Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The coming war among Dems

It's coming.

There's been a lot of consternation on the Internets about the possibility that the White House may pick a Republican to succeed Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, as a good-faith bipartisan gesture towards the GOP. It's an interesting discussion, as far as it goes.

But all the chatter over Rahm's replacement really reflects something far larger than speculation over White House personnel. It's the first hint of what's to come after the Dems' expected November bloodbath: An intra-party war among Dems over the real significance of the results, and over how Dems should recalibrate in response. And that battle isn't going to be pretty.

The specter of a Republican replacing Rahm, which is unlikely but not impossible, opens a window on broader liberal concerns: The idea that some Beltway Dems are already primed to interpret Dem losses through a standard Beltway prism. The Dem shellacking simply must mean that Obama overread his mandate and undertook an agenda that was too partisan, too ambitious, and -- worst of all -- too liberal. His only hope of salvation is to tearfully confess to liberal overreach, go through a big public staff shakeup, dramatically scale back his ambitions, and engage in some genuine bipartisanship -- all for the Beltway media's consumption.

There's no doubt that the White House wil be forced to recalibrate, particularly if the GOP retakes Congress. But I really hope that Dems in positions of power will not succumb entirely to this pre-ordained Beltway interpretation. I'm not optimistic, though. As Josh Marshall put it, after the elections, Dems are going to face a "deafening chorus of defeatism and ideological self-doubt" that they will have a very difficult time resisting.

Atrios, for his part, put it another way, suggesting that whatever happens on election day, it will inevitably prove that America is "now and forever, a center right country."

I'd only add that some Beltway Dems are already making this case.

Clinton pollster Doug Schoen, who got lots of attention warning Dems that passing health reform would mean certain catastrophe, is already out front suggesting that unless Obama pulls a Clinton, he won't be reelected. Meanwhile, some Republicans, such as Mitch McConnell, are already telling Obama that his only hope is to govern next year from the "center right."

There is going to be a very big fight over this, so let's marshall the counter arguments. Dem losses this fall will be largely due to the economy and unemployment, which would have been far worse today without the stimulus. What's more, Obama didn't govern from the far left: Health care reform and even Wall Street reform were arguably moderate solutions to serious crises that demanded urgent attention. And regardless of the politics, Dems campaigned on a promise to do these things -- and they were substantively the right things to do.

Over time, there's a good chance the public will agree, and come to see these things as achievements. In the long run, Dems will benefit from doing all this very difficult heavy lifting -- even if it costs them in the short term. Capitulating to the argument that Dems overreached only risks undermining all this hard work and the political benefits it will ultimately bring. And Dems would be grossly irresponsible if they didn't at least try to continue tackling the big challenges that remain, such as climate change.

The demand that Dems beat their breasts and admit to liberal overreach -- and that they immediately scamper to the "center," whatever that means -- are only going to get louder. And many of those demands will be coming from the usual suspects within the Democratic Party. So it's a good idea to be prepared for what's coming.

UPDATE, 2:45 p.m.: As Barbara Morrill points out, some Dems are already predicting that Dem losses will force them to embrace bipartisan cooperation to make angry voters happy.

UPDATE, 6:03 p.m.: In retrospect, I think I overstated the possibility that Rahm could be replaced by a Republican. While I think this is possible, it's definitely unlikely. I was just using that as a jumping off point to the larger discussion here. I've edited the above to clarify.

By Greg Sargent  |  September 8, 2010; 2:18 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Health reform , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Peter Orszag clarifies "rift" with Obama admin over Bush tax cuts
Next: Reid campaign: Angle is crazy and a liar

Comments

Since it's a done deal, that the country will reject all democrats, why bother having elections? Let the righties in to measure for curtains, and let's save billions by not holding elections. Why bother since the press has made up its mind?

Posted by: LAB2 | September 8, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

IDK. Obama seems like he enjoys throwing punches. And with faces like Boehner's and McConnell's being the face of the GOP, who wouldn't like to punch that fugly pair? They're made for punching.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 8, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"There's been a lot of consternation on the Internets about the possibility that the White House may pick a Republican to succeed Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, as a good-faith bipartisan gesture towards the GOP."

I think that would be great--my kind of actual bi-partisanship. But it's not going to win him any political battles at this point. The Republicans are in a "defeat, not compromise" mode. And it'll continue to alienate the deep blue base.

"It's the first hint of what's to come after the Dems' expected November bloodbath: An intra-party war among Dems over the real significance of the results"

I've never heard of an election be so definitely decided before the actual votes were, you know, actually cast, and stuff. History indicates Democrats will lose seats in both houses, but I think predictions of a bloodbath are premature. I heard none of this predictive chatter in 1994, I'll put it that way. Sure things rarely are, and bloodbaths are normally not accurately predicted (but considered, retroactively, almost inevitable).

"it will inevitably prove that America is 'now and forever, a center right country.'"

Well, it'll prove we tend to eject people from office when we don't like the economy, and don't think they're really trying to fix it.

Wasn't a center-right country in 2008. These things shift.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 8, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

Good post.

"the possibility that the White House may pick a Republican to succeed Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff"

Why not? Obama's current COS is a Republican and that's worked out just great.

"as a good-faith bipartisan gesture towards the GOP"

The Democrats learn nothing except the wrong lessons.

But as you said, Greg, it is preordained that the White House will move further Right after November. Complaining about it is just p*ssing into the wind.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 8, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

@Greg

You are starting to seriously depress me.:-(

@LAB2 "Since it's a done deal, that the country will reject all democrats, why bother having elections?"

Exactly! Again the pundits have fixated on "likely" voters almost to the exclusion of "registered" voters. Many so called "experts" believe 8 weeks ahead of an election is a bit early to rely so heavily on only the "likely" voters.

If ANYTHING happens between now and election day to fire up the Dems...the R's will be toast based on simple mathematics.
There are more D's than R's it's that simple.

I am not naive, this election is certainly tilted towards the R's in every way except for that one detail...more D's than R's...

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

LAB2 -- I worry that this argument will erupt even if Dems narrowly hang on to both chambers.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 8, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"There is going to be a very big fight over this, so let's marshall the counter arguments. Dem losses this fall will be largely due to the economy and unemployment, which would have been far worse today without the stimulus. What's more, Obama didn't govern from the far left: Health care reform and even Wall Street reform were arguably moderate solutions to serious crises that demanded urgent attention. And regardless of the politics, Dems campaigned on a promise to do these things -- and they were substantively the right things to do."
-------------------------------------------

Actually, if people were to start making those same points aggressively enough ~before~ the election, the part about Democratic losses in the fall may not be such a foregone conclusion.

Posted by: CalD | September 8, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

ru -- I think that even if Dems hold both chambers narrowly, you're going to hear this argument erupt in a big way.

and thanks wbgonne...it probably is p--sing in the wind

Mike -- I don't really know how Obama will react. But I worry that many of the usual suspects in Congress will read thing this way.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 8, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"Since it's a done deal, that the country will reject all democrats, why bother having elections? ... Why bother since the press has made up its mind?"

Really? The fact that poll after poll showed that Obama was on the wrong side of public opinion - that had nothing to do with it?

The Democrats dug their own grave. Now they must face the consequences.

That's why we have elections.

Posted by: princeps2 | September 8, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Go ahead, name a republican as his replacement. After how successful obama has been courting republicans the last two years, how can it possibly fail?

Posted by: dem4life1 | September 8, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

If America is a "center right" country, then why, in poll after poll, do large majorities of Americans favor liberal positions on so many individual issues? If Obama had seized the moment immediately after the election and demanded certain changes, Republicans be damned, the American people would have supported him. Instead, he acted as if the Republicans might actually have half an ounce of good faith in their bodies and tried to play nicey-nice with them. As a matter of fact, the American people as a whols still support Obama and the Democrats. Unfortunately, however, they won't come out and vote this Fall.

Posted by: ejs2 | September 8, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

The concept of a Republican as Obama's chief of staff seems very unlikely. It would only make sense if there was a real willingness among Republicans for a bipartisan agenda. The Republicans have shown no sign so far of any interest in that kind of agenda. Any improvement that November brings in their situation is just likely to reinforce a partisan focus on taking back the White House in 2012.
The basic reality is that America and the world as a whole have a level of economic problems that has not been experienced since the 1930's. The Republicans have nothing to offer but policies that have already failed. At least, the left end of the Democratic Party is also lost in the past. So a large amount of dissention is likely. But anything more concrete about what is likeley to happen is difficult to predict. It is hard to see the possiblity of enough consensus to enable any agenda to deal with any kind of problem that there is any possibility of ignoring. But, it is pretty much impossible to evaluate the possibility of problems either economic or international that are severe enough that they can't be ignored. It is also difficult to predict which factions of the Democrats and Republicans will manage to work together in the face of a crisis or if there is a possiblity of so much dissention that it becomes impossible to deal with an avoidable disaster.

Posted by: dnjake | September 8, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The US IS a center-right country. And, though many do not want to admit/face it, Obama is a center-right President. He is a leftist' only when compared to the Republicans who border on fascism.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 8, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps I'm getting too old but when I look back...the 60's were a horribly tumultuous time..similar to today...the D's rode into the decade high and mighty...from FDR to LBJ the Dems accomplished many of their social goals...but when Vietnam split the country the D's simply got carried away. They became perceived as the party of the FAR left and the word liberal became a pejorative.

Now the R's have been high and mighty for three decades since the "Reagan Revolution". Times are tough, two unfunded wars, Bush as a horrible borrow and spend R, and the R's are reacting like the D's in the 60's..swinging hard to their base on the right.

Perhaps the country is center right.
Palin, Gingrich, Bachmann, Angle, Paul et al are not Center right...they're to the right of Reagan himself...they have gone soooo far to the right there is no compromise. And just as the R's started slowly giving us centrists like Nixon and Ford...even Reagan did not govern nearly as far on the right as his rhetoric...now the Dems are responding by trying to be "centrist". Perhaps it's all simply part of the ebb and flow over the long haul.

Then again perhaps our parties are about to shatter. The tea party is certainly far to the right of the country as a whole with growing unfavorables...if they should succeed in splitting the R constituency...perhaps there will be a real "progressive" party for people like myself and wbgonne.

The election is 8 weeks away and I'm already sick of having to vote against someone instead of for someone.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Don't we have anything more pressing than Rahm Emanuel (RAHM!) to fret about, BTW?

Posted by: CalD | September 8, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Once again, Mr Sargent's depiction of something lacks a benchmark definition.

here's the money quote:
"Obama didn't govern from the far left: Health care reform and even Wall Street reform were arguably moderate solutions to serious crises that demanded urgent attention. "

The use of the word moderate requires either a definition or a large dose of salt.

both can well be viewed as problematic by the public. There was no "urgency" to healthcare reform. America had worked well under the existing system. Creating urgency was just a way to shepherd a very unpopular approach through congress. The American people saw that and the Democrat response was legislative shenanigans and racist slanders.

the wall street reform bill was written by a man whose ethics are so questionable that he simply could not be re elected in that bastion of liberality, CT.

If the Dems want to run on the urgency of the finance reform they expose themselves to all manner of counter attack. Where was the SEC when all of this was going on? What was the role of the CRA? Of Fannie and Freddie? What of Chris Dodd's admission that how this will work is virtually unknown?

What is missing in the liberal response to the current situation is an understanding of the American sense of value for money. Many simply don't think they are getting their money's worth out of DC or their local governments. The anger is real.

but by all means, make a case that Obama's solutions have been moderate.

One more thing, running on a platform of "it coulda been worse" is just about the weakest approach I can imagine. The data mitigates against the promises Obama made and the money hasn't actually done anything much to benefit the people.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 8, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"the wall street reform bill was written by"

No it wasn't.

Dodd delegated issues to bipartisan teams.

Liar.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

All, I botched this post a bit. It isn't supposed to be about Rahm. That was just the jumping off point to the larger themes...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 8, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"Wasn't a center-right country in 2008. These things shift."

That's because only ~40% of the population votes in any given election.

The vast majority of Americans simply don't care about -- or don't understand, or don't WANT to understand -- politics.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama isn't going to replace Rahm with a Republican.

Posted by: maritza1 | September 8, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"Over time, there's a good chance the public will agree, and come to see these things as achievements."

************************

Sayyyyy....Isn't that the same thing Dubya & Cheney say about invading Iraq?

Obama is toast! LOL!

Posted by: pmendez | September 8, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

We have officially moved past declaring the elections lost and now are speculating how much Democrats will scamper.

I'm beginning to wonder if the left is celebrating the losses because they certain seem eager to push the narrative.

There's no freaking way that Obama is going to choose a Republican as his chief of staff. Whoever started that rumor has jumped the shark in liberal victimhood. Give me a break.

Posted by: Beeliever | September 8, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama should freak the right out and hire Jeremiah Wright. 'Not God bless this staff meeting...God damn this staff meeting! It says so in the Bible!'

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 8, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

UPDATE, 2:45 p.m.: As Barbara Morrill points out, some Dems are already predicting that Dem losses will force them to embrace bipartisan cooperation to make angry voters happy.


_______________________________

Isn't that what Obama and the democrats promised the nation in the first place ???


So what is the problem ???

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 8, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"...a lot of consternation on the Internets..."

Is that a bunch of pipes?

Posted by: hisroc | September 8, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan...."The vast majority of Americans simply don't care about -- or don't understand, or don't WANT to understand -- politics."

Wow you're depressing me even more than Greg :-(

Alas I can't really disagree with your observation.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I think you lefties should keep pushing for higher taxes and more regulation. Eventually people will come around. And I mean, the economy has to come around on its own at some point, right? That's what you jobkillers were counting on wasn't it? Also you should call your political opponents racists more often.

Posted by: RecriminyCricket | September 8, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

I know that it's a common back and forth to conjecture whether the country is "center right" or "center left" but isn't it entirely possible that the country is actually just "center"...."middle of the road"...truly moderate?

Sure, the country can swerve back and forth slightly to the left or to the right, depending on the individual issue, but in my opinion, most within the media are pretty lousy at determining the actual mood of the country.

For example, have we actually all forgotten how much of an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY it was going to be that Hillary Clinton was going to win the Democratic nomination? The media had themselves completely convinced of that "fact" and wouldn't let go of it, no matter what....until the very last moment when the final votes came in at the convention.

So politically speaking, I think most of the media are not particularly reliable when they make their premature pronouncements and get going on their latest narrative.

(And Greg, I don't mean that as a criticism of you. It was Adam's glaring headline last week that the Democrats were certain to have a bloodbath that got me remembering the Hillary predictions.)

Anyway, last point, as pertains to your excellent article here. The common thread I keep reading is CLINTON. It was Bill Clinton's philosophy to create the DLC and the Blue dogs, and it's not surprising that it's the Clintonites who are already loudly trumpeting how the Dems need to move more center right. And they will continue to do that, no matter how the election turns out. After all, most of the progressive initiatives that Obama has tried to put forth have been thwarted by the conservative Dems, as much or more than by the GOP.

But isn't it a bit hilarious....especially considering that some of the biggest and loudest voices on the left have repeatedly argued that Obama isn't liberal enough......but Hillary would be more progressive and liberal if she had been elected!

Posted by: elscott | September 8, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Let me be clear:


Who are the democrats REALLY at odds with ?


Is it the Republicans? OR is the the segment of the population which was FOOLED by Obama in 2008 and now refuses to support democrats now ???

May I advance - the democrats are REALLY angry at that segment which was fooled by Obama's silly rhetoric in 2008, Obama's BETRAYAL of the American People - and now those voters REFUSE to have anything to do with Obama and the democrats.


THAT is the problem - NOTHING ELSE.

The Republicans are the Repubicans and they have always been the Republicans.

The democrats should be ACCOUNTABLE - oh isn't that something else Obama said in 2008 ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 8, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

"liberal victimhood"

Apparently, this is the meme du jour for DLC Dems. Whatever. Democrats don't need Liberals. I'm sure plenty of Conservatives and Republicans will vote for GOP-lite and the Dems will do just fine. Uh-huh.

I mean what is WRONG with Liberals? Who wouldn't like getting lied to, betrayed and insulted? It is so inspiring and motivating that I can't believe Liberals aren't enthusiastic about the Democratic Party.

Rahm Emmanuel and his DLC ilk have in less than 2 years wrecked the most promising Democratic Administration in 50 years. Worse, they have gravely damaged the country at a time of peril. I hope the Conservadems are happy and proud and ready to move the party further Right to "compromise" and be "non-partisan." They are either incredible chumps or just another wing of the plutocracy. My money's on the latter.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 8, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats need to learn that the Republicans care only about the Republicans. They have absolutely no interest in this country, the citizens of this country or working to improve the lot of Americans.

It's party before country every step of the way. 100%. It's the rich fooling the goobs in the midwest and the south into voting in the best interest of the rich - and nothing more.

The mistake the Democrats made was trying to work with the Republicans. But you simply cannot work with a group whose primary goal is to see the other party and the country fail.

And Limbaugh was speaking the truth when he said he wanted Obama and America to fail. The failure of our nation would bring a cheap political opportunity for the Republicans. And this was worth trashing America for in their eyes.

Posted by: Deirdre_K | September 8, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"Isn't that what Obama and the democrats promised the nation in the first place ???"

They did and delivered.

YOUR party was too busy trying to turn every issue into Obama's Waterloo.

It takes two to tango. Obama and the Democrats reached out their hands on issue after issue and the Republicans have done nothing but try to bite that hand clean off.

I guess in the feeble "conservative" mind, "bipartisanship" means Democrats doing everything the GOP way.

Of course, that is not bipartisanship.

Bipartisanship is sitting down at the table together and hammering out solutions.

The Republican Party couldn't be further away from a partner on substantive issues. They are the cause of most of America's problems, so naturally they are opposed to forming solutions to those problems.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, you hurl insults from behind the protective cover of anonymity. That's just not very manly of you. It is small and weak. In many ways I am reminded of the Spencer Ackerman rants on the disclosed journolist emails. Strong words from a weak man.

Further your argument is juvenile. Dodd delegates and therefore he isn't responsible for the content of the bill that bears his name? Is that really your POV? That won't fly. I am responsible for the work I do, and for the work that I have done via others in my name. Real adults understand that Ethan. Therefore you've simply supported the point I made in paragraph one here.

the fact remains, the bill bears the name of a man whose ethics are so shady that he cannot even get re elected in a state that is awash in liberals. In addition, he stated that no one will know how the bill works until after it is implemented. What he's saying there is, for a change, the truth. The unelected, unaccountable, unfireable bureaucracies in DC have to issue vast sums of new CFR pages to make all this happen. And all the while the regulatory regime that was in place failed us. Which brings us back to the value proposition. What's the point of an expensive federal government if it keeps failing its citizens?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 8, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

DID you see the LINEUP of WaPo columnists today?

All in a row, seven (7) of them blasting Obama in their headlines. Not very subtle.

WaPo hollaring big...NO TAXES FOR THE WEALTHY. NO TAXES FOR WALL STREET. LET THE GREEEDY BOYS RIDE! (And bomb Iran)
Perfect. Just what you expect from this
zionist rag.
Increasingly obvious even to the unwashed.

Posted by: whistling | September 8, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I'd only add that some Beltway Dems are already making this case.

___________________________________


This case has been made all along - it was Obama who was promising to govern from the center (bipartisan) in 2008

After the Scott Brown election - the case was made nothing is new.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 8, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"Alas I can't really disagree with your observation."

Sorry to add to your misgivings, RUK.

It is unfortunately true that most Americans are tuned out.

Honestly though, CAN YOU BLAME 'EM?

All they see is the condition of the country and the bitter war between two parties who are motivated largely by huge sums of money.

Our political system is totally broken and our country is a frigging joke on so many levels. But that's apparently how "we" want it.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I'd only add that some Beltway Dems are already making this case.


__________________________________


Rahm Emanuel has been making this case all along


So, if this is the time when Rahm finally wins his policy differences - why is this the time for Rahm to leave??


THAT part of the Rahm story makes no sense.


NO SENSE - IF this is the thinking, then Rahm is the guy to stay, not leave.

With all due respect to everyone involves, Rahm is NO Mayor Daley - and there is no reason to follow that act.


For some reason, Daley wants out, maybe he thinks he will be sent to Europe as an Ambassador.

But the QUESTION is why would Rahm want to do this ? He has a higher position in Washington now - and he could go to a cabinet Secretary if he wanted - so this makes no sense for Rahm.


These people in the White House right now - they have made so MANY mistakes - and offended so much of the electorate, they are capable of ALL SORTS OF STUPID MOVES.


But this doesn't seem like one of them.


Chicago is nice - it is beautiful - but why would Rahm want to go to Chicago City Hall every day and argue with Aldermen - when he has already been Chief of Staff in sunny, balmy Washington?

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 8, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Great idea to pick a Republican to replace
Emanuel! Hqw about Karl Rove? Or Tom Delay? Or even Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin or Joe McCarthy? Yeah, Great Idea!

Posted by: rj2z | September 8, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Ahhhh! The Gang that couldn't shoot straight!!

Posted by: jjcrocket14 | September 8, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"Dodd delegates and therefore he isn't responsible for the content of the bill that bears his name?"

It was SUPPOSED to be the Dodd-Shelby Bill, remember? Shelby backed out because the GOP is wholly owned by the financial industry and when the industry realized that the bill actually meant strong reform they went nuts and flooded D.C. with lobbyists.

You can read this if you have any bit of intellectual honesty left (which I'm sure you don't):

* House Republicans Huddle With Lobbyists to Kill Financial Reform Bill *

http://www.rollcall.com/news/41311-1.html

I guess you "forgot" about that.

I don't know who's the bigger fool: YOU or anyone who believes a single word that a liar like you says. Unfortunately, America has plenty of both.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 at 3:21

Obama promised to be bipartisan - which meant he would do the heavy lifting to compromise with the Republicans and arrive at CENTRIST policies


Obama promised to be post-racial - NOT have the country ENDURE years of False Charges of Racism

So clearly NOTHING is "did and delivered."

You can lie all you want - but most the electorate agrees with me.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 8, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I don't see Obama picking a Republican as Chief of Staff. But I am fascinated to learn from "wbgonne" that Rahm Emanuel already is a Republican! Here I thought that your side claims to be the reality-based one ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 8, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Only a far-left liberal would think that a center-right country will eventually appreciate far-left policies. The public has spoken. Your policies have failed. We refudiate you.

Posted by: bellagrazi | September 8, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Just when things seemed to be turning around for the Dems--a Gallup Poll showing them doing much better, several polls of House races closer than we had been led to believe, Obama starting to campaign seriously for his programs and for Dems, unending craziness from GOP candidates--now all of a sudden the election is over and the Dems lost bigger than ever! Coincidence? Maybe not.

This is all just Washington BS by the lazy, selfish pundit class who doesn't want to see their taxes go up. And Obama picking a Republican for COS? That is just crazy. If the Dems lose it is because of the economy and lack of enthusiasm by the voters who put them in in 2008. You don't address that by moving to the center-right.

Meanwhile the melting of the Arctic sea ice continues unabated http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/08/arctic-sea-ice-history-paleoclimate-polar-amplification/#more-26759 and we are facing very severe changes very soon. The German military believes we have hit peak oil. And to deal with these problems we are putting in the party that thinks global warming is a hoax and the oil will last forever. Just great.

Thank the gods there is innovation in Europe and China. Our time is over. The Koch brothers won't live to see it, but their younger contrarian followers will.

Posted by: Mimikatz | September 8, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

I'm a bit peeved by the baseless assumption that Rahm Emmanuel WILL be the next Mayor of Chicago. Seems all of you Beltway pundits assume its a matter of him being appointed rather than him actually winning a Democratic primary, for starters.

He's gonna take a look at what will be a very crowded field of formidable challengers - and then take a pass. Rahm is not an automatic and he brings baggage that does not endear himself to the Progressive base in this city.

Posted by: bmcchgo | September 8, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Well I finally believe all the people who told me Obama was playing 11th dimensional chess. The problem was he's playing against us and not for us.

Or

Bush once said he wouldn't negotiate with himself. Obama negotiates with himself but loses every time.

ta ta

Posted by: JTinAlex | September 8, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

c/o Benen:

"Did the United States grow more unequal while Republicans were in power? It sounds crude, but Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels has gone a long way toward proving it. Bartels looked up income growth rates for families at various income percentiles for the years 1948 to 2005, then cross-checked these with whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat. He found two distinct and opposite trends. Under Democrats, the biggest income gains were for people in the bottom 20th income percentile (2.6 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further up the income scale (2.5 percent for the 40th and 60th percentiles, 2.4 percent for the 80th percentile, and so on). But under Republicans, the biggest income gains were for people in the 95th percentile (1.9 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further down the income scale (1.4 percent for the 80th percentile, 1.1 for the 60th percentile, etc.)."

Also note, there's not only a difference in who benefits most, there's also a straight-up difference between the parties: under the GOP, the very wealth benefit more; under Dems, the middle and lower classes see their incomes grow more. But in literally every category, Americans do better under Democratic administrations than Republican.

Check out the chart, INCREDIBLE:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/income_graph.jpg

Article:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025578.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"Thank the gods there is innovation in Europe and China. Our time is over. The Koch brothers won't live to see it, but their younger contrarian followers will."

I agree with you and it breaks my heart.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 8, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama is making the economy worse, not better.


Clearly, Obama claims he has all "new" ideas - but they are all BAD IDEAS.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 8, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

one more time for good measure:

"in literally every category, Americans do better under Democratic administrations than Republican"

more here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025578.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

@ejs2-

I agree about polling vis-a-vis individual positions/issues. The thing is, a) when the economy is bad the party in power suffers and b) the Right demonizes the Left in a broad sense with all the "socialist/evil librul" bullsh*t, so, its all a part of the disconnect between an inherent progressiveness in the average person juxtaposed with their suseptability to fearmongering. Which the Right has identified and exploited ad infinitum.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 8, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama's been center-right from the first day. Turning health care over to Baucus and the insurance companies, feeding the military-industrial complex, throwing money at Wall Street..............just for starters. Only a moron or an ideologue would say he governed from the left, and morons and ideologues seem to be the order of the day.

Posted by: rusty3 | September 8, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Mimi:

And this is just how great cultures die: they rot from the inside. The concentration of wealth and power becomes so dense that it sucks everything inside it like a black hole. Nothing matters but sating the plutocracy. America is there.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 8, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

It is not a question of whether Boehner and the Republicans have new ideas - it is a question of who has GOOD IDEAS.


Obama is completely out of touch - he doesn't understand economics.


Economics really not something to be a part of rhetoric - Economics is about what is the best policy choice for the economy.

Obama has it all wrong.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 8, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

bellagrazi:

AMEN!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 8, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama's been center-right from the first day. Turning health care over to Baucus and the insurance companies, feeding the military-industrial complex, throwing money at Wall Street..............just for starters. Only a moron or an ideologue would say he governed from the left, and morons and ideologues seem to be the order of the day.

Posted by: rusty3 | September 8, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Go see the chart Ethan links to, and find your percentile. It is devastating. It really shows that Barnum was right and the GOP really knows how to exploit that.

Posted by: Mimikatz | September 8, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

All, check out this new Harry Reid campaign video blasting Sharron Angle in her own words:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 8, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Greg has it exactly wrong. Obama/Pelosi did misread their mandate and have governed far Left. The november tsunami will be due to (1) high unemployment and belief the economy is not trending upward (2) legislation passed that's viewed as too ideologically Left (3) the manner in which the legislation was passed; the appearance of rank power grabbing and parlimnentary tricks (e.g. deem and pass), and most important (4) legislation the Dems still have in the hopper that they've SWORN to pass, like Cap & Trade, Card Check, immigrant amnesty, etc.

The bottom line is Independents have concluded Obama/Pelosi are rank ideologues who used their fillibuster proof majorities to ram through as much legislation, as far to the Left as possible, as quickly as possible. I've never seen people so scared.

Posted by: JohnR22 | September 8, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

bmchccgo at 3:46


You are correct - Rahm's old district is nothing like Chicago as a whole.


In addition, Rahm was never known for connecting with the electorate.


This is a completely different animal for Rahm.


Plus - besides the ethnic neighborhoods which Rahm never really had in his district, he has the unions to contend with.

Rahm could go run and lose miserably.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 8, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Well..in a perhaps futile attempt to brighten the day....again politics is like a pendulum...this could be the last hurrah for the R's. What if they elect a majority and in that majority you not only have Bachmann but other certifiables like Angle, Paul and the rest.

What are they going to do. Spend their entire time investigating and trying to impeach Obama. Perhaps floating some of Paul Ryan, Sharron Angle and Rand Paul's plans to dismantle social security...medicare? Brag about urinating away over a trillion dollars and counting and arguably the stupidest war in our nation's history..really...the worst thing for R's is if the focus actually did shift back to them. It may need to get uglier before it finally gets better.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "Also note, there's not only a difference in who benefits most, there's also a straight-up difference between the parties: under the GOP, the very wealth benefit more; under Dems, the middle and lower classes see their incomes grow more."

Then the Democrats are idiots. If they can't win elections when everything gets better for everybody when they are in power, and worse for everybody except the super rich when they are out of power, then that (the economic improvement) clearly happens be sheer dumb luck.

Because if they aren't smart enough to turn that into electoral victories they clearly aren't smart enough to actually be working all the knobs and levers of the economy and getting to those good economic outcomes on purpose. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 8, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"Dem losses this fall will be largely due to the economy and unemployment, which would have been far worse today without the stimulus. "

Greg Sargent's beliefs fall into the category of unfalsifiable presumptions, aka, religion.

Posted by: pijacobsen | September 8, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: "Well..in a perhaps futile attempt to brighten the day....again politics is like a pendulum...this could be the last hurrah for the R's."

Highly unlikely. Pendulums swing back and forth, and when there are only two choices, people will alternate between those two choices. We may have strong political opinions, but the reality is the American public is, as a whole, a playah. They've never been a one woman man, so to speak. So, the Republicans will win. Then they will lose. Then the Democrats will win. And then they will lose. Ad infinitum. I don't see the Whigs making a comeback in our lifetime.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 8, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The journolist folks keeping missing the point.

They endlessly repeat that unemployment would be higher today if the stimulus had not passed. That is probably true. The stimulus was spent largely to keep overcompensated public employees on the payroll. That did help the overall unemployment rate. What the stimulus did not do is to lower the unemployment rate in the private sector. But even that is not the point.

What is the stimulus going to do in the future? The higher taxes and or interest rates caused by borrowing a trillion dollars is going to suppress private sector growth for years. Eventually, the federal government is going to have to stop bailing out the states and the public employees that the states cannot afford will be laid off.

So if the journolist tells that unemployment would 12% instead of 10% in 2010 don't argue with them. Wait until next year when the unemployment rate is 12% instead of the 7% it would have been without the stimulus and let them argue with everyone else.

Posted by: TECWRITE | September 8, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent is the guy who is so detached from reality that he keeps telling Obama the airline pilot to dive faster even as his Administration augurs into the ground. The same guy in every socialist system who even as the economic disaster intensifies, insists that it is not ENOUGH socialism that is killing the economy, not too much. This is what happens when you merge religious impulses with political and economic theory, and it has never been pretty.

Posted by: pijacobsen | September 8, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TECWRITE | September 8, 2010 4:12 PM

"So if the journolist tells that unemployment would 12% instead of 10% in 2010 don't argue with them. Wait until next year when the unemployment rate is 12% instead of the 7% it would have been without the stimulus and let them argue with everyone else."

And when the unemployment rate hits 12 percent, the Journolistas will tell you that it would have been 15 percent (oh what the hell, pick your number!) without our glorious President's visionary stimulus program! There's really no arguing with religion, don't even try. Just feel glad that it's restricted to the fringes.


Posted by: pijacobsen | September 8, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin...I was referring to long term power here...certainly parties have been in and out from election to election...and the American public has historically shown more comfort splitting that power between the W.H. and Congress with one party holding one while the other gets whatever's left.

My point is not that the R's are going the way of the Whigs...but that in a larger sense...the Dems held sway from FDR to JFK.
Yeah Ike was in the middle and some Congressional wins for the R's but by and large the Dems held sway for those 40 years.

In 1980 Reagan ushered in a largely R era.
Yeah Clinton was sandwiched in there...and the Congress vacillated somewhat but in the larger sense the past 30 years have been basically the R's halcyon years.

That is the pendulum I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting the R's will never again claim the W.H. or Congress...I'm suggesting that this turn to the far right will mark the return of the Dems..overall.
Certainly there will be R victories sprinkled in...including the W.H.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

more childish words from a boy who knows he bears no consequences for the insults he hurls. How sad and damaging to the environment here.

Sorry Ethan, but bombast aside, the bill bears his name. It is his.

And have you checked out who the financial industry donates to lately? I guess not.

This is from opensecrets.com:
"Between 1996 and 2004, the majority of donations from the securities and investment industry to federal candidates and parties went to the GOP, but the industry changed its tune in 2006, giving 53 percent of donations to Democratic candidates and parties. During the run-up to the 2008 elections, these companies gave 57 percent of their contributions to Democrats. The shift may reflect the industry’s efforts to maintain political clout with a Democratic-controlled Washington, D.C. Security and investment companies contributed $154.9 million to federal campaigns during the 2008 cycle, more than double the donations of the previous two years"

But rather than bore you with, you know, actual facts, let's just think about this for a moment: Where, Ethan, do many of the successful wall streeters live? Hmmmm?

If you said "Connecticut" you won!! ding, ding, ding. And yet Dodd can't get re elected there. What does that tell you about who owns whom?

Hurling insults is a childish way to argue. This is especially true when what you're arguing is simply not true.

Oh and have you counted the number of Goldman Sachs folks are in the Obama admin lately?

spare me the infantile schoolyard bluster. It is meaningless. Gather some facts and get back to me with those.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 8, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

@TECwrite...thanks for putting journolist in your first sentence. Save us the time from reading another inanane post...alas pj you couldn't be so kind..I had to wait until I got to "socialist system" before I realized you were an ignoramus.

Socialism -: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

You cannot name one specific instance of Obama or Pelosi advocating collective or governmental ownership...perhaps you refer to the LOAN to GM...it's getting paid back with interest the government didn't take over...perhaps you mean HCR...that would show what a truly uneducated person you are PJ!!

Do you know the difference between private insurance, single payer, and socialized medicine. Do you know we ALREADY have all three systems in our country and the socialized system actually gets the highest marks for performance and customer satisfaction. Can you identify them. Didn't think so.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The funniest part of this hilarious piece of leftist garbage by Greg Sargent is this “UPDATE, 2:45 p.m.: As Barbara Morrill points out, some Dems are already predicting that Dem losses will force them to embrace bipartisan cooperation to make angry voters happy.”

This one statement shows not only the rank arrogance of the loony left, but also that they never did or will move to embrace bi-partisanship for the benefit of anything other than political gain. The new radical progressive socialist democrat party is devoid of integrity and absent intelligence.

On the plus side the progressive socialists are toast starting this November and running right into 2012! We won’t have to worry about these loons for a very long time thanks to obama and his idiotic, regressive and anti-American policies. That means that America and Americans win!

Posted by: SayWhat5 | September 8, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

The war amongst Democrats is already joined. It is between the globalization-free trade-job outsourcing fools connected with Wall Street and the anti-free trade-stop job outsourcing-anti- guest worker- jobs and America first rank and file. The elitists, under Obama, the Clinton's and related fools have helped run this country into a ditch. Their economic and foreign policies are identical to those of Bush. We mean to not just stop hem, but to put an end to their influence on our party forever. That will entail crushing them in November, scalding and burning the party right down to the ground. But, unless we do this, liberalism is lost forever.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 8, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

How about Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell for Chief of Staff.

Posted by: dozas | September 8, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm with Greg Sargent on this! Why would any member of the Arrogant Left Wing Elites currently running our country compromise any of their principal to make the voters of this nation happy? We all know that average American voters are too stupid to be allowed to make decision by themselves when you've got Obama, Pelsoi, and Reid to make their decisions for them. To heck with stupid average American voters, and full steam ahead with the left wing remaking of America!!!

Posted by: valwayne | September 8, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Replacing a corporate sell out like Rahm with a Republican would make zero policy difference. It would, as many in the Professional left have suggested, nearly guarantee a primary challenge for Obama. If he has any hope of resurrecting his presidency he needs to stop treating his base like ignorant sheep. It's long past time for him to start fighting for what he campaigned on, and replacing Rahm with a real Democrat and a fighter would be a good start.

Contrary to the conventional beltway and comment board opinion, I firmly believe that Obama is in trouble not becuase he programs were too bold or too left wing, but because they were too watered down by attempts to appease obstructionist republicans and corporate stooges like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Rahm Emmanuel. Had Obama fought for single payer health care, real Wall Street reform and real job creating stimulus (all that had broad public support in spite of what the belteway media said) he would be far more popular, and the country would have been far better off today.

Posted by: pblotto | September 8, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Skippy:

* House Republicans Huddle With Lobbyists to Kill Financial Reform Bill *

http://www.rollcall.com/news/41311-1.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

The funniest part of this hilarious piece of leftist garbage by Greg Sargent is this “UPDATE, 2:45 p.m.: As Barbara Morrill points out, some Dems are already predicting that Dem losses will force them to embrace bipartisan cooperation to make angry voters happy.”

This one statement shows not only the rank arrogance of the loony left, but also that they never did or will move to embrace bipartisanship for the benefit of anything other than political gain. The new radical progressive socialist democrat party is devoid of integrity and absent intelligence.

On the plus side the progressive socialists are toast starting November and running right into 2012! We won’t have to worry about these loons for a very long time thanks to obama and his idiotic, regressive and anti-American policies. That means that America and Americans win!

Posted by: SayWhat5 | September 8, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: pblotto | September 8, 2010 4:43 PM

"Contrary to the conventional beltway and comment board opinion, I firmly believe that Obama is in trouble not becuase he programs were too bold or too left wing, but because they were too watered down by attempts to appease obstructionist republicans..blah...blah...blahh"

Have an original thought, will you? This is nothing but Greg Sargent's post regurgitated. Every true believer, especially those on the left, believes that every failure is due to not being a strong enough believer in the one-and-only True Religion. Every socialist believes that the answer to the economic failures of lukewarm socialism is a more pure version of socialism. Pol Pot murdered millions because he believed they had been poisoned by capitalist indoctrination and true socialism could never be achieved unless the contamination was eliminated. Mao believed that a Cultural Revolution was needed to purge the Party of impure, not fully socialist elements. Give up yoru religion already.

Posted by: pijacobsen | September 8, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

As a Republican I can only hope you are extremely successful in helping all Democrats believe your delusional ranting that this Democratic agenda will somehow be viewed favorably.

Obamacare is due to INCREASE the cost of insurance and REDUCE quality of care for all...where is the good in that?

Democrats supported cap-and-tax, card-check and business regulation (ie reporting all transactions in excess of $600 and the moratorium on drilling) that makes it harder for US business to create wealth and jobs...where is the good in that?

Democrats stole the wealth of bondholders in GM & Chrysler to give to the unions, in violation of US laws....how will this encourage investors to invest in US companies or create jobs in this country?

Bush repeatedly asked for stricter mortgage regulation. The Democratic Congress (including Sen Obama) refused to act. Dem. Chris Dodd took a cut rate mortgage from Countrywide while Dem. Barney Frank insisted that there was no chance of a housing meltdown; all the while this Democratic congress insisted that loans be made tho those who could not afford to repay.

These Democratic polices caused the economic collapse we now are in. These policies demonstrate exactly why Democratic/Obama philosophy, to let the government control business is fundamentally flawed. Obama and Dems have stopped the free market from creating jobs!

Posted by: ELF2 | September 8, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

As a Republican I can only hope you are extremely successful in helping all Democrats believe your delusional ranting that this Democratic agenda will somehow be viewed favorably.

Obamacare is due to INCREASE the cost of insurance and REDUCE quality of care for all...where is the good in that?

Democrats supported cap-and-tax, card-check and business regulation (ie reporting all transactions in excess of $600 and the moratorium on drilling) that makes it harder for US business to create wealth and jobs...where is the good in that?

Democrats stole the wealth of bondholders in GM & Chrysler to give to the unions, in violation of US laws....how will this encourage investors to invest in US companies or create jobs in this country?

Bush repeatedly asked for stricter mortgage regulation. The Democratic Congress (including Sen Obama) refused to act. Dem. Chris Dodd took a cut rate mortgage from Countrywide while Dem. Barney Frank insisted that there was no chance of a housing meltdown; all the while this democratic congress insisted that loans be made tho those who could not afford to repay. These Democratic polices caused the economic collapse we now are in. These policies demonstrate exactly why Democratic/Obama philosophy, to let the government control business is fundamentally flawed. Obama and Dems have stopped the free market from creating jobs!

Posted by: ELF2 | September 8, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

This whole writing is hilarious. First, the nation views Obama as having governed from the Left, so no matter what you "progressives" think (which is pretty much always in a smug, elitist bubble), the nation views it a different way entirely. For as much talk as there is about the Republicans being only interested in politics and not bipartisanship, open your eyes and see that the Republicans were merely representing the MAJORITY of us who HATE the heatlhcare bill you "progressives" passed. That is what they are suppose to do, represent us. The Democrats, save a few, failed to represent the majority of their constituents which AREN'T far left elitist jerks. I know how you "progressives" think are and I know your ideas. I went to one of your schools and had to listen to your dribble BS and I've always lived in areas where you are politically dominant. It amazes me the lies you tell people to get them to support your historically failed ideas and policies.

Secondly, this man continuing to govern from the left is political suicide. So please, go for it. The "progressives" are a very small part of the electoral pie and a lot of them are too stoned or just lazy to make it to the poles. The "progressive" reliance on the youth vote and the degenerate vote (of any race...before your start calling someone a racist again) is laughable. Most of these groups are too busy trying to find a job as a result of big government policies that have collapsed the economy (or drinking and doing drugs). Only the ignorant or blind blame the GOP. We NEVER operated from laizze faire economics. We have not since WW2 and arguably long before. This is exactly what we need though to return to prosperity. But we won't get it.

It will be nice to see "progressivism" completely shot to the earth. These arrogant know-it-alls need a dose of humble pie.

Posted by: CA-Libertarian | September 8, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

As per a recent Gallup poll, only 18% of Americans identify as liberals while 40% identify as conservatives and the remainder as moderates. Please Obama, do not move the center! Please stay as an out of touch liberal for the rest of your single term in office! If you move to the center you may actually get a clue and discover that your and Pelosi's views are counter to those of more than 80% of Americans!

Posted by: BPCHI | September 8, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

You "progressives" enjoy smelling your own excrement and then consuming it all over again so much that you can't even get the concept that America HATES you and your far left policies. We see through your lies, manipulations, power grabs, wealth redistribution tactics, all of it. You are right up there with every other failed movement of elists with little credability. The most amusing is how you attack anyone who challenges your dumb ideas as racist. Please. Go back to your liberal arts school you pansies.

Posted by: CA-Libertarian | September 8, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"Obamacare is due to INCREASE the cost of insurance"

Let's say a slice of pizza costs $1 today.

Let's say that same slice of pizza will cost $5 in a month.

Let's say you could make a deal with the pizza guy to buy a slice of pizza in a month for $2.50.

Which would you prefer one month from now, ELF, the $5 slice or the $2.50 slice?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The coming war among the Democrats probably won't be as interesting as the takeover of the Republicans by the Teabaggers. Then again, the Republicans are clueless so it may not be all that exciting after all.

Posted by: arancia12 | September 8, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

CA-liberterian...Your mama raised a real gem..."You "progressives" enjoy smelling your own excrement and then consuming it all over again so much that you can't even get the concept that America HATES,"

At least you reveal your true personality with your own emphasis...HATES...sad day for your momma dude unless she too was an absolute hater.

Generally we like intelligent discussion on this blog..you must be lost..try red state or drudge so you can hang out with the rest of the haters. Or perhaps you can catch a flight to Gainesville Florida for Saturday night's Quran burning..you'd be right at home with the inbreds there.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: arancia12 | September 8, 2010 5:17 PM

"The coming war among the Democrats probably won't be as interesting as the takeover of the Republicans by the Teabaggers. Then again, the Republicans are clueless so it may not be all that exciting after all."

You've got a good point there, actually. The Tea Party elements, or the "teabaggers" as you classily call them, are going to reform the Republican Party, and we're going to kick out the Charlie Crists, the Lisa Murkowsky's, the Mitch McConnells, and every other time-serving, self-aggrandizing parasite that has used the Republican label to build themselves a nice cozy nest at the expense of the wealth-building core of our nation. Then we're going to come for you lefty folks.


Posted by: pijacobsen | September 8, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

If the Republicans take back Congress (which is by no means certain despite the MSM’s best efforts to call the election two months before a single vote is cast) I’m sure that Democrats like Holy Joe Lieberman will cross the Isle and declare themselves to be Republicans. I’m sure that other Democrats will wail and tear their garments and agree to cut taxes for the rich, scale back Social Security so that we can all retire when we’re 75 (or dead) and eviscerate Medicare. They will call for “center right” policies knowing full well that this will put us on the road to decreasing living standards for the middle class to shore up the portfolios of the super rich. But after two years of Republican control of Congress with unemployment going up, exports declining, health care costs spiraling out of control, impeachment hearings looming and the ground work being laid for yet another war in the middle-east, we will then elect more and better Democrats in 2012. Perhaps the country needs to be punished by a little more Republican misrule before we finally learn that the policies of Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush just don’t work, no matter how long or how hard you try to make them work or no matter how hard you pretend that they work.

Posted by: codexjust1 | September 8, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Christ, does this explain a lot, or what? Note the guy was the senior economic policy analyst! As if you couldn't have guessed that!


Barbara Boxer aide charged with possession of pot

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41897.html#ixzz0yyZ42avN

Posted by: pijacobsen | September 8, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Let me make a suggestion to Democrats about 2012. Please select another presidential candidate besides Obama. The 2010 election will be a mandate about Obama personally and how you are too far left. Use the 2010 election as a positive thing to put yourself back into the middle because there are a ton of moderates and liberals who aren't happy with right wing Republican policies or the craziness of the left wing Obama years. If you can chart a center ground path you will probably take 2012 and make up for lost ground.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | September 8, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

If the Republicans take back Congress (which is by no means certain despite the MSM’s best efforts to call the election two months before a single vote is cast) I’m sure that Democrats like Holy Joe Lieberman will cross the Isle and declare themselves to be Republicans. I’m sure that other Democrats will wail and tear their garments and agree to cut taxes for the rich, scale back Social Security so that we can all retire when we’re 75 (or dead) and eviscerate Medicare. They will call for “center right” policies knowing full well that this will put us on the road to decreasing living standards for the middle class to shore up the portfolios of the super rich. But after two years of Republican control of Congress with unemployment going up, exports declining, health care costs spiraling out of control, impeachment hearings looming and the ground work being laid for yet another war in the middle-east, we will then elect more and better Democrats in 2012. Perhaps the country needs to be punished by a little more Republican misrule before we finally learn that the policies of Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush just don’t work, no matter how long or how hard you try to make them work or no matter how hard you pretend that they work.

Posted by: codexjust1 | September 8, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

My goodness, I am still waiting for Sargent to write a column without gramatical or reference errors and one that is actually well written. Unless there has been a sea change in the last ten minutes, I believe there is only one Internet, not multiple Internets. It would be nice if WAPO editors or the author would proofread before publishing.

Posted by: fwillyhess | September 8, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

This is the backlash of tone deafness. It's a war well deserved. They made their socialist bed, now let them lie in it.

Posted by: houstonian | September 8, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

""Obamacare is due to INCREASE the cost of insurance"

Let's say a slice of pizza costs $1 today.

Let's say that same slice of pizza will cost $5 in a month.

Let's say you could make a deal with the pizza guy to buy a slice of pizza in a month for $2.50.

Which would you prefer one month from now, ELF, the $5 slice or the $2.50 slice?"

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 5:12 PM

You are going to make his little mind explode.

Posted by: bushidollar | September 8, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

The loony Lefties here evidently refuse to accept reality,several realites. Among which are: 1. conservatives outnumber Liberals by more than 2:1 in the USA, 2. the radically Leftist agenda of Pelosi/Obama/Reid has been rejected as unacceptable by the American people, 3. the elections to be held 2 November are an opportunity for conservatives to demonstrate their dissatisfaction & they're going to utilize that opportunity.

Posted by: LoachDriver | September 8, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Run along now progressives the wheels of the bus won't feel to bad.

This is what you get for slapping the Average American in the face every other day with the charges or racist and bigotry.

Maybe if you are good in a generation or so we will move the bus to let you out from under the wheels.

Posted by: PennyWisetheClown | September 8, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

All, please come check out our Happy Hour Roundup:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/happy_hour_roundup_83.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 8, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I for one personally hope that Obama takes on Sargents view if a cataclysmic defeat is in the works this November.
Misinterpreting this defeat as a failure to be left enough, will surely drown the DNC for generations to come. The DNC had a perfect opportunity to run a candidate in an almost assured victory in '08. There misinterpretation of how their ranks were swelling led to the usurpation of the agenda by left wing extremists in the party. And the totally whimsical choice of Obama as the new face of the DNC. The recoil by moderates, centrists, and independents is clearly on the basis of the naked leftism of this administration and any more aggresive progressivism would have been an even greater ground swelling in this midterm election. So have at it Sargeant go even harder left.
Because!!! He has made every piece of legislation a war and ultimately is paying a steep political price for it. Does it show up in his poll numbers? Not exactly where it does show up is in the legislatures poll numbers. His Charisma has somewhat shielded him, but his allies are in tatters. Like Don Quixote he has sacrificed his horse, his armor is beyond utility, and his sword is broken. He now will have to face a much stronger RNC and the worst part he will have to do it alone! This from a man that MUST have a teleprompter. Unless he can rise to that he is finished as a political force.

The truly comical aspect of this is Sargent's take. Being of the faction that Obama himself at least ideologically as a human being is a party to. And that is absolute red left. He believes that the masses will grow to love that ideology. But that is dead wrong. As I said the centrists have left your camp. Even the DNC troops that won't get slaughtered in this cycle will be wary of their political futures if they cleave to close to Obama (having seen what happened last go around). His only hope as a political entity is to abandon the far left progressives and at least be centrist for two years. Which may mean the progressives may stay home in 2012. But that 10% minus may turn into a 30% plus if he did so.
I tend to agree that no RNC replacement for Rahm will be in the offing. Although, it very well could prove to be an incredibly astute political move.

Posted by: bubbahercules | September 8, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

@rukidding7:

Thanks for making my point for me about how you "progressives", which America does indeed HATE btw (why do you think 33% of Union workers plan to vote for the GOP this election..you lost the working class), aer completely out of touch with reality and living in their own bubble. After the election, you may start to wake up, but most likely you will blame it on the "messaging" (sound familiar) or "republican lies". Please dude, the far left is slowly becoming completley obsolete. People want jobs so they can buy food and Obama and his drones like you were really concerned about healthcare, which is of little value if you can't eat. Fool.

Posted by: CA-Libertarian | September 8, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Why dont you talk about how Obama stated he will be puting 500,000 thousand americans in jail for opposing the governements decisions. Americans are being told to keep quite or they will put us in Jail, or even worse the United Nations will send their army in to KILL AMERICANS ... Does this sound like Liberty? Sounds like our President is threatning the American People to stand behind him and if not were going to go to jail


http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/new-obama-law-warned-will-jail-500000-americans/

Over 600 Concentration Camps in the United States have been built to put the American People in Prison if we do not agree to the New World Order... Concentration Camps: Coming soon to U.S.A. location near YOU! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L5WPmWpLm4&p=F8487CC452AD3788&playnext=1&index=14

Most of the Youtube News releases are being pulled by the Federal Government because they dont want you to know what is in store for the American People!

Posted by: starlite3463 | September 8, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Dont believe anything the Democrates say, This is an attempt to fool the Americans by making them belive they have the Americans interest at heart.

The only thing they have a heart is their own pocket books, they are telling you what the American people want to hear. Dont you believe their lies.

Posted by: starlite3463 | September 8, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Oh, please, please, PLEASE stay hard left. In fact, move harder left. Go for the single payer health care. Nationalize the factories - those that have not already left for Saigon or Shanghai. Declare rationing of anything and everything. Price controls. Yeah! Make Chavez of Venezuela look like a libertarian. Go for martial law to close down the coal mines. And don't let the door of the White House - or whatever you are calling it by then - hit you in the ... on the way out in 2012.

Posted by: danny70000 | September 8, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS A MUSLIM, AND LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT HE IS AN AMERICAN, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT HE WILL PUT A "REAL REPUBLICAN IN OFFICE"

OK MR. OBAMA, YOU WANT TO PLAY IN OUR FIELD. LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PICK THE REPUBLICAN, A CHRISTIAN MAN WHO IS A PATRIOT AND IS A GOD FEARING MAN. SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT THE UNITED STATS WAS BUILT OFF OFF.

LIFE, LIBERTY AND OUR CONSTITUTION.

YOU DO NOT RESPECT LIFE, YOU DO NOT RESPECT OUR LIBERTY, AND YOU SURELY DONT RESPECT OUR CONSTITUTION.

I JUST SAY

IMPEACH OBAMA AND REPLACE CONGRESS, GET RID OF THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!1

Posted by: starlite3463 | September 8, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: arancia12 | September 8, 2010 5:17 PM

You've got a good point there, actually. The Tea Party elements, or the "teabaggers" as you classily call them...

Posted by: pijacobsen
__________

Dearest Pi, the founder of the movement called it a Teabag movement, not I. Do you have a problem with Teabags because if you do, then you need to picket grocery stores because they have aisles with (gasp) Teabags in boxes and cans!!!

Mind in the gutter much, dude?

The Republican party will be reformed all right. But it won't be the Republican party I belonged to in my youth. It will be light years to the right of anything resembling true Republicanism.

The poor schmucks are the walking dead. Just don't know it yet. Thanks for proving my point.

Posted by: arancia12 | September 8, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

My goodness, I am still waiting for Sargent to write a column without gramatical or reference errors and one that is actually well written. Unless there has been a sea change in the last ten minutes, I believe there is only one Internet, not multiple Internets. It would be nice if WAPO editors or the author would proofread before publishing.

Posted by: fwillyhess
______________

I believe Mr. Sargent is giving a hat tip to George "I read the Internets" Bush.

Posted by: arancia12 | September 8, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

The sick irony of Barry's and the so-called Democratic congress's actions is not that they are too much and not bipartisan; quite the opposite! If there was a really single payer Health Care reform, people would be dancing in the streets and electing Democrats for life. If the Wall Street Banksters and the Financial insiders were running around in barrels then everyone, Republican and Democrats alike would be high fiving and electing Democrats for ever! And if Barry and the Democrats had really just ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ended the war on terror, ended the war on drugs and just brought all of the "troops" home, now not next year or when the "situation" allows it, then Barry and the Democrats might be canonized! No Barry, the moderate Republican, surrounded by corporate sycophants and Clinton corporatists, Wall Street insiders, and neocon wannabees has continued the worse policies of George, failed to indict and convict the sick psychopaths of George's regime, failed to get "his" party to even pretend to work together, accepted the killing actions of the Republican Senators, and not even raised a feeble "damn" over the Democratic Senators more willing to keep their useless privileges than do what is necessary to govern and too fulfill their oath to protect and serve the Constitution and the people they represent! This government is a terminal failure fulfilling the desecration of George and his Republican cronies. It is a sick, sick joke that the deluded American people could even entertain the notion of allowing a single Republican within a thousand miles of our government ever again! The slaves are buying the shackles for their own loss of freedom; they will surely deserve their fate!

Posted by: CHAOTICIAN101 | September 8, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the Bamster could ignore reality altogether; he’s doing a pretty good job of it as it is.

Posted by: davelnaf | September 8, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Sargent: "the economy and unemployment...would have been far worse today without the stimulus."

GIVE UP.

The American public is NOT buying your argument. You can't convince a nation where 17% of the voters are either unemployed or underemployed that things could be worse. For a family where the breadwinner is unemployed for a year, things cannot be any worse.

And if they're not buying it now, what is going to convince them of that 2 years from now, when the stimulus package will have long since run its course and faded from the public view?

Sargent: "What's more, Obama didn't govern from the far left: Health care reform and even Wall Street reform were arguably moderate solutions"

Was the outright nationalization of General Motors an "arguably moderate solution"? Who benefited from that, other than the United Auto Workers?

GIVE IT UP.

Nobody's buying these arguments today--that's why the Dems are in such trouble.

Posted by: sinz52 | September 8, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Please move to Sweden or how about Venezuela?

HE is a complete JOKE - an embarrassment, absolutely NO concept of Leadership. Still does not get it, and will go down fighting I'm sure..forever campaigning - pathetic. Only the Unions and the Wingbats will be there for him....Ohhhh but maybe not...because we all know that even SOME progress for you progressives is NEVER ENOUGH. Go further left thats it!!

Posted by: michelleh3 | September 8, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Michelleh3. Even after eight years of Bush's mangled speech and ridiculous policies you think the President is s a joke?

You don't get out much, do you?

You wingnuts expected a miracle workers. Remember the two wars AND tax cuts of the Bush years? Remember Bush started us down the road of stimulus spending? Remember the stock market dropped from over 11,000 to around 8,000 before Bush left office?

Of course you don't. If you had you would have been protesting two years ago. Wonder why things are different today? Party or race of the W/H occupant? Hmmmm......

Posted by: arancia12 | September 8, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is already saying that the size of our national debt will ruin the future of the country even as Obama plans to spend another 350 billion on nothing in particular (i.e. Stimulous 2).

Obama wasn't listening when President Bill Clinton said "the era of big government is over".

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | September 8, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Obama listened when GWB declared an Imperial Presidency though. Libs tried to warn you guys about the dangers of the executive with unlimited power but you guys thought Bush would be in office for life. Funny. He did too.

Posted by: arancia12 | September 8, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Oboma is just like every other politician...

--Do what the polls say.
--Do what your party members want.

The hail with what is best for the American people!

Posted by: maphound | September 8, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama has become so divisive, making derisive comments on the citizens of his own adopted country.

Posted by: horace1 | September 8, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

This must rank as the most stupidest post I've ever read from you. You float a falsity that a rethug would be the next cos and then put a lame 'that's not what I meant' update. Pathetic.

Posted by: amkeew | September 8, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Get a clue and you might check the REAL CBO facts Arancia12 before spouting the left talking points about the "wars, markets, blah blah blah"...right....you might also check out the constitution -remember that document?

It authorizes CONGRESS to budget...Democratically controlled since 2006 (yes, stay with me now) to SPEND, and SPEND, and SPEND...oh and to give powers to Freddie Mac and Freddie MAE to give houses to those who cannot afford them....yes....and before you go all wingbat on me, the deficit under "Bush's wars" pales minutely in comparison the deficits racked up under the ONE in just 19 months. Get a clue...or a job as a community organizer for your type of economics....

Posted by: michelleh3 | September 8, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Ugh. This place is full of wingnut trolls with an IQ so low, they have to dig for it.

Get a brian you teh morans.

Posted by: amkeew | September 8, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I love watching you libs self flagellate. One thing you learn in the real world as opposed to the academic petri dish is to anticipte adversity and never panic. It clouds your judgement. Well the script has officially been deviated and get ready for The Great Liberal Panic of 2010. I can't wait ...

Posted by: cunn9305 | September 8, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Nice try Michelleh3, you have the wingnut talking points down pat.

The Dems can't force the President to sign anything. Despite your temper tantrum, Bush floated the first stimulus and he signed all the bills.

You wingnuts could have helped stop this recession BEFORE it began but you love, love, love spending on war so you never made a peep while the recession was starting. It doesn't matter who is in office, once the spending spree started the current president had to keep it up. And now you don't even want to go back to the same tax status before the Bush tax cuts.

You want your spending and tax cuts too. And gee, all those tax cuts didn't stop the markets from tanking under GWB.

You've been demoted to Michelleh0.

Posted by: arancia12 | September 8, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

President Obama would have to admit to mistakes. He has not done that once since becoming President. The President's is tone deaf and surrounded with yes people. His responsibility and his error.

Posted by: bobbo2 | September 8, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Deirdre_K wrote:
And Limbaugh was speaking the truth when he said he wanted Obama and America to fail. The failure of our nation would bring a cheap political opportunity for the Republicans. And this was worth trashing America for in their eyes.

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

You don't make any sense. If Obama fails, the nation succeeds. That is why Limbaugh said that he wanted Obama to fail; so that the country would succeed.

Posted by: oldno7 | September 8, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Having been the chief of staff for someone you need to be able to fall on your sword for the one for which you work. It is the quality the best chiefs of staff have. Would a Repub really want to do that? I don't think so.

Posted by: bluetiger | September 8, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Yes, please, stick to your guns, Obama. Please. You are the greatest gift to Republicans and right-leaning Independents this country has ever known.

That Democrats are thinking wistfully of the future Hillary possibilities just adds even more joy to my heart.

PS: A note re: Kevin_Willis' comment -- the country is center-right, and these things do not change over a period of years, they change over decades. We are in a trend period that began in the early 70s, and with a few exceptions (Clinton and Obama) the country has steadily moved to the right, particularly on economic issues but also on social issues. Unfortunately, political coalitions tend to pick up some garbage along the way (Christian conservatism being one nasty piece) but for the most part, the trend lines align with anti-tax sentiment and a rejection of big government programs that promote or favor certain groups over others. If Democrats could tap into that sentiment, they could change the game, rather than relying on a flash in the pan followed quickly by political moderation or electoral rejection.

Posted by: TheGlobalizer | September 8, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

President Obama would have to admit to mistakes. He has not done that once since becoming President. The President's is tone deaf and surrounded with yes people. His responsibility and his error.

Posted by: bobbo2
________

Oh BS! You wingnuts have selective memories.

Remember when the President said he screwed up and the wingnuts moaned about how disrespectful using "screwed" was?

Posted by: arancia12 | September 8, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama has screwed things up so badly that it is going to take Sarah Palin well into her second term in 2016 to get everything fixed. Once Obamacare is rolled back, private businesses are unshackled from excessive government regulation and tax cuts for all Americans are made permenant the economy will roar forward into prosperity. Ronald Reagan pulled us out of the misery that Jimmy Carter left in his wake so Sarah Palin should be able to do the same with the mess that Obama is creating. Obama's socialism has no place in America. In 2012 he can take his koran and his communist manifesto and retire to Cuba or Yemen or somewhere that people believe the same things he does.

Posted by: oldno7 | September 8, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

If the Democratic Leadership is dumb enough to listen to a right-wing hack like Doug Schoen, they will get what they deserve in 2012. This guy is a fox news big business conservative pro capitalist anti-leftest. He is a fool from the crowd whose supply side capitalist dogma put this country where it is right now economically. BTW, who's dumb idea was it at the Post to consulate this anti Chavez has-been in the first place?

The problem for the Democratic Leadership is they are to far to the right; this is why they have such poor poll ratings. The Base of the Democratic Party moves further to the left everyday.

Posted by: TonyBuontempo | September 8, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Leftist Tony wrote:
The problem for the Democratic Leadership is they are to far to the right; this is why they have such poor poll ratings. The Base of the Democratic Party moves further to the left everyday.

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

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.......... Communists like Tony who think against fact that Obama is "centrist" or "to the right" are the reason that the Dumbocrats are in for a bloodbath at the polls in November. Toni is correct that the base of the Defeatocrat party moves further to the left every day. That is why they are out of touch with real Americans.

Posted by: oldno7 | September 8, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

One can only hope that Obama and the Democrats are stupid enough to heed your advice, Greg.

By all means, for the general good and welfare of the republic let's hope they tack hard back to the left and flaunt their true nanny-statist liberal colors for all to see.

Posted by: danram | September 8, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Dick Morris is predicting an "epic Democrat disaster" in November. It may be the worst for any political party in American history.

The wreckage may hobble the Democrat party for a generation or more. As of now, the TEA PARTY has a higher favorable than does the Democrat party.

Maybe the TEA PARTY will become the second major party in American politics after the fall of the Democrats. America could then choose between a Republican candidate and a Tea Party candidate.

What a choice we will have!

Posted by: battleground51 | September 8, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Will Obama do a Clinton and turn Republican in 2011 to have a chance at a second term??

Only if he really wants a second term!

Posted by: battleground51 | September 8, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

we don't want obama in the center. all commie/socialist/democrats should go to a third world cesspool country(zimbabwe) and make obama your king. .let the good people build america up again.

Posted by: dharc | September 8, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't this dolt realize that we are a center/right country and will always be? God, what an absolute fool. Hey, dimwit, you are in the minority. I hope Obama listens to you.

Posted by: rubydid | September 8, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton pollster Doug Schoen, who got lots of attention warning Dems that passing health reform would mean certain catastrophe, is already out front suggesting that unless Obama pulls a Clinton, he won't be reelected."

Well, was he right or not? The people detested it, the Dems passed it anyway in a spectacle of bungling and bribery, and now the public is going to exact the price for this bizarre mix of contempt and stupidity. The health care bill will have the same effect on its proponents as--really, I have to go back to the Kansas-Nebraska Bill to find a workable analogy.

Posted by: bobroyfills | September 8, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

My bet is the Dumbocrats will go to a 12-step program. It'll go something like this:

Comrade Obozo: Hi, I'm Comrade Obozo. And I'm a LibDumb LeftLoone.

Crowd: Hi Comrade Obozo.

Hairless Reid: Hi, I'm Hairless Reid. And I'm a LibDumb LeftLoone.

Crowd: Hi Hairless Reid.

Chairwoman Maolosi: Hi, I'm Chairwoman Maolosi, and I'm a LibDumb LeftLoone.

Crowd: Hi Chairwoman Maolosi.

Anyway, these 3 losers in particular, and many others, will have to go to 12-step programs to confess their sins of being Radical Left-Wing Liberals, and try to make amends to all they have offended. It'll be a beaut watching them scrambling to rescind the Comrade Obozo/Hairless Reid/Chairwoman Maolosi Communist Healthcare Scam. It'll also be fun watching Chairwoman Maolosi get reduced to a back bencher. It will be SWEET!!!

VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

Posted by: A1965bigdog | September 8, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

You have had far too much Kool-Aid to be rational, Greg.

The overwhelming majority of Americans strongly reject the "progressive" (socialist) policies and agenda, and are enraged that the arrogant elitists have tried to force it upon us. We are in revolt. At the polls for now, but if the corrupt minions of the Democratic Party (ACORN, SEIU, and the other unions) try to defraud Americans in this election, or in 2012, there will be an open revolt, and it won't be pretty. Nobody wants that.

The vast majority of Americans are sick of the arrogant elitists calling us ignorant racist bigots because we don't want our country being "fundamentally transformed" into a socialist dictatorship. We will fight back peacefully at the ballot box, but we will not tolerate any further perversion of our traditions or our liberty. "Progressivism" has had it's relative 15 minutes of fame. It's time to bury it for another 100 years now.

Posted by: samadams25 | September 8, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Sargent's not much of a chess player and neither are the Democrats; conservatives have basically check-mated the left. They can:

A) follow Sargent's advice and continue declining in the polls

or

B) acknowledge defeat and move to the Right.

Democrats are faced with either ceding power or caving. Conservatives come out ahead. Sargent thinks that the only problem is that the economy hasn't react fast enough, which is little more than a mix of delusion and option A. Check Mate.

Posted by: batigol85 | September 8, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Sargent states, "Over time, there's a good chance the public will agree, and come to see these things as achievements."

Don't bet on it, Sparky. The American people see this President for what he is: an inexperienced, divisive, radical ideologue intent on imposing his will on the people.

He's done. Stick a fork in him.

Posted by: thinker16 | September 8, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

There isn't going to be any drubbing of the Democrats this fall. They do deserve a good drubbing, but are unlikely to receive it.

The country has become so confused by the rhetoric that it just doesn't know what to do. In fact, the last time we were this bad off was two years ago and look at how that turned out.

The whole this is an exercise in hopelessness.

Posted by: magellan1 | September 8, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

This one statement shows not only the rank arrogance of the loony left, but also that they never did or will move to embrace bi-partisanship for the benefit of anything other than political gain. The new radical progressive socialist democrat party is devoid of integrity and absent intelligence. What are they going to do. Spend their entire time investigating and trying to impeach Obama. Perhaps floating some of Paul Ryan, Sharron Angle and Rand Paul's plans to dismantle social security...medicare?

Posted by: automotivetoolsx | September 8, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

I doubt that Mr Sargent has much to worry about. Obama has shown a level of arrogance and contempt for average Americans, and a complete and total ideological commitment to the agenda of the radical Elite left. He shows every intention of continuing to grow the size, cost, and power of Government beyond anything we've known during peace time. And he shows every intention of taxing every working American until their eyes bleed so he can redistribute their income to those that he favors! You know unions, University Professors, Government employees. I suppose the really poor might even get a tiny bit! That's Democratic trickle down....Government and special interests first, the really poor somewhere at the end of the list!

Posted by: valwayne | September 8, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

sargent, ezra klein, beinart. these are the stupidest smart guys in the atmosphere. i hope that sargent is one day thrown under a bus in the manner that obama threw us all under the bus. unless you're a clueless progressive ideologue, like the above, or the great unwashed looking for a handout, you've figured out that barry is a half baked delusional narcissist just begging for the exit door. hopefully, we'll show it to him in a couple months. in the meantime, greg, i hope the losses are bigger than you could ever imagine, you arrogant tool.

Posted by: subframer | September 8, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

The majority of Americans want health scare deform repealed. We don't want Climate change tax and crap. We don't want you Democrats near any reins of power for a very long long time.

Posted by: vickie1 | September 8, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

The attempt to paint the Democrats in the House, Senate and White House as responsible and not fromthe far left is proven false by one Nancy Pelosi quote:

"We have to pass this bill so you can find out what is in it"

If that is responsible, moderate government, we need to give up. The great American experiment with liberty is over.

Your rational responses are welcome at PSGute@aol.com

Posted by: PSGute | September 8, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Ugh. This place is full of wingnut trolls with an IQ so low, they have to dig for it.

Get a brian you teh morans.

Posted by: amkeew
================================

And the left wonders why the great silent majority of Americans has turned against them.
Calling us racists, bigots, white trash, homophobes, hitlers, facists, and making fun and crucifying Palin, a true feminist of the conservatives, is going to make us never ever vote for you.
Get it yet?

Posted by: vickie1 | September 9, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

I have no doubt that if the D's take heavy losses, their will be soul searching in the party.

I am going to propose a novel idea. I do hope that the Dems embrace the progressive elements as the foundation of its platform.
As I do hope the Reps put forth a equally strong alternative conservative ideal.

The fight for the center, in my opinion, has done a great disservice to our democracy. It allows politicians to govern without principle and encourages deception of the electorate.

I say let Universal Health Care go against abolishing of the income tax. Give America a real choice to contemplate instead of knee jerk litmus test of not mainstream.

And finally, let bipartisanship grow from political necessity not shared white washed uniform ideas. Hell, I want choice, and America needs a real market place of ideas in its politics.

Posted by: nogratis | September 9, 2010 2:38 AM | Report abuse

If Obama had attempted to govern from the center left instead of far left, and if he had made any effort to be post-partisan as promised, the Dems would not be in the trouble they ate in.

Posted by: Steve851 | September 9, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

"the wall street reform bill was written by"

No it wasn't.

Dodd delegated issues to bipartisan teams.

Liar.

Posted by: Ethan2010
____________________

Ethan - I'd call you a "liar" but you seem too stupid to know fact from fiction. The teams broke down and the final Dodd-Frank bill did not in the least reflect any of the team efforts. Not one R member of those "teams" voted for the bill. Show me the results of those teams? Where are their efforts reflected in the final bill? When Ag put forth a bipartisan package on derivatives, Obama rejected it. The final bill was largely written by Dodd - the Senate bill was used as base text during conference. I can understand if you dont want to defend Chris Dodd, but let's get the facts straight, its his bill.

Posted by: iculus | September 9, 2010 12:49 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