Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Obama rips GOP "Pledge to America" as fundamentally unserious: The President, in an interview on NBC this morning, cranked up his attack on the GOP "Pledge to America," vowing that the remaining weeks of the midterms would lay bare the fundamental lack of seriousness among GOP leaders on the economy:

"There are lot of wonderful people out there who consider themselves Republicans or independents, who have some criticisms of my administration but basically recognize we've gotta solve some big problems, we've gotta be serious, we've gotta base our decisions on facts.

"But what I'm seeing out of the Republican leadership out of the last several years has been a set of policies that are just irresponsible. We saw in their Pledge to America a similar set of irresponsible policies. They say they want to balance the budget, they propose $4 trillion worth of tax cuts, and $16 billion in spending cuts. And then they say, `We're gonna somehow, magically balance the budget. That's not a serious approach.

"The question for voters over the next five weeks is, `Who is putting forward policies that have a chance to move our country forward...and who's just engaging in rhetoric. If that debate is taking place over the next five weeks, we're gonna do just fine."

* The final push: White House rolling out new product on economy: Seeking to kick off the home stretch of the midterms with a demonstration of legislative action on the economy, Obama will sign a small business jobs bill this morning in the Rose Garden at an event that will be attended by small business owners -- perhaps the last jobs-creating action before Electon Day.

The legislation will expand Recovery Act lending to thousands of new small businesses and enact eight new small business tax cuts. Read the White House's fact sheet on the legislation and today's event right here.

* More new product: With the Senate set to vote this week on ending offshoring, the DSCC is releasing a new "offshoring scorecard" that grads GOP Senate candidates' records on supporting policies that ship jobs overseas.

* Senate Dems plan high-drama confrontation on Bush tax cuts! (After the election): Dick Durbin hints Dems will get a handful of Republicans (and moderate Dem holdouts) to support a middle class tax cut extension by dramatically holding out the prospect of all the tax cuts expiring at the end of the year.

Prediction: If such a confrontation ensues, no Republicans will break ranks and Dems will ultimately cave and pass a temporary extension of the high-end ones.

* And not that you had any doubt about this, but... Steny Hoyer says it's all but certain that House Dems won't hold that middle class tax cut vote before the elections.

* Comically misleading link-baiting headline of the day: From The Hill:

Kerry blames out-of-touch voters for Democrats' midterm image troubles

That's based on this quote from John Kerry: "We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening." And Kerry goes on to say it's "appropriate" that public anger is directed at Washington.

Also: Alex Burns reports that the NRSC will today demand that Dem Senate candidates say whether they agree with Kerry.

* Maybe Rand Paul can be beaten! The Kentucky Senate race is now effectively tied, with Paul leading Jack Conway by a statistically insignificant 49-47, according to a new Louisville Courier Journal poll. (H/T Mike Allen.)

Flashback: This is the same poll that got tons of attention when it found Paul up 15 in early September.

* Marco Rubio advances: He's now leading Charlie Crist by double digits, 40-28, in a new Mason Dixon poll.

Key takeaway: Crist is bleeding Dems to Kendrick Meek, who nonetheless remains last with 23 percent, suggesting the split Dem vote is increasingly likely to hand Rubio a win.

* Another civil liberties sellout? Charlie Savage reports that the Obama administration plans to seek new legislation making it far easier to eavesdrop on Internet communications, because alleged criminals and terrorists have stopped using phones to communicate.

Crux of the issue: The legislation would force all online services to be equipped to comply with a wiretap order. Officials insist that it's not an expansion of governmental authority, merely a facilitation of already existing authority.

* No, there's nothing Tea Partyers can say that would disqualify them for major office: Mitch McConnell says Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell are qualified to govern because "they won the primary fair and square against real competition."

* Dems struggling among rugged individualists in Fed-dependent rural areas: Dem candidates are facing some of their stiffest headwinds among rugged individualist rural voters in states like North Dakota, one of the states that's most dependent on the Federal government.

* Centrist Dems against majority rule in the Senate: The GOP's successful blocking of multiple bills has led Senate Dems to get more serious about filibuster reform, but Ben Nelson remains worried that the minority will end up with "no rights."

* And is this Sharron Angle's "chickens for checkups" moment? Her belittling of mandated coverage for autism victims starts going national.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | September 27, 2010; 8:28 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, House GOPers, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Weekend Open Thread
Next: Is Petraeus 'out of control?'

Comments

"No, there's nothing Tea Partyers can say that would disqualify them for major office."

They could say that they support Barack HUSSEIN Obama ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Nothing better than a poster who reveals their complete ignorance and lack of intellectual prowess by focusing on a NAME instead of issues. But when you're brain dead I guess that's all you have left! LMAO

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 27, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

How am I "brain dead" if I can type this sentence?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Nice racism there Jake. Real classy.


I think the Pledge is shaping up to be one of the Rethugs biggest mistakes this fall. Hopefully the news maintains its focus on that.

Posted by: michiganmaine | September 27, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

At least the TEA Partyer candidates were BORN in the U.S.A.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

And so was the president, Jake. I don't really see your point here.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 27, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Adding a little birtherism to the racism, Jake? Go for all three and claim Obama is a secret Muslim.

Posted by: michiganmaine | September 27, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Not that Mitch McConnell needs me to defend him, but he gave more than just that answer about O'Donnell's and Angle's qualifications (although, curiously, some here think that Obama "winning fair and square" ends all discussion about HIS qualifications):

AMANPOUR: So all of -- all of this comes into the Pledge for America, which was announced this week, a platform for future governing by the -- by the Republicans. Now, many people say that it's simply more of the same. You've obviously heard a lot of that over the last couple of days, that there's basically nothing new. And whether they're left, right or center, people are complaining that, in fact, it doesn't go far enough, particularly for the -- the very enthusiastic Tea Party base that you have.

So, for instance, Erick Erickson has written about this pledge. "It's full of mom-tested, kid-approved pabulum that will make certain hearts on the right sing in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it would actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high."

How are you going to -- well, you're laughing.

MCCONNELL: Well, any time you do anything in public life, somebody criticizes it. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to...

AMANPOUR: No, that's all right. But I want to ask you, how will you satisfy the -- the base, which seems to be, really, in insurrection now, the Tea Party? Would you -- would you agree that they're...

MCCONNELL: Yes, let me tell you what...

AMANPOUR: ... cascading into your space?

MCCONNELL: Let me tell you what everybody agrees on, everybody agrees on. The primaries are over, and we all agree we want to go out and beat the Democrats November 2nd. So there's all kinds of energy in the Republican Party or people who are inclined to vote Republican. The Tea Party people are not all Republicans, some independents. But one thing we know about everybody who's been active in this movement, we know none of them are going to go out and vote Democrat on November 2nd. We may have some internal differences about various parts, but everybody knows who's been in charge of the government for the last year-and-a-half.

... do you think these Tea Party candidates will be good for you in November?

MCCONNELL: Look, there are 12 places now, right now, where there's a Democratic senator where our candidate is either a little bit behind, dead even, or well ahead: California, Washington, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Dakota, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Connecticut, West Virginia. We're competitive in a lot of places.

Will we win them all? Who knows? The Delaware primary was interesting, a new candidate, fresh face. I think she's got a good chance of winning ... And Sharron Angle is running no worse than dead even against the majority leader of the Senate ... Obviously, the people of Nevada think that that she's a very good candidate or she wouldn't be running even with someone of such power

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

BROWNSTEIN (who has just written a new article entitled "Extreme Makeover," with the subtitle "The midterm elections could send to Washington the most militantly conservative class of new senators in at least the past half-century.") continued:

"I think it's going to be a stronger infusion of conservative energy and more uniformly conservative energy than we saw even in the class of '94 or 1980. There are a range of views among this class. If you look at the 21 Republican Senate challengers with the -- with the best chance of winning, there are a range of views in terms of the long-range agenda.

Someone like Christine O'Donnell or Sharron Angle or Joe Miller in Alaska would go further than Rob Portman or Roy Blunt or some of the other -- John Hoeven in North Dakota, the more conventional candidates. But when you look at what is actually going to be on the table in the next couple of years, there's more unanimity and a more consistently conservative line among this Republican class than we have seen, really, at any point.

Just a couple quick examples. All 21 of them say they will extend the Bush tax cuts; 20 of 21 of them say they will oppose any future tax hikes; 20 of 20, all of them have taken a position supporting a balanced budget amendment; they all oppose cap and trade; 19 of the 20 who've taken a position say that global climate change is unproven or actually a hoax.

So in the near term -- in the long term, there may be differences about some candidates wanting to go further about rolling back the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, or Social Security. But on what they will actually be dealing with, you will see, I think, a very strong pull toward a more conservative -- consistently conservative position in that Republican caucus."

(That's enough "qualifications" for me ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Quotes like this convince me that you're just some crazy performance art ala Joaquin Phoenix there Jake, because theres no way you typed this with a straight face:

"The Delaware primary was interesting, a new candidate, fresh face. I think she's got a good chance of winning"

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 27, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

WILL: On balance across the country, the Tea Party is enormous help for the Republicans. At the beginning of the year, the question was, will the Tea Party people play nicely with others and will they obey the rules of politics? Who's sort of not playing nicely? Mr. Crist starts losing the primary to a Tea Party favorite Rubio. He suddenly discovers that he's an independent and changes all his views overnight.

Mrs. Murkowski loses a primary and suddenly discovers that she has a property right in her Senate seat and she's going to run as a write-in. Senator Bennett thought of that in Utah, Senator Castle in Delaware is thinking of a write-in candidate. Who are the extremists?

(CROSSTALK)

BROWNSTEIN: Donna, I would say, look -- I mean, I think clearly this class of Republicans do not feel they are being sent here to Washington to compromise with Barack Obama or to follow the Republican leadership. So in that sense, there's going to be tension. And I quote Ken Buck in my story as saying so.

But if you look at what they are actually going to be voting on, in all likelihood, over the next two years, there is remarkable unanimity in this class. And despite all the focus on the civil war, I think that is kind of a -- what the long-range vision of what the federal government should be doing or not doing is where you will see diversity.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWNSTEIN: But in the near term -- in the -- in the near term, I think -- in terms -- the main thing that the Republicans, I think, are being sent here to do is to block and try to roll back whatever they can what Obama did. I think the spending thing will continue to be a challenge for them, because if you want to reduce the deficits and extend the Bush tax cuts, that does point you back toward cutting Medicare and Medicaid, which is exactly the problem they got into in '95, and they may end up in that same cul-de-sac next year.

But I actually believe there is more commonality in this class than is often assumed. And in the near term, they are going to be a very formidable and, I think, cohesive force.

WILL: And look at the not-so-near term. In the next two cycles, 2012 and 2014 combined, the Democrats are defending 43 Senate seats, Republicans 22. So the Republican wave that's now starting is just starting.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

holyhandgrenaid:

I didn't type it (that was all "cut and paste" right from the transcript, at the link provided by our very own gracious host ; )

Unless you now think the GOP Senate leader is just "performance art" now too.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Is JakeD a sockpuppet for STRF? Add in some double and triple spacing and you pretty much have the same useless drivel.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 27, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

It sure would explain an aweful lot...

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 27, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

More important question: is Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) really posting here as "SaveTheRainforest"????

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-axelrod-mcconnell-queen-rania/story?id=11729101&page=4

LOL

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

"Another civil liberties sellout? Charlie Savage reports that the Obama administration plans to seek new legislation making it far easier to eavesdrop on Internet communications, because alleged criminals and terrorists have stopped using phones to communicate."

Just more evidence that when it comes to the mechanics of national security, the Obama administration is as serious as a heart attack.

I don't agree with Obama on a lot of things, but I'd vote for him based on the national security positions of his administration in a second.

Which goes to show the VP in the Obama administration must be largely powerless, compared to Cheney under Bush, because Joe Biden was the foreign policy expert that suggested our response to 9/11 should be to cut a no-strings-attached multi-million dollar check to Iran as a show of good faith.

Harry Reid, not so much, but then I'm not in Nevada.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 27, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

"Another civil liberties sellout? Charlie Savage reports that the Obama administration plans to seek new legislation making it far easier to eavesdrop on Internet communications, because alleged criminals and terrorists have stopped using phones to communicate."

Just more evidence that when it comes to the mechanics of national security, the Obama administration is as serious as a heart attack.

I don't agree with Obama on a lot of things, but I'd vote for him based on the national security positions of his administration in a second.

Which goes to show the VP in the Obama administration must be largely powerless, compared to Cheney under Bush, because Joe Biden was the foreign policy expert that suggested our response to 9/11 should be to cut a no-strings-attached multi-million dollar check to Iran as a show of good faith.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 27, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

If you think I seriously meant that last comment Jake, then you've REALLY got to work on your snark detector.

But in any case, I honestly hope you didn't agree with that comment from McConnell re: Delaware, because then there really isn't much hope for you ever associating yourself with reality again

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 27, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Throw Out The Bums.....

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/e/3/Throw-the-Bums-In.jpg

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double post. Promise, I didn't do anything. And I'm not posting from a Blackberry.

"Obama rips GOP 'Pledge to America' as fundamentally unserious"

While I think Obama has a point, and maybe his administration thinks that's sufficient to make hay with, I'm not sure they should be drawing attention to the pledge. Even when he makes good points about spending cuts vs. tax cuts, it sounds sorta like he's leaving the implied "and clearly, I'm going to have to raise your taxes" hanging in the air. Not that he is, only I think that may be the downside to that attack.

The pledge is bland. Maybe he should attack for being typical political pabulum?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 27, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Re the R Pledge. John Stewart did the best job on this of any pundit or reporter. It was so effective that David Gregory even replayed it for Mike Pence who was one of his guests yesterday. Pence like a typical R completely ignored it and started spewing talking points. Really...many of these folks are like little children who simply plug their ears when confronted with an unpleasant truth and then resort to spewing irrelevant comments...it's no different than if they were saying..."I can't hear you...I'm not listening..nanananananananananaananannanan

Stewarts effective piece...his producers took John Boehner's remarks at the hardware store where he and his stooges delivered this wonderful document..and simply spliced them together with what Boehner had said in the past dating back to the 90's. Boehner's remarks about the pledge and what it offered were LITERALLY WORD FOR WORD copies of what he has already said repeatedly over the past dozen years. It was incredibly effective because they were matched up and in almost every case they were WORD FOR WORD EXACTLY the same as what they have been saying for the past dozen years.

So much for new ideas. How can anybody defend this cr#p? Ohhh I know before long tit4tat will be on here saying..."well the Dems said..yadda yadda yadda....

I don't really care about Dem mistakes in the past or present...I concede there are plenty of them...still I REPEAT...how can anybody but a mindless moron defend calling something a package of fresh new ideas when the words LITERALLY match up to what the party has been saying repeatedly over the past dozen years. New my arse!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 27, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

John Kerry fumbles a perfectly valid point. What else is new.

I was reading the Louisville Courier Journal's write-up of that Paul/Conway poll yesterday and ran across a pretty great little article about the ad wars in Kentucky. There was a quote I liked in that article that perhaps made Kerry's point a little more succinctly:

"Unfortunately for our republic, the fractionalization of the media, and the gravitation of voters to information sources that confirm their pre-existing beliefs, means there is a growing market for opinion and a shrinking market for fact."

I'd call the entire article very much worth a read.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100926/COLUMNISTS12/309260035/Al-Cross-Misleading-political-ads-a-Kentucky-barometer

Posted by: CalD | September 27, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

John, Full Body Nicotine Stain, Boehner provides details, to flesh out his Pledge To America...

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/q/e/3/GOP-Pledge.jpg

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I don't think the GOP Pledge points are "fresh new ideas" simply the time-tested true ones that we need to get this country back on track. Ms. O'Donnell is the fresh, new face who has a good chance of winning ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

E.J. Dionne is a must-read today, I think.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/26/AR2010092603333.html

Posted by: CalD | September 27, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

E.J. is "useless drivel" from the brain dead.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Those "time-tested true ideas" are what put our economy in the crapper, Jake.

You know what they say about insanity: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result...kind of like your quixotic quest to "prove" the president wasn't born in the US. You keep repeating the drivel even though it's clear that you're the only one buying it.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

I'm not the "only one" (upwards of 30% doubt it):

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/04/cnn-poll-quarter-doubt-president-was-born-in-u-s/

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Tea Party Pledge To America:

We Will Chop Off All Moderate Republicans' Heads.

We Will Back Republicans Who Will Restore Fiscal Restraint By Adding Four Trillion Dollars To The National Debt, To Further Enrich The Wealthiest People In America.

We Will Toss Out All The Democratic Bums, And Reelect Republican Bums, Such As John Boehner.

We Will Elect Republicans Who Will Repeal Health Care Reform, and Restore Insurance Industry Death Panels.

We Will Elect Republicans Who Will Privatize Social Security, So That The Wall St. Banksters Can Do To It, What They Did To Workers Pensions.

We Will Forgive Republicans Who Have Dabbled In Witchcraft, But We Will Never Forgive Republicans Who Have Dabbled In Bipartisanship.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Jake - fine, then go talk to them about it, because you're the only one who posts here who believes that BS, and you aren't changing anyone's minds. Probably because we aren't in the 25 - 30% crazy/stupid/terminally confused contigent.

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

Jake, just because up to 30% of the population believes something despite the complete lack of evidence supporting this view (and a plethora of evidence supporting the opposite) does not make it true. Popular opinion doesn't dictate the facts.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 27, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I'm not leaving until the Good Lord takes me home ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Heads, up: we have a birther here, folks.

Carry on...

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

holyhandgrenaid - it does in the GOTea.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

REALLY glad to see Obama beef up our electronic communications regulations. Imho it is fundamentally a national security issue that needed to be addressed. This approach -- legislating communications regulations -- is also FAR FAR FAR superior to GWB's end-around run past the Constitution with his secret wiretapping program.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 27, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

JennOfArk:

I agree that popular opinion does not dictate facts -- obviously, I disagree with everything else you've posted -- first, I proved you wrong about me not being the only one who is "buying it" and now, I can easily disprove your claim about "the complete lack of evidence supporting this view": Sarah Obama, his own paternal grandmother, stated that little Barry was born in Kenya.

Want to go for a GRAND SLAM?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, that last one goes out to holyhandgrenaid (JennOfArk, of course, agreed with it ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Umm, a link perhaps? Cause those are just words without a source Jake.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 27, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

ChuckinDenton:

I'm also a "bitter clinger" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZWaxjiQyFk

I can answer questions asked of me too ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Please ignore Joke.

He is insane.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 27, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse


Heads, up: we have a birther here, folks.

Carry on...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 27, 2010 10:20 AM

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

Not only is he a rabid Obama Hating "Birther", but he recently called for, here on Plumline, a 2012 Republican Ticket of:

"

Palin/D'Souza 2012!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 12:22 PM"

You will notice that his VP choice is a guy who was born and raised in India.

So there you have it: This JakeD2 Moron thinks President Obama is not legally President, because he was foreign born, while at the same time, this JakeD2 Moron calls for putting a guy born and raised in India, on the Republican 2012 ticket.

That is why people should stop feeding that imbecile, and just ignore all his imbecilic comments. |

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Is JakeD a sockpuppet for STRF?
------------------------------

No.

Always count on him for a birther comment and for the Hussein thing. He likes to irritate people. Antisocial.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Jenn:

"Probably because we aren't in the 25 - 30% crazy/stupid/terminally confused contigent."

For some reason what Ty Webb said to Judge Smails in "Caddyshack" comes to mind:

"Don't sell yourself short, Judge. You're a tremndous slouch."

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 27, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

You want a link to this affidavit?

"I asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” this was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she specifically replied, “Yes! Yes she was!"

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/affidavit-of-bishop-ron-mcrae-obama-birth-in-kenya/#more-4644

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Scott,

Are you also a "Birther"?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Scott - which means, what, you're a tremendously stupid/insane/terminally confused person?

I'll take your word for it.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Obama rips GOP "Pledge to America" as fundamentally unserious:

I have to agree with the President. The republicans have had 18 months to formulate their path forward, and they presented the same old regurgitated crap that landed us where we are today. They stood on the sidelines and complained instead of working to improve our situation.

The least they could have done is checked the numbers - or they should have eliminated the jibberish on being concerned about the deficit. They aren't serious about legislating and governance, they only want to win and gain power. We're living the results of that pitiful combination now. Can this nation really afford more republican "leadership"?

Posted by: notfooledbydistractions1 | September 27, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

This is just F'd up:

The New York Post runs a fascinating profile of New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino's (R) wife: "It was just about a year ago, hours after the death of her son in a car crash, that Cathy Paladino's husband told her he was the father of a 10-year-old girl with another woman -- and that all their children and most of their friends already knew."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/09/27/the_heartaches_of_mrs_paladino.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 27, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

As I told you on that thread, IF Obama can be born in Kenya and become President of the United States, then so can D'Souza!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/happy_hour_roundup_90.html

By all means, please keep quoting me. Alternatively, I told you and schrodingerscat that I would vote for Palin-Jindal too ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Jake - you're a crazy person, and a cherry-picker to boot. Obama's grandmother was specificially asked "were you present in Kenya when Obama was born" and she answered yes - because duh, she was answering through a translator and she WAS in Kenya when he was born. In the very next passage, she clearly states that he was NOT in Kenya when he was born.

But hey, that's much more compelling "evidence" than a birth certificate authenticated by the state of Hawaii and contemporary birth announcements in local newspapers.

Which is why every time you refer to being an attorney, I'm reminded of Tracy Morgan's portrayal of Star Jones on "The View", wherein Tracy/Star begins every response with "I'm a LAWYER" as if that's sufficient evidence to prove whatever comes next.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

notfooledbydistractions1 - I actually think the "Pledge" could be the one of the best political weapons of 2010... for the Democrats.

As has been shown and commented on by many, the "Pledge" is, at heart, a pledge that the GOP will keep doing the kind of thing that got us involved in two foreign wars and bankrupted the government.

The only question is will the Democrats be able to capitalize upon the "Pledge." Given the Democrats history I'm going to guess no, they won't be able to. But I can hope.

Posted by: nisleib | September 27, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

John Boehner is running for reelection. When he announced his "pledge to America', he did so, in front of a gathering of TeaBaggers. They started chanting Speaker Boehner, Speaker Boehner....

This is the same John Bohener who promised in 1994 to serve only for eight years. He is now in the 20th year of his eight year term limit promise. Still those TeaBagger Morons feel he is the one who will keep his promises to them. What a bunch of gullible morons.

"You can fool all the TeaBaggers all the time". John Boehner

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

JennOfArk:

When did I refer to being an attorney? Nonetheless, any "lawyer" will tell you that it's EVIDENCE, even if you think it's discredited or not. Keep in mind that "holyhandgrenaid" claimed:

... 30% of the population believes something despite the complete lack of evidence supporting this view ...

That's all that I was addressing. There's also plenty of circumstantial EVIDENCE like Obama hiding his original birth certificate. If he was really born in Hawaii, why not just consent to releasing it?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

SENATOR Obama promised to serve out his full six-year term and not run for President too, so?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

John Boehners Pledge To American Imbeciles:

"We Will Behave As Born Again Fiscal Hawks, And Our First Act Will Be To Add Four Trillion Dollars More To The National Debt, In Order To Further Enrich The Wealthiest People In America"

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Jenn:

"which means, what, you're a..."

Nope, that's not what it meant.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 27, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Flail away, Jake. Lie some more and pretend that your previous comment wasn't an out-of-context quotation of Obama's grandmother and a claim that she said the opposite of what she said. Which is the sum total of your "evidence".

"I am a LAWYER" redux.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Liam - IMO this goes way beyond, "Further Enrich The Wealthiest People In America"

This is robbery. The Republicans have become a party of kleptocrats. What they are doing may not be illegal, but that is because they get to right the laws.

There is NO class warfare; that is over. The rich won.

Posted by: nisleib | September 27, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Jake, he could release video of his birth on Waikiki with President Kennedy present flying a 16-foot American flag with the Star Spangled banner playing in the background, and you still wouldn't accept that he was born in the USA. Don't give me this tripe about the birth certificate.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 27, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Scott - save it for the next time you get all b***hurt over someone rightly claiming that qb or one of your other pals is arguing as if they're a "dummy".

That's third-grade stuff, right? Or is it more mature when you insult people with more words?

Don't bother answering; we already know it will be a disingenious and dishonest response.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Notice how "JennOfArk" can't (won't?) answer even simple questions.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

@folks,

You want to go nuts. Talk to jake. He's getting off on this, I hope you know.

BTW, he's bragged about being an attorney, graduated summa cum laude from Stanford in 1961 as I recall.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Palin/D'Souza 2012!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 12:22 PM"
........................
You will notice that his VP choice is a guy who was born and raised in India.

So there you have it: This JakeD2 Moron thinks President Obama is not legally President, because he was foreign born, while at the same time, this JakeD2 Moron calls for putting a guy born and raised in India, on the Republican 2012 ticket.

That is why people should stop feeding that pathetic imbecile, and absolutely ignore all of his imbecilic comments.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Actually JakeD was banned on the Fix, which is actually a right leaning blog, so you know that wasn't an easy thing to get banned.

And what did he get banned for? Wait--you won't believe it--his birther rants, which went on and on and on.

Then JakeD changed his handle. That's why he is JakeD2. Get it?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

BTW, he's bragged about being an attorney, graduated summa cum laude from Stanford in 1961 as I recall.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 11:02 AM
................

Stanford? O Lord! That clown was not qualified to view a Sanford and Son episode, never mind having the intellect to get admitted to Stanford.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

holyhandgrenaid:

Videotape (outside of Princeton) was not even invented back then. As I've stated several times on these threads, if Obama simply consented to the release of his original "vital records" (that Hawaii claims to still have), I will stop asking any questions about his eligibility.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=32123

Stanford undergrad AND Law School. How about you?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Jenn:

"That's third-grade stuff, right?"

Which? Calling someone a "dummy" or mocking someone who looks down on nearly a third of their fellow citizens with contempt? The former, yes; the latter, no.

"Or is it more mature when you insult people with more words?"

No, it's not the number of words that define the maturity level of a given insult.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 27, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Ya'all keep bashing on Jake; you do realize it isn't nice to make fun of the mentally impaired, right?

Yes, he is most likely inbred. Sure, he is a wingnut that is here in an attempt to "hippy punch." No, he couldn't be dumber if he tried.

But please, he is an infant! Well, intellectually he is an infant. Making fun of him for his stupidity is like laughing at a three year old because said three year old can't drive.

Just try your best to hold off on Jake and remember, Jake is a perfect example of why America needs to spend more on education.

Posted by: nisleib | September 27, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Jake - I'm sure the president doesn't care if you keep asking your stupid questions about his eligibility. It's not up to you to forumulate a list of what every person must produce in order to be considered legitimate. Apparently watching your colleague Orly Tait getting schooled repeatedly by judges hasn't made a dent in your sharp legal intellect, since you keep on the same line of argument she's lost repeatedly. Stanford should sue you for loss of prestige for every time you've claimed to be a graduate of that fine institution.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

At least the TEA Partyer candidates were BORN in the U.S.A.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse


"McCain's likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936"

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 27, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

nisleib:

I spent PLENTY on my education, thank you very much!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

ScottC

Are you also "A Birther", like your fellow Right Wing Nut Job, JakeD2?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Scott - oh, so it's NOT ok to look down on and ridicule dumb people, but it's fine and dandy to insult people who disagree with you?

Thanks for spelling out the meaning of hypocrisy for us. Not that we didn't recognize it already.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

leichtman1:

NEWS FLASH!!! McCain is not a TEA Party candidate.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Jake provides us a winner in the, "Worst uses of money EVER!" category.

So Jake, what did you really do with the money?

Posted by: nisleib | September 27, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

"NEWS FLASH!!! McCain is not a TEA Party candidate."

No one said he was, dummy.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Everyone I have spoken to has been shocked by the reaction to the Republican plan.


First the democrats demand a plan - then they are complaining about it.


People are watching Obama closely - and they don't like what they see. Almost to a person, they say the democrats should present their idea - and have the public make up their minds which is better.


Everyone say - WHAT'S OBAMA'S PLAN - HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE.

Obama has fallen into a unique problem - he created his name saying he was "post-partisan" - so everytime Obama (and the democrats too) come off being too partisan, they look like hypocrites more than anything.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 27, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

@folks,

You want to go nuts. Talk to jake. He's getting off on this, I hope you know.

BTW, he's bragged about being an attorney, graduated summa cum laude from Stanford in 1961 as I recall.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 11:02 AM |

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

That is some legal mind that Stanford turned out. They must be very proud of having granted a law degree to a guy who argues that President Obama is not legally President, because he just might have been born in a foreign land, while at the same time arguing that a guy who was born and raised in India, is qualified to be on the next Republican Presidential ticket.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

no just a Tea Party suck up. Curious didn't read your Not Born in US Comments here about McCain in 2008 and no one even doubts that McCain was not born on US soil.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 27, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Tea Party Pledge To America:

We Will Chop Off All Moderate Republicans' Heads.

We Will Back Republicans Who Will Restore Fiscal Restraint By Adding Four Trillion Dollars To The National Debt, To Further Enrich The Wealthiest People In America.

We Will Toss Out All The Democratic Bums, And Reelect Republican Bums, Such As John Boehner.

We Will Elect Republicans Who Will Repeal Health Care Reform, and Restore Insurance Industry Death Panels.

We Will Elect Republicans Who Will Privatize Social Security, So That The Wall St. Banksters Can Do To It, What They Did To Workers Pensions.

We Will Forgive Republicans Who Have Dabbled In Witchcraft, But We Will Never Forgive Republicans Who Have Dabbled In Bipartisanship.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I'm thinking he was sued for malpractice and that's why he spends all his time here.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Jenn:

"oh, so it's NOT ok to look down on and ridicule dumb people, but it's fine and dandy to insult people who disagree with you?"

I suggesst you re-read my post, for I didn't say anything at all about people who disagree with me. I was commenting on what is and is not "third grade stuff".

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 27, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Scott - don't bother. We already know IOKIYAR.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Asking for the third time.

ScottC

Are you also "A Birther", like your fellow Right Wing Nut Job, JakeD2?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

JennOfArk:

Asking for a third time -- if Oabama was really born in Hawaii, why not just consent to releasing his birth certificate?

Liam-Still:

Asking a SECOND time -- from which Law School did you graduate?

nisleib:

I paid for tuition and books. See how easy it is to answer questions?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Oabama = Obama (darn Spellchecker ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

That is some legal mind that Stanford turned out. They must be very proud of having granted a law degree to a guy who argues that President Obama is not legally President, because he just might have been born in a foreign land, while at the same time arguing that a guy who was born and raised in India, is qualified to be on the next Republican Presidential ticket.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Liam-Still:

Asking for the third (and final) time -- from which Law School did you graduate?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still - If you honestly believe he went to Stanford then YOU need to have your head checked.

I'd be amazed if he made it out of the third grade.

He is a wingnut troll, lying is what they do. You really need to stop taking these critters at face value. Indeed, if any of these wingnuts EVER post a link that they say shows something NEVER EVER take their word for it. Go check it out for yourself, most of the time I've found that the links they provide disprove their case.

Posted by: nisleib | September 27, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

nisleib


He could have been admitted as "a legacy" child. Lots of colleges admit the simpleton children of wealthy graduates.

Of course, it is far more likely that he attended Stanford as a janitor's apprentice, and failed to even pass the Mop wielding exams.

He is probably a close relative of Grounds Keeper Willie.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

nisleib:

I'm not the one in third grade (at least I proved that I can answer questions).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still - Exactly.

Although that could be a terrible insult to Grounds Keeper Willie. Since GKW is fictional I doubt anyone will take offense.

Posted by: nisleib | September 27, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Curious Jake why you would post your phone number and address on a blog site. I would consider that mall practice to advise a client to do that. Not making it personal just suggesting not to be goated into doing that, you of all people should know better.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 27, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

If the emerging poll results on the KY race of Paul/Conway means anything, what does it mean? The cross tabs show that there is a HUGE gender gap (something like 35 points), with women favoring Conway. Paul is the only pure libertarian Republican candidate, IMO. He's clearly a smart guy, well spoken for his views, and not subject to gaffes, imo. What people mistake for gaffes are pure libertarian ideas. If Paul is being rejected, it is libertarianism that is being rejected.

BTW, this latest poll was preceeded by two other polls showing a vastly tightened race (about 2-3 points difference), so I suspect this latest poll is confirmation.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Well, well, well...

49% Coons (D), 40% O'Donnell (R), 5% Castle

Rasmussen
9/26/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
-------------------------------
First 3 way race polling?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Curious Jake why you would post your phone number and address on a blog site.
-------------------------------
@leichtman,

All this is assuming that person is actually JakeD. I mean, how do we know, where is his birth certificate? And fingerprints? And retinal scans?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

Conway should hammer away at Rand Paul's disregard for mine safety. He has called for stopping the Federal Government from regulating mine safety.

That would give Conway an opening to woe the male miners, and there are a lot of them. He should be able to reach them through union connections.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

incident Jake I disagree with everything you post but I admire and stand by you as a Stanford graduate just somewhere you took a wrong turn. I also envy your living in S.D. as we are trying to buy in Carlsbad. Unfortunately for you it looks like not even $119 will buy you the Governor s office in Ca wonder why anyone wood even want it. You might also be unhappy to read that O Bama is polling over 60 percent in your beloved state. I will take you at your word that you are a Stanford graduate; that is impressive. You should show that same courtesy to Obama when he says he is a Christian and born in Hawaii. There are too many serious issues to debate to waste our time on that nonsensense.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 27, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1 says, "I will take you at your word that you are a Stanford graduate; that is impressive."

Don't do that. I doubt he made it through grade school.

Posted by: nisleib | September 27, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

here's another typical liberal statement:
=========
Nice racism there Jake. Real classy.
================

Nothing in the 23 words Jake wrote gives any indication of racism. This is just another attempt to use a magical incantation to silence an opponent. The left tries this endlessly. The old days of calling people "racist" and therefore stifling their POV is over. The tea party and the lies of CBC removed the potency from that curse for all time.

How sad for michiganmaine that this is the best counter to Jake he or she can muster. It is hardly surprising, but it must be tough to be so bereft of original thought.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 27, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1:

I'm too old to care what anyone thinks about me. I agree that there are many IMPORTANT issues that America needs to face, but whether the President is legally in said Office is surely one of the first.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm too old to care what anyone thinks about me.
-------------------------------
Obviously, that's not true. You get on this blog, and others, and bait people all the time. What is unusual about you is how you delight in people disliking you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

With Rasmussen showing Castle with only 5% of the likely voters, I think Castle will drop his write in campaign. If I remember right, he has another 3 days to make up his mind.

49% Coons (D), 40% O'Donnell (R), 5% Castle

Rasmussen
9/26/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

@skip: "Nothing in the 23 words Jake wrote gives any indication of racism. This is just another attempt to use a magical incantation to silence an opponent"

I disagree. Lefties tend to regard anything anybody to the right of them has to say about anything as racist. I don't think it's a trick to silence critics: they really think using Barack Obama's middle name is racist.

I've had discussions with people who believe you are incurably, permanently racist based on the fact you were born in the south (or south of them, at any rate). And what a strange and provident coincidence that they were born north of the Racism-Dixon line.

Generally, when a liberal accuses you (or anyone) of racism or being racist, it's not a trick. They are 100% sincere that your temerity in disagreeing with them is racist.

When congressional representatives lie about being called racial epithets by Tea Partiers--now, that's a trick.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 27, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

'm too old to care what anyone thinks about me.
-------------------------------
Obviously, that's not true. You get on this blog, and others, and bait people all the time. What is unusual about you is how you delight in people disliking you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 12:44 PM

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

Yes indeed. Someone who keeps trying to persuade strangers on the Internet, that they graduated from Stanford Law School, clearly does not care what people think about them!!!

That was just one additional absurd statement from the resident Arse-Troll Mope, which clearly proves that he would not qualify to even be employed as a janitor at Stanford.

Just imagine that clown arguing a case. If he were a defense attorney, he would send many an innocent person to the gallows.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Only a racist would believe that congressional representatives lied about being called racial epithets by teabaggers.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

@Jake: "but whether the President is legally in said Office is surely one of the first."

Well, it's just my opinion, but I think that (a) it's been as well-proved that Obama is a natural born American citizen as it has been for any candidate and that (b) this is just a non-issue at every level. You don't think there are more liberal, more socialist, more sympathetic-to-foreign-powers folks out there than Obama that are indisputably American-born?

Let's say Obama releases his long-form birth certificate (because, you know, I've kept mine in my pocket since I was born--doesn't everybody?). And Doc Brown flies you back in time (in a time machine he made . . . out of a Delorean?) and you watch Obama being born in Hawaii. So now, it's indisputable--he meets the arbitrary qualification of being a natural born citizen. At the very least, as much as John McCain does.

Does that make you like him better? Does that make you think he is a better president? I mean, what does it change?

Plus, there was the announcement, retrieved from period microfilm, of his birth in the Honolulu Advertiser, which got birth announcements from the Health Department via a news service.

In the real world, even if Obama wasn't an American citizen--which he clearly is--he's not going to be removed for being a foreign-born person who was clearly raised in America, is more familiar with basic American culture than John Kerry, speaks better American English that some recent malapropism-prone presidents we've had, etc.

Perhaps it's just me, but the birthers sound an awful lot like the truthers, to me. Although, let's face it--if this was a Republican president who "refused" to release his "long form" birth certificate, Dan Rather would be on that story like white on rice.

:)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 27, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

@JennOfArk: "Only a racist would believe that congressional representatives lied about being called racial epithets by teabaggers."

Isn't it amazing (and so convenient) how that works?

And, let me assure you, I don't doubt your sincere belief the utter truth of that fallacious accusation in the slightest.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 27, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

An interesting thing I heard--

On a local late night radio talk show, the regular host had a substitute sit in, who was Mark Williams, the former head of the Tea Party Express. This is the guy who was booted for controversial blog post that compared the NAACP to slave traders. Anyway, not to get hung up on that...

Mr. Williams, who lives in Sacramento, said he was having real trouble with the CA governor race. No way was he going to vote for Brown (no surprise there), but here's what he said about Meg Whitman. "What is she in this for? No one, NO ONE, spends $130 million of their own money, unless there's something in it for her. She's a smart businesswoman. I can't vote for her..."

Mr. Williams may be sulking in disgrace, but he is OF the Tea Party movement and probably represents their views, on the average. I thought it was extremely interesting that he will not vote for Whitman.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

I'm not the one who brought up being a lawyer on this thread (and you can't even answer which Law School you graduated from, much less document it ; )

Kevin-Willis:

It CHANGES the historical fact, which no one should have to insist on Obama proving, and then I would be happy to move on to more "important" (in your opinion) criticism.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

Apropos of the discussion yesterday prompted by your question about our consumer demand economy:

"As Michael Mandel documents copiously in his Bloomberg Businessweek column, what government statistics call “consumer spending” is not — get this! — consumer spending. Most of it isn’t, anyway. Lots of that so-called consumer spending is in fact government spending; Medicare and Medicaid, for instance, are lumped in there, as is most health-care spending, which amounts to, oh, $2 trillion a year, which might tend to throw the consumer-spending numbers off a bit. Health-care spending isn’t really driven by consumers (which is why our health-care market is so messed up, incidentally!), but by insurance companies, government, and other non-consumer enterprises. Something on the order of 15 percent of health-care spending actually comes out of consumers’ pockets. Chickenfeed, in the vulgate.

All sorts of other stuff is dumped into that category: the money spent by nonprofits, for instance, along with political parties and campaigns. Never mind, for the moment, that a big chunk of that actual consumer spending goes to things like clothes and electronics and shoes made abroad (and the consumption of which therefore has little direct impact on domestic economic activity), the truth is that consumer spending, in reality, represents less than half of U.S. economic activity, probably around 40 percent."

http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 27, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I am everlastingly astonished at the prescience displayed by President Obama's teenage mother, when she traveled to Kenya, to have her son born there, and while in the delivery room, to actually realize that one day he would be elected the first black American President, and therefore she better have a birth notice published in an Hawaiian paper, on the day he was born.

Of course I may be giving that teenage mom too much credit, because of course a young white mom, lying in her bed in Kenya, in 1961, would instantly realize that without a doubt, America, in 1961 was ready to elect a black president, so of course she better put the birth notice in a Hawaiian paper, right away.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

@scott,

What's your point? That the U.S. is not consumer driven economy? What does drive the economy?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Kevin - my previous comment got eated, but really dude, it was a joke riffing on what you had said.

Though unless you personally can vouch for every person in the teabagger crowd, characterizing the black congressmen as "liars" is something you don't have a basis to do, and does indicate a biased point of view. We know from witnesses that a group of teabaggers at around the same time that day shouted "f****t" at Barney Frank, so clearly there were some unruly bigots in attendance.

Breitbart, he of Shirley Sherrod fame, produced video of Pelosi's walk to the Capitol with the black congressman from the FOLLOWING day, and claimed that because there are no apparent racial epithets being shouted during that tape, that it proves it didn't happen the previous day. Which is just stupid.

At most, the best you can say is that it can't be proven or disproven, since there's no electronic record of it. The way Barney Frank was treated suggests that it certainly could have happened. But it can't be proven - or disproven. So calling the guys liars is baseless.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes; the old "I didn't bring it up, On This Thread" ploy.

Was it Martin Short that used to play that weasel lawyer character, with the long cigarette ash, that use to always claim: "I never said that", on SNL?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Jenn,

Apparently Kevin believes that none of those people who Glenn Beck decided to order to not carry any signs, would never shout out similar stuff to what several of them often wrote on their signs.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

12bar:

"What's your point?"

My point was to suggest a possible answer to the question that you posed yesterday when you said to qb"

"Surely someone here who argues so eloquently about macroeconomics could explain how much of the U.S. economy is consumer demand. I'm under the impression that it is 70%. Am I wrong?"

According to the linked article, yes you are wrong. As someone (who was it?) sagely said yesterday, "Seems we should pay at least lip service to the facts before arguing about how to improve the economy."

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 27, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Apparently ScottC will not say if he is "a birther" or not. His silence is deafening.

Strange how he has time to play the role of habitual comments parasite, but he is not willing to take a stance on the Right Wing "Birther" propaganda!!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"What does drive the economy? "

Did you read the article I linked to? it argues that:

"The problem of economic policy is not getting people to consume. It is getting them to produce. You can train a monkey to consume. (In fact, he requires no training, especially once you get him coked up on the taxpayers’ dime.) Americans are extraordinarily productive people, but our economy has taken a hit because we have a couple of trillion dollars’ worth of capital locked up in dead real estate, dead securities, and the swelling sovereign debt upon which our pet Leviathan battens. If you have a trillion dollars locked up in residential real estate that still is over-valued — its inflated price being sustained by hook and by crook by the geniuses in Washington — that capital can’t be put to real productive uses. (Also, people who could otherwise buy or rent cheap real estate will be paying too much for housing, taking yet more potentially productive capital out of the markets.)

It’s worth revisiting the sage words of the New York Times and its horror of the fact that “richer Americans tend to save, not spend, their tax cuts.” But jobs don’t come from consumption; jobs come from production. People have jobs because they make useful things and provide useful services, which people want, in any event (but not at any price). You want people to produce, you need capital. You need investments.

And you know where investment capital comes from? Savings, geniuses. Real savings, i.e. the savings that come from consuming less than you produce. Reich, the Times, Krugman, and every stimulus-happy pundit on the Democratic side of the aisle is arguing for an economic policy specifically and particularly designed to discourage saving and discourage investment, while encouraging consumption and encouraging borrowing. That’s the ultimate in magical thinking: We’ll just borrow another few trillion dollars and consume our way out of what ails us!"

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 27, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

ScottC,

The Silent Birther!!!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

@scott,

If corporations are already sitting on cash, and capacity utilization is low at 75%, why do you think that they are waiting for? If investment is the solution to the problem, what is the barrier. They have money, they have know-how, they have experience.

This is like saying that my car needs gas, when it already has half a tank, but won't start. You can add more gas, but that's not the reason it won't start.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

My guess is that Scott either is a birther, but isn't too proud of it. Or he is not, and doesn't want to admit it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

WOO HOO!!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/121059-rep-clyburn-gop-majority-will-issue-birther-subpoenas-against-ob

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

The later I think: he's not a birther and doesn't want to disclose that. That's the only thing that makes sense.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

For once, and probably only once, I agree with jakeD2. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

@JennOfArk: "So calling the guys liars is baseless."

Fair enough. Although, technically, I called it a "trick". As in, I'm sure you're aware, "tricksy hobbitses". Because it is well known, in certain circles, that I am a hobbitphobe.

Pick another example. I realize there are unruly bigots, but there seem to be a few more accusations, just recently, of bigots at McCain/Palin rallies and tea party gatherings of which there is generally a lot of witnesses and plenty of electronic recording devices, but no actual corroboration, than would seem credible, to me.

But perhaps it really happened. However, no corroboration, at all, for having racial epithets hurled at you--not once, from one person, but at least 15 times from multiple sources--and there's no evidence, of any kind, or corroboration?

And when there is some kind of electronic record (for the next day) nothing happens because bigots who would shout out offensive racial epithets that will likely (believe it or not) get them as much grief from their fellow teabaggers as from you are normally so concerned about appearing civil (enough though, is this day and age, they'd have no reason not to expect folks carrying a cell phone to catch them in the act).

But it's certainly not impossible, no. As the actually documented Barney Frank example proves. Which, for some reason, I find entirely more credible.

Which would make me, what? A bi-curious racist? /snark

Yes, I know that joke was insensitive. And not particularly funny. I'm a highly imperfect human being.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 27, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

2BarBlues

Well, if that is the case, then I will nominate him for to receive an ignominious Profile In Jello award.

He certainly feels free to challenge other people's stances, but lacks the moral fiber to take a stance on the "birther" nonsense being pushed by the hate monger operatives in his own party.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Jujitsu, definition

"Ju" means gentle

"Jutsu" can be translated to mean "art" or "technique" and represents manipulating the opponent's force against himself rather than confronting it with one's own force.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

GOP Majority will issue subpoenas against Sanity.

Wooooooooo Hooooooooo!!!

In The Land Of The Brainless, The One Functioning Synapse, AKA JakeD2, shall be King.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

2BarBlues, Two Bar Blues????????? As a fellow Irish, I really have to stop you there. There is the 8 bar blues, there is the 12 bar blues, but, buddy, there aint' no 2 bar blues.

:o))))

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"My guess is that Scott either is a birther, but isn't too proud of it. Or he is not, and doesn't want to admit it."

I am not a "birther", and I am more than happy to proclaim it from the rooftops. As far as I know and am concerned, Obama is a full-fledged American citizen.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 27, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

@scott,

Thank you. I knew you weren't a birther.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

12bar:

"If corporations are already sitting on cash, and capacity utilization is low at 75%, why do you think that they are waiting for?"

Less uncertainty about the future, perhaps. If you have no idea what kinds of costs might be imposed on you by the government next year or the year after, you may be hesistant to send cash out the door today.

"This is like saying that my car needs gas, when it already has half a tank, but won't start. You can add more gas, but that's not the reason it won't start."

No, it isn't. People are not unthinking machines with an incapacity to plan for future events. A car engine is.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 27, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I really don't get your point. Everyone knows that investment is necessary for economic growth. And also necessary are
are jobs, consumption, and consumer confidence. The actual point is what is needed FIRST. Investment is lagging, but it's not because they aren't sitting on the cash. Perhaps, a reason for lagging investment might be in the 75% capacity utiliztion number. Why add more capacity when you aren't using what you have? Hence the analogy to the car.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"I knew you weren't a birther."

If you hang around here long enough, you should learn that a refusal to address Liam's questions has a lot more to do with the character of the questioner than with the character of the question.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 27, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I find this debate stultifyingly dull. We have a consumer driven economy which everyone knows. We all want it to improve. And we're sitting here arguing about what? I can't even tell anymore.

What is lacking. You say investment. I say they have cash, what more do they need?

You say, answers to uncertainty.

Don't we all? Isn't that the very definition of a recession--uncertainty about the future. If we had certainty, we would climb out of this recession.

This is just too circular for me.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

2BarBlues, Two Bar Blues????????? As a fellow Irish, I really have to stop you there. There is the 8 bar blues, there is the 12 bar blues, but, buddy, there aint' no 2 bar blues.

:o))))

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 3:10 PM.

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

If you pick the wrong Irish Pubs, you certainly can end up with the 2 bar blues.

Sorry for the typo. " Nobody loves me but my mother and she could be jivin' too." B B King

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

If you hang around here long enough, you should learn that a refusal to address Liam's questions has a lot more to do with the character of the questioner than with the character of the question.
--------------------------
Really? I thought you probably hadn't seen his question.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

If you hang around here long enough., you will learn that ScottC likes to excerpt portions of other people's comments, and relentlessly attack them, over and over. He tries his best to avoid any questions that are directed toward him.

That is why I long ago labeled him The Comments Parasite. He feeds off the comments of others. On the previous site format, he used to pop in; post in bold format, excerpts, often out of context, of many other people's comments, and try to start running arguments with all those people. He hates it, when someone makes him the focal point of a topic.

He Is The Comments Parasite.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

Not wanting to get between you and the comments parasite, let me change the subject.

I got the book History of Ireland in the 18th Century from USF library. Well, it is leather bound, small like 5x8, and looks every so much like carrying around a beautifully bound Bible. I feel like Jane Austen.

Anyway, the reason it is such a beautiful book is NOT because it is new. I'm not sure if it was even printed in the last century. It is beautiful because I may be the only person who has checked in out in the last 100 years. LOL.

Optics aside--I am enjoying reading about the 1798 rebellion on the ground. Now, I need a map of Ireland so I can keep track of how the rebels ran from county to county avoiding capture. I do perceive a wee bit of bias against the rebels from the author--maybe the rebels wouldn't call it running.

Just to keep you informed on my history lessons.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"I thought you probably hadn't seen his question."

Of course I saw it. But as you aptly pointed out yesterday, "I simply ignore posters who have contempt for me. I think that's just common sense." Me too. Liam has been calling me a "parasite" among other things ever since he found out my politics don't agree with his. Why would I care whether he thinks I'm a birther or not?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 27, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Why would I care whether he thinks I'm a birther or not?
--------------------------------
I guess you wouldn't.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I have been calling him A Parisite since he established himself, over the course of a year or more, who made a habit of picking out small portions of many people's comments, posting those excerpts, which he chose to suit his bias, and start several running arguments at once. That was his habitual MO. That is when I finally named him, The Comments Parasite.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"...the comments parasite..."

Not you too. Sheesh.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 27, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

@scott,

I'm not calling you that. I don't know you well enough to call you anything.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

Since the book was published long before Ireland won it's Freedom, it was probably written from the Colonists point of view. It is a truism that History is written by the victors.

I must say that "On The Run" was later used by the Irish Rebels, as a way to describe how they conducted lighting strikes, using Guerrilla Warfare tactics against the far superior forces of the British Empire from 1916 through 1921.

It worked, and a very small number of freedom fighters actually forced that world dominating empire to withdraw from what is now The Republic Of Ireland, even though the homeland of the Empire was only twenty miles away across the Irish Sea.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

12Bar - I think you've already answered the question you asked, and it gets back to what I was saying on the comments thread yesterday, which qb, despite all obsufucation, can't adequately address.

If you are a manufacturer of, say, washing machines, and currently you produce a million machines per year with store orders and inventories remaining constant, if there aren't more than a million people per year clamoring for your machines, either because they don't need them or can't afford them, then you aren't going to invest in doubling your production capacity. No one who wants to stay in business is going to make the decision to produce far more than their market demands, because it needlessly ties up their capital and strains their cash flows.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that it doesn't matter how much you cut the washing machine manufacturing company owner's taxes, he's not going to be creating any jobs if the demand for his product doesn't warrant it. In this case, for growth, the owner of the company would be far better off if people who couldn't formerly afford to buy his machines got tax cuts or wage increases that allowed them the excess income to make a purchase. Then it would make sense for him to invest in expanding his operation.

Until then, giving him - the owner - a tax cut won't do jack, other than giving him some more money to sit on, because he's got no reason to invest.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 27, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

If we were wondering why the Kentucky senatorial race has tightened so much quite suddenly, here's a clue from the Courier Journal newspaper.

Rand Paul apparently is a member of a medical group that has political positions, one of which is this one. This is about Obama was elected using hypnosis:

"The paper bases its finding on the work of a controversial psychologist, Milton Erickson, who died 30 years ago and pioneered the also-controversial field of neuro-linguistic programming, which purports to use voice patterns to subliminally influence people’s decisions.

The paper claims to examine Obama’s speeches “word by word, hand gesture by hand gesture, tone, pauses, body language, and proves his use of covert hypnosis intended only for licensed therapists on consenting patients.”

The paper goes on to say that Obama’s “mesmerized, cult-like, grade-school-crush-like worship by millions is not because ‘Obama is the greatest leader of a generation’ who simply hasn’t accomplished anything, who magically ‘inspires’ by giving speeches. Obama is committing perhaps the biggest fraud and deception in American history.”

The AAPS article notes that the Obama campaign logo “might just be the letter ‘O,’ but it also resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists.”

And it suggests that hypnosis is the reason some Jewish people backed him.

“It is also interesting that many Jews are supporting a candidate who is endorsed by Hamas, Farrakhan, Khalidi and Iran,” the article says.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100924/NEWS0106/309240084/1008/NEWS01/Rand+Paul+part+of+AAPS+doctors++group+airing+unusual+views


Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"covert hypnosis" Good lord. It is hard not to laugh at what those people believe in, and yet they never stop to reason, if Obama was wielding such power over the masses, why hasn't he used them on all those Tea Party members?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

@jenn,

What I can't get around is twofold:

1. Corporations are sitting on cash, lots of it. So says quarterback, and I agree.

2. Capacity utilization is 75%, low, very low.

Someday, the solution will be investment, but it ain't today. No one will invest more capital when utilization is that low. And nobody is--that's why they're sitting on cash.

Everything is needed to keep the economy chugging, but everything is needed in the order in which it is put to work.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

I've heard it all now.

"Obama is completely incompetent, but he sure pulled a fast one over on all those Jews with them quick hand gestures. For a dummy, he's sure one smart n*ggar."

Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

What I can't get around is the fact that Fat Cats have had their Bush Tax Cuts for several years, and they did not stimulate the economy, and are not doing so now, so how the hell are they worth adding another four trillion dollars to the national debt for?

There were fat cats under Clinton, and the economy did just fine, and twenty two million jobs were created.

All Bush did was pass additional tax cuts for people who were already very wealthy. The results are in. They turned an annual budget deficit into a huge annual budget deficit, and not one net job was added, after eight years of Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

why hasn't he used them on all those Tea Party members?
-------------------------------------
Maybe, they ain't Jewish.

Gawd, have you ever seen two insults all wrapped up in one--Jews hypnotized by Obama! Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

why hasn't he used them on all those Tea Party members?
-------------------------------------
Maybe, they ain't Jewish.

Gawd, have you ever seen two insults all wrapped up in one--Jews hypnotized by Obama! Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 4:50 PM
.............

Or maybe those magic teabags,that they dress up in, shield them from Obama's Hypnotic Rays.

How long will it be before some company starts merchandising Obama Hypnosis Deflection Products, on Fox Cable Shows?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama Hypnosis Deflection Reflections:

Here's the product idea: take a mirror and strop it to your neck so you can see yourself in it. Then when Obama starts with the Jewish hand gestures, you just shine the mirror at the TV and defeat him with your reflection.

Got it?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

How long before Jon Stewart has THIS on his show. This is just too good--especially the Jewish angle.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

Now we wait. Who will be the first poster to defend the hypnosis of Jews (and all Obama voters, let's be fair) by Obama? What form will it take?

Lack of evidence to prove he didn't?

Historical susceptibility of Jews to psychiatry?

Liberals have had the smart part of their brains removed, better known as partial lobotomies, to enable hypnosis? Surgery done while registering as Democrats.

What else?

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

There just might be something to The Obama Hypnosis Powers claims. After all; he is rarely seen on Fox Cable, and there viewers appear to have been the least susceptible to his magical powers.

I wonder why he has not used them on Nethan Yahoo,(With Apologies to Dean Swift) or on the Iranian Ayatollahs, or on Newt, in order to get Mr. Gingrich to commence talking up the benefits of Sharia Law.

It would also appear that a majority of people who have been contacted by pollsters are immune to Obama Hypnotic Rays.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

There just might be something to The Obama Hypnosis Powers claims.
----------------------------------
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey, why didn't we think of this earlier?

Glenn Beck--this is perfect for him. The hypnosis angle. The Jewish angle. He could use his white board, and connect the dots. Throw the Vatican in and the Masons too for good measure. He could draw pyramids with eyes in the middle and draw arrows to Obama, the eyes, the pyramids, the Pope and Lady Gaga.

Then he could look at the camera and shrug and say "but how do we KNOW?".

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

Now we wait. Who will be the first poster to defend the hypnosis of Jews (and all Obama voters, let's be fair) by Obama? What form will it take?

Lack of evidence to prove he didn't?

Historical susceptibility of Jews to psychiatry?
...................
My bet will be that JakeD2 will be the one most likely to defend the Obama Hypnotic Powers claims, and say that the reason why there is no solid documentation is because he was trained how to use those powers right after he was born in Kenya.

Wait until JakeD2 hears about when Obama attended a B'nai B'rit meeting, and serenaded the crowd with his special rendition of Jung At Heart.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Jung At Heart
--------------------------------
Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GREAT one.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

he was trained how to use those powers right after he was born in Kenya.
--------------------------------
Yeah, bet those birthers never thought of this angle. Obama, with those baby laser eyes of his'n, hypnotized all those Hi-why-ans to THINK he was born there when he was really born in Kenya--but the onliest person who had even more-so laser eyes was ole grandma who was not taken in by this lye.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 27, 2010 5:40 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