Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Christine O'Donnell to GOP establishment: Screw you: Whoa. In a clear sign of the GOP intra-party war to come after Tea Party-backed Christine O'Donnell's shocking victory in the Delaware Senate primary, O'Donnell gave a stunning interview a few moments ago on Good Morning America, beating GOP leaders over the head with her victory and claiming they have their "pride hurt this morning."

O'Donnell also effectively called Karl Rove, who opposed her candidacy, a liar and a "so-called political guru" who's now eating "humble pie."

"I believe that we can win without them," O'Donnell said, when asked by George Stephanopoulos about the opposition of GOP leaders to her candidacy. "We proved the so-called experts wrong. So I think a few of them perhaps may have their pride hurt this morning. But I didn't count on the establishment to win the primary. I'm not counting on them to win the general."

Asked about Rove's various claims about her background, such as allegedly misleading voters about her college education, O'Donnell took a scorching shot at the architect of George W. Bush's two presidential victories. "Everything he's saying is unfactual. He's the same so-called political guru that predicted I wasn't going to win. And we won, and we won big. So I think he's eating some humble pie."

How gracious! Suffice it to say O'Donnell doesn't have much of an interest in going through the usual ritual of post-primary healing. A clear sign of what's to come...

* Reaping what you sow: Does the victory of yet another profoundly eccentric candidate in a GOP Senate primary have a little something to do with the fact that even respectable conservatives have been trafficking in lurid whackjob paranoid nightmare/fantasy theories about Obama for nearly two years now?

* A key reason for O'Donnell's victory against longtime Delaware fixture Mike Castle: He refused to kiss the Tea Party's feet.

* And: don't miss Dan Balz's overview of how profoundly the Tea Party is roiling the GOP.

* Also: Castle will not endorse O'Donnell.

* Liberals win one against a Lieber-crat: In the race for Paul Hodes' old seat in New Hampshire, progressive groups threw their weight behind the primary winner, Ann McLane Kuster, who ran from the left and defeated Katrina Swett, the former co-chair of Joe Lieberman's 2004 presidential campaign.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee chair Adam Green hailed the victory, claiming it "marks an important evolution in the ability of progressive infrastructure to add value to the campaigns of good progressive candidates."

* Nancy Pelosi is again driving the train: In the caucus meeting last night, she strongly urged House Democrats to consider putting the GOP on the spot with a vote on extending the middle class tax cuts.

* But some Dems seem to want to lose: Some House Dems would rather wring their hands and debate procedural issues endlessly than go on offense. I wonder how Republicans would handle it if they were in this situation?

* Angle sharpens her attacks: Sharron Angle goes up with a new ad blasting Harry Reid as "the best friend an illegal alien ever had."

* And last night's results also featured a clash of intellectual heavyweights for the ages: In New York's GOP gubernatorial primary, the candidate who circulated an Obama email with video of African tribesmen handily defeated the candidate who mercilessly demagogued the "ground zero mosque" with imagery of 9/11.

What else is happening?

UPDATE, 9:55 a.m.: Check out this profile of O'Donnell.

By Greg Sargent  |  September 15, 2010; 8:19 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , House Dems , House GOPers , Morning Plum , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans , Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: O'Donnell's victory signals new direction in Tea Party-GOP relations

Comments

"Does the victory of yet another profoundly eccentric candidate in a GOP Senate primary have a little something to do with the fact that even respectable conservatives have been trafficking in lurid whackjob paranoid nightmare/fantasy theories about Obama for nearly two years now?"

It also has something to do with the fact that the establishment GOP routinely urinates on the base, ignores the grass roots (or takes them for granted, more like) and behaves like the netroots and blogosphere, etc, don't even exist. And they've just recently discovered that the peasants are revolting. And not just in the way they've always thought.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

If they can't beat Democrats, the Tea Party will be steeping in hot water. http://www.onelineheadline.com

Posted by: marblenc | September 15, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Morning, Greg:

"Reaping what you sow: Does the victory of yet another profoundly eccentric candidate in a GOP Senate primary have a little something to do with the fact that even respectable conservatives have been trafficking in lurid whackjob paranoid nightmare/fantasy theories about Obama for nearly two years now?"

How do you like your monster now, Dr. Frankenstein?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

"But some Dems seem to want to lose: Some House Dems would rather wring their hands and debate procedural issues endlessly than go on offense. I wonder how Republicans would handle it if they were in this situation?"

I'll repeat what I said yesterday. If Obama doesn't take charge of this he is a fool. Letting Congressional Dems run amok on taxes will be HealthCareClusterf*ckRedux. I'll put a fine point on it: If Obama doesn't want to be president then he should let someone else have the job. Otherwise, Mr. President, start acting like you are in charge.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

New Hampshire GOP Senate Primary too close to call.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Senate%3a+Ayotte%2c+Lamontagne+in+tight+race&articleId=7d9f849a-0b1e-4da8-933f-ad8f3287e29e

This is a big one. If Ayotte loses the nomination, Hodes (D) probably wins the general.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

The TEA PARTY is shaking the Grand OLD Party up quite a bit. That's a good thing folks. The Republican Party is being reclaimed by the real people. It's been an establishment, rich guy, country club of a party for much too long.

The clotted, fetid, warped Democrat party could use a mini-revolution like this. It is dying of Marx's disease. A very painful way to die.

Posted by: battleground51 | September 15, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

To be fair, Greg, some conservadems represent wealthier areas... BUT that's no excuse to buck your party, the President and the overwhelming majority of Americans.

That said, Connoley of VA sounded almost completely clueless when he was told that he and other Dems who don't want a tax cut vote were standing in the way of the POTUS on tax cuts. He was like, "Really? I had no idea." I forget the exact quotation he gave (I think to TPM), but my first impression was utter disbelief that a U.S. Congressman can be so unbelievably ignorant given the circumstances.

Also, mad props to Pelosi and Reid, both, whom imho have been the clear winners of the last, crucial, 48 hours.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Harry Reid does seem to like outlaw "immigrants better than real Americans. He's a hero in Mexico and a heel in America just like his lord and saviour, Obama.

If illegal aliens could vote, senor Reid would have a job for life and then some.

If the illegal's amigo had his way, all illegals would become instant citizens so they could all vote Democrat.

That's called AMNESTY or the Democrat, new voter, registration drive.

It's their only hope now.

Screw the citizens!

Posted by: battleground51 | September 15, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

"Connoley of VA sounded almost completely clueless when he was told that he and other Dems who don't want a tax cut vote were standing in the way of the POTUS on tax cuts. He was like, "Really? I had no idea."

Ethan, that's my point. Even the Cong Dems are waiting for Obama to take charge on taxes. Most Congresscritters don't want to make those decisions; they want the president to do it.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

In a sense I think we lefties that have been lamenting the Conservadems that Rahm has been blamed for recruiting to the House should have a certain level of respect for the right wing whack jobs that are now being nominated by the GOP.

Electability be damned! Idealogical purity is all that matters!

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

"n a sense I think we lefties that have been lamenting the Conservadems that Rahm has been blamed for recruiting to the House should have a certain level of respect for the right wing whack jobs that are now being nominated by the GOP. Electability be damned! Idealogical purity is all that matters!"

The persistence of that false equivalence is one the Democrats' primary problems. Please point to any Democratic candidates as extreme as the Tea Partiers are for the GOP. What is considered "extreme" in the Dem Party is Left-of-Center (even Center, I'd say). What constitutes "extreme" for Republicans is insanity.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Of course you're correct wb that it is a false equivalence. Hence my use of the term "whack jobs."

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

You make a strong case, wb, for sure. And I agree to an extent.

Question for you: what could Obama do or say that would satisfy your need for Presidential leadership?

Not meant to be snarky, that's an honest question.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Nevertheless wb, I still believe that ultimate electability is more important than idealogical purity.

No?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

OT but let's note it in bold.

From Reagan's Solicitor General:

'"I think that (the Bush administration) broke the law and what they did was disgusting and terrible and degrading," Charles Fried told Reuters in an interview.'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100913/lf_nm_life/us_books_torture_1

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "The persistence of that false equivalence is one the Democrats' primary problems. "

If it's that persistent, then there's a good chance it's not entirely false. And I'd says O'Donnell = Coons is a pretty fair assessment, or that Angle = a Shiela Jackson Lee or a Maxine Waters in terms out outrageousness of statements. Dick Durbin comparing American soldiers to Nazis and Pol Pot? You may agree with them, or see their point, but that doesn't make them closer to the center just because they're closer to your personal center.

But even if you're right, that Democrats are mostly calm and reasonable and right about everything while an Republican to the right of Arlen Specter is clinically insane (/snark--I realize that's not what you actually said. At least, not exactly), that really doesn't address cmccauley's larger critique of adapting the Tea Party model to the Democrats.

If the left tried the tea party approach, and attempted to purge the part of conservadems, the result would likely be very similar to purging the Republicans of all RINOs. You would often get less-electable, and certainly lower-quality candidates. Even though they might be more progressive, they might be further from the mainstream--i.e., crazier--on some issues than even you are comfortable with. Ideological purges don't happen in a vacuum, and aren't without consequences.

In other words, if you want to turn a "false" equivalence into a demonstrably true equivalence, start a grass roots effort to purge out conservadem (and even some just plain inadequately progressive) Democrats out at the primary level, and see what you get.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama has been talking about the top tax rate going back to 39% since Jan. 17th, 2007 and every speech since.

Maybe he should put the #39 on his shirts for emphasis. :P

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne:

"Ethan, that's my point. Even the Cong Dems are waiting for Obama to take charge on taxes. Most Congresscritters don't want to make those decisions; they want the president to do it."

Obama said at his most recent press conference:

"Now, on the high-income tax cuts, my position is let’s get done what we all agree on. What they’ve said is they agree that the middle class tax cut should be made permanent. Let’s work on that. Let’s do it. We can have a further conversation about how they want to spend an additional $700 billion to give an average of $100,000 to millionaires."

That statement is a clear indication of a preference to move forward on the middle class tax cuts, sans tax cuts for the rich. The inclusion of this talk about a "further conversation" is an arguably mischievous way of daring the Republicans into advocating a policy that adds $700 billion to the deficit, especially after they've complained so vociferously about the deficit -- a deficit that is (in significant part because of these tax cuts) currently more than 3x a result of Bush's policies than Obama's.

Ultimately, contrary to your suggestion otherwise, Obama's been clear about his position.

Presidents can help frame a conversation about an issue, which Obama has done. But Presidents cannot infuse individuals who are unwilling to display courage -- even when public opinion is on their side -- with backbone.

Posted by: associate20 | September 15, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

In regards to local races. I'm not so sure booting Fenty was such a good thing. The guy seemed to be shaking things up and I was pretty certain the city was seeing decent results. At least it felt that way.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

"Christine O'Donnell to GOP establishment: Screw you"

Um, given her historical stances on certain matters, I think she'd take exception to learning you had characterized her statements in quite that way............ ;)

Posted by: akaoddjob | September 15, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I gotta give it to O'Donnell for going after turd blossom. She's still a loon but spunky none the less.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne:

"Ethan, that's my point. Even the Cong Dems are waiting for Obama to take charge on taxes. Most Congresscritters don't want to make those decisions; they want the president to do it."

Obama said at his most recent press conference:

"Now, on the high-income tax cuts, my position is let’s get done what we all agree on. What they’ve said is they agree that the middle class tax cut should be made permanent. Let’s work on that. Let’s do it. We can have a further conversation about how they want to spend an additional $700 billion to give an average of $100,000 to millionaires."

That statement is a clear indication of a preference to move forward on the middle class tax cuts, sans tax cuts for the rich. The inclusion of this talk about a "further conversation" is an arguably mischievous way of daring the Republicans into advocating a policy that adds $700 billion to the deficit, especially after they've complained so vociferously about the deficit -- a deficit that is (in significant part because of these tax cuts) currently more than 3x a result of Bush's policies than Obama's.

To summarize, contrary to your suggestion otherwise, Obama's been clear about his position.

Presidents can help frame a conversation about an issue, which Obama has done. But Presidents cannot infuse individuals who are unwilling to display courage -- even when public opinion is on their side -- with a backbone.

At some point, we need to seriously evaluate the reasonableness of our expectations of the President (this one or any other). We also need to quit absolving members of Congress of the need to display some political fortitude. Ultimately, the individuals themselves in Congress -- not the President -- are responsible for their actions.

Posted by: associate20 | September 15, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

"Some House Dems would rather wring their hands and debate procedural issues endlessly than go on offense. I wonder how Republicans would handle it if they were in this situation?"

Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

Joe Conason had a really good piece about this same dynamic (the "confidence gap") at the start of the year.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/01/19/whatwouldgop/index.html

Any ideas on the Kaine announcement?

I'm sure this is not it, but I'd love to see much more focus placed on the White House's Middle Class Task Force. Jared Bernstein, the director, does incredible work, and he's pretty savvy politically too.

Turning out the Dem coalition with a message (backed up with concrete action, of course) that wears the party's diversity when it comes to gender, ethnicity, religious views, sexual orientation, etc. as a badge of pride, while repeatedly and passionately re-affirming our commitment to strengthening and expanding the Middle Class strikes me as a no-brainer. Nominating Elizabeth Warren... pushing for clean energy and clean elections... being full-blown investment deficit hawks... taking unnecessary and frankly indefensible benefit cuts to Social Security off the table... all of the things that would motivate key parts of the Dem coalition tie directly into this (the MCTF).

It's essential substance and good strategy, IMHO. Especially in the "Rust Belt," where the party is hurting badly (because the people there are hurting badly), this is a perfect fit.

Posted by: michael_conrad | September 15, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

"It also has something to do with the fact that the establishment GOP routinely urinates on the base, ignores the grass roots (or takes them for granted, more like) and behaves like the netroots and blogosphere, etc, don't even exist."

Gee...you mean all of the rhetoric about abortion, flag burning, and gay marriage was just a way to rile up the masses and get them to the ballot box? Hoocoodanode.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Not only that associate20, even Lieberman picked up on Obama's phrasing it as Republicans holding the middle class tax cuts hostage. If Lieberman is on board with the right phrasing, then I think all Dems should be getting the message.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

A serious question, that I hope someone can provide an answer to;

Is Christine O'Donnell married, or has she ever been?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I try not to make fun of people like O'Donnell and Angle; it isn't nice to make fun of those with mental defects. But the whole anti-m@sterbation thing is just too much. That is almost as bad as thinking black is a satanic color...

In honor of Mrs. O'Donnell I submit the following Monty Python clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

h/t ballonjuice

Posted by: nisleib | September 15, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Like many, I'm still trying to piece together the bits from last night's bizarreness. It feels a bit like the GOP has just put itself through one of those banker-wonk "stress tests" and now all eyes are wide and armpits wet.

How do they get out of this? You've got Rove and Hannity arguing with raised voices. You've got the NRO/Weekly Standard crowd sitting down to a meal of skunk. And you've got Ailes at FOX with a real big schizoid narrative problem.

One clear consequence is that Sarah Palin now has immense power over the GOP. If she turns one way, there's a third party split guaranteed. Yet even that imaginable entity will be a combination of incompatible values/ideas (social conservativism vs libertarianism). Is she rogue enough to go there? I'm not sure. I am sure that every possible inducement for her to NOT go there will be in place and/or proffered up the road.

The real powers in the GOP - those organizers and lobbying agents and strategists who have structured and manipulated the political sphere in the service of, mainly, corporate interests aren't happy with last night's events (nor many earlier night's events) because of elect-ability which equals power/control.

But they have to tread very softly because the TP "populist" creature they've been feeding and hoping to tame as their junk yard dog understands (to some degree) that they are being lied to and used - and often for purposes quite counter to their own.

And Palin herself now has a very tricky path to proceed along. Who does she really represent?

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

ps... Limbaugh will be worth attending to today. He has the same dilemma all the others have.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

What will it take for Dems as a whole to learn that tax fairness is a winning issue for them? There has been a severe lurch towards regressive taxation since the boom years; something rarely, if ever, leading Dems mention (with the notable fairly recent exception of Sec. of State Clinton).

A powerful case is available here, but Beltway Goggles seem to be keeping just enough elected Dems oblivious (or unresponsive) to it to prevent the party as a whole from making the tax issue work for them.

And we have a built-in response to the inevitable "Socialism" charge. If rolling back the rightward lurch on marg. rate = Socialism, then some modern GOP presidents = total Commies. And of course, they're going to call us Socialists regardless of what we do.

The whole recurring "hey, this is good policy and good politics, who don't we do it?" thing is really frustrating.

Anyway, end rant.

Posted by: michael_conrad | September 15, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Interesting development in the Ga governor's race:

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/deal-could-face-financial-613928.html

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "But the whole anti-m@sterbation thing is just too much."

I'd have to take exception to that position. First of all, it's inherently anti-male . . .

Seriously, there needs to be a campaign. "O'Donnell: Wrong on m@sterbation!"

The soundtrack to the campaign could be "Sodomy Holy Orgy" from the original Hair soundtrack. Look it up and take a listen if, by some sad circumstance, it is unfamiliar to you.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The Cognitive Dissonance Factor; which fuels The TeaBagger Express:

They keep saying that Democrats should no longer blame George W. Bush for the state of the economy.

While at the same time, they have been actively campaigning against, and ousting, Republican Senators and Congress Members, because they blame them for what happened, back when Bush was President.

You can use that against them, every time one of them says, that the time has expired for Democrats to blame Bush.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Who does she really represent?"

Well, until yesterday you've been endlessly selling the notion that she represents the evil machinations of Bill Kristol. Are you having second thoughts?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone know the answer to this?

s Christine O'Donnell married, or has she ever been?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Obama "preferred" a public option. The issue is whether he will use presidential muscle to make his "preference" policy. Taxing the Rich couldn't be more simple. Obama announces he won't sign any legislation that includes Bush's tax relief for The Rich. Make Congress bend to Obama's will. An impotent president is not what Americans want.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

"Who does she really represent?"

Oh, that particular question has a very easy answer: herself!


The question is how she keeps the gravy train going. I don't know the answer to that one.

Posted by: akaoddjob | September 15, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

NY Mag:

* GOP’s Delaware Senate Nominee Christine O'Donnell Not a Big Fan of Evolution *

...on March 30 of 1996, in her role as the spokeswoman for the Concerned Women of America, O'Donnell debated the merits of evolution on CNN, and she was not a fan.

This was during one of our country's periodic debates over teaching creationism in schools. In a discussion moderated by anchor Miles O'Brien, O'Donnell squared off against Michael McKinney, a University of Tennessee professor of evolutionary biology. Not only was O'Donnell in favor of teaching creationism alongside evolution, but she wasn't even sure evolution was real. According to a transcript, via Nexis:

"""CHRISTINE O'DONNELL, Concerned Women for America: Well, as the senator from Tennessee mentioned, evolution is a theory and it's exactly that. There is not enough evidence, consistent evidence to make it as fact, and I say that because for theory to become a fact, it needs to consistently have the same results after it goes through a series of tests. The tests that they put — that they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory. But creation —

[...]

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: Now, he said that it's based on fact. I just want to point out a couple things. First of all, they use carbon dating, as an example, to prove that something was millions of years old. Well, we have the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens and the carbon dating test that they used then would have to then prove that these were hundreds of millions of years younger, when what happened was they had the exact same results on the fossils and canyons that they did the tests on that were supposedly 100 millions of years old. And it's the kind of inconsistent tests like this that they're basing their 'facts' on.

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that."""

Spit take! Ladies and gentlemen of Delaware, your Republican Senate nominee.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/09/the_gops_delaware_senate_nomin.html

She actually said THIS out loud:

"God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that"

* sigh *

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Woebegone is now challenging President Obama's masculinity, just like Quitter Palin has.

It has become quite clear, that Woebegone is A Right Wing Troll, trying to pass as a concerned liberal.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

@Liam: Is Christine O'Donnell married, or has she ever been?

I think she's single. I can't see anything that mentions a previous marriage - she's a serious wingnut Catholic in the William Donohue style so I can't imagine she'd be divorced and I'm pretty sure that if she was a widow we'd have heard about it.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"The soundtrack to the campaign could be "Sodomy Holy Orgy" from the original Hair soundtrack."

Great reference.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Ethan-

Awesome.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 15, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Kevin - how is it anti male? I'm fairly certain females, on occasion, have been known to rub one out. Are you disagreeing with me or with her?

Of course if she really wanted to "do away" with the genocide of billions of helpless sp@rm at the hands (literally) of American men she would favor the legalization of pr@stitution. That is a free market solution many libertarians hold for reasons that have nothing to do with misuse of what I like to call, "Mary's hair gell." (Something About Mary)

Posted by: nisleib | September 15, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "And you've got Ailes at FOX with a real big schizoid narrative problem"

I may surprise you to learn than Roger Ailes does not actually handle day-to-day programming, or do general production, at Fox News. He's too busy having sex with supermodels atop of mattresses stuffed with thousand-dollar bills.

"Is she rogue enough to go there?"

With Palin, I'm guessing at this point it depends on the paycheck.

"The real powers in the GOP - those organizers and lobbying agents and strategists who have structured and manipulated the political sphere in the service of, mainly, corporate interests"

As opposed to the real powers in the Democratic Party, ose organizers and lobbying agents and strategists who have structured and manipulated the political sphere in the service of, mainly, corporate interests . . . hang on a second!

Well, anyway, they are pretty happy, on the whole. So, some of our shadow government likes what's going on, at least.

"Who does she really represent?"

Sisters are doing it for themselves, Bernie. Represent? Represent, sistahs! Traditional GOP? To the left, to the left. Everything they own in the box to the left. In the closet that's my stuff, yes
If I bought it, please don't touch. And keep talking that mess, that's fine. But could you walk and talk at the same time? And it's my name that is on that tag, Karl Rove. So remove your bags, let me call you a cab."

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Chuck, not surprising right? But still totally unbelievable.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Ethan2010

This O'Donnell women sure focuses a lot on the old testament, for someone who claims to be a Roman Catholic Christian. She relies on the old testament for most of her positions, against m@sturb@tion, or sex outside of marriage.

Has she ever been married? Because if she has not been, then, according to her own standards, at the age of forty one, she will never have had sex, or m@sturb@ted.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

She's probably too busy playing with herself and in her own terms makes her ineligible for marriage.

O'Donnell has that same ignorant, Jerry Springer guest like confidence Sarah Palin has. No interest in serious legislation and is only interested in getting in trashy fights and acting tough. No doubt she'll be another white trash darling.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "Kevin - how is it anti male?"

That should be self-evident. At least, to any man that's ever been eighteen years old.

"I'm fairly certain females, on occasion, have been known to rub one out."

Yeah, but 90% of them can go without indefinitely, even in their late teens and twenties, and not die of a testosterone induced brain hemorrhage. /snark

"Are you disagreeing with me or with her?"

Anyone who is anti-m@sterbation, I have to disagree with. Beneath it is a hidden effort to cause the bitterly blue-balled death of legions of young men. It is especially anti-nerd. So, I have to oppose it, just out fidelity to my colleagues and countrymen!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Liam,

What's funnier, what you just posted -- or this:

Hoffman Trails in NY-23 Primary

Political newcomer Matt Doheny (R) "clung to a narrow lead this morning of more than 600 votes over Doug Hoffman (R) in a tightly-contested Republican primary for the 23rd Congressional District seat," the Syracuse Post-Standard reports.

No matter what happens, Hoffman will still have the Conservative Party line in the November election. If Doheny wins, it would set up another three-way race for the 23rd District seat, now held by Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY).

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/09/15/hoffman_trails_in_ny-23_primary.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Here's the bottom line: without presidential leadership the Cong Dems are going to f&ck up the tax issue just like they did health care. If I am proved wrong I will say so. If it turns out I am correct, however, I hope someone learns something.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Kevin - LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Truly, that was funny.

This is OT, but would the internets even exist if not for m@sterbation? In some ways p@rn delivery is what fueled the rise of the 'nets.

Posted by: nisleib | September 15, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

So, Hoffman lost again and the tea party is going to throw that one away again.

Sweet.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse


@Liam: Is Christine O'Donnell married, or has she ever been?

I think she's single. I can't see anything that mentions a previous marriage - she's a serious wingnut Catholic in the William Donohue style so I can't imagine she'd be divorced and I'm pretty sure that if she was a widow we'd have heard about it.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 10:23 AM

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

I find it very strange, that she is forty one years old, and claims to be still a Virgin, who has never even engaged in self pleasuring. She is, and has been a very pretty woman, so surely men must have sought to date her, so she must be either asexual, or else she is just lying to us.

It is all very strange. It is like someone who has a car with no engine in it, lecturing every one else to never take their engines for a spin.

Usually, when someone spends so much of their time, lecturing others about the evils of sex, they are overcompensating for something they are trying to keep hidden.

Remember that prominent preacher, who was always campaigning against homosexuals, while he was actually hiring the services of a male prostitute?

Something does not add up with this forty one years old Woman's obsession with chastity, and impure thoughts.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "Great reference."

I used to listen to the Hair soundtrack as a kid. Even in sixth grade, I didn't understand any of the words in that song.

http://www.amazon.com/Hair-Deluxe-1968-Original-Broadway/dp/B0000DZ3IC/

The one I grew up with is track 4. Not the whole track but there's enough to get the gist.

If you're familiar with "Abie Baby, you too will question my parent's wisdom in letter the soundtrack to hair (along with the soundtrack to Jesus Christ: Superstar) be part of my audio life from about the age of 4. "Abie Baby", which has some quite colorful language, was one of my favorite songs for quite a spell. Along with "Sodomy" . . . but I loved that whole album. Sigh. I'm so old.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I'd like to see how many of those voting for what are consider tea party candidates are supporters of Ron Paul. If a majority are I can see why they would be Republican establishment. He gets crapped on every election by Republicans.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

From Ezra Klein:

"There is no policy that President Obama has passed or proposed that added as much to the deficit as the Republican Party's $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, if you put aside Obama's plan to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, there is no policy he has passed or proposed that would do half as much damage to the deficit. There is not even a policy that would do a quarter as much damage to the deficit. "

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - OK, this one I'll respond to because it is interesting and because I'll take any excuse to try and get my thinking straight on it.

There are two ways to interpret that question, "Who does Palin really represent?". My use of it above was as regards image or narrative advanced for electoral purposes. That is, what's important in one sense is who do the TP 'think' she represents? If they come to perceive/belief it isn't really them, then she's toast.

The other way to think of the questions is, what is really going on behind or beneath the desired image/narrative?

It's not debatable as to where her support arose and who has continued to forward it since pre-nomination. That is, Kristol, the WSJ and Limbaugh most obviously. These are the main media story-tellers or marketers or narrative-creators (pick your favorite term) forwarding the electoral opportunities of Republican candidates who are most agreeable to big money and entrenched power. But they are using her for her obvious ability to motivate and perhaps beyond that as well, to function as a cardboard cutout leader they can manipulate (the first is certain, the second less so).

The greater unknown in here is her. She is a certain species of social pathology but just what species remains unclear. How deep is her deluded lust for personal aggrandizement? How deep is her lust for personal wealth through a-sucker-born-every-minute manipulations?

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell is a living confirmation of my truism:

If you wish to keep your beer cold, place it next to a Christian Conservative Woman's Heart.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Bernie,

For those who might have missed it, please repost that quote of what Quitter Palin said, about why France gave us the Statue Of Liberty.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin - "I may surprise you to learn than Roger Ailes does not actually handle day-to-day programming, or do general production, at Fox News"

Nope.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Must-read:

* U.S. begins long-awaited assault on Taliban stronghold *

U.S. forces launched a major operation in southern Afghanistan early Wednesday in the district that gave birth to the Taliban movement, in what could be one of the most important offensives of the war.

Thousands of U.S. and Afghan troops encircled and swooped into a belt of lush farm land in Zhari district, a sanctuary and staging post for the Taliban just west of Kandahar city known to foreign soldiers as “the heart of darkness.” Key insurgent-held villages such as Mukuan, Pashmul and Singesar are the target, areas essentially untouched by coalition forces since they entered Afghanistan in 2001.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/15/100588/us-launches-major-assault-on-taliban.html

That, plus continued Middle East talks and yesterday's story of keeping the pressure on the Af/Pak FATA terrorists...

I love Obama's foreign policy. Perfectly executed so far, imho.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Wankers Of Delaware; Be Very Very Afraid:

Lady Blue Balls Is Coming After You!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

edit: "letter the soundtrack" should be "letting the soundtrack". Sigh. Typing dyslexia.

@Liam: "Usually, when someone spends so much of their time, lecturing others about the evils of sex, they are overcompensating for something they are trying to keep hidden."

I suspect her inetrior life might resemble the lyrics to Duran Duran's "Bedroom Toys". I recommend you look it up, if you haven't ever listened to it. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin - re your earlier on big money influencing BOTH parties...yes (feel free to come over and borrow any of my Chomsky texts). But there are important differences.

First we take Manhattan. Then we take Berlin.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of Hair, "Air" from either the 1968 or 1967 soundtracks would be great anthem for any future global warming legislation. Just change the "carbon monoxide" lyric to "carbon dioxide" . . . it'd be perfect!

Just saying.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

All, my take on meaning of O'Donnell's victory:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 15, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

"Something does not add up with this forty one years old Woman's obsession with chastity, and impure thoughts."

If you want to accuse her of being a lesbian why not just come out and say it? (And then tell us why it's a problem for you.)

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "But there are important differences. First we take Manhattan. Then we take Berlin."

There are always importance differences. In general terms, though, it's usually a variation upon: "meet the new boss, same as a the old boss".

If I never read another complete sentence of Chomsky in my life, I will consider my life no poorer for not having done so. ;)

I prefer Marshall McLuhan. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Another note to Scott... you've misunderstood what it is I'm rethinking. That has little to do with Kristol/Palin.

I'm trying now to get a more accurate sense of the relationship between the TP thing and GOP strategies from a year and a half ago.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I don't see anyone calling her a lesbian. I don't see any Dem on this site indicating they have a problem with lesbians. But if she is a lesbian then she is also a liar and a hypocrite.

Do you think she's a lesbian, sbj?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

* Manufacturing sector leading recovery *

The Federal Reserve reported today that U.S. industrial production increased in August for the sixth straight month, and for the 13th time in the last 14 months

[...]

The ongoing gains in industrial output suggests that the manufacturing sector will continue to be one of the main economic driver of growth in the U.S.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/09/industrial-production-increases-13-of.html

Do NOT miss these two charts:

U.S. Industrial Production (1990-2010)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TJDPQYpiSYI/AAAAAAAAOZk/WvSgqYiQ0Jo/s400/ip1.jpg

U.S. Industrial Production Growth, Percent Change Year-over-Year (1990-2010)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TJDPSdGan9I/AAAAAAAAOZs/G7E05HqmoHE/s400/ip2.jpg

The 2nd chart is not to be missed if you're an economic wonk like me.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"Even in sixth grade, I didn't understand any of the words in that song."

When I first heard it I vaguely knew they were forbidden and taboo. So I made it my business to find out what they meant. In college the theater crowd did a presentation of Hair, which included several female friends of mine, so you can imagine I was first in line for tickets. Sadly, it being a Catholic university, certain concessions were made and "Sodomy" was cut from the soundtrack. Even more sadly, so was the infamous final scene. Never did get my money back.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse


"Something does not add up with this forty one years old Woman's obsession with chastity, and impure thoughts."

If you want to accuse her of being a lesbian why not just come out and say it? (And then tell us why it's a problem for you.)

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 11:00 AM |

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

I do not want to "accuse her" of that, as you put it. You sure are a very strange self professed "gay man" . Why would she being a lesbian, be something that I should "accuse her of". What would be wrong with her being one?

Do you know something about her, that we do not; and is that why you felt she should be "accused of being a lesbian". Apparently you think being a lesbian is something for her to be ashamed off. Maybe you are right, and she is one, and is trying to hide that fact, from all those Right Wing Hate Mongers, that you; a self loathing gay man, have aligned yourself with.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

More economy deets here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703743504575493490319351482.html

All in all, pretty darn solid given our condition less than 2 years ago. Pretty amazing actually.

Fears of a double-dip are, imho, way way overblown. Especially now that we've moved well beyond the Euro-zone debt crisis that took a big chunk out of the market late Spring/early Summer.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Who would have every thought that Christine O'Donnell could bring down the architect of the GOP's rising--Karl Rove by calling him unfactual. I'm sure Karl has been called a lot of things. But unfactual!! That's just too much like untruth.

Now, I wonder if Karl is the forgiving type? Or is he vindictive?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

12BarBlues |

I have another name for you to use, as a focal point of your history research.

Henry Joy McCracken
United Irishman
1767-1798

http://www.ulsterhistory.co.uk/henryjoymccracken.htm

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

I think Rove will survive the O'Donnell attack. After all George W. Bush used to call him Turd Blossom.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I think Rove will survive the O'Donnell attack.
-----------------------------------
But will O'Donnell survive the Rove attack? Far more interesting question. Sometimes, you get in trouble when you are too far out "on point".

I'll add McCracken to my list. Does McNulty mean Ulsterman or man of Ulster?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"If you want to accuse her of being a lesbian why not just come out and say it? (And then tell us why it's a problem for you.)

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 11:00 AM |"

Ummm, I believe it was people on YOUR side of the political spectrum that demanded to know if Elena Kagan was gay because she was unmarried and middle-aged. Were you just as outraged then? (Honest question - I don't remember). And I wonder what the chances are that those same people will be spreading the same rumours about Miss O'Donnell?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Mc means son of, in the old gaelic language.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne:

"Obama "preferred" a public option. The issue is whether he will use presidential muscle to make his "preference" policy. Taxing the Rich couldn't be more simple. Obama announces he won't sign any legislation that includes Bush's tax relief for The Rich. Make Congress bend to Obama's will. An impotent president is not what Americans want."

I'm not going to get drawn into a debate again about the public option, because perturbations about it have not subsided among those who have not come to understand that nothing precludes the incorporation of one at a future date. It should be understood -- by any student of politics -- that landmark legislation is never perfect its primary iteration, and is, nearly unfailingly, tweaked to become better law in subsequent iterations.

But, I will say that the public option issue demonstrates fully the limits of Presidential influence, as well as, specifically, how that influence has been grossly romanticized. Absent any profound leverage (e.g., withholding financial support for reelection), a President cannot simply "muscle" Congress into enacting what he wills them to do. [It should go without saying that there is little to no leverage for a Senator who is not running for reelection anytime soon, and even less leverage for one from a state that disapproves of a President.]

But you're right, however, that American people don't want an impotent President. Considering Obama's track record of accomplishments, I find it amusing that you'd even entertain the notion that he's "impotent." But, you seem to be using a different standard -- one in which the President dictates his will.
Perhaps, more than their disdain for an "impotent" President, the American people scorn an authoritarian or tyrannical President. Oh, the Founding Fathers did, too. Perhaps, that's why they established Congress as a coequal, not submissive, branch?

Posted by: associate20 | September 15, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

SBJ, were you outraged when O'Donnell accused Castle of cheating on his wife with a man?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

'll add McCracken to my list. Does McNulty mean Ulsterman or man of Ulster?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 11:30 AM

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

Mc means Son of, in Gaelic. I have not researched what Nulty stands for. You should be able to find it's original meaning on some Irish Genealogy websites.

One of the big reasons why England was never able to end rebellions for freedom and Independence, by the Irish, was because they enshrined all the previous failed attempts in ballads that were taught to all the following generations, which then inspired them to keep rebelling, again and again.

Roddy McCorley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slu23kGEw48

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010:

Those are fascinating charts! Thanks for posting.

Posted by: associate20 | September 15, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

You got it associate. :)

Anyone else reading this for the first time and don't want to scroll up, check this out:

U.S. Industrial Production Growth, Percent Change Year-over-Year (1990-2010)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TJDPSdGan9I/AAAAAAAAOZs/G7E05HqmoHE/s400/ip2.jpg

Bringin' Manufacturing Back!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

This is GREAT GREAT NEWS!

* U.S. Meat Farmers Brace for Limits on Antibiotics *

Now, after decades of debate, the Food and Drug Administration appears poised to issue its strongest guidelines on animal antibiotics yet, intended to reduce what it calls a clear risk to human health. They would end farm uses of the drugs simply to promote faster animal growth and call for tighter oversight by veterinarians.

The agency’s final version is expected within months, and comes at a time when animal confinement methods, safety monitoring and other aspects of so-called factory farming are also under sharp attack. The federal proposal has struck a nerve among major livestock producers, who argue that a direct link between farms and human illness has not been proved. The producers are vigorously opposing it even as many medical and health experts call it too timid.

Scores of scientific groups, including the American Medical Association and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, are calling for even stronger action that would bar most uses of key antibiotics in healthy animals, including use for disease prevention, as with Mr. Rowles’s piglets. Such a bill is gaining traction in Congress.

“Is producing the cheapest food in the world our only goal?” asked Dr. Gail R. Hansen, a veterinarian and senior officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, which has campaigned for new limits on farm antibiotics. “Those who say there is no evidence of risk are discounting 40 years of science. To wait until there’s nothing we can do about it doesn’t seem like the wisest course.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/us/15farm.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"Reaping what you sow: Does the victory of yet another profoundly eccentric candidate in a GOP Senate primary have a little something to do with the fact that even respectable conservatives have been trafficking in lurid whackjob paranoid nightmare/fantasy theories about Obama for nearly two years now?"
---------------------------------------------

THANK YOU!

Posted by: CalD | September 15, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

BTW, First Read on Murkowski today:

“As disappointed as I am in the outcome of the Primary and my belief that the Alaska Republican Party was hijacked by the Tea Party Express, an outside extremist group, I am not going to quit my party. I will not wrap myself in the flag of another political party for the sake of election at any cost.” Wow. "Extremist"? This isn't coming from someone in the liberal blogosphere.
-------------------------------------------

Wow, indeed.

Posted by: CalD | September 15, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"the public option issue demonstrates fully the limits of Presidential influence"

Ho! Ho! Ho! If you believe that then you have joined the GOP in fantasy world.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"Ho! Ho! Ho! If you believe that then you have joined the GOP in fantasy world."

:) Your pithy replies are amusing, but they aren't persuasive.

Posted by: associate20 | September 15, 2010 2:44 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