Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Who will win the 2012 Tea Party presidential primary?

In case you had any doubts about how central the Tea Party will be to the 2012 GOP presidential primary, this new video from Sarah Palin's political action committee makes it pretty clear:

The video is an extended paean by Palin to the Tea Party, in which she declares it "the future of politics," and it seems like a pretty transparent effort on her part to position herself as the movement's national standard bearer.

By Greg Sargent  | September 21, 2010; 1:53 PM ET
Categories:  2012, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: New poll: Tax cut fight is winner for Dems in battleground states
Next: GOP obstructionism works, part 973

Comments

Well, I was at that Searchlight, NV event and can tell you that the TEA Party's nomination is Gov. Palin's if she wants it.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

There is no way she'll run.

She couldn't handle the Governorship of Alaska, good lord; even running for President would be way too much for her.

I'd guess what she is doing is keeping interest in her alive so she can cash in. Her supporters will be far more willing to take a break from their daily routine of eating boogers and finger-painting with their own feces to buy whatever literary cow plop her ghost writer produces if they think she will be running for President. Newt has been doing the same thing ever since he was run out of office.

Don’t get me wrong; I’d love for her to run. I’d love for her to win the nomination too. If she does the GOP will lose, and lose big. Hopefully the loss will be so large they will realize that being the “Crazy Party” is not a winning long term strategy.

But I doubt she will make any serious attempt, it would be to hard.

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Like nails on a chalk board.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

nisleib, I used to think that too. not so sure anymore.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 21, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

The question is whether it's Reagan all over again.

He was an actor, and played the part of President; Palin is an ideologue and a pretender at governance. If politics is going to become a corporate-funded sideshow, then she'll be perfect for the part.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 21, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Palin is an entrepreneur. She will keep her brand out there in any way that keeps it out there! It is all about money. And, she is raking it in. P.T. Barnum would be proud of her.

Posted by: dozas | September 21, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

She's more of a megalomaniac than Gingrich, of course she'll run. It's all about "me me me" with her.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Monty Python - Election results.

"Sensible Party versus Silly Party"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU

Posted by: sbj3 | September 21, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI - I'm no fan of Reagan, but you really can't compare Reagan and Palin.

Palin is mean and stupid. Reagan was likable and well read.

Greg - If she does decide to run it won't last long. She can't take the pressure.

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington


What is there NOT to understand


1) Obama and the democrats have been blaming Bush for the condition of the economy in 2009 - claiming that Bush is responsible for the economy in 2009

2) NOW the economic numbers have come out - the economy came OUT of the recession in June 2009 - the recession is OVER !


3) So, logically, the REPUBLICANS AND BUSH DESERVE CREDIT FOR ENDING THE RECESSION.

It is pretty simple - and clear.

What part of it do you not understand.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

nisleib, I can't agree. It's just a difference in culture now and also one of degree. And let's please not elevate Reagan because it's in the past and easy to forget all of the ways he and his people (don't forget all of the folks who he came into politics with) changed the American political landscape for the worst.

Were they smarter? Yes. All the worse: they should have known better.

Palin's in it more for the grift, but the results are going to be just as bad.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 21, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

But Palin is just like the girl next door!!!...who farts when she gets nervous and picks her nose when she thinks nobody is looking!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Actually SaveTheRainforest, the stimulus pushed GDP pretty high and sustained it long enough until the regular business cycle took over. But I know me looking up figures on how much growth it stimulated won't make a lick of difference in your mind so I won't bother wasting my time.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

OT:

@tpm:

Nate Silver says that the congressional generic may be understating the Democrats' strength. But it's starting to look like that number itself may be shifting. Over the last week, five polling organizations have come out showing the Democrats 1 point ahead of the Republicans. Those are Reuters/Ipsos, Gallup, Zogby, Yougov and PPP. And as you can see from the chart below, it's actually more of a Republican drop than the Democrats rising, though it's a bit of both. And that suggests that it's not just a matter of Dems coming home as the election heats up.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/09/is_something_happening.php

Also OT:

Surprise: FDA Panel Unable to Reach Conclusion on Genetically Modified Salmon

After two days of hearings, several members of an 11-member advisory panel of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that there are not yet sufficient data to determine that a genetic modification that enables salmon to grow twice as quickly is safe for the affected fish or for consumers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/fda-unable-reach-conclusion-genetically-modified-salmon/story?id=11682586

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

As if I don't have my hands full already defending Christine O'Donnell from the onslaught of liberal lies and invective?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2: Why do you want to defend O'Donnell? Are you strictly a partisan Republican?

Posted by: sbj3 | September 21, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Jake, who is lying about her?

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 21, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington 2:23 PM


I think you are getting your YEARS confused.


The study you cited - that said the RECESSION was over in June 2009.

There is no way the stimulus money could have been spent fast enough in order to have an impact on the second quarter of 2009 - which means APRIL - JUNE 2009.

You have to give BUSH credit for ENDING THE RECESSION - there is no other way around it.

You betcha !

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

The people of Wassilla, AK forced her to hire a City Manager;

She quit half-way through her term as Governor of AK (a small state in terms of complexity of governance).

Why would anyone care what she thinks about the Presidency!

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 21, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

@sbj

Go easy on JakeD2...just because he's still stuck on in "Partisan Republican" mode, and hasn't moved on (as you have) into the "Anti-Dem" Party.

Someday he'll make the transistion, and you two will make beautiful trolling together, I'm sure!

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | September 21, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Well, for starters, a wholehearted defense is necessary (regardless of her party) from the people calling her a witch and misciting her qualifications, education, job history, and campaign finances:

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

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to AMviennaVA:

Will you start "caring" if she becomes the first woman nominated by a major party for said Presidency?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I'd compare Palin more to Bush The Lesser. He had plenty of "experts" to do the heavy lifting for him, as I'm sure The Moose would if she ever, Allah forbid, set foot in the West Wing.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 21, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the democrats have run around for a year and a half blaming Bush for the condition of the economy in 2009.


Now the studies come out - and the Recession ended in 2009 - in the second quarter April-June 2009.

So, logically, one must give CREDIT TO THE REPUBLICANS AND BUSH FOR ENDING THE RECESSION.

A thank-you card would be nice.

Seriously, folks - how many of you have written posts BLAMING BUSH - so now let's see the other side of the coin.


The American People are looking for some honesty here.


.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Jake - "The people calling her a witch..."

Um, she called herself a witch. If you have to defend her from herself maybe you should just give it up.

When Alvin Greene won the primary you didn't see the Plum Line non-trolls (most of whom are lefties) defending him. He is clearly not fit for office and even though he is, in theory, on our side we weren't intellectually dishonest enough to defend him.

You don't seem to be at all burdened with intellectual honesty; you will say anything to defend anyone with an R next to their name. That is pathetic.

People would probably care far more about your opinions if we believed the things you said actually were your opinions and not just more rightwing blather.

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest thinks he understands how the end of a recession is determined. Hint, it's not from the previous two quarters.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Jake


On Christine O'Donnell


The voters have a choice - on the other side is the guy who called himself a "Bearded Marxist."

All this witchcraft stuff - and the date with the witch on an altar at midnight - (were they both wearing black?)

I really don't believe this hurts Christine O'Donnell all that much. First, the election is right near Halloween - so being a witch isn't really that bad that week.


The date with the witch part - really may serve to INCREASE Christine O'Donnell's appeal - she may have INCREASED HER APPEAL TO THE ELECTORATE.

With the economy so prominent this year, I would be more concerned with the "Bearded Marxist."

This little lesbian episode on an altar at midnights sounds pretty hot to me - so I'm thinking Christine is doing pretty OK>

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington 2:50 PM


YOU started citing the study which came out yesterday


So - don't blame me -


I'm just saying if the recession ended then, then the Republicans and Bush deserve credit.

The democrats can't have it both ways - and Obama backed himself into a corner on this one.


Yes - I do understand the definition of a recession, and what the study was applying to its conclusions - however I'm not going to explain it to you.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

This is fun.

@wsj op/ed

Haley Barbour to Tea Party: No Really, Republicans and Tea Party are the Same Thing

Tea party voters are not only motivated by the effect these terrible policies are having on them—they are worried about America's future. They fear that their children and grandchildren won't inherit the same country they inherited from their parents and grandparents. What they know with certainty is that future generations will be saddled with paying back the trillions in debt that the Obama administration and Congress are running up with so little positive result.

Replace "tea party" with "Republican" in every instance above, and each description would remain totally accurate. On the issues foremost in voters' minds—the economy, jobs, spending, taxes, debt and deficits—the overwhelming majority of tea party voters and Republican voters are in strong agreement.

Hilarious!!!

Um, Haley, that's what we've been saying all along!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Mike - STRF is a rightwing spambot, I doubt he can feed himself, much less determine when a recession ended.

Here is a link, STRF, so you don't embarrass yourself anymore:

http://www.wisebread.com/the-end-of-a-recession-versus-recovery

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

nisleib 2:49 PM


I don't think Christine O'Donnell called herself a witch.


I think she said she "dated" a witch - which is really HOT.

The other guy in the race called himself a "Bearded Marxist" - lets just get straight who is calling who what.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

nisleib:

First of all, I was right about the Presidential vetoes. Second, having a few dates with a witch does not make one a witch; she never called herself a witch.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

When SaveTheRainforest says:

"The study you cited - that said the RECESSION was over in June 2009.

There is no way the stimulus money could have been spent fast enough in order to have an impact on the second quarter of 2009 - which means APRIL - JUNE 2009."

then follow up with:

"Yes - I do understand the definition of a recession, and what the study was applying to its conclusions - however I'm not going to explain it to you."

it just goes to show he has no clue what he's talking about.

Look squirrel!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic, the whole question is pre-mature and assumes that there will even BE such a nominee in 2012 (there wasn't one in 2008). I think that Gov. Palin's big draw is that she can unify the GOP and TEA Party -- if the Republicans instead nominate someone like Romney, or even McCain again, I could definitely see a push for a national TEA Party candidate -- that being said, the TEA Party's nomination is Gov. Palin's if she wants it.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

The PURITY OF THE LOGIC is simple


Mike from Arlington said the Recession ended last year.


So, logically the Republicans and Bush deserve credit for ENDING THE RECESSION.

What is HURTING the country right now is the DRAG ON HIRING from the health care bill - and the uncertainty surrounding what the health care costs are going to be for companies in the future.

Obama's policies are HURTING THE ECONOMY.

LET US BE CLEAR: THE ACADEMIC STUDIES AGREE THAT OBAMA INHERITED A GROWING ECONOMY.

Thank you.


Thank you very much.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Tea Party is just an attempt to re-brand the toxic GOP brand and this merger is all kabuki theater.

What's the saying, you can put lip stick on a pig....

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

nisleib | September 21, 2010 2:49 PM

Good comment. Bulls-eye.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

DADT fails 56-43

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid did not get his 60 votes for Don't Ask Don't Tell


Adding the Immigration Bill to the Defense bill did NOT help

Harry Reid has destroyed these two issues, by handling it this way.


So what is up with Harry Reid ??


,

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"LET US BE CLEAR: THE ACADEMIC STUDIES AGREE THAT OBAMA INHERITED A GROWING ECONOMY."

haha.

O.K. This one I just can't let go. Then I'm done with this twit.

Did these academics get their degrees from a cereal box? Seriously. Where the hell do you come up with this stuff?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Someone today said that "I didn't know what I was talking about" with the don't ask, don't tell bill.


Who was that ???

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

DADT fails 56-43!!! WOO HOO

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"LET US BE CLEAR: THE ACADEMIC STUDIES AGREE THAT OBAMA INHERITED A GROWING ECONOMY."

haha.

O.K. This one I just can't let go. Then I'm done with this twit.

Did these academics get their degrees from a cereal box? Seriously. Where the hell do you come up with this stuff?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlinton:

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)said it.

The economy GREW in quarters 3 and 4 in 2009 - EXACTLY THE TIME THAT OBAMA SAYS THAT BUSH SHOULD BE HELD "RESPONSIBLE" FOR THE ECONOMY.


Bush gave Obama a GROWING ECONOMY - plain and simple.

Look it up for yourself.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"Someone today said that "I didn't know what I was talking about" with the don't ask, don't tell bill."

You still don't.

The amendment was part of a larger military spending bill.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

The National Bureau of Economic Research


http://www.nber.org/


You can read it all you want.

THE REPUBLICANS AND BUSH HANDED OFF A GROWING ECONOMY TO OBAMA -


The economic growth started in Quarters 3 and 4 in 2009 - precisely the time that Obama has said Bush is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ECONOMY.

The democrats should be THANKING BUSH.


Thank you.


Thank you very much.

.

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

Holy frickin' cow SaveTheRainforest are you thick.

Subtract stimulus GDP from regular economic activity GDP and you wouldn't have had the end of the recession.

God help me! Please!

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

@Ethan

"DADT fails 56-43"

Don't you mean "Funding our Military fails 56-43"?

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

nisleib | September 21, 2010 2:58 PM


You don't know the definition of spambot


So please - a spambot is a computer program - which sends out messages attempting to direct people to websites.

Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

@RainForest

"The economy GREW in quarters 3 and 4 in 2009..."

President Obama took office in Q1 of 2009. Stimulus spending, FTG!

(for the growth...lol)

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | September 21, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Technically, the GOP fought off a "Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 3454" (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, as Amended). CONGRATS!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington


James Poterba is President of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He is also the Mitsui Professor of Economics at M.I.T.

IS M.I.T. a cereal box ???

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Time to roll out the Republicans don't support funding our troops commercials.

Nobody remembers the amendments, only the overall bill.

Oh wait, should Dems not do that Conservatives like how John McCain, his trophy wife and Sarah Palin all attacked then candidate Obama for not voting yea to fund the troops when he disagreed with certain provisions or amendments of the bill?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"Don't you mean "Funding our Military fails 56-43"?"

Yes.....

Anyone know which Dems voted against? Anyone see a roll call?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

TheBBQChickenMadness (and mikefromArlington):

If the GOP had proposed an amendment to said bill that authorized Special Ops to track you down and kill you, would you agree or disagree with the Dems filibuster?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm guessing Webb, Nelson and maybe Lincoln.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

TheBBQChickenMadness 3:29 PM


Stimulus spending does not affect the economy that quickly.


In addition - how much time do you suppose it took to get the stimulus programs going? It wasn't the next day.


Part of the stimulus STILL hasn't been spent.


You can wish ALL you want -

But THE REPUBLICANS AND BUSH DESERVE CREDIT FOR ENDING THE RECESSION IN 2009.

The democrats can't going around blaming Bush for everything - and then not giving him credit.


The Surge, coming out of the Recession - SOUND LIKE BUSH WAS DOING A GOOD JOB -


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"If the GOP had proposed an amendment to said bill that authorized Special Ops to track you down and kill you, would you agree or disagree with the Dems filibuster?"

I'm leaning towards filibuster on this one but I'm always open to discussion.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Ah...

@tpm: "Two Democratic senators, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, both from Arkansas, voted with Republicans to block the bill. Majority Leader Harry Reid also voted no, a procedural move so he can bring the cloture motion back to the floor later."

So it was really Snowe/Collins who refused to break the filibuster. I'm sure if one of them voted for cloture, the two AK Dems wouldn't have stood in the way. I could be wrong, but I still lay this at the feet of the ME twins. Really is shameful.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:29 PM


We had a whole discussion over the weekend that a deception is the same thing as a lie.

So, the Republicans are against defending the country AT ALL, because they won't agree to accept a repeal of "dont ask"

When will the democrats ACCEPT that in every State where gay marriage has been on the ballot, that ballot measure has FAILED.

This is a democracy.

Why is it - that the liberals want to JAM everything they want down everyone's throats - instead of trying to get a majority vote?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Edit: AR Dems

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised Lincoln gives a crap at this point. Her re-election is hopeless. What does she care?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm really surprised by Webb's vote and Nelson's.

I'll have to send them a thank you for your courage letter.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Between 2000 and 2008, George W. Bush pushed American politics sharply to the right: cutting taxes, appointing highly conservative judges, and shredding government regulation. But the Tea Partiers aren’t inclined toward gratitude. In their minds, Bush was an accomodationist, a big spender. Like the McGovernites in the Vietnam-era Democratic Party, the Tea Partiers are taking over the GOP, state by state. And in all likelihood, they will select a party nominee who runs substantially to the right of both Bush in 2000 and 2004 and John McCain in 2008.

That candidate, whether it be Palin herself or a Palin wannabe, will, I suspect, be crushed in the general election. The one major advantage today’s Republicans have over the Democrats of the early 1970s is the economy: If it is actually worse in 2012 than it is today, all bets are off. But if it improves, even modestly, Republicans are likely in for the kind of rude awakening that Democrats experienced in 1972.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/09/palin-to-save-the-gop-by-destroying-it.html

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"Really is shameful."

Please. Don't be so naive.

"The White House isn't lobbying on the Defense Authorization bill. They're not trying to get to 60 votes. The President and Vice President aren't making calls. The White House legislative team isn't working the halls of the Senate. Nothing. People on the Hill are well aware of this. It sends a signal. Has anyone, not just Senators, anyone, heard a word about the Defense bill from Obama?"

http://www.americablog.com/2010/09/tuesday-morning-open-thread_21.html

"But Collins said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning that she would not vote to take up the underlying defense bill unless it was open to all amendments senators want to offer.

“There are many controversial issues in this bill. They deserve to have civil, fair and open debate on the Senate floor,” Collins said.

“I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down the debate and preclude Republican amendments. That, too, is not fair,” Collins said. “Now is not the time to play politics simply because an election is looming in a few weeks.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42485.html#ixzz10C8pOyNX

Posted by: sbj3 | September 21, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Interesting question, Greg. Are you implying that there will be another Convention of white/older/middle class conservatives nominating a candidate other than the GOP?

My mind thrills at the prospect. I wonder how many ways they can shrink that "Big Tent" between now and then...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 21, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"I'm really surprised by Webb's vote and Nelson's."

Seriously. Webb especially. He could have gone the symbolic "no" route, showing his conservadem bona fides knowing it was going to fail. He must actually support it. Of course, this was the full defense bill with the DADT amendment so I guess it could be that he doesn't want to vote against funding the troops no matter what amendments are attached. Not sure about that, but it's interesting... Anyone have any opinion or background on Webb's vote that I'm missing? Just a curiosity at this point, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

DEMOCRATS Lincoln and Pryor (as well as Harry Reid for procedural reasons) voted against cloture motion:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00238

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Let me channel my inner right wing nut job conservative embodiment.....

The GOP is willing to not fund troops for partisan reasons!

They have no respect for our men and women in uniform!

...../unchannel.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

This was just a cloture vote to move to debate. Webb and Nelson could have voted nay later.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 21, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington 3:35 PM


If a person is making war against the United States, then that person has made himself a target.


If a person is recruiting terrorists - and organizing terrorist attacks against US citizens, then that person has made himself a target.

If that person wants to turn himself in, turn himself in to any embassey or any government office - then that person will be given criminal protections - and tried accordingly.


So the way for that person to stop the orders is to surrender and deal with the charges in Court.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

All, my quick take on the failure of DADT repeal in the Senate:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 21, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

yes, the demagoguery is scheduled to begin in five, four, three, two, one...

good vote and a smart one too. What this also shows is that a determined minority in the senate can effectively thwart much of the agenda of the majority party. The democrats did this in their turn and showed the Republicans a trick or two.

Now the tables are turned and the fighting is fierce. As it should be.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 21, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, I was pretty certain Webb was a no.

I remember reading this article a while back...

http://openleft.com/diary/18853/jim-webb-announces-opposition-to-dadt-deal

I guess they got it wrong. They missed Lincoln and Pryor.

But honestly, we have no idea what played out here. Reid could have known all along this wasn't going to get past the Senate and knew Lincoln and Pryor needed to not let it pass to help out in AR. Neither Nelson nor Webb are up for re-election. Is it coincidence Pryor joined Lincoln? I don't think so. If he voted to let it proceed, it would have been used against Lincoln no doubt.

I hate to sound all pessimistic on that one but I think that's how this one played out unfortunately. Of course, what I wrote is all speculation.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone explain why the White House acts like this? I simply don't understand it.

"Last night, I learned from a very credible source that the White House isn't lobbying on the Defense Authorization bill. They're not trying to get to 60 votes. The President and Vice President aren't making calls. The White House legislative team isn't working the halls of the Senate. Nothing. People on the Hill are well aware of this. It sends a signal. Has anyone, not just Senators, anyone, heard a word about the Defense bill from Obama? Think about it: The GOP Senators are filibustering a defense bill, which includes support for the troops, while we're engaged in two wars. Yet, we haven't heard a peep from Obama about that. If the situation were reversed, I don't think a Republican President would sit idly by and miss an opportunity to bash the other side for not supporting the troops. Bush did it every time.

So, the key vote that could set us on a path to ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell will happen today. We've waited a long time for this. A lot of promises were made to the LGBT community, included an end to DADT. I have to give a lot of credit to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and Servicemembers United for getting us this far. They have had to fight every step of the way. In June of 2009, SLDN held a protest in front of the White House, asking Obama to keep his promise on DADT repeal. That didn't endear them to crack political team in the West Wing. Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina stooped so low that he excluded SLDN from a key meeting where DADT was discussed. But, SLDN was undaunted, the group just kept pushing and lobbying. Same for Servicemembers United. This isn't a political game for them. It's about their lives. So, today, we'll see whether the DADT language moves forward. Keep calling your Senators til the last minute. The Senate switchboard is 202-224-3121. It's not over til it's over. Senators are fickle creatures and, who knows, maybe one of the GOPers will act like a human today.

Clearly, we did not get the support from the White House that we should have expected -- based on the promises made by the President. But, we'll need to remember this next year when Jim Messina is the campaign manager for the Obama reelection and comes asking for our time, our money and our votes."

http://www.americablog.com/2010/09/tuesday-morning-open-thread_21.html

This strikes me as insanely stupid politics. Is there some rational explanation for it?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 @ September 21, 2010 2:43 PM wrote 'Will you start "caring" if she becomes the first woman nominated by a major party for said Presidency?'

Absolutely. I am already very concerned that she is under consideration by, what, 20-30% of the country. It shows how mindless a large portion of the country is. It will not be a unique experience, as it has happened elsewhere. It's just that it has always been a disaster, that requires many many years to recover from.

By the way, I noticed that you agree with the grounds I gave for my opinion of her, since you have not attempted to refute them. In your position, I would look in the mirror and examine my standards.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 21, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Is there some rational explanation for it?"

Obama knew that Reid's cynical ploy would not work so he didn't want to attach his name to a losing cause?

Posted by: sbj3 | September 21, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

AMviennaVA:

Please do not assume that I agree with anything you post.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps we should ask:

Who will win the 2012 Democratic presidential primary?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"Obama knew that Reid's cynical ploy would not work so he didn't want to attach his name to a losing cause?"

Still doesn't make sense. Obama could have appeased, if not pleased, his base simply by appearing to make an effort. Then the GOP gets the blame which is how the thing was designed.

This does not bode well for the tax issue.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 @ September 21, 2010 4:19 PM: You responded to a point in the post; and silence implies assent, you know.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 21, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

If she were really a witch, I'd be all for her. But O'donell is no witch. She doesn't even know what a witch is.

I think it's probable that Palin will run for president. I think it's possible for her to win the nomination and the presidency. We are a reality TV nation and she knows how to play the game.

Will we be better off? Depends. If you think this country has gone off the rails and a total collapse is what is needed, then yes. Are we unfixable? Perhaps. People will suffer. We will learn what it's like to live in a third world country. But maybe that's a good thing.

I am 53 and I am shocked - so many selfish, just plain mean people. Maybe we need Sarah Palin as presiaent. It will teach us a lesson.

Posted by: waybackwitch | September 21, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

AMviennaVA, I learned that in Latin as "qui tacit consentit" but not when it is clear that consent is being withheld, as explicitly stated above. Even if JakeD had not gone on the record as such, Craig Bruce put it best. "Silence is a statement that is open to gross misinterpretation." In the area of international organizations and diplomacy, there is actually a "silence implies consent" procedure that all parties have agreed to employ up front. However, that is clearly not the case here whereby he specifically posted "do not assume that I agree with anything you post."

By analogy, American contract law holds that silence does not imply consent (there are also plenty of possible reasons why he hasn't responded, including the known fact that JakeD golfs as much as he can). I was going to remain silent on your post, but I figured that you would mistakenly believe that also implied assent.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 22, 2010 5:16 AM | Report abuse

By your silence, what may I now assume?

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 22, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Glenn Beck in drag

Posted by: seburakowski | September 23, 2010 11:52 AM | 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