Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Compare and contrast

President Obama, in an interview with National Journal:

Obama said that Democrats will need to show an "appropriate sense of humility about what we can accomplish," and he pledged to "spend more time building consensus."

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, in an interview with National Journal:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Just perfect.

By Greg Sargent  | October 25, 2010; 1:47 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: New Rand Paul ad: Jack Conway is "Obama's yes man"
Next: If you don't get health coverage, Dems will send you to jail

Comments

HA - another little nugget to take home with

Obama's new definition of a balanced budget.

Obama says a balanced budget is one - which EXCLUDES interest payments on debt.

Really?

Excluding interest payments means the balance can be "balanced?" This is completely ridiculous. Obama is completely lost on all economic matters.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 25, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

The primary goal of Republican rule is . . . to perptuate Republican rule.

Is Obama the only Democrat who finds this surprising?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 25, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Mitch McConnell also said in that interview that the GOP should be humble about the election results. Skipped right over that part, I guess.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 25, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

And this is how McConnell and the GOP demonstrate humility?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 25, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"Mitch McConnell also said in that interview that the GOP should be humble about the election results."

Oh good, that will make our election night Plumline party much more fun. We can all keep the gloating to a minimum, LOL.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 25, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

McConnell's statements seem to bolster John Dilulio's statement of 2001:

"What you've got is everything--and I mean everything--being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

The Republicans, imo, gave up on policy a long time ago. The only thing that matters to today's Republican Party is getting and keeping political power.

Over the last thirty years or so the GOP has received pretty much everything it wanted. Lower taxes for the uber-rich? Check. Deregulation of most everything? Check. Privatization of as many government functions as possible? Check (mostly.) Well, they got what they wanted and it has proven a catastrophe, so what do they do?

They play games and try to vilify those they oppose. The other option, rethinking their positions, is unthinkable to the GOP.

Posted by: nisleib | October 25, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"Mitch McConnell also said in that interview that the GOP should be humble about the election results."

Oh good, that will make our election night Plumline party much more fun. We can all keep the gloating to a minimum, LOL.
--------------------------------------
That's all assuming that gloating is incompatible with humility. We have new values now.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The primary goal of Democrats is to perpetuate their stranglehold on American politics and remake America into a multi-cultural bedlam. Many Americans have come to realize this and it's why the middle has lurched to the right.

Most Americans like America just the way it has been. They don't want it radically changed. Only diehard liberals find America objectionable and want to change it. Every time the take charge the same thing happens.

Liberals try to jerk America to the left but it's like trying to make the world stop turning. Why don't Democrats realize what they have to work with and do the best they can with what they have?

They just do not seem all that smart.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 25, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"The primary goal of Democrats is to perpetuate their stranglehold on American politics and remake America into a multi-cultural bedlam. "

Didn't you ever watch School House Rock's Great American Melting Pot or don't they show that real Murika?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

12Bar, at least we're holding our own in CA and it looks like 23 is going down. There are also several Senate races that are more competitive now than they appeared to be a few weeks ago. Historically, we'd be in for a shellacking this mid-term but I read somewhere if we hold the Senate, but lose the house, it would be an anomaly.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 25, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "Mitch McConnell also said in that interview that the GOP should be humble about the election results. Skipped right over that part, I guess."

They should just reduce it down to it's purest form. "Obama said, 'And.' However, McConnell said, 'But.' And we think that illustrates the difference between the two parties perfectly.

That being said, that kind of talk out of Obama just makes me like Obama more and more. I think he could make it clear that he understands that he's not likely to make a lot of progress, but still. I think he's got the principled position. So it's interesting (to me) that that "softness" so irritates liberals.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 25, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Do any of the democrats even comprehend the extend of the disaster if Obama is about to end the mortgage interest deductions, as his people are talking about?

This would be an unprecedented economic disaster.

This would represent Obama imposing a massive tax increase on the middle class, another in a long line of deceptions and lies from Obama.

This one is unbelievable.

On this one, Obama goes beyond tone-deaf. It is more like complete economic insanity. It is incompetence and a total lack of economic understanding. Obama has got to be the worst President, ever, including James Buchanan who did little to stop the Civil War.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 25, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

No, pragmaticstill, the primary goal IS to get the usurper out of his illegitimate office. We will be humble about finally getting that accomplished.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 25, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca, you see that article I posted about Gates, Google exects and some venture capitalists sinking around 3 million to defeat 23 in Cali?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-25/bill-gates-google-s-brin-funding-fight-to-keep-california-s-carbon-limits.html

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

More claw-genius. You're a credit to your cause (and evidence of its incoherence).

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 25, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama has sided with the big banks in the foreclosure crisis. And Obama has done nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Obama can not defend this total ignoring of the economic issues in this nation.

Quote: "Frederick B. Tygart, a circuit court judge overseeing a foreclosure case in Duval County, Fla., recently ruled that agents representing Deutsche Bank relied on documents that “must have been counterfeited.” He stopped the foreclosure. Deutsche Bank had no comment on Wednesday. "


Counterfeited???


We now have a situation in which Obama is apparently SUPPORTING the big banks in their presenting COUNTERFEIT documents in Court.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 25, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

12Bar, at least we're holding our own in CA and it looks like 23 is going down
-------------------------------------
I didn't know that about 23.

Boxer race still tight, but improving for Boxer.

Brown is galloping away with the race in the stretch. Maidgate did Whitman in, I'm afraid, mainly on the right and true independents. At least, that's when her momentum faded. Proof that even $200million can't buy you love in CA (so far).

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

After nearly two years of virtually excluding Republicans from the law-making process Obama thinks it might be time to really, honestly, no-kidding-this-time start working together?
"Foxhole conversion" comes to mind.
He's been singing that tune since the campaign, we'll see if he's still lying after November.

Posted by: spamsux1 | October 25, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"I won." (aka, the Rs can pound sand).
I believe it was the Obamessiah who uttered that, as a shining example of his humility, his consensus building, and that vaunted post-partisanship we were all told so much about.

For different reasons than you, I do agree that the quotes are perfect: Obama lying through his teeth (as usual), and McConnell framing the argument nicely, so that this mistake in history is resigned to one-term trash heap like his ideological older brother Carter.

Posted by: bzod9999 | October 25, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

No, pragmaticstill, the primary goal IS to get the usurper out of his illegitimate office. We will be humble about finally getting that accomplished.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 25, 2010 2:19 PM
============================

Here we have the Republican position, honestly stated.

Thoughts, Kevin Willis?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 25, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

May we assume that the compare and contrast reference is to what Obama is saying now versus what he did for the past two years, which was to vilify the opposition and try to define them out of the New America? Boehner is right, and the GOP is perfectly justified, in prioritizing the defeat of Obama, based on the President he has been, notwithstanding anything he says about the President he supposedly wants to be.

Would you want to claim, Greg, that the Dems' priority before 2004 was thwarting Bush and ensuring that he was a one-term President?

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 25, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

@lms,

Your comment about Prop 23 going down, shamed me into getting up to speed on its polling.

In September, polling was about even. Now, the polling the No on 23 at +12 points.

What happened in the meantime was an ad campaign that pointed at Texas oil companies bankrolling the proposition. On another thread, someone had asked "what difference does it make if we, the voters, know who is behind these campaigns? What would we do about it anyway?".

Here's a good example of how disclosure of Big Money made the voters sit up and pay attention.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I can hear Mark Halperin now:
"Barack Obama is so polarizing!"

Posted by: ANDYO1 | October 25, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

@ifthethunderdontgetya: 'No, pragmaticstill, the primary goal IS to get the usurper out of his illegitimate office. We will be humble about finally getting that accomplished.' - Here we have the Republican position, honestly stated. Thoughts, Kevin Willis?"

Fortunately, I'm not voting for Clawrence. Honestly, I have a problem with that hold method of thinking--Bush stole the election, Obama is illegitimate because (pick your excuse). Clinton was also illegitimate, despite being elected to the office via the process that everyone who has ever been elected to the office was. As was Obama, who has done as much, if not more, to prove his citizenship as any other president who has held the office.

Obama was democratically elected to be president of the greatest nation in the world. You can disagree with his policies, send politicians to Washington to obstruct him, and vote against him and his party in 2012 and 2016, but in no way is his election illegitimate. He is not an "usurper"--he's the legitimately elected president of our country whom you, quite understandably, don't like, and that's fine. But he's the president, not an "usurper".

But we are all products of such a spoiled and coddled culture that everything that isn't what we want is wrong or a lie, everyone we disagree with is evil or an "usurper", no one we oppose can possibly be legitimate.

Thoughts? I think it's nonsense. And I also don't think that's the GOP position. I think the GOP position is: "Win power. Hold power. Lather. Rinse. Repeat."

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 25, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

The housing bubble was a tremendously complicated event, having roots in various places.

If one wants to be well informed on the causes, it will take a lot more than reading a few headlines. Take the time to study it--because real estate bubbles are not uncommon and we should anticipate more in the future. At least now, I think I know what to watch for when a bubble is developing.

An excellent new white paper on the crisis has been published:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1669401

It is long, but well worth the effort. BTW, this white paper says that the worst part of the bubble occurred when private nontraditional lending ramped up in 2003 (this is, not Freddie/Fannie/Ginnie loans). At the height of the bubble, these MBS were selling at lower prices than AAA investments, which show that it was demand for those securities that was driving the bubble.

That is not to say that there were lots of other contributors to the crisis, but they were the secondary players.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

What happened in the 2000's only perpetuated the bubble.

I got a theory of where it all started.

http://liberaldefenderoffreedom.blogspot.com/2009/11/when-did-housing-bubble-start.html

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."


Looking at Obama's own actions, it appears that is Obama's goal as well.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 25, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey SaveTheRainforest. Read the McClatchy article. It'll tell you all you want to know about who initiated the majority of sub-prime loans right before the bubble burst in everyone's face.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I guess this shows us something about the 2012 presidential race too...

"Country First" will clearly -NOT- be the Republican ticket's slogan.

Maybe they'll go with something more GOP/Tea Party-appropriate:

"Country Club First"

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 25, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Kevin

Millions of people disagree with you.

There is nothing wrong with Obama signing a release to open up the file in Hawaii.

After all, Obama promised "transparency"

Obama could have acted to work these issues out.

Instead, Obama spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers to obstruct the public from seeing the relevant documents. Just open up the file - there is nothing wrong with that.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 25, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

@mike from a:

I just read your link. Those observations dovetail with the white paper I'm recommending, with some refinements. The graph on your link, is in the white paper (along with lots more data). Read it, you won't be sorry.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1669401

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Aha. So STRF's obsessiveness stems from birtherism.

That's explains a lot.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Ummm, I'm not usually a Obama defender.

But unless there is sometime of massive context I'm missing here, I'm not going to try and defend McDonnell on this one.

Posted by: Bailers | October 25, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington

The whole sub-prime mortgage program was begun by CLINTON.

They pumped 2 Trillion dollars into the mortgage market - which artificially inflated the housing market.

Then Clinton packed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with his own long-term appointees.


Incredibly, in the middle of all this mess, was Andrew Cuomo, democratic candidate for Governor of New York

AND Kristen Gillibrand, democratic candidate for US Senate for New York.


You can't write stuff like this - it is stranger than fiction.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 25, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, meant McConnell. Stupid typing skills.

Posted by: Bailers | October 25, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Aha. So STRF's obsessiveness stems from birtherism.
-------------------------------------
Nay-nay. STRF's obsessiveness stems from his birth.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"...the greatest nation in the world."

Haven't you heard, Kevin? Life spans are longer in Norway. How could this possibly be the "greatest nation in the world"?

Cue Bernie...

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 25, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Tough to point out even one proven leader on the cabinet level team. Vilsack has gotten the job done, but an Ag Secretary is not much of a leader.

That's why you get in these situations.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

@Greg

Has anyone gotten a reaction from the White House to this quote?

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | October 25, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

STRF wrote:

"The whole sub-prime mortgage program was begun by CLINTON.

They pumped 2 Trillion dollars into the mortgage market - which artificially inflated the housing market."

In correct as always.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I guess that means STRF would rather just go with what he thinks is the reason instead of reading statistics into who gave out the majority of sub prime loans.

gotcha.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"Tough to point out even one proven leader on the cabinet level team"

Hahaha!

So laughably ridiculous.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 25, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Mike and 12Bar,

Thanks for the links on the housing bubble. I agree that there were many contributing factors. But the demand for new mortgages to package as part of mortgage-backed securities led to lenders, and subprime lenders in particular, creating internal incentives for their people to close as many loans as possible. "No" was not an acceptable answer to a loan application; the only acceptable answer was to match the application to a loan product. Close loans, package, sell, repeat. Everyone in the finance industry -- from the mortgage brokers to the lenders to the investment bankers to the ratings agencies were making money every step of the way. With everyone making money, why would they believe it would end?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 25, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

The whole sub-prime mortgage program was begun by CLINTON.

They pumped 2 Trillion dollars into the mortgage market - which artificially inflated the housing market.
--------------------------------
Who is "they"?

How did "they" pump 2 trillion into the sub-prime mortgage market?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I'll check that out later 12Bar. That is most definitely more scientific than my conclusion. All I did was look at that graph I found, did a few selective google searches for that timeframe and found the tax breaks for sales of homes that began to fuel the housing bubble when it turned home ownership from a lifetime investment to a flipping houses to get bigger and bigger homes and take tax free gains on the gains.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3,

I'm not sure Norwegians actually live longer. Those Scandinavians are so low key, it may simply not be possible to determine with certainty when they have died.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 25, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Incorrect as always.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 3:10 PM
====================

Even more than usual.

http://www.inman.com/files/images/art_graphics/subprimealtambs.JPG
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 25, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

But the demand for new mortgages to package as part of mortgage-backed securities led to lenders, and subprime lenders in particular,
--------------------------------
This is exactly the premise of the new white paper on the subject. And they prove this theory by showing how these MBS were underpriced. Then they explain HOW this underpricing would have occurred.

It's very insightful and gets one away from following every hairbrained theory as to what happened. In fact, the paper goes through the prevelant theories and explains their shortcomings.

For example, if Freddie/Fannie was the cause of the crisis, why was there a coincident commercial real estate crisis?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"You can't write stuff like this - it is stranger than fiction."

lol

It's fantasy!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

All I did was look at that graph I found
-------------------------------
One thing to bear in mind is that the prices got outside the RANGE of prices later than 1997 (actually about 2000). If you draw a line across the peaks and troughs of the oscillations in the price (when it was oscillating), you'll see what I mean.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

Another personal attack from you

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 25, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

I have that paper bookmarked but I'm having trouble getting started, although my intentions are good. It may be beyond my level of understanding though. :)

Regarding prop. 23, the money that mikefromA mentioned helped turn the tide as well. Also, even Meg couldn't bring herself to support it, although she thought a one year moratorium might be in order.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 25, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

STRF talks about the legitimacy of birtherism and then gets offended when he's mocked.

*bang head on desk*

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The whole sub-prime mortgage program was begun by CLINTON.

They pumped 2 Trillion dollars into the mortgage market - which artificially inflated the housing market.

Then Clinton packed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with his own long-term appointees.


Incredibly, in the middle of all this mess, was Andrew Cuomo, democratic candidate for Governor of New York

AND Kristen Gillibrand, democratic candidate for US Senate for New York.


You can't write stuff like this - it is stranger than fiction.

_______________________________


Clinton's sub-prime mortgage program pumped $2 Trillion into the mortgage market - artificially inflating prices.

A great deal of the economics behind this is clear-cut facts - they can not be disputed.

Clinton and the democrats are RESPONSIBLE for the mortgage melt-down.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 25, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Ethan wrote:

"So laughably ridiculous."

As always, I'm willing to listen. Who ya got?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I have that paper bookmarked but I'm having trouble getting started, although my intentions are good. It may be beyond my level of understanding though. :)
---------------------------------
I understand what you mean. If you are really dedicated to understanding the bubble, I think a few layman articles on what happened (to get one used to the terminology) would be helpful. Then read the white paper. It's not that hard, I assure you, once you get some of the terminology down.

I am very concerned about understanding the bubble. I had a very astute friend who used to ask me about every six months "do you think we're in a bubble". I didn't even know how one could answer that question. Now, I do.

Real estate bubbles have always existed and there will be more. It's worth figuring out how to know whether we're in one or not, IMO. That would be the time to sell, and not the time to buy.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin - re Obama's stance as "the more principled"...

It would be interesting to work out just what that principle would be.

As I've suggested before, Obama (or any other Dem president) now has a significant dilemma re governance. If ubiquitous obstructionism for political advantage becomes the norm for one party (or for both!) then getting anything done becomes far more difficult. Even, in many cases, impossible. This is a dynamic which leaves citizens without any viable representation in their nation's operations and policies. Any responsible President cannot adopt such a position. And, clearly, any responsible opposition cannot either.

But there has been no equivalence in this regard. The clearest quantitative measures of this can be seen in comparing the last three Presidencies re nominee holds (particularly for the judiciary) and use of filibusters to block.

Thus any Dem president has a very real dilemma now. On the one hand, the responsibility to actually get necessary things done and on the other, the necessity to not contribute to this emerging dysfunctional arrangement which cannot serve the nation well.

The way out isn't clear. But let's be honest about how we got here.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 25, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

All, check out this new ad from yet another group that claims Dems want to jail you if you don't have coverage:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/a_wave_of_negative_ads_and_fal.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 25, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

STRF. Between birtherism and your fairy tales about the sub prime market failure starting with Clinton, I'm not sure what to class you as.

What would you call yourself?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Tough to point out even one proven leader on the cabinet level team. Vilsack has gotten the job done, but an Ag Secretary is not much of a leader.

That's why you get in these situations.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 3:08 PM

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

I feel that Defense Secretary Gates, and Secretary Of State Clinton, have each done their jobs well.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 25, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

What would you call yourself?
-----------------------------------
Who is Cassandra? She is the Greek goddess who no one ever believed.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

STRF, where did Clinton get this 2 trillion he pumped in?

ACORN? Soros?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Interesting. You know, if it was me that had pulled the lever for GWB twice, I think after that sham of a presidency, I would think "Boy, we really screwed that up. Maybe we should just sit back and give the new guy a chance. Then we can re-evaluate where the county is in about 2.5 years and make decisions based on that rather than trying to de-rail him the day after he takes the oath of office".

Posted by: cao091402 | October 25, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"The primary goal of Democrats is to perpetuate their stranglehold on American politics and remake America into a multi-cultural bedlam."

Wow.

I hope you realize that America was a "multi-cultural bedlam" since way WAY WAY before the country's founding.

Honestly. What does that say about the commenter? It says to me that he wants America to be ONLY white, and presumably ONLY Christian.

Not only would this be the direct anti-thesis to the reasons for the country's founding -- um, religious freedom much? -- but to think that America is not already, nor has not been throughout history, multi-cultural is absolutely INSANE!

Does the commenter not know the extent of cultural influences on America over its history?

Even amongst Caucasian people in America there is, and basically always has been, a huge variety of cultures. Irish, Italian, Eastern European, Russian, British, Swedish, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish... And that is just the multi-cultural aspect of Caucasian peoples!

Spend a day in New York city and you're likely to see any of those cultures represented, plus people of a wide variety of ethnic and religious origins.

New York City, for example, was founded by the Dutch! New Amersterdam! Peter Stuyvesant! Brooklyn is a massive multi-cultural metropolitan area with people from all kinds of ethnic origins. The word "Brooklyn" itself is a Dutch word and it was originally settled in the 1600s, about 150 years before the Constitution!

Don't you extreme-right conservatives know anything about America? Don't you CARE?!

You don't really appear to understand much about the Constitution and you don't understand multi-cultural society or our history of being a multi-cultural society... Either the commenter who made that point is thoroughly ignorant or he is a white supremacist fundamentalist bent on destroying the fabric of the country.

It's just pitiful and sad.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 25, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Liam:

Exactly what have they done well?

I'm not being argemntative or facetious, I'm asking what are their concrete accomplishments?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Mikefrom Arlington


Look it up for yourself

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 25, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"As always, I'm willing to listen. Who ya got?"

For starters, gee, umm, how about, oh I dunno: Hillary Clinton?

Is she not a leader? You'd have to be on crack to think so.

How about you go to the list of cabinet officials and you tell me who you think is NOT a leader:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 25, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Mikefrom Arlington


Look it up for yourself
---------------------------------
Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Money talks, and bullsh!t walks.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

Hillary Clinton????????

You mean the ultimate coattail rider? The woman who said that she wasn't some little Tammy Wynette but who proved to be exactly that? You mean the woman who is such an incompetent politician that she lost the impossible lead she had in the 2008 Dem campaign?

Is theier another Hillary Clinton? Funny, when you ask what her ACTUAL accomplishments are, they always talk about college. The reason is of course because that's the last time she ever did anything on her own!

(Did I mention how badly she botched the Clinton health care initiative, or would that be piling on?)

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

shorter STRF:

"I have no f'in idea what I'm talking about and just repeat something I partially remember from some obscure rant on the radio and/or from some right wing commentator."

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 25, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Sean,

Secretary Gates has gone about his job in a low key efficient, non partisan manner, unlike the guy he replaced. What ever advise he has given to the President, he has kept quite about. He has started to take a hard look at waste and redundancy in weapons procurements. I just am glad that the guy stayed on, even though he is a Republican.

Hillary has developed good rapport with a a lot of her counterparts in Europe, and has managed to get some consensus on Sanction against Iran. Having George Mitchell continuing to work the Israel/Palestine issue is also very positive. Bill Clinton pulled it off in Ulster, thank mostly to the patience and perseverance of Senator Mitchell, and Hillary appears to be willing to let him follow the same course now.

I feel that she has accomplished at least as much, in less than two years, than Powell/Rice did in a full eight years.

I have to run. Back later.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 25, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"I have no f'in idea what I'm talking about and just repeat something I partially remember from some obscure rant on the radio and/or from some right wing commentator."
---------------------------
Cassandra.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 25, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

bear:

"Those Scandinavians are so low key, it may simply not be possible to determine with certainty when they have died."

Good one.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 25, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

54465446,

I give up. No "theier" is not another Hillary Clinton. You're right, she's a coattail rider and an incompetent idiot.

You're impossible (and totally ignorant).

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 25, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Liam wrote:

"Hillary has developed good rapport with a a lot of her counterparts in Europe, and has managed to get some consensus on Sanction against Iran. Having George Mitchell continuing to work the Israel/Palestine issue is also very positive. Bill Clinton pulled it off in Ulster, thank mostly to the patience and perseverance of Senator Mitchell, and Hillary appears to be willing to let him follow the same course now."

You won't take my word for it of course, so how about the guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize:

"It is “a wee bit silly” for Mrs. Clinton to claim an important role, said Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, who won a share of the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in achieving peace in Northern Ireland. Lord Trimble, originally known as David Trimble, was the leader of the Protestant-dominated Ulster Unionist Party, which opposed the Clinton administration’s decision to give Mr. Adams an American visa and was initially skeptical of United States involvement in the peace talks.

“I don’t want to rain on the thing for her,” he said in an interview this month with The London Daily Telegraph. “But being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.”

Also if you really think there is anything on earth that Netanyahu would listen to Clinton about then we part as friends on that. Oh, those talks have already broken down before they started by the way.


Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Ethan wrote:

"I give up. No "theier" is not another Hillary Clinton. You're right, she's a coattail rider and an incompetent idiot.

You're impossible (and totally ignorant)."

In other words, you have no accomlishments of hers to cite, and you cannot refute my statements so you resort to name calling. I was expecting better from you.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"But let's be honest about how we got here."

Teddy Kennedy's smearing of Robert Bork in an attempt to deny him a spot on the SC seems like a reasonable place to start, at least with regard to the sole example you presented.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 25, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The ironic part of McConnell's statement is that by making themselves animals strictly of politics and not of policy, the Republicans will ensure that Obama gets a second term.

Posted by: klautsack | October 25, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

I also have to ask. Do you think Hillary Rodham would have ever become a Senator from anywhere?

Even as Hillary Clinton, the wife of a sitting Presidemt, it's questionable whether she could have won the NY slot, had Rudy Giuliani not gotten caught with a body part in the cookie jar and retired from the campaign.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"In other words, you have no accomlishments of hers to cite, and you cannot refute my statements so you resort to name calling. I was expecting better from you."

You declared that it's hard to find even one proven leader in Obama's cabinet. You said you were willing to listen. I gave you an example of a proven leader. Hillary Clinton is a proven leader. In return, you gave me a ridiculous spew of garbage as to why you don't like Hillary Clinton.

You and your ignorance are simply not worth my time. Sorry. But it's true.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 25, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Sean,

No where did I claim credit for Hillary in how the Ulster Peace settlement played out. Go back and read what I actually wrote. I said that Bill was the one who gave George Mitchell the time to work the problem, and it looks like Hillary has learned from that, and is letting George be George, while he seeks to make progress in toward solving the Israel/Palestine conflict.

I hate it when people try to spin what I said, into something I never actually said.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 25, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"I also have to ask. Do you think Hillary Rodham would have ever become a Senator from anywhere? "

Honestly, I'm done wasting my time with people like you.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 25, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I would have to agree that Hillary Clinton is not a proven leader.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 25, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Bill and Hillary were driving around the place in Illinois where Hillary grew up. They pulled into a gas station, and the guy at the counter recognized Hillary, and they got into a warm friendly conversation. As they were walking back to the car; Bill said; who is that guy. Hillary said that was my first boyfriend. Bill laughed and said; I bet you are glad that you did not marry him, or you would never have become First Lady. Hillary replied; If I had married him, he would have become President.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 25, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Liam, I do love chatting with you!

However there are few outside the Rodham family, certainly not Bill Clinton, who would ever believe that.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Are the R's who post here just in denial or total loons.

First point...Obama invited R's in early and tossed tort reform on the table..a sacred R desire..and said what do I get in return?
What he got was death panels and Waterloos!

He let Grandpa Chuck Grassley hijack and stall the Senate Committee forever...stupidly btw in the opinion of virtually every progressive...and why..because he has a personal like of Grassley...not bipartisanship.

He had a South Carolina inbred scream "You Lie from the House floor...he had another South Carolina mulungin Sen Demented circulate his now infamous email at the very beginning of the HCR debate that literally advised the R's to obstruct..obstruct..obstruct..and why...for the good of the nation...an attempt at bipartisan dialogue and solutions...or a naked grab for power which Demented defined as "Obama's Waterloo"

You people can lie and deny all you want...the FACTS do not bear you out. That is why Obama was able to expose and humiliate you loser Republicans when he addressed your famous R caucus shindig.

You people..with few looney exceptions like Clawrence and STRF who don't even believe Obama is President are simply amazing. Read your comments deniers...YOU LOSERS ARE THE REASON THERE IS NO BIPARTISANSHIP IN OUR NATION!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 25, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar...

"Nay-nay. STRF's obsessiveness stems from his birth." (drumroll and rimshot please)

Excellent snark. You're getting better at it...you go girl..before long you'll reach Liam's level..although that is setting the bar very high because he does come up with some seriously FUNNY snark.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 25, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

@Scott "Haven't you heard, Kevin? Life spans are longer in Norway. How could this possibly be the "greatest nation in the world"?"


Cmon Scott...you're smarter and better than that cheap shot. So now pointing out any country that might be doing "something" better than us diminishes our greatness. Stick to your theoretical debating...you are excellent...cheap shots..not so much.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 25, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Liam, I do love chatting with you!

However there are few outside the Rodham family, certainly not Bill Clinton, who would ever believe that.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 4:27 PM

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

I no longer enjoy chatting with you, since you deliberately distorted my answer to your question, simple as a way to attack Hillary. My last comment was a joke, with a lot of truth in it.

Hillary is a very smart women, and she was the actual bread winner for many years, while Bill tried to develop his political career. I doubt if he would ever have become President, without having been married to Hillary. Without her; he would not have been able to offer much appeal to the progressive base of the Democratic party, and most likely would never have been nominated.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 25, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

@battleground-

"(America)... into a multi-cultural bedlam"

Listen, nitwit: had you bothered to stop picking your nose long enough in your grade school civics class, you might have learned that America has always been "mulitcultural". But, typically, WASPs/Whites always see things thru their prism of priviledge, paranoia and self-centeredness.

As for the "bedlam"? Mostly I'm getting a BIG kick out of all of you with you chicken little impersonations.

Another winger who maybe I'll remember next time to ignore. Oy.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 25, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"YOU LOSERS ARE THE REASON THERE IS NO BIPARTISANSHIP IN OUR NATION!!!"

Cheers to that.

"Waterloo."

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

'Nuff said.

They could care less about America. It's just a game to them. Yay Team! Beat the other guy!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 25, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Liam, I didn't mean it as an attack on you so for that I apologize. My answer was tongue in cheek.

You are inccrrect about her being "the breadwinner" He became attorney general a year after their marriage and Governor after that.

She held a series of political appointee type staff jobs up until becoming first lady of Arkansas.

My opinion is the contrary of yours.

While she may indeed very well be the smartest person in the room, she is also the least charismatic. As has been proven in her effforts for President, she rode his coattails and by herself is a poor speaker and incapable of lighting a fire in a room. His charm speaks for itself, however you may feel about him politically.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

@Liam....I enjoyed your Hillary joke but I warn you...you better watch your backside..
12Bar has been coming on strong lately and may dethrone you as King of comedic snark.:-)
Of course in her case she would be Queen of snark so perhaps there is still room for you...kind of like..what's the title of the guy who is married to Queen Elizabeth?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 25, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Have it your way. I like her. I backed Obama all the way, but I love how Hillary never stopped fighting.


Unlike Lou Grant, I love Women with spunk.

I still miss Ann Richards and Molly Ivins.

I can not abide all those Republican Stepford Wives. Like I have often advised: If you want to keep your beer cold, place it near a Republican Woman's heart.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 25, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

While she may indeed very well be the smartest person in the room, she is also the least charismatic. As has been proven in her effforts for President, she rode his coattails and by herself is a poor speaker and incapable of lighting a fire in a room. His charm speaks for itself, however you may feel about him politically.

Posted by: 54465446

I used to feel about Hillary like you 5446.
My opinion has softened over the years...but I have to confess I think you wrote a very cogent paragraph there.
If I may nitpick however..."elected" leaders need charisma..."appointed" leaders not so much. I agree with Liam's take on Robert Gates who I consider to be an excellent Secy of Defense. He actually cares that our boys are getting their limbs blown off and I believe he thinks about it every night. Gates is knowledgeable, non partisan, and efficient....but IMHO he has even LESS charisma than Hillary.

Funny thing is that I think Hillary can turn on the charm when she deigns to do so...but it is obviously forced...she is a very serious person. Not intended as an insult just an observation.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 25, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"So now pointing out any country that might be doing "something" better than us diminishes our greatness."

It's Bernie's thesis, not mine.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 25, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary can turn on the charm when she deigns to do so...but it is obviously forced..."

Hillary Clinton has tons of charm.

Everyone I know who has met her, several people, all say the same thing. She's incredible and extremely personable, much moreso than anything you see on camera.

This is all besides the point.

54465446 ignorantly asserted that there are no "proven leaders" in the cabinet.

That claim is wildly, laughably incorrect.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 25, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Come on now. Let us be fair to Hillary. How can anyone expect her to be as Charismatic as Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney.

I mean, all three of those Charisma Pots could, and probably did, charm the knickers off of a Nun.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 25, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "Haven't you heard, Kevin? Life spans are longer in Norway. How could this possibly be the 'greatest nation in the world'?"

Oh, yes, well, I had forgotten. Indeed, I'm sure Norway is a fine place, but you can tell America is the greatest country on earth just by the sheer amount of people who complain about it. We wouldn't be the great Satan if we weren't totally awesome.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 25, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: "You people..with few looney exceptions like Clawrence and STRF who don't even believe Obama is President are simply amazing. Read your comments deniers...YOU LOSERS ARE THE REASON THERE IS NO BIPARTISANSHIP IN OUR NATION!!!"

Well, I said: "That being said, that kind of talk out of Obama just makes me like Obama more and more. I think he could make it clear that he understands that he's not likely to make a lot of progress, but still. I think he's got the principled position. So it's interesting (to me) that that 'softness' so irritates liberals."

That is, I don't get the feeling lefties are praising Obama's attempts at bipartisanship, and, yes, I think Obama is trying to do the consensus thing. And confess: 98% of Republicans have no interest in bipartisanship, as they consider it compromising right with wrong, when things should just be 100% right.

Still, I respect and compliment Obama's attempts at building consensus and working out compromise. If it's a strategy to advance an agenda, though, I think it's doomed at this particular point in time.

BTW, I'm all for bipartisanship, but, when it comes down to it, the base on either side has little interest in compromising. Where do you compromise on tax cuts for the rich or pre-emptive wars? Either you do them or you don't. Plenty of other examples. Even when you try, it's never enough. Okay, no public option in healthcare. Well, we don't won't individual mandates either! Well, then, how about employer mandates? No, none of that, either. Etc.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 25, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

If all this is so, then how did she lose a huge lead, a practical coronation for the Dem nomination?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

"Where do you compromise on tax cuts for the rich or pre-emptive wars? Either you do them or you don't."

False dichotomy.

You can create different tax brackets where you limiting tax cuts to those making less than $500k, for example. So there is plenty of compromise that can be had on the taxes issue.

There is no real compromise position on pre-emptive war. In fairness, the Iraq War vote was an authorization vote, so you could say that voting for authorization was a compromise for folks who opposed the conflict on the merits but supported the president's authorization in the case of a justifiable need for the use of force. But really, in policy terms, there is no compromise on pre-emptive war or other civil liberties issues like the legality of torture or the legality of warrantless spying on Americans.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 25, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

BTW, I'm all for bipartisanship, but, when it comes down to it, the base on either side has little interest in compromising. Where do you compromise on tax cuts for the rich or pre-emptive wars? Either you do them or you don't. Plenty of other examples. Even when you try, it's never enough. Okay, no public option in healthcare. Well, we don't won't individual mandates either! Well, then, how about employer mandates? No, none of that, either. Etc.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 25, 2010 5:22 PM
...................

I think the loss of Ted Kennedy had a huge negative impact on President Obama's plans to work across the aisles. A President is not in the best position to do the day by day, or even hour by hour courting of Senators that some one like Ted had down to a fine art.

Tip O'Neill was also willing to be partisan during the day, and to go have a nip almost every night with President Reagan, while they swapped Irish stories, and reached legislative compromises.

Ever heard about what happened when Henry Ford docked in Cork, Ireland, to see the place his father had emigrated from?

Come to think of it; maybe what has gone wrong is America is no longer electing convivial Irishmen to Congress or the Presidency, and before you ask; no thanks, I have done my bit, and I just do not want to be called a liar while delivering my first state of the union speech.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 25, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Re "greatest"...what in hell can this term even sensibly mean?

What's the "greatest" city? Neighborhood?
Who's the "greatest" person?
What's the "greatest" novel? Piece of music? Poem? Food? Toilet paper?

This is a self-confirming nationalist bias and, for those invested in maintaining it, no measure that contradicts it will be deemed important or factual. But what the hell, we're all free to be silly persons.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 25, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Interestingly, the "The Plum Line" is currently running an advertisement paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce regarding Dino Rossi. It's not that bad that the Washington Post refuses to take the money, I guess.

By the way, the "greatest nation" is not necessary a subjective opinion as world historians can easily tell you know other country state has ever acheived the singular accomplishments that America has. This isn't bias. It's objective and easily verified facts proven by history. Please proffer even one other country that has come close?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 25, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Re "greatest"...what in hell can this term even sensibly mean?

What's the "greatest" city? Neighborhood?
Who's the "greatest" person?
What's the "greatest" novel? Piece of music? Poem? Food? Toilet paper?

This is a self-confirming nationalist bias and, for those invested in maintaining it, no measure that contradicts it will be deemed important or factual. But what the hell, we're all free to be silly persons.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 25, 2010 5:49 PM |
....................

Here you go Bernie.

" Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.
George Bernard Shaw
Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 - 1950)"

Posted by: Liam-still | October 25, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "Re 'greatest'...what in hell can this term even sensibly mean?"

Most totally awesome, like, ever. A wonderful and perfectly serviceable term, and one invested with meaning, but inaccessible, alas, to inveterate relativists.

@liam: "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."

Clearly, my birth here has been of a great national benefit. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 25, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Digby gets it right...

"I could see him [Gingrich] becoming the Tea Party candidate for president if he plays his card right. And that's something we should all hope for. Gingrich is repulsive to most people and I don't believe he can possibly be elected president. (And if he can be then this country has gone into some kind of dark age and it doesn't matter anyway.)"

Posted by: bernielatham | October 25, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, my birth here has been of a great national benefit. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 25, 2010 6:13 PM

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

To many other nations. Sorry; it was just sitting up on the tee.

Sean Hannity assures me you are a great American.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 25, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin - You've convinced me.

I can conclude nothing other than that were you, Scott, Clawrence and others who hold this notion born and raised in Holland or France or Britain or Canada or New Zealand, then you would still (as Frenchmen or whatever) see the US as the greatest country on earth. And I know this because one hears, like, all the time from the French and the Canadians and the Brits etc that the US is the greatest country on earth.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 25, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

"Digby gets it right...

"I could see him [Gingrich] becoming the Tea Party candidate for president if he plays his card right. And that's something we should all hope for. Gingrich is repulsive to most people and I don't believe he can possibly be elected president. (And if he can be then this country has gone into some kind of dark age and it doesn't matter anyway.)""

I'm no Gingrich fanboy but I'm fascinated by your agreement with a statement that does not contain any truth.

Does Digby agree with your understanding of propaganda? If so, is it because the two of you have identical educations? If there is agreement about what is propaganda but your educations are not identical, how can Digby "know" your understanding of propaganda?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 25, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Meg really sets herself up for this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEPlZYp5-Pk&feature=player_embedded#!

h/t digby

Posted by: bernielatham | October 25, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"BTW, I'm all for bipartisanship, but, when it comes down to it, the base on either side has little interest in compromising. Posted by: Kevin_Willis"

WEhile in a narrow sense that is true, the difference betweenDems and Reps is that the Dems come at a problem expecting that they will have to compromise, and therefore prioritize what they needd and what they may have to trade for what they need. The R's come to the table ready to hold everybody's breath until they get their 100%. When they are in the majority they see that as only right because they won, and when they are in the minority, they insist on their way because that is how they define bipartisanship, and besides they must be right because they all agree that John Boehner is there leader, he says so, and he'd better be right.

Being unwilling to compromise is one thing. Refusing to compromise is something else.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 25, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline, you should be thrilled then that Obama said today Republicans "gotta sit in the back" right?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 25, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I am still sticking to my prediction, which I made early in the year;

Sarah Palin will run for the nomination in 2012, and I make her the even money favorite to get it. Only Palin can stop Palin.

Her handlers have layed the groundwork, by having her endose so many candidates all over the country. That gives her instant access to organizations that have been seasoned in this year's campaigns. She already has almost all the men in the Republican activist base in thrall, and it will be hard for any of all those dull grey men, to wrest them away from her. I am looking forward to those primary debates, with each one of those men, trying to move to the right of Annie Yokely. You betcha!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 25, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I come to the same conclusion via a different route. The front loaded winner take all primary system the R's use is designed to get someone like her the nomination. She needs just seven or eight other sortasomebodies in the field to split up the center, all of whom are running to see who can get farthest right. Then all she needs is the 20% mob and before anyone can run out of money she has the nomination. One plausible moderate who decided to write off the right and run from the left wing of the Republican Party, that is close to the political center might put a big dent in this process, but there isn't a true, credible moderate Republican left to make the run.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 25, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

"Annie Yokely"?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 25, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"Who is Cassandra? She is the Greek goddess who no one ever believed. Posted by: 12BarBlues "

Not a goddess but a daughter of Priam of Troy. She refused to have sex with Apollo, after he had wooed her with the gift of inerrant prophesy, so he made it so that no one would ever believe her. Agamemnon took her as his part in the spoils and she was murdered, with Agamemnon when she entered Mycenae on his return.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 25, 2010 8:54 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