Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

What the enthusiasm gap is costing Democrats

I linked to this in my post yesterday about the false narrative of liberal overreach, but Public Policy Polling has tried to determine just how much the "enthusiasm gap" is affecting ten key races. A few examples of what would happen if turnout was going to be more like it was in 2008:

-Alex Sink running for Governor in Florida and Alexi Giannoulias running for the Senate in Illinois would have double digit leads.

-Elaine Marshall running for Senate in North Carolina and Pat Quinn running for Governor in Illinois would have small leads instead of trailing.

-Ted Strickland running for Governor in Ohio, Lee Fisher running for Senate in Ohio, Joe Sestak running for Senate in Pennsylvania, and Robin Carnahan running for Senate in Missouri would all be within three points rather than trailing by 7-10 as they do now.

The 2008 electorate was the most diverse in America's history, and without President Obama on the ballot it's hard to imagine that the same people would have turned out in the same numbers this time around. But things didn't have to be this bad.

Joan Walsh suggests that White House disdain for its base -- exemplified by debt commission chair Alan Simpson's statements trashing social security and veterans, Robert Gibbs's dismissal of the "professional left," and Rahm Emanuel calling liberals "retards" -- is pushing down turnout.

Maybe. I think most people outside the beltway don't pay too much attention to that kind of stuff. I'd chalk it up a few things: the administration and Democrats in general being timid about defending themselves and their policies, a general sense that key liberal priorities were compromised on or abandoned, and the failure to get the economy moving again. What most people are seeing and hearing is that Democratic Party leaders are failing, which doesn't exactly make people want to come out and vote for them, let alone make phone calls and knock on doors.

Key portions of that 2008 electorate are feeling disillusioned. Fewer young people are identifying as Democrats. A tracking poll from Latino Decisions showed the president's approval rating among Latinos dropping from 81 percent to 64 percent between April 2009 and August of this year. Meanwhile, Latino approval of Congress is at 45 percent. And although immigration is the second most important issue to these voters, Obama hasn't done much more on the topic than give a speech.

Those last numbers should be a warning to Democrats about something I've been arguing for a while: Republicans' perceived hostility towards Latinos isn't enough to make Latinos vote Democratic if Democrats don't deliver key legislative priorities for Latino voters. They may not vote Republican, for now, but running on "the other guy's worse" isn't likely to get too many people to the polls.

By Adam Serwer  |  September 3, 2010; 11:00 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The mosque exclusion zone, quantified
Next: Americans aren't 'spoiled,' they're angry about not having jobs


@Adam: "Without President Obama on the ballot it's hard to imagine that the same people would have turned out in the same numbers this time around."

On the nosey! Forget the rest of the excuses.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 3, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

So, at least you DO believe that there is an "enthusiasm gap"?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 3, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

All fair enough, but large majorities, and single-party dominance of government, always seems to lead (eventually) to an enthusiasm gap, because large chunks of voters who voted 'em in are disappointed that the world doesn't begin to conform to their liking. So, next time, they sit it out.

Although even enthusiastic folks can sit 'em out. Google "Chuck Norris" and "Trigger the Vote".

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 3, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Alexi Giannoulias is a crook with a long trail of incompetency, both at Broadway bank and as Illinois State Treasurer. Even in the best of years it would be a dead heat had Kirk not been more forthright.

Posted by: SharpshootingPugilist | September 3, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, I can't find the link to the poll right now, and it is a couple months old. But Gallup (I think) found striking numbers when they asked Dems how they thought the party would do in November. Most thought they would do better or about the same as recent elections. Only 18% said they thought it would be worse. I know it seems crazy to anyone inside the beltway, but it seems like average voters still aren't plugged in enough to know how dire things are. I have to imagine its a major factor in enthusiasm if people don't know there's a problem.

Posted by: jbossch | September 3, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I don't necessarily agree that Alan Simpson is the problem with the deficit commission. Although he's a curmudgeon with a "Social Security is the problem" mind-set, most people are just trying to figure out where Dems will stand when the report comes out in December. Therefore, I was encouraged to read this morning that progressives and other Dems in both the House and the Senate are lining up to settle this for all of us before November.

I love the way David Dayen's mind works BTW.


Grijalva, John Conyers (D-MI) and Dan Maffei (D-NY) are spearheading an effort, with a “Dear Colleague” letter, to sign on to a statement of principles regarding the deficit commission: “If any of the Commission’s recommendations cut or diminish Social Security in any way, we will stand firmly against them.”

But there’s more. The ringleaders of this effort may try to move this to the floor in the form of a privileged resolution in September, forcing an up-or-down vote in the House.

But a resolution would be a major raising of the stakes. As I’ve been documenting, Democrats have walked themselves into a box canyon by putting Social Security out front in the election campaign, and casting Republicans as the villains. By putting the question of benefit cuts up to a formal House vote, they can cement that dynamic by forcing Republicans to vote, essentially, for benefit cuts. But Democrats would have to make a choice that could affect their futures, as well, and right before an election. So clearly, a privileged resolution would be the “nuclear option” of this debate. It would be near-impossible for Democrats to vote against it in large numbers. And the deficit commission would have a hard copy of 230 or so votes against their preferred option.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 3, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

There is only one date when Enthusiasm counts for anything. That is on election day. All the rest is just more Talking Heads, and Blog Journalists' gibberish, and is about as meaningful and significant as how enthusiastic Chicago Cubs fans feel, every time opening day comes around.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 3, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Adam, am I losing my mind, entirely possible, or wasn't there a new thread up briefly dealing with Eugene Robinson's piece this morning? Where did it go?

Posted by: lmsinca | September 3, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse


What if they do what you suggest and the Republicans still win big? Isn't that then the nuclear options?

I wonder what Barry will say about the integrity of his dealings, because he's the one who said everything was on the table? A resolution such a you suggest negates then the work of the commision. Not that I care, but how does he keep it's report, and his alleged desire to reduce the deficit / balance the budget from being a laughingstock if his much ballyhooed commision's report is DOA? Is Barry now that toxic that his party can completely ignore?

Also, it seems obvious that we are going to default on some debt. The question is, if we want to continue borrowing to fund things like Obamacare, who can we default on that would not effect our ability to borrow money? Some of this debt has to be borrowed, since the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe has shown what happens when all the debt is monetized. I propose that some, if not all of the 2.4 trillion dollars in t-bills that SS is sitting on is the most likely (if not the only) target.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 3, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

What If Progressives come to their senses, and realize that not voting, is the same as voting for Teabagger candidates to take over the government.

What if Independents and Moderate Republicans do the same thing.

Voters do not really start to focus on mid-term elections until after Labor Day.

We have not yet begun to take the fight to those Right Wing Extremists, who want to repeat the Bush/Cheney economic, and foreign policy disasters all over.

We will remind the voters of that fact, over and over, for the next two months.

Go vote on election day.

To paraphrase Kenny Rodgers: There will be time enough for counting, when the voting is done.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 3, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

McWing, it's not obvious to me that we are going to default on some debt. And if the only target of the deficit commission is SS then they're not doing their job properly. I thought the goal was "everything is on the table". And I advocate for the most progressive policies until forced to compromise, which doesn't mean that I'm not willing to.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 3, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Rahm Emanuel calling liberals "retards" -- is pushing down turnout.

Rahm said that the idea of buying ads attacking fellow Democrats was "$#@%ing retarded". That is not even close to the same thing as calling liberals retards.
No one incapable of making that distinction should be allowed a soapbox at the WaPo.
Obviously, intellectual dishonesty is not monopolized by talking heads of either party. They will apparently all resort to twisting the truth in order to further their goals.
Do you read this, Serwer? If so I challenge you to find the original quote from Rahm and support your pathetic distortion of the truth.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 3, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Any liberal who would out this election, and there by help Right Wing Teabagger Extremists to take over, would indeed fit the description of some one who is mentally handicapped.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 3, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse


I agree that Barry said everything is on the table, but I think he was lying then and is lying now. I think that there are only two things on the table, cuts in defense spending and cuts is SS benefits. I think all the rest is Kabuki. If Obamacare holds and is not repealed, were going to see what, 500 billion stripped from it over 10 years? So the Medicare sacred cow has proven to not be so sacred after all, from the Democratic party's standpoint. However, I do not think 1 dime will be cut from Medicare, I think the CBO numbers and Congressional will are pure BS. What will be cut is future benefits in SS and the Trillions in bonds nullified, along with a huge chunk of the Military budget.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 3, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse


"Right Wing Teabagger Extremists"

Here sir!

Say it loud say it proud!

WWBS (What Would Bilgey Say)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 3, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse


Well, it'll be interesting to see their report when it comes out won't it? I don't consider myself Obama's numero uno fan, although I do think he's doing the best he can in an untenable situation on many fronts. There are people on the left who consider him a liar as well, but I'm not one of them.

I don't think we know everything that goes on behind the scenes which in some cases is probably better, but I am curious about the commission and wish I could be a fly on the wall in that room.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 3, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Headless In Arizona:

"Has anyone around here seen my head? I seem to have lost it."

Governor Jan Brewer(R) Arizona

Posted by: Liam-still | September 3, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I've got a feeling that the the Republicans much ballyhooed enthusiasm advantage is likely to fade a little in the coming week as people get their kids off to school, begin tuning into the fall campaign en masse and start finding out who the actual Republican candidates are. I think it would be smart for Democrats to do everything in their power to help people get to know them a little better.

I sincerely doubt that the outcome of very many elections are going to depend much on navel gazing about how many "key liberal priorities were compromised on or abandoned." The fact is that Democrats have accomplished an impressive list of things in the last 18 months. Not enough for some people of course, ~way~ too much for a lot of other people -- most importantly people in the areas of the country where the most hard fought races are going to be run. And believe it or not, there even a few people who are fairly satisfied with the progress that's been made given the political environment, realistically doubt they could have pushed things much farther without courting severe enough backlash to undo it, and hope to build on these accomplishments further in the fullness of time.

But wherever you may land on that scale personally, it's a little late in the game for coulda, shoulda, woulda. The playing field is set and the climate is what it is. From here on out it's all about candidates and campaigns. If you want my advice (fully realizing of course that most people don't) go out and get behind one and push if you really want to change the world.

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

It doesn't seem to be discussed much by the media but the Republicans I know are demoralized by the direction their party has taken with the teaparty extremists and unfit people such as Beck and Palin taking over the stage. The extremists are fired up, but a lot of Republicans are also feeling that they don't have a party anymore, especially the young Republicans.

Posted by: Beeliever | September 3, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I meant: "...likely to fade a little in the coming weeks..." (plural)

A week is probably a bit much to hope for.

Posted by: CalD | September 3, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse


"But wherever you may land on that scale personally, it's a little late in the game for coulda, shoulda, woulda. The playing field is set and the climate is what it is. From here on out it's all about candidates and campaigns."

I couldn't agree more and I also think there are still a few things we could be doing to increase our political capital a bit. Hints are coming from the WH that they're fully aware of and working on some jobs initiatives, good idea.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 3, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

There is an element of the enthusiasm gap that seems to be missing from the discussion. Michael Barone highlighted this shortly after Obama's victory.

Americans can only vote for the first black president once. Then what? How will the Democrats cajole an indifferent citizen whose only vote in recent years was for Obama, into getting engaged in a mid term election?

I just don't think they can.

In the mean time America has witnessed a great political movement. Having no effective counter to it, the Democrats and their political allies went to plan A: denigrate it.

That hasn't worked and now they face a big problem, an understandable lack of enthuiasm from a significant portion of the folks who put Obama in office, coupled with an angry, but civil, counter offensive that has energized opponents.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 3, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Translation of Teabagger "take back our country" speak.

"We hate having a black family in Our White House". That is the real fuel that fires up their Enthusiasm Engine.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 3, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Has the GOP morphed from the party of no to the party of "c'mon"?

It seems to me that many on the right like to throw out positions and statistics without any real foundation and then say "c'mon, we know this is true, we don't need to actually provide any evidence."

This includes the tax cuts pay for themselves argument, the social security is bankrupt argument, the surge worked argument, the liberal overreach argument, the Obama doubled the deficit argument, the muslims are evil argument and today I read the dick armey's latest, 3% of Democratic voters are dead argument.

There are many other examples, too numerous to mention but the bottom line seems to be that GOP enthusiasm is based on a house of cards.


Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 3, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Michael Barone is an Moron.

When President Obama runs for reelection; people can vote again, for the First African American President; who's mother was of White European stock, and a distant relative of Dick Cheney.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 3, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

The error in logic here is glaring - 2008 was not a normal year - it was a departure from normal turnout.

It was more than the youth.

The seniors who did not like Obama - instead of voting for McCain - simply did not vote.

Obama was lucky that the economic crisis turned up - McCain was much closer in the polls in early September.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 3, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse


is a Moron.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 3, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

One factor in 2008 people are not showing appreciate for: money.

Obama - after committing himself to the Presidential Public Finance System - went back on his word and went beyond the limits.

For decades, both candidates had agreed to the limits.

There are all sorts of rumors about the actual sources of Obama's funding - rumors of the controls on computers which would have PREVENTED illegal donations being turned off.

There is still a major question out there as to whether all the credit cards which went to Obama's website were from the US - anyone outside of the US could have logged on and contributed over the web.

This money advantage led to additional commercials for Obama - extra votes and it tipped several states that really would not have otherwise gone for Obama.

The democrats are NOT going to have these advantages in 2010 - so all that is off the table.

It is just not enthusiam - it is everything else that was going on that year - the economy and ongoing discussions about Obama's race.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 3, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse


A recent example of what you are pointing to.

"After being called on a white lie he told during his Restoring Honor rally, Glenn Beck admitted Thursday that he stretched the truth because he "thought it would be a little easier."

Beck had claimed that he held George Washington's handwritten first Inaugural Address in his hands at the National Archives, but a spokeswoman at the institution said he did no such thing. Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz and others called him out for the fabrication.

"Thursday on his radio show, Beck copped to the lie.

"I thought it would be a little easier in the speech," Beck said, than to go into the following elaborate explanation"

Posted by: Liam-still | September 3, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse


Thank you for catching the misquote of Rahm's statement. I've seen that quote distorted so many times that I didn't even notice it this time. I agree that a journalist's standards must be higher.

Probably most parents have said to their child at some point, "that was a dumb thing to do" but it's not the same as saying to your child, "you are dumb." The distinction is that the first remark is probably human in a moment of frustration, the second one is abuse.

Posted by: Beeliever | September 3, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

There are almost infinite examples Liam.

A few more, gay marriage will harm "traditional" marriage, the stimulus didn't create a single job, tax cuts for the rich help small business....

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 3, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The Affordable Care Act will increase the deficit, eliminating waste, fraud and abuse from Medicare will result in death panels.


Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 3, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

@ Beeliever | September 3, 2010 12:52 PM:

That doesn't fit very neatly in anyone's preferred narrative, left or right, but I know what you mean. I was at a barbecue a couple of weeks ago and a friend of mine whom I'd describe as a classic moderate Republican -- that is to say a live-and-let-live, fiscally conservative, social libertarian -- came up and asked me flat out what the hell is up with Republicans this year. He said, "I've always considered myself a Republican but some of the people they're putting up this year... they're just radicals! What's going on?"

I told him that it's actually been that way for a while, that the main difference this year is that they're making no effort to conceal what they're really about and it's finally gotten to be obvious enough that even the news media are starting to notice. I also told him that the Democratic party has long since become the last remaining refuge for political moderates in America (much to the eternal annoyance of liberals like myself) and perhaps he'd want to consider voting for them instead.

Posted by: CalD | September 3, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

This is just classic:
"Michael Barone is an Moron."

We all make simple errors such as the above. English is a complex language and syntax is no always rational.

Still, this one is just classic.

If you're going to be a biiggot, at leest git r right.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 3, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

see what I'm saying ovah here?

It was my turn!
"syntax is no always rational."

Thanks for the laugh, even at my own expense!

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 3, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse


"There are all sorts of rumors about the actual sources of Obama's funding"

That's a pathetic statement even for a troll. The Republican party is a hateful rumor mill that doesn't waste time with evidence or actual facts.

Have you guys found Michelle's "whitey" video yet?

Posted by: Beeliever | September 3, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse


If you're still around don't you think this would be a good way to get some money into the middle class economy without adding to the deficit? I also think it would help the enthusiasm gap, which is technically beside the point.


An open letter to Speaker Pelosi from:

Lloyd Chapman is President of the American Small Business League


"Ending the diversion of small business contracts to large businesses would redirect over $100 billion a year in federal contracts back into the middle class economy. This would be the most powerful economic stimulus to date and can be used to drive demand directly into the hands of our nation’s small businesses. With this economic stimulus in mind, I urge you to support H.R. 2568, the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act. It was introduced by Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson, and currently has 26 cosponsors. This bill is a deficit neutral means of ending the 10-year-old contracting scandal that has facilitated the diversion of over $1 trillion in small business contracts to corporate giants."

Posted by: lmsinca | September 3, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

what is just so entertaining about the folks who haunt this place is how oblivious to their own foibles they are.

Here's a perfect example. First Liam-still says this:
"Translation of Teabagger "take back our country" speak.

"We hate having a black family in Our White House". That is the real fuel that fires up their Enthusiasm Engine."

The intent is clear. According to the ever insightful liam, the ONLY reason people oppose Mr Obama is his skin color. All those tea party folks are just downright bigots.

The he shares this:
"Barone is a moron".

Is this just a wind bag's way of saying "it takes one to know one"? It certainly seems that way, based on Liam-still's two comments.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 3, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

@ lmsinca | September 3, 2010 12:56 PM:

Cynic that I am (or realist, take your pick), I would tend to expect the Democratic leadership in congress to try and make as much news as they can in the next month by trotting out as much popular legislation as they can lay hands on and daring Republicans to vote against it. If they can actually succeed in passing a piece of it here and there, even better. I'm not going to be holding my breath though, given that the Republican leaders in congress have long since decided it's in their own best interests if the country's biggest problems remain unsolved.

Posted by: CalD | September 3, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"it's a little late in the game for coulda, shoulda, woulda. "

Perhaps for the November election it is. But not for ascertaining what went wrong should the Democrats get clobbered. Unfortunately, the Dems seem determined to learn the wrong lesson. That bodes ill for the near future.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 3, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse


"it's in their own best interests if the country's biggest problems remain unsolved."

This is one of the things that frustrates me more than just about anything else in the political climate today. The fact that they seem to be getting away with it is the second.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 3, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"Take back our country" from whom, Teabaggers, and how come you only decided that you needed to "take back our country" after the First African American First Family moved in the White House? We know you for what you are, Teabaggers.

And yes Michale Baron is a Moron, for saying that people would only get the chance to vote once, for The First African American President, when they would be able to vote for the very same person, for a second term.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 3, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

So, the voters of California decided to replace their Governor with a steroid freak, who's big claim to fame was that he could pick up big heavy things, and put them back down in the same place. That really solved all of California's State Government problems, didn't it?!

So, are the voters of California now going to double down, and replace a steroid freak, with an Internet Flea Market Operator? That should really end up well for the people of California!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 3, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing, speaking of oblivion to one's own words, you are aware that most of your posts are archived for anyone to read, yes?

While you page through the vast archive you ought to consider how your own words fit the characterization of one oblivious to one's own foibles, and how that undermines any credibility you have to make that accusation against others.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 3, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Liam, I'm afraid she just might win. We seem to get Presidential elections right but have a history of less than satisfactory Governors. And don't even get me started on all the propositions. I'm working for Brown a little, but it's hard to be terribly excited about him, though he's better than the alternative.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 3, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

hey lost, I completely agree with everything I've said.

Stick that in your bong and toke it pal. That's just a dodge. The fact of the matter is the left routinely engages in egregious bigotry while calling everyone else bigots.

That's the point and based on your post, you have no cogent response to it.

Enjoy the archive pal. I'm sure it will be fun reading.

Now let's talk Obamacare.

Who wrote this:
"Rising health costs will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond. In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure."

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 3, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"Republican leaders in congress have long since decided it's in their own best interests if the country's biggest problems remain unsolved."

Completely agree. You hear teabaggers saying the Federal Government is not acting on the illegal immigration problem, but you will never see a Republican congressman run faster than when the possibility of an immigration bill is discussed.

I guess Republican voters haven't figured out that their representatives in D.C. are the legislative part of the Federal government, because they give them a free ride on dealing with the difficult issues facing our country.

Republicans have somehow convinced their voters that not doing their job in D.C. is good for the country. Yeah, if you like chaos running over us.

Posted by: Beeliever | September 3, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are doing all they can to prevent an economic recovery. They are actually trying to bring about failure.

Why do Republicans hate working class Americans?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 3, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the less congress does, the better.

That's one of the differences between the right and the left. The left expects the government to solve problems. The right expects the government to stay out of the way while the citizens solve thier own problems.

There is a narrow band of issues that really are within the government's legitimate purview. Beyond that the right wants less interference not more.

But we can talk immigration. finish the fence. Enforce the labors laws designed to prevent the employment of illegals. Instigate a self migration back to Mexico. Publically insist that the Mexican government find a solution to its problems that doesn't rely on sending millions of its citizens to America in the hopes that they'll send our money back to Mexico.

That's pretty comprehensive, IMHO.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 3, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

From TPM

"Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has put the kibosh on all future debates with her Arizona gubernatorial opponent Terry Goddard (D), after her rather embarrassing display at Wednesday's debate. "I don't believe that things come out in proper context in an adversarial atmosphere," she defended herself.

According to the Arizona Daily Star, Brewer says she only partook in the debate to try qualify for the $1.7 million-plus public funds for her campaign.

So after her poor showing, which involved a flubbed opening statement that made the internet rounds yesterday, Brewer has had enough: "I think it's pretty defined what [Goddard] stands for and what I stand for."

Brewer was also hit for dodging reporters' questions about her erroneous claim that undocumented immigrants beheaded people in her state.

"All you guys were doing and talking were beheadings, beheadings, beheadings," Brewer told the Daily Star. "That is something that has stuck with you all for so long, and I just felt we needed to move on."

She also contended that when discussing the headless bodies, she "never said 'Arizona,' and it's unfortunate that it was construed as 'Arizona.'"

As TPM reported, Brewer said on Fox News in July: "We cannot afford all this illegal immigration and everything that comes with it, everything from the crime and to the drugs and the kidnappings and the extortion and the beheadings."

The anchor later asked: "Which beheadings in Arizona were you were referring to?" Brewer responded: "Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert, either buried or just lying out there, that have been beheaded.""


So far Jan Brewer is the only headless body that has been found in Arizona.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 3, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 "Stick that in your bong and toke it pal."

I am most certainly NOT your pal. Thank you though for making my point so graphically.

By the way, contrary to what your reply suggests, my point had nothing to do with whether you agree with your own words. It was along the lines of the pot and the kettle story. I'm in now way surprised you failed to grasp that.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 3, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The I guess you weren't clear enough pal.

Once again, with feeling: I completely agree with everything I've said.

Don't like being on the recieving end of unpleasant messages? Oh well.

The tone and tenor of the "debate" coming from the left can be summed up quite succinctly: Americans who disagree with Obama and his liberal agenda are bigots. It matters not if liberals themselves routinely engage in egregious bigotry it is do as I say not as I do around here now.

No thanks. We're not racists, we're not Islamophobes or homophobes or whatever other idiotic word you guys want to invent.

If insults are all you've got with which to defend your point of view pardon us for not taking you seriously.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 3, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 "Don't like being on the recieving end of unpleasant messages? Oh well."

Actually, it amuses me. With each response you not only make my original point much stronger, you make your own ability to comprehend simple English look weaker and weaker.

"Once again, with feeling: I completely agree with everything I've said." And once again with apathy, you miss the point entirely. Keep trying, though. I can't be the only one amused by your befuddlement.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 3, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge'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