Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Will Dems seize their opportunity this week? The White House clearly thinks the war over the Bush tax cuts is a political gift, and Obama plans to redouble his efforts to use the fight over whether to extend taxes for "millionaires and billionaires" to draw a stark contrast between the parties.

Polite suggestion: Maybe Congressional Dems should hold a vote on whether to extend the middle class tax cuts? That would compliment Obama's efforts to define the GOP rather well, and would crank Dems up to full throttle on an issue where the public is already on their side.

Dems are set to decide how to proceed on this issue this week, so we'll soon know whether Dems are going to seize this opportunity or punt.

* White House flatly denies Times story about ad assault on Tea Party: The Times story linked above also claims the White House is planning an all out advertising assault on the GOP's link to the Tea Party, and the story is getting lots of play on the right. But a White House senior adviser emails that the story is false:

The New York Times got this one totally wrong. No one is weighing a national ad campaign.

Indeed, even if such an ad campaign were being contemplated, it would be launched by the DNC, the political arm of the White House, not by the White House itself.

* Show spine, Dems: E.J. Dionne adds his voice to those who remain flummoxed by Dem queasiness about taking on the tax cuts fight:

Politically, why shouldn't Democrats dare Republicans to vote against extending middle-class tax cuts and then have to explain that they opposed them because not enough money was going to the rich?

Dems are terrified that Republicans will portray them as "tax hikers." But the current political situation for Dems is already awful, and they need a game-changer.

* Another Dem runs screaming from the Obama/Pelosi agenda: Texas Rep Chet Edwards echoes, in advance, the inevitable GOP talking points about Dem losses this fall, claiming Dems "overreached," and he won't even say whether he'll support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.

* And Pelosi is still an albatross: The NRCC is up with a new round of ads hammering vulnerable Dems for sticking with Pelosi against the will of the people.

* But are Dems really running from health care? It's become an article of faith that Dems are bolting from health care reform, but the White House is planning a new offensive on the issue, and Obama advisers point out that many Dem candidates are touting individual provisions, if not the overall law itself.

* And: The GOP is divided over how to repeal health reform and what to replace it with, if anything.

* Dems hoping to put Christine O'Donnell away early? The DSCC is up on the air with a spot attacking Christine O'Donnell that seems a bit restrained, given all we've learned about her:

Alex Burns explains: "It's a cautious move for a committee that got unbelievably lucky in the GOP's choice of nominee -- and that clearly doesn't want any more surprises out of Delaware this fall."

* Karl Rove targeting O'Donnell again? First we heard that Rove had grovelingly thrown his support to O'Donnell. But now Rove is hammering O'Donnell over her claim that she "dabbled into witchcraft," arguing that it could be a liability "in southern Delaware, where there are a lot of church-going people."

* Response of the day: O'Donnell shoots back: "If I were a witch, Rove would be a supporter."

* Harry Reid's difficulties continue: The unemployment rate is "14.7 percent in Las Vegas," reports Nevada journalist Jon Ralston, via his email blast. "Still highest in country."

* The GOP's new contract with America nears completion: And social conservatives are convinced it will address hot-button social issues to their satisfaction.

* And the question of the day: Atrios asks:

Exactly why is anything Newt Gingrich says newsworthy?

Because news orgs know that when Newt says Obama is in the grip of a Kenyan world view or is plotting to impose sharia law on America's schoolchildren, or whatever it is he's been saying lately, people will go clickety-clickety-click.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | September 20, 2010; 8:30 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, House GOPers, Morning Plum, Political media, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sunday Open Thread
Next: Christine O'Donnell said gays suffer from `identity disorder,' reporter says

Comments

Will the 2010 Contract include GOP punishing women who have had to deal with incestuous and rapists' pregnancies? Sounds like that may be at the top of their agenda along with phasing out Medicare and SS.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

As promised over the weekend, I have set up a "community organizers" page at Act Blue. I have chosen three candidates this week that I believe need our support and will add one or two new ones each week. No one here will see any personal information, including myself, if and when you donate. We have a goal this week of $500 and I have donated $20 to each of the three candidates to get us started. I am also donating to my own local races so that was the best I could do. Any amount you can spare will be appreciated by these candidates.

They are, Chris Coons, Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson.

Chris Coons is an obvious choice I think for this week. We shouldn't just assume that he will win because of his opponent and Dems have a real chance now of saving a Senate seat in Delaware.

Feingold, while not everyone's cup of "tea" is an important voice in the Senate and is in a real fight to save his seat. To better explain why we should support him please read Greenwald's piece from last week.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio/2010/09/14/feingold/index.html

Alan Grayson is a bit of a polarizing figure but he is also defying the odds in a relatively conservative district. He takes the fight to the other side and while I don't always agree with his choice of words he is a champion of progressive causes. The article linked below will explain better than I can why I chose him.

http://forward.com/articles/131322/#ixzz0zv978eQo

And, drum roll.........., here is our very own ActBlue page. For all you folks out there who enjoy reading the comments here, please feel free to join us in contributing whatever little bit you can afford.

http://www.actblue.com/page/plcommunity

Posted by: lmsinca | September 20, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Greg, what do you think of growing "Blumenthal-McMahon a toss-up' meme? I read the Cook report analysis, which cites recent polling showing Blumenthal up in range from 6% (Q) to mid-double digits, and Republican party polls showing race in high single digits, but which they have not divulged. Certainly Blumenthal has his credibility issues, and McMahon can spend a ton of money, but wasn't it always likely that race would eventually tighten to about where it is today? Did Dems expect to win by 20% in this climate? Plus Blumenthal is above 50% in all polls I've seen, and he has good favorables. I read the Cook report post explaining their toss up call, and understand in theory that McMahon's trend line is rising, but still had to scratch my head. And now talkingpoints memo has taken up the issue. I don't recall ever seeing such a call based on trend line that anticipates closer race, in absence of survey result showing a tie/toss up actually exists. Nate Silver weighed in by saying he isn't entirely comfortable with his model's 98% call for Blumenthal, but even with large dose of salt that is far from a tossup.

Posted by: BillB10 | September 20, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

thanks lmsinca. I agree that in this environment no one should say anything is impossible.

And leichtman we'll keep an eye out for that.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 20, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

@leichtman1: "Will the 2010 Contract include GOP punishing women who have had to deal with incestuous and rapists' pregnancies?"

Probably, although referring to children as "punishment" (although as a very voluntary parent of two, I can say with absolute certainty that they are) may not play well as an attack against any pro-life planking that may be there. Taking away the right to choose, telling women what to do with their bodies--these are much better, rhetorically.

"Sounds like that may be at the top of their agenda along with phasing out Medicare and SS."

Yeah, that wouldn't be there. Is anybody actually talking about getting rid of Social Security? I haven't seen anything, but it's possible that I missed it. And people have talked about cutting or replacing Medicare in some form or fashion, but nobody is intending to deprive senior citizens of medical care and replace them with death panels: insurance industry, government, or otherwise.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

"Will Dems seize their opportunity this week?"

Don't bet the house on it, Greg.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Ims:


Thanks for doing the legwork. Excellent candidate selections. I just made some meager contributions.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

"Is anybody actually talking about getting rid of Social Security? I haven't seen anything, but it's possible that I missed it. And people have talked about cutting or replacing Medicare in some form or fashion, but nobody is intending to deprive senior citizens of medical care and replace them with death panels: insurance industry, government, or otherwise."

No they aren't TALKING about it; they're just planning to do it. If you don't know that Conservatives aim to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society you aren't paying any attention at all. That is the core of Modern Reactionary Conservatism.

Later, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

An interesting debate between Coons and O'Donnell:

http://andrewsproblem.blogspot.com/2010/09/delaware-primary-debate.html

You know, when you get past the hype, Christine clearly has a lot of good ideas for Delaware.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

"You know, when you get past the hype, Christine clearly has a lot of good ideas for Delaware."

Hey, Liam, what do you think of your Reasonable Republican now?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Thanks wb, I'll link the page every morning and evening so we get as many folks as possible energized about some of these races. And any meager contribution is welcome. One more link this morning to our actblue page and our three candidates this week.

http://www.actblue.com/page/plcommunity

Posted by: lmsinca | September 20, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Joe Miller has been talking about getting rid of Social Security and Medicare.

Paul Ryan has suggested it as well. He figures that if all of us great unwashed would just stop with our selfish demands to live in buildings, eat food, and go to the doctor in our old age, we can pay off the huge debts his party ran up in only 50 years!

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 20, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

And Joe Miller is definitely talking about getting rid of social security and he thinks unemployment insurance is unconstitutional.

But he has some "good ideas" for Alaska.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Speakings of Coons (well, I was, anyway), it appears that he's a bit of a jerk:

http://patterico.com/2010/09/19/leftist-activist-in-delaware-chris-coons-harassed-me-due-to-my-political-activism/

Not that that's going to influence the election, but it may be a case where both sides coulda done better. Not sure where Chris stands on midnight fertility rights, or individual moments of ecstatic onanism, both issues which could turn the tide in this election.

@wbgonne: "No they aren't TALKING about it; they're just planning to do it."

Well, then, it's that whole inability to read minds that has me confounded again.

"If you don't know that Conservatives aim to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society you aren't paying any attention at all"

I am a conservative, and I intend no such thing at all. Unless, of course, I'm lying about it. But then . . . that would do me no good. You can read my mind. /snark

Anyhoo, why dismantle the New Deal or The Great Society? They could start by dismantling the legacy of the Nixon era. OSHA, the EPA, minority quotas in government contracts . . . ;)

Oh, wait, none of that's actually going to happen, either.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin..."You know, when you get past the hype, Christine clearly has a lot of good ideas for Delaware."

HYPE? HYPE? HYPE?

Kevin you disappoint me my friend. You're starting to sound like Caribou Barbie. If people point out you're nothing more than a vacuous Bimbo by using YOUR OWN statements to prove the point..then simply dismiss it as hype.

If you're ideas are so wack, you're so uneducated and inarticulate to conduct a simple press conference..then blame it on the "lamestream" media that was out to get you. Nobody can freaking "get you" without you giving them plenty of ammunition.

Hype...Kevin you can do better. Mice with fully developed human brains? More science behind creationism than Evolution?
Women aren't capable of service in the Armed forces and their admission to the Military Academies would ruin those institutions? Lying about schools...using campaign funds for PERSONAL expenses...taking a home into foreclosure only to be saved by a boyfried...this is HYPE?

Ohhh but somewhere along the way she must have uttered the SINGLE Republican idea...cut taxes. What else does she have in mind for the poor residents of Delaware who have to be as embarrassed by what the disgusting r's have done to their state with that nomination as we in Florida are by another disgusting r nominee Rick sleazeball Scott!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 20, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, what is it you think conservative ARE actually going to do if it is not pursue their agenda? The agenda that the recent nominees have espoused has included elimination of SS and Medicare, criminalization of a woman's right to choose in all circumstances.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

@cmccauley60: "And Joe Miller is definitely talking about getting rid of social security and he thinks unemployment insurance is unconstitutional."

Well, there's one. Good luck to him on that. It really is an impossible argument to make, practically and politically.

Also, I'd be interested to find out why a government-administered unemployment insurance program is unconstitutional, exactly. And have there been any constitutional challenges to it in court, and how have those gone?

Best of luck to Mr. Miller. But one thing I can say with near certainty--his positions will not be making it into the latest "Contract with America". Which, frankly, I'll be surprised if the Republicans manage to produce, unless it's strictly a pledge to say no to Obama about everything.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Come on now, Kevin thinks Sarah Palin has the stability and what it takes to run the country.

And regarding O'Donnell. There's no need to go all in on her. Those statements she's made in the past speak for themselves. Late night talk shows and news shows are doing enough damage already.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Miller has called SS UNCONSITUTIONAL usurping by big govt. Any guess what his desires are about SS or were you unaware that he has repeated that statement and will not back away from it? That sure sounds like Repealing SS at the top of his agenda or should we take that as his comical statement?

And yes Kevin Christine has some great ideas which she will be sharing on the campaign trail with Elizabeth Montgomery.

Glad that Feingold was placed on the ActBlue list but Grayson I believe has over a million in his war chest and would prefer that either Bill White or Sestak get new contributions imho there.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

@cmccauley60: "Kevin, what is it you think conservative ARE actually going to do if it is not pursue their agenda?"

And other than getting those plum committee chairmanships back for their side, their agenda is . . . ? Oh, impeach Obama. They'll probably get right on that.

"The agenda that the recent nominees have espoused has included elimination of SS and Medicare"

Paul Ryan and Joe Miller, right? Anyone else? I was aware of Ryan's interesting proposals, wasn't aware that Joe Miller was literally on the crazy train, but, okay. Neither of them are going to get past their own party on those issues, much less the Democrats, much less ever get a veto-proof majorities. Their positions on said issues are masturbatory fantasies, and I'm surprised Christine O'Donnell hasn't called them out yet.

"criminalization of a woman's right to choose in all circumstances."

Some form of limiting and restricting abortion rights/access has been part of the conservative movement, and usually the Republican platform, since Roe v. Wade. But, at least a pursuit of that is a plausible contention, although the Republican party as a whole will not advance legislation that criminalizes access to abortion under all circumstances. It'll be all procedures (i.e., partial birth abortions) and trimesters and what not. There will almost always be exceptions for life-of-the-mother and rape.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

The Tea Party folks have made all the noise and have shown their enthusiasm.

However in virtually every poll of registered voters...not likely voters..the Dems do well.

So for the Dems it's a simply matter of GOTV. While that seems obvious and is probably the crux of most elections..it is CRITICAL in this year's midterms.

I agree with the other posters who point out the Dems should make a big deal out of the tax cuts for the middle class and show the R's whining endlessly and petulantly for the wealthiest amongst us, who obviously do not need tax relief after scoring 80 % of the gains under Bush.

It may seem like a small thing but I believe John Stewart's rally for Sanity is also a terrific thing..especially coming just a few days before the elections. If you've seen some of the signs they've made they skewer Beck and the tea party morons perfectly....e.g...."I disagree with you but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler"

I've already received emails from people "my age"..yeah 60 somethings who are planning to attend. But what has me most excited is the potential to re energize the young vote.

I wish the DNC, Move on and others would then add a simple :30 spot in heavy rotation from now until election day.

2 unbudgeted wasteful wars, a total Government breakdown in Hurricane disaster response that made us look like a 3rd World country...2 unbudgeted tax cuts that favored the wealthiest amongst us..and turning a budget surplus into the largest deficit in history...and the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression. You really do NEED TO VOTE!

No need to say anything about Democrats or Republicans...simply point out their RECORD..over and over and over again!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 20, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

I'd say Sestak is in a much more dire position than Grayson. That seat should have gone Dem but Sestak seems to be floundering. Not sure how someone with such a distinguished career could be losing to a guy that hasn't done anything in his life.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "HYPE? HYPE? HYPE? Kevin you disappoint me my friend."

Ruk, did you read the link? Adding /snark would have spoiled the joke. but there's a reason why there's a link there. Read the link, and then come back and tell me you still don't get it.

You know, the link? The line that was RIGHT ABOVE the line about "When you get past all the hype" . . . you know, as if they might somehow be . . . I dunno . . . related.

It would have taken you less time to copy and paste the link, and read the entire thing, than it probably took you type your response to what you thought I had said because you didn't, you know, follow the link.

http://andrewsproblem.blogspot.com/2010/09/delaware-primary-debate.html

That's the link. You ruined the gag, BTW. Thanks a lot. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Uh huh ... so what they say is different than what they plan to do? Ryan is supposed to be the economic policy guru of the party, isn't he? But what he says is irrelevant to what they actually plan to do?

Now I see why you're a "conservative." Seems you disagree with most of their policy initiatives but like that they won't actually do what they say.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

did he think that no one would pick up on his radical statements b/c he said it on Fox?

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Miller said Washington has overstepped its constitutional authority by enacting unemployment compensation, Social Security and Medicare programs that have bankrupted the nation"

and is he now part of the mainstream GOP philospohy?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

@MikefromArlington: "Come on now, Kevin thinks Sarah Palin has the stability and what it takes to run the country."

While splitting logs, gutting deer, starting a fire with nothing but green wood, her glasses, and the power of the sun, and going toe-to-toe with Vin Diesel in a mixed-martial arts competition and coming out on top.

You betcha!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin...

"It really is an impossible argument to make, practically and politically."

Agreed with you on that one my Tennessee fried...it's far easier to talk about eliminating SS/Medicare and other social safety net programs that actually doing.
And the last good Republican President we've had also agrees...

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952-----

That's as true today as it was 58 years ago!

But you miss the point completely Kevin.
It's not just that they WANT to do this...it's that they even THINK this way.
They are bereft of genuine WORKABLE ideas.
They are heartless, and to the degree they can succeed they'd leave us with a brutish horrible 3rd world society..actually not totally 3rd world...perhaps as advanced as Brazil...Rio has wonderful economic numbers..as viewed by someone from the right...as viewed by a person with any social conscience..not so hot...high poverty rates and perhaps no coincidentally high crime rates.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 20, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin...sorry for not reading the link and getting your snark. I apologize. I'm relieved as well. :-)

@Greg I may need to post this several times before you actually get to read it but why are the techies here not as competent as on your old site. How hard is it to underline and create hyperlinks out of people's posted links. All my email hosts do this automatically...MS Word does it automatically. Why not here? If having links is a good thing..and IMHO it is...then why not make it easier for us to use them.

Yes I admit that highlighting, right clicking, opening a new browser, pasting in the link, and then getting it to open is not the end of the world...it was so much easier in the old days to simply click the hyperlink ONCE as we do with your posts.

Perhaps these WaPo IT idjits could simply ask the hosts on your old site how they did it.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 20, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Imsinca for all your work.

I'll speak to my husband tonight about what we can afford to contribute.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Greg, EJ points out the roots of our frustrations with the dems.
it's getting so we will have to add 'check for spine' when vetting candidates anymore.
I am just sick and tired of weakling dems who run away from the bullies rather then fight.
It is not that hard to stand up to them. Republicans become profoundly confused when the rare democrat stands against the bullying and answer back : so what?
And yet. dems flee the minute a republican clears his throat.
It's so embarrassing.

Posted by: vwcat | September 20, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

mike, I thought we'd put Sestak on the "community organizers" list next week. So many candidates and so little time and money.

Here's a depressing article about people in the over 50 age group having real difficulty finding work while competing with so many younger qualified potential candidates for so few jobs. Just another reason not to raise the retirement age in SS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Of the 14.9 million unemployed, more than 2.2 million are 55 or older. Nearly half of them have been unemployed six months or longer, according to the Labor Department. The unemployment rate in the group — 7.3 percent — is at a record, more than double what it was at the beginning of the latest recession.

After other recent downturns, older people who lost jobs fretted about how long it would take to return to the work force and worried that they might never recover their former incomes. But today, because it will take years to absorb the giant pool of unemployed at the economy’s recent pace, many of these older people may simply age out of the labor force before their luck changes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/business/economy/20older.html?_r=2

Posted by: lmsinca | September 20, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

rukidding7, I'm no expert but once you begin accepting html code in comments, you introduce numerous security issues. Straight text eliminates those problems.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

@cmccaulley: "Uh huh ... so what they say is different than what they plan to do? Ryan is supposed to be the economic policy guru of the party, isn't he? "

Uh, not that I know of. Most of them, as far as I understand it, would prefer he shut up. Miller's positions probably aren't an issue yet, as he hasn't been elected. Are there other Republican's taking Paul Ryan's proposals seriously? Even Ryan characterized them as a starting point, or a place to start discussions. Although I think they were mostly an attempt to get attention, because I had never heard of Paul Ryan before his economic blueprint thing.

But I don't think he's the economic guru of the GOP. I haven't seen any evidence, thus far, that he's an economic guru, period.

"Seems you disagree with most of their policy initiatives but like that they won't actually do what they say."

Well, now, I think that about all politicians.

However, even with that caveat, political parties (Republicans, Democrats) are different from ideologies (conservative, liberal), and then individuals are different from parties, so Paul Ryan and Joe Miller (who just won a primary, and has even won an actual election yet) are not the same as the Republican party.

And I like clarity. If there is a Republican part platform based on the abolition of Medicare and Social Security, I'm not aware of it, and would prefer I learn. Same as with individual pols. If there are more folks than Paul Ryan (who I was aware of) or Joe Miller (who I didn't know was on the abolition of SS and Medicare crazy train), I'd like to find out. Already this morning, I've learned something.

@ruk: "it's far easier to talk about eliminating SS/Medicare and other social safety net programs that actually doing."

I'd argue that it's impossible to get rid of them. In part, because it can never be necessary. If expenses are out of control, reform, or cutting benefits, is the answer. Wholesale elimination is like amputating your foot because you broke your toe. Advocating such things is, IMHO, demagoguery.

Although, after years of accusing Republicans and conservatives (who did not want to end SS or Medicare) of wanting to end Social Security and Medicare, all that left-wing negative energy has actually created political candidates who really do. I hope you're proud of yourselves. /snark

"It's not just that they WANT to do this...it's that they even THINK this way."

Hmm. Thought crime. I hadn't considered that.

"They are heartless,"

That's the thing I truly envy your side of the aisle, Ruk. Not only can you read minds, you can read hearts. Or you have X-ray vision, and can literally see into their chest cavities and see that, instead of hearts, they only have all-consuming black holes of death. Plus, X-ray vision is cool.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

And here's a very pertinent article from Krugman that speaks to many conversations here over the last few weeks regarding the expiration of tax cuts for those making over $250k.

ps Thanks Cat

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"And among the undeniably rich, a belligerent sense of entitlement has taken hold: it’s their money, and they have the right to keep it. “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes — but that was a long time ago.

The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.

You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Posted by: lmsinca | September 20, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Here's Krugman's closing line. Sound familiar?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people."

Posted by: lmsinca | September 20, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

rukidding7, I'm no expert but once you begin accepting html code in comments, you introduce numerous security issues. Straight text eliminates those problems.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Kevin,

I think she does have the right ideas but they are directed at the wrong candidate. I think she is projecting -- typical Republican Witchcraft -- when she says:

Y'AI'NG'NGAH
YOG SOTHOTH
H'EE-L'GEB
F'AI TRHODOG
UAAAAH!

Obviously, she's talking about herself.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

@Mike....thanks for your technical answer.
I'm just saddened by the fact that the last host for Greg's blog had that feature and this was does not.

Perhaps your answer also has something to do with the reason the last host for the blog would only allow ONE link per post and would reject all posts with double links.

As a reader however I still prefer the old hyperlinks...just as we see in Greg's posts and would rather have them even if it meant going back to the old days of having to make numerous posts for any additional links.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 20, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

rukidding 7 wrote:
It may seem like a small thing but I believe John Stewart's rally for Sanity is also a terrific thing..especially coming just a few days before the elections. If you've seen some of the signs they've made they skewer Beck and the tea party morons perfectly....e.g...."I disagree with you but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler"

I've already received emails from people "my age"..yeah 60 somethings who are planning to attend. But what has me most excited is the potential to re energize the young vote.
----------------------------------------

I agree that the Steart-Cobert thing has the potential to really make a difference.
If enough people will attend then the media cannot ignore it.
And with the reporting more and more people will see the basic common sense behind it all and how things have gotten completely out of control and is part of the reason things are not getting fixed in this country.
Many people in the country will see they are not alone and in fact, the tea party is just a very small slice that has been built up and promoted by our media, much the way they have obsessed over Palin.
this has the potential to send a loud message to our media, the rightwing and the country that the insanity needs to stop.

Posted by: vwcat | September 20, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

@mike: "rukidding7, I'm no expert but once you begin accepting html code in comments, you introduce numerous security issues."

Ruks not describing a system which lets users introduce HTML code, which is indeed a problem, but one that recognized URLs (ala Microsoft Word, where it gets irritating, or email packages, etc., that do the same), and converts them to a clickable link with a "nofollow" tag (to discourage spamming comments in an attempt to create SEO linkjuice for Google and other search engines).

I undertand the decision is primarily to discourage spamming, but requiring folks to sign up and limiting links to one full URL per post (or so) probably accomplishes most of that. A pop-up that tells folks including a link that the link will be created, but will include a "nofollow" tag so that it will be invisible to search engines (and thus no good for creating Google linkjuice) would probably discourage folks posting just for linkjuice.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "'You know, when you get past the hype, Christine clearly has a lot of good ideas for Delaware.' Hey, Liam, what do you think of your Reasonable Republican now?"

You didn't read the link, either, I take it. Missed that originally. Anyhoo, *I* thought it was funny. I just have to remind myself that I'm amongst humorless literalist in the future and spell it out. ;)

/snark

etc.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin "Not only can you read minds, you can read hearts."

Actually Kevin there is no reading or "Xray Vision" :-) necessary. Actions speak so much louder than words. When you have a "relatively" sane member of the right, and an ordained Minister, Mike Huckabee stand up in front of the Values Voters (what an incredible misnomer and BS that name is LMAO) and compare "pre existing health conditions" with a house that has burnt down or an automobile that has already been crashed...I don't have to "read his mind or heart" he has already revealed it very, very clearly!!! Human life is not more sacred than property. Truthfully Kevin..is he the ONLY r to think this way?
Is he REALLY an exception or outlier?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 20, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca,

You ROCK! GO girl! :)

I just threw in for all 3 progressive candidates. Fired Up!

Let's keep it rockin' PL PEEPS!

http://www.actblue.com/page/plcommunity

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

leichtman, I don't disagree re either of your suggestions and will definitely add Sestak next week. But I thought for the first week of our actblue page this sounded like a good reason to include Grayson.

Ethan, did you see our actblue page?

http://www.actblue.com/page/plcommunity

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Most critically, Grayson mobilizes and energizes his diverse base: African Americans, Latinos, Jews, gay men and lesbians, union members, pro-choice activists and younger “‘Daily Show’ Democrats,” who, like him, do not hesitate to criticize their party’s leadership for insufficient fervor and a promiscuous eagerness to compromise. Their enthusiasm and their commitment, Grayson says, can make up for their smaller numbers in the otherwise moderately conservative district. If he manages to win despite the expected GOP wave — regardless of his margin — the lesson for Democrats will be clear.

“If Grayson wins,” said Aubrey Jewett, associate professor of political science at the University of Central Florida, “and especially if many other congressional Democrats lose, the lesson for the Democratic Party will be clear: A winning strategy for Democrats in swing districts involves energetically advocating progressive positions rather than muddling policy differences for the moderate voters.”


Read more: http://forward.com/articles/131322/#ixzz1052xnBhp

Posted by: lmsinca | September 20, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

O'donnell must scare the crap out of the liberals. Why else would the give her the full Palin?

My wife's insight into this makes so much sense I offer it here for you guys to ponder:

Why can't we in America have elected officials whose lives are more like ours? Why does it always have to be some blue blood ivy leaguer? Why can't it be someone who struggled and overcame, just like the vast majority of Americans?

that certainly makes sense to me. And for those who are ready to scream reasons why O'Donnell should not serve the people of Delaware let me offer another example. This should hit home for you lefties:

Marion Barry

This is from Wiki:
"As Mayor of Washington D.C., Barry was the target of a high-profile 1990 arrest on drug charges, which precluded him from seeking reelection that year. After he was convicted of the charges, Barry served six months in a federal prison, but was elected to the D.C. city council in 1992 and ultimately returned to the mayoralty in 1994, serving from 1995 to 1999. Today, Barry again serves on the city council, representing Ward 8, which comprises Anacostia, Congress Heights, Washington Highlands, and other neighborhoods."

Soooo, here we have a convicted felon being re elected by Democrats. But God forbid that a less that pure as the driven snow rightie seek election without being one step shy of cannonization.

so spare us the hyperventilation. You're basically saying that a Republican with an interesting past cannot be elected while a self professed bearded marxist who raised taxes no less than three times can be.

I don't think so. The question the votes in Delaware have to ask is this: What is more important now, O'Donnell's taxes or yours?

Oh, and one more thing: don't be surprised if Jim Trafficante appears on a Democrat ballot in the near future!

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, a hyper-link contains an html tag.

Sheesh! The left and the right can't even agree on what's html or not!

lol :)

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "If you've seen some of the signs they've made they skewer Beck and the tea party morons perfectly....e.g....'I disagree with you but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler'"

Um, Stewart also showed lefties holding up signs comparing Bush to Hitler, as well--making the point that just because you disagree with someone, no matter what side their on, doesn't mean that they are Hitler, or that that's a remotely helpful comparison.

And while I'd like to think John Stewart's message ("Take it Down A Notch, America") will resonate, that seems highly unlikely. People like absolutes, they like clear narratives of good and evil, and honest discussion of issues is boring, when you can accuse the other side of wanting to destroy America. I'm very much on the Jon Stewart bandwagon--everybody needs to chill.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Ethan, feel free to offer suggestions for next week everyone. I think three candidates a week keeps it manageable.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 20, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I also added a profile for ActBlue Express...

I suggest folks sign up for that so you don't have to keep entering your CC info each time you want to chip in.

Let's show those Republican NeoConfederate G-O-BP Baggers that they don't own US and they don't own the phrase CITIZENS UNITED!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

All, I've confirmed that Christine O'Donnell did say gays suffer from "identity disorder":

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 20, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Thx lmsinca, sounds good.

Here are three stories, then I gotta split:

*Majority Support Gay Marriage*

A new AP-GfK Poll finds that 52% of Americans support the rights of same-sex couples to marry. It's the second national poll to have found majority support for gay marriage in the last two months.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/09/20/majority_support_gay_marriage.html

*Q&A: Fact and fiction in debate over Bush tax cuts*

New data from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, however, help separate fact from fiction. These numbers don't speak to the merits of lower or higher tax rates, they simply make plain who'd be affected by the proposed changes, and how.
Here's a closer look.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/17/100775/qa-fact-and-fiction-in-debate.html

*As Iraq winds down, U.S. Army confronts a broken force*

When Lt. Col. Dave Wilson took command of a battalion of the 4th Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, the unit had just returned to Texas from 14 months traveling some of Iraq's most dangerous roads as part of a logistics mission.

What he found, he said, was a unit far more damaged than the single death it had suffered in its two deployments to Iraq.

Nearly 70 soldiers in his 1,163-member battalion had tested positive for drugs: methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana. Others were abusing prescription drugs. Troops were passing around a tape of a female lieutenant having sex with five soldiers from the unit. Seven soldiers in the brigade died from drug overdoses and traffic accidents when they returned to Fort Bliss, near El Paso, after their first deployment.

"The inmates were running the prison," Wilson said.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/17/100771/as-iraq-winds-down-us-army-tries.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Its hardly any use quoting Ike. He's a "Clinton Democrat" compared to today's TeaOP. They couldn't care less about the past, as much as they long for a mythical version of it.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 20, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

@mikefromarlington: "Kevin, a hyper-link contains an html tag."

Well, duh. ;)

My point is, it's different if you post process HTML insertion (that is, I write this link: http://www.kevinwillis.net/wooteam/albums.php ), tell people about it, and then submit. I don't put in the HREF myself, so I don't get to insert Javascript tags or redirects or even GET variables that might be used to hack at the server, or misdirect folks to fake websites.

However, the script that handles the submit recognizes the http:// as the beginning of a URL, and if the URL meets certain qualifications (no "javascript", for example, or other nonsense), then the script handles the adding of the HREF.

Lots of sites do it that way, to avoid the security vulnerabilities of just letting folks type in HTML tags. What ruk was describing is not foolproof (though much easier to lock down than allowing raw HTML entry), but doesn't represent a serious security the risk the way that allowing folks to just enter HTML tags in a comment box does.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

About Chet Edwards, he is somewhere right to the right of Barry Goldwater anyway. I'm not sure how he managed to get labeled a Democrat, but even now, there are Republicans in Congress more moderate than he is. I voted for him last time because I went straight Democratic, but this time I may go something else on one particular electoral race.

Posted by: dkmjr | September 20, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

sadly for RUK, Mr Huckabee has a valid point. Further, RUK demonstrates an abyssal ignorance of the way insurance works in the real world. And finally, the left continually tries to develop policies based on the way they think people are, rather than the way they actually behave.

In an ideal world Americans won't seek to work the system to their benefit in the hope of something for nothing. In the real world, as any number of county case workers can tell you, gaming the system is a way of life.

so Huckabee has a point and all the bluster provided by RUK won't change the facts of life.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

skipsailing28's wife must lead an interesting life if she thinks that O'Donnell is just like normal folks. ("Why can't we in America have elected officials whose lives are more like ours?" )

Here's a woman who hasn't had a steady job in her life, depends on boy friends and campaign donors for a living, is completely obsessed with sex, and dabbles in witchcraft. About the only thing close to normal is that she almost lost her house to foreclosure, but in her case she was saved by her boyfriend who bought it for her. That doesn't happen to many other people.

And even if she were somewhat close to normal, the reason she's a bad candidate is that she is incompetent and has no idea of what knowledgeable legislators do. That is the only valid criterion, whether they know what they're doing or whether they just run on dogma.

Posted by: dkmjr | September 20, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

rukidding7:

"Women aren't capable of service in the Armed forces and their admission to the Military Academies would ruin those institutions".

Jim Webb: "Women can't fight"

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/2182.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

BTW, in ye olde nautical times, the albatross, like the dolphin, was symbolic of good luck and safe seas. It was killing the albatross that cursed the Ancient Mariner to wear it around his neck. Perhaps there's a lesson here....

Posted by: stonedone | September 20, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

dkmjr:

Ms. O'Donnell certainly made her share of mistakes in life. After she became a born-again Christian, she's definitely been less judgmental of others than you are of her.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

@Skip "Mr Huckabee has a valid point. Further, RUK demonstrates an abyssal ignorance of the way insurance works in the real world"

A valid point in "free enterprise terms" not so valid in human terms or societal terms.
But then Skip perhaps you are an atheist because it is you who has an absymal ignorance of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I wouldn't bring up religion except that Huckabee is an ordained minister who said the Bible should take precedence over the Constitution. And the "Values Voters" thump their Bibles incessantly.

If you equate "pre existing health conditions" with property then by DEFINITION you are equating HUMAN LIFE with material goods!!! And so Skip do you know ANYTHING about the teachings of Jesus Christ. Obviously Huckabee and ordained minister does not or chooses not to live by those teachings!

Skip it's you who are ignorant and I might add heartless as well! Human beings are not the same as a house or a car! If Huckabee wasn't being such a Republican sleaze he would have followed his example by pointing out..that's the way PROFIT views human beings...but we aspire to more than just trying to see who can make the most money.

A little help for you Skip..something you won't get from the heathens at the "Values Voters"
1 John 3:17

17 But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?

Ironically I am not a religious person. I am a Deist...much like many of our Founding Fathers...not a Christian..however I was raised a Catholic and schooled in the Bible and so I find it terribly annoying when the Christian Taliban totally abuse the teachings of Christ Himself and then parade around waving flags and carrying the Bible. The hypocrisy is simply astounding!!!

And so Skip which are you?
An Atheist? Or simply an ignorant hypocrite?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 20, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Skip is just like many of the other mindless R's. They nominated an entire slate of wack jobs that they can't really defend except to say one of two things..."they're just like us everyday people" Well skip I don't want to have everyday morons like you and your wife running things...I like EDUCATED people.
I'm not for voting for DUMB people because they are like us.

And then when all else fails because the candidate is literally indefensible...misdirect and try to find every D you can who also was a failure.
Great logic Skip moron...our failures are as good as your failures.

An idiot here in Florida couldn't defend Rick Scott's record of sleazy thievery and so they tried skip's lame trick...Well it wasn't just HCA...Blue Cross and Blue Shield and Wellpoint do shady stuff too...yeahhh idjit...but they don't have disgraced former CEO's running for the Governors mansion.

This wave of ignorance from Skip and Jake D simply reveals what kind of idjits support today's R party. Sorry Kevin but you are surrounded by buffoons.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 20, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

rukidding7:

"Women aren't capable of service in the Armed forces and their admission to the Military Academies would ruin those institutions".

From idjit (now SENATOR) Jim Webb: "Women can't fight"

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/2182.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"You didn't read the link, either, I take it."


An interesting, if not entirely intentional, experiment, Kevin.

I confess that I almost jumped to conclusions as well, and was contemplating a snarky post about how O'Donnell was supposed to have avoided a debate at all costs, pace Bernie. Then I thought maybe I better read the link first. Phew!

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 20, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "Well skip I don't want to have everyday morons like you and your wife running things...I like EDUCATED people."

And you idiots will vote Democrat if you know what's good for you. ;)

"Sorry Kevin but you are surrounded by buffoons."

I respect JakeD2's service and Skip often makes some interesting points. You know I don't like the vitriol and the name calling, which can sometimes constitute buffoonish behavior, but I don't think it makes them "buffoons". I notice buffoons have a striking tendency to disagree ideologically with the person accusing them of buffoonery, so I gotta take it with a grain of salt.

Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of Rick Scott. In fact, I'm not a big fan of many of the Republicans. What happened to hardcore conservatives who are also politically adept and, you know, not whackjobs. ;) You know, like Ronald Reagan. Or JFK.

On the upside, the Democrats fretting over how much to cut whose taxes does demonstrate that conservatives have certainly won the argument on taxation regarding those making less than $250k . . . and given that that's most of the population, that's a significant argument to win. So, I'm happy about that.

However, Ruk, as much as I'd like a party of Ronald Reagans and William F. Buckleys and JFKs and Scoop Jacksons, we've got Sharron Angle's and Sheila Jackson Lee and Christine O'Donnell's and Dick Durbins. You play with the hands you are dealt.

However, there is always a positive when the opposition is dominated by extremists--they tend to be candles that burn brightly, and then flame out. Ergo, a Republican sweep this November (something I'm still not convinced of) will be a temporary victory, perpetually caught in the gnashing teeth of the tea partiers who enabled it. Best of luck with Rick Scott, however, he does sound like a poor candidate.

"the Christian Taliban"

Yeah, when you're local fundamentalist evangelicals actually take over the government and routinely stone women to death for the crime of being raped, then you tell me about the Christian Taliban. For pity's sake. I understand that some fundamentalists are overbearing, but goodness.

BTW, I'm a Christian (Presbyterian, could easily be Methodist) with a Deist bent. Not a literalist or a believer in Biblical inerrancy, which makes me an apostate with some, but . . . c'est la vie! I like the trappings of the traditional Christian church. The liturgy, the doxology, traditional hymns and whatnot. Churches where everybody stands of and waves their hands while a rock band plays and all the lyrics appear on a giant screen . . . those places give me the willies.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse


You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price by calling 877-882-4740 or check http://bit.ly/9fDY7U If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: kevindeon20 | September 20, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

NO ONE is going to get rid of Social Security


That is a flat out LIE.


There is no majority for it, there is no leadership for it.

It is a flat out LIE

If the democrats want to LIE their way through this election - the voters will be told exactly that.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 20, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin

"In fact, I'm not a big fan of many of the Republicans. What happened to hardcore conservatives who are also politically adept and, you know, not whackjobs. ;)"

Agreed Kevin. And while I'm certainly no Republican I do miss the fact that there is no sanity left in the opposition party. When those who actually have intelligence, like Newt Gingrich, start pandering mercilously and give credibility to the no nothings it's a sad day.

I miss the "rational" Republicans as well.
As you can tell from my posts I'm a large fan of Dwight D. Eisenhower and an admirer of the other Roosevelt..Teddy as well. I could toss in Lincoln but let's be honest..he governed far more like a current Democrat than a Republican. I mean spending Federal $ on Land Grant Universities because he believed the privileged among us already had a huge head start without adding the educational advantage of the higher institutions they could AFFORD to attend. Lincoln was a huge believer in the American Dream and the middle class in particular.

Again Kevin...you and I can disagree..agreeably..and so I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 20, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

let me take on the angry liberals here:

first to dkmjr. All of that is just you puking up the nonsense that the liberal media has fed you. No thanks. If you're life is an exemplar of holiness, probity and sanctity, good for you. But for once we have a candidate who sounds more like our neighbors and friends and less like a cloistered academic with zero actual experience. Or even worse, a career elected official.

Yes, RUK my point is valid in the real world. Again, work with county case workers like I do. You'll soon learn that Americans will take advantage of anything they can. And if that means scheming the systems that you do goodie good guys develop then so beit.

Here's an example: What % of the babies born in America today are born to single moms? And what's the easiest way to get federal and state welfare benefits?

Essentially you are demanding more stupidity in the name of compassion. Yeah, right. And what's even more offensive is that fact that coupled with the demand of more money from the "rich" you're demanding that YOUR compassion be funded by other people's money.

that's just plain crazy. Why would rational people allow you or Mr Obama to get away with that?

If you think the lady is indefenisible then beat her. I clearly remember being told that Rand Paul was a racist. Where's that race now pal? did that sneering cynic Rachel Madow even lay a glove on him?

In the meantime you're supporting a marxist liar. no doubt He's lying on behalf of Marxism so you're fine with that right?

Spare me the snottiness boy. It does nothing for you or your weak-butt arguments. Face it. Americans are making a statement about your philosophy. Whining about O'Donnell is just a way to distract yourself from the collapse of your movement.

Honestly, the nastiness of the left makes them their own worst enemy.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: Lincoln was just a Big Government (for the time) Republican, a hawk, often principled (for the time) but also a pragmatist, and was forced into being a full-in abolitionist by the secessionist south. Plus, Lincoln was despised by many in the intelligentsia of the time, so if that doesn't make him a Republican president, I don't know what does. ;)

And he was a party Republican, BTW. Today's Republicans are members of the same (if much changed) party, while there is occasionally confusion, as Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic Republican, is often referred to as Republican, yet the Democratic Republicans were actually the early Democrats. Whigs and Federalists are all gone, these days. ;)

I like Eisenhower, too, though that's because despite my love of deep-red players like Sarah Palin, I'm a squish at heart. Just not quite Frummish in my squishiness.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Still can't respond to my simple point it seems. Why is it perfectly OK for DC Democrats to Re elect Marion Barry (after he served his term in Federal Prison of course) and not OK for the Republicans in Delaware to elect a person who has a dispute with the IRS?

Nothing like the good old double standard, eh?

And the name calling continues unabated. As I've noted, the snottiness and condescension of the liberals make them their own worst enemy.

Which of you liberals called the citizens of Iowa "cro magnons" last week? And where was the outrage expressed by other liberals at such politically incorrect labeling?

Keep thrashing boys and girls, it is fun to watch.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Skip See if you can understand this.

EVERY Democrat I know condemns Marion Berry.
He was elected by a tiny sliver of our population that lives in D.C. Doesn't make it any better.

But you moron don't you see what you're doing. YOU are comparing O'Donnell to Berry.
Even..I..wouldn't do such a thing. I certainly do not believe O'Donnell has behaved as poorly as Berry.

What's your effin point Skip. That everytime the R's nominate an undeserving loser you're simply going to find an undeserving Democrat to say.."I know you are but what am I." You realize that Pee Wee Herman made that phrase a cultural catch phrase. Perhaps you relate to ole Pee Wee. Really..can you not see the ignorance of arguing FOR one of your candidates by starting from such an incredibly low point!

We could be on here all freakin day listing pols from BOTH parties who are undeserving scum...is that your benchmark Skip? Do you intellectually not understand how you defame your own candidates when you choose Marion Berry as a benchmark. Whew...you don't get it at all do you!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 20, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I have an idea RUK. Why don't you post your home address here? That way you can call me names to my face. Wouldn't that be better? I mean doesn't name calling from the shield of an anonymous screen name just leave something to be desired pal? Wouldn't you feel so much more manly if you hurled your spittle flecked invective right at my face?

so go ahead, be a man and tell me where you live. No doubt you have the courage of your convictions so calling me a moron while I'm standing in your presence shouldn't be a problem for you right?

I often wonder how long blow hards like you would survive under the code duello.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

and again, the spittle flecked vitriol being hurled by RUK simply indicates desperation and panic. Oh my.

the point is simple: the Democrats had no problem electing all manner of candidates with checkered pasts. Marion Berry is just a handy example. But then so is Alcee Hastings. Therefore it is fair to conclude that in the minds of liberals redemption is achieved only if one is a Democrat.

RUK simply can't grasp that. Further RUK can't comprehend the fact that the American voters are changing course away from the left's positions. Sacred cows are being slaughtered daily by viable candidates.

And as I noted, it is simple to sling nastiness on a comment board. it is just words. So name calling is just fine. Mr Sargent doesn't seem to care what his liberal followers right here so anything goes it seems.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Skip...Why in the world would I post my home address here when their are totally sick psychopathic wack jobs like you around.

Am I supposed to believe that if you can beat a 62 year old man in a physical contest that would make you correct?

You need help skipper. Take your meds or find somebody with a professional background.

Trust me loser...I won't be calling you any names or anything else...you are truly sick and need pity not invective.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 20, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"Exactly why is anything Newt Gingrich says newsworthy?"

For the same reason that anything Lindsey Lohan snorts is newsworthy.

Posted by: pj_camp | September 20, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Oh my, lookie here. Suddenly RUK has lost his nerve.

come on cow boy, show your manliness. I'm offering you a golden opportunity to insult me to my face.

I've already explained how much better it would be for you to engage in name calling while in my presence. Come now, do you lack the courage of your convictions? It certainly seems that way.

Oh I can assume that in your twisted world view, being offended by comments made by cowards is being a pschypathic wack job?

So nothing offends you, right?

Guys like you are a disgrace to the gender. You pontificate away in safety and lack the chi chi bongas it takes to be a man.

How sad for you that at your advanced age you've abandonned basic manners.

Oh well, no fool like an old fool.

And you, boy, are an old fool.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 21, 2010 1:35 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