
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada is going against the grain of the majority of Americans, by adding a bill to the war appropriations to force through a favorable illegal alien AMNESTY It is an insult to American people who will have to forfeit more taxes to pay for this path to citizenship. Its my impression by catering to the children of illegal aliens, that in the November elections millions of foreign nations will try and deceive our voting system, by violating federal law and hoping to keep Harry Reid entrenched in political office? As I repeated in an earlier commentary,
"In any midterm elections or November, we must be careful to watch for abnormalities in Nevada, but across the wide spectrum of polling places in this country. Only a few states have strict regulations on federal voting rules and absentee ballots little or none.

Absentee voting is especially opened to rampant fraud, and incumbent politicians with their careers on the line have much to lose. If a person (s) has criminally penetrated America, without being processed, it is my belief that many illegal entrants will break the law further by voting for pro-amnesty spearhead like Sen. Reid? Citizenship is and should be a basic constraint for voting. Citizenship is a legal requirement to vote in federal and state elections, except for a small number of local elections in a few jurisdictions. Non-citizen voting is likely growing at the same rate as our illegal alien population in this nation; but as for the deficiencies in state law and the miscarriage of federal agencies to obey with federal law, there are almost no measures in place that allow election referees to detect, dissuade, and avert non-citizens from registering and voting under the current system. Instead, polling officials are chiefly dependent on an ?honor system? that presumes aliens to follow the law. There are plentiful cases showing the failure of this honor system. Tea Party members hopefully will keep an sharp eye on the polling locations, to watch for irregularities specially in large population illegal alien border states NumbersUSA for honest answers, not Liberal lies or rhetoric.

Posted by: infinity555 | September 14, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse


Absentee voting is especially opened to rampant fraud, and incumbent politicians with their careers on the line have much to lose. If a person (s) has criminally penetrated America, without being processed, it is my belief that many illegal entrants will break the law further by voting for pro-amnesty spearhead like Sen. Reid? Citizenship is and should be a basic constraint for voting. Citizenship is a legal requirement to vote in federal and state elections, except for a small number of local elections in a few jurisdictions. Non-citizen voting is likely growing at the same rate as our illegal alien population in this nation; but as for the deficiencies in state law and the miscarriage of federal agencies to obey with federal law, there are almost no measures in place that allow election referees to detect, dissuade, and avert non-citizens from registering and voting under the current system. Instead, polling officials are chiefly dependent on an ?honor system? that presumes aliens to follow the law. There are plentiful cases showing the failure of this honor system. Tea Party members hopefully will keep an sharp eye on the polling locations, to watch for irregularities specially in large population illegal alien border states NumbersUSA for honest answers, not Liberal lies or rhetoric.

Posted by: infinity555 | September 14, 2010 8:08 PM | 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