Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* The U.S Chamber of Commerce may be complaining about its rough treatment from the White House and Dems, but as Sam Stein reports, the Chamber has previously defended its lack of disclosure specifically by claiming they will pay a price in the form of skepticism about its motives and activities.

Again: This story is about disclosure, not just about foreign money.

* Sharron Angle, at a closed-to-the-press event, is disarmingly frank about her media strategy:

"We always say, 'If the press comes knocking, don't say anything,'" Angle said.

* The new CNN poll is very grim for Dems: The two parties are effectively tied on approval/disapproval, even as Dems have been banking on the GOP being viewed more negatively.

Worse: More Americans say if Dems win in November they would take us in the wrong direction, rather than the right one, on all the major issues.

* Obama, rolling out another initiative on the economy in advance of the midterms, proposes $50 billion in new infrastructure spending, though it's unlikely to be acted on until next year.

* Pumping the base: The Democratic National Committee plans to up its ad budget targeting African Americans to $3 million.

* Is the Beltway prognosticating game, as practiced by Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg, rapidly becoming obsolete? Jonathan Bernstein makes the case.

* GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, who sees scandal-ridden Dems lurking behind every pillar in the Capitol, swears up and down that he would never, ever, ever pursue politically motivated witch hunts if the GOP takes back the House.

* America in the 21st Century: Felicia Sonmez has a comprehensive list of GOP candidates who have made repealing the popular election of Senators a campaign issue.

* What a Democratic victory on November 2nd would look like.

* Karl Rove, who yesterday accused Obama of keeping an "enemies list," admitted last year to keeping a "file" on a Bush critic.

* Takedown of the day: Jon Chait skewers Susan Collins and other assorted Beltway bipartisanship fetishists.

* And you know your campaign is in trouble when you're getting condemned by groups representing Holocaust survivors and their descendents.

What else is up?

By Greg Sargent  | October 11, 2010; 5:42 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, Happy Hour Roundup, House GOPers, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: "Hicky" actor backs up GOP version of events
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

"More Americans say if Dems win in November they would take us in the wrong direction on all the major issues."

Sounds to me like Americans are saying that politicians are bad for America, and that if you add what people think about Republicans to what folks think about Democrats, nearly 100% of Americans think that politicians will take us in the wrong direction. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

A majority of Americans want to go in opposite directions, every two years. This country would be a lot more rational country to govern, if it did not have any Americans here.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

That Sharron Angle comment, which is consistent with her and others' attitudes towards the media, needs to be unpacked.

Let's be clear: we are NOT talking about contempt for the shortcoming of the media, in this case. To do that one could easily follow what a lot of smart blogs do as they criticize Fox, Politico, the networks, and so on. There's a case to be made in specific cases that the media gets things wrong.

But what Angle and the other right-wing candidates are doing is showing contempt for our SYSTEM, in which the media is an important pillar. The media plays an important role in keeping the political system honest and as accountable as possible.

That they aren't doing a very good job is one thing; but to refuse to talk to anyone in the media who has legitimate questions about a candidate's stances or beliefs is to harm our system of democracy.

It's a disgusting trend. And if pols on the left did exactly this (and if Alvin Greene is doing it) I'd say the very same thing.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 11, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Was every campaign donation to Obama / indirect groups DISCLOSED in 2008?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 11, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

* Foes hit Colorado’s Ken Buck on rape and women’s issues *

While he was district attorney for Weld County in 2005, Buck passed on pursuing a rape allegation because he said the woman who claimed she was raped did not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as Scot Kergsgaard reports in The Colorado Independent. The alleged victim proceeded to publicize her story back then, charging that Buck mistakenly asserted her case was vitiated by a prior relationship with her alleged attacker.

Now, the same woman has resurfaced to air her charges once more, joining other Buck detractors who have been highlighting women's issues in an effort to cut into his general-election support.

The woman secretly taped a 2005 meeting during which Buck explained why he would not file charges against her alleged attacker. "It appears to me … that you invited him over to have sex with him," Buck told the woman. She provided that tape to the Independent. (You can view the transcript here [pdf].)

Buck explained to the Greeley Tribune at the time: "A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer's remorse," and added that he hoped "the pitiful facts in this case" would not deter rape victims from speaking out. But the alleged victim and her supporters strongly disagreed.

"The offender admitted he did it, but Ken Buck said I was to blame," the alleged victim told the Independent last week. "Had he [Buck] not attacked me, I might have let it go. But he put the blame on me, and I was furious. I still am furious."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101011/el_yblog_upshot/foes-hit-colorados-ken-buck-on-rape-and-womens-issues

OUCH:

"The offender admitted he did it, but Ken Buck said I was to blame," the alleged victim told the Independent last week.

That's just atrocious. It's hard to believe these people live in the 21st century.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 11, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse


@Liam-still: "The question is does the intelligence and sanity that Lisa Simpson exhibits, fully counterbalance the lachrymose one who keeps millions of people trapped in the depths of his blackboard jungle"

Well, ratings-wise, I'm pretty sure Family Guy and American Dad do better than Fox News, at least most of the time. And the Simpsons? Gotta be much better.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 5:57 PM
..................

The new Simpsons show last night was one of their better efforts in recent times. It appears to me, that their shows are better, when the do not allow the Homer character to dominate most of the time alloted.

There are so many other rich characters that can continue to be mined for comedy gold, but it seems like in the past couple of seasons, the newest batch of writers have lost sight of that fact.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The offender admitted that he had sex with the woman -- he did not admit that he raped her without her consent -- my son is an assistant D.A. in San Diego CA, so I know second-hand that some cases are NOT prosecuted exactly because of questions like this and the failure to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt," for instance, if it appears that she invited him over to have sex with him. DUH!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 11, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans maintain a substantial advantage over Democrats among likely voters in Gallup's generic ballot for Congress -- in both lower- and higher-turnout scenarios -- fueled in part by the GOP's strong showing among independents".

A strange phenomena seems to be ocurring, according to Gallup. Moderates are becoming scarcer this year but the number of people who call themselves conservatives has increased by a similar number.

The moderates never call themselves liberals but are willing to call themselves conservatives when they are fired up. That's a telling circumstance.

I think they were conservative all the time but did not want to admit it. I know people like this. They are conflicted. They have conservative thoughts but want to appear liberal. This year they may have conquored their inhibitions.

Hooray for them! I hope they don't get trapped in that liberal closet again.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 11, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

* Rape case haunts Buck in Colo. *

The secret recording by the victim, provided to The Colorado Independent, reveals Buck telling the woman the details appeared to show she consented to the sexual encounter, though he admits the woman "never said the word yes."

[...]

"The case itself was reprehensible, the way he treated her. But then he went forward to Greeley Tribune and said rape can be construed as buyer's remorse. I mean what is she, a used car? He was clearly casting judgment on her, almost like she deserved it," Forseth told POLITICO.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43415.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 11, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

It is becoming very certain that, after 2010, Obama will have to do a Clinton in order not to become a Carter.

Will Obama be willing to abort his and Nancy Pelosi's love child, ObamaCare??

It may be his only chance to survive.

It's going to be interesting.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 11, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

"Ad Watch: Candidate Brandishes Rifle, Promises to "Take On" Obama Admin"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ad-watch-candidate-brandishes-rifle-promises-take-obama-admin_501290.html

Why isn't Greg complaining about this advert?

Ohh...

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

sbj, not a big fan of Manchin, but consider the alternative.

He's running against a rich idiot whose only claim to expertise is that he inherited millions.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 11, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

DISCLOSURE

There are not democratic groups doing the same thing? I doubt that.

The law is the law - if the Chamber is within the law, Obama can propose a new law - but to single out one group which is operating WITHIN the law, is just wrong and UNAMERICAN.


Obama is acting like a petty dictator rather than a person holding an office in a nation governed by a body of laws.


The Chamber isn't doing something wrong just because Obama say that should be illegal.


The American People deserve a FULL INVESTIGATION INTO OBAMA'S CREDIT CARD OPERATIONS IN 2008 - full disclosure - LETS SEE THE ADDRESS OF EVERY CREDIT CARD.

And is George Soros operating under full disclosure in 2004 , 2006 and 2008 - when no one knew about that money - did OBAMA COMPLAIN THEN ????

Obama had a $700 Million to $87 Million advantage in 2008


Who is Obama trying to kid


CBS called it PEANUTS

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 11, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Re Ken Buck: So if I invite another person over to my house for dinner -- I issue the invitation -- and the person gets drunk and breaks up my house, it's my fault?

If my school invites another basketball team to come play against our team, and the other team loses and gets surly and smashes windows, it's my school's fault?

It's entirely possible that a woman can go out on a date and want, hope for, even plan for s*x. If the guy rapes her instead, it's NOT her fault. Rape is forcible, rape is assault. It's never OK, and it's never the victim's fault.

Posted by: cheles | October 11, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

So the Republicans have removed Rich Iott from the list of "Young Guns" after his fondness for dressing up as a Nazi came to light.

But it tells us a lot about the "new ideas" of Republicans that Iott, age 59, was on a list of "Young Guns" to begin with.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 11, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

@BG: I know virtually nothing of either candidate. My point was, as usual, the hypocrisy of partisans who roundly condemn any glimpse of firearms or crosshairs in a Tea Party sign but have no problems with the same in a Dem TV advertisement.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

If the democrats want to investigate CHINESE money - it is not going to be the Republicans who get in trouble.


Axelrod is asking people to prove a negative.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 11, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

cheles, Ken Buck says it's ok for the high school team to rape the other team, or for your dinner guest to rape you, but that destruction of private property stuff will NOT be tolerated.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 11, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

This was published in World Net Daily to explain why blacks vote Democratic.

"Clearly then, it is not Democratic Party positions that explain why so many Jews and blacks vote Democrat. Something deeper must be at work."

"The black memory in question is of white racism. It seems obvious that many African-Americans carry a residual anger against whites and against America as a result of centuries of slavery and racism. They therefore vote for the party most associated with policies (such as affirmative action) ostensibly designed to fight racism (meaning, always, white racism), and which frequently condemns alleged ongoing white racism. And blacks vote against the party they perceive as denying that America continues to be racist, the party that opposes race-based policies, and the party that celebrates America as if it isn't a racist country. "
---------------------------
Not exactly based on research, but an interesting take from a white columnist (if one can believe the photo, on a conservative web site. I think WND is saying that blacks vote Democratic because they perceive the GOP as unsympathetic to civil rights. Isn't that what ddawd has been saying?


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30592

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 10, 2010 8:58 PM
----

I wanted to respond to this post made by 12BarBlues last night after I'd left the building. This is probably about right, at least it confirms my suspicion. But I don't think voting in overwhelming numbers for Dems is necessarily serving the interests of the black community, although it certainly serves the interests of the black political class, the Dems and assorted poverty pimps. The CRA was passed nearly 50 years ago, and African- Americans are, to use a cliche, still fighting the last war. There are many legal remedies available for discrimination. It may be time to stop self-identifying as an underclass and look to move forward.

But what do I know? I'm not African-American. Like I said before, if African-Americans are satisfied with the status quo then they should just keep on keepin' on. Keep doing what you're doing if you think it's working.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

"Worse: More Americans say if Dems win in November they would take us in the wrong direction, rather than the right one, on all the major issues."

Bring on Vichy America!

Posted by: dozas | October 11, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Greg

Several people have crossed the line into ad hominem attacks and harassment on several threats today

It about time the hostility was addressed


If you are going to send letters out, the rules should be applied equally. If the rules are going to be applied, they have to be applied to everyone equally.


We also have a situation in which certain people appear to believe they have gotten away with some behavior - that somehow they are immune.


To project this idea is wrong as well - the rules should be applied equally.


.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 11, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

People don't chose to be homosexual any more than they chose to have sickle cell anemia or schizophrenia. It is purely genetic and they shouldn't be discriminated against for something that they can't help.

Posted by: gjdagis | October 11, 2010 3:14 PM
----

Most pedophiles probably don't choose to be pedophiles either, for the reasons you cite. So why aren't they in hospitals or treatment centers instead of prisons?

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Sbj3,

I posted a link to that ad a few threads back. What's really funny is, in the ad he calls it "Obamacare"! Hilarious.

Even Nate at 538 is having doubts about the value of Manchin. Dude can't win.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 11, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Mark Halperin writes today:


most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2024718,00.html#ixzz1262Aa1kL


_______________________________

I have to write Mark and see if I can have his permission to use that phrase all the time:


Obama is "in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless"

I'm not exactly sure that Halperin is entirely correct about "clueless" - wrong - and "obsessed with his left-wing agenda" -


Clueless in the sense that his liberals ideas simply will not work in the real world without massive price-tags - and that it is unwise to go for that during an economic crisis.

OK, Halperin is RIGHT: Obama is clueless.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 11, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I didn't see ANYONE refute my initial post: that there isn't any evidence that the Chamber of Commerce did anything wrong, and that it isn't stopping the President from making something up to make them look bad.
Or for Greg To continue saying it's about disclosure, when there is no need to disclose anything. Only people who are grasping at straws are screaming about disclosure.


Posted by: Bailers | October 11, 2010 7:23 PM
----

Your exactly right, Bailers. There's no "there" there. The whole story about the Chamber of Commerce and foreign contributions is a flat-out lie. They don't disclose for the same reason you don't have Obama's college grades or his birth certificate---because they don't have to. The law doesn't require it. It's a non-issue, a lie used to whip up the less intelligent of the Democrat's base, some of whom may be stupid enough to believe it and others who are too partisan and unprincipled to care. I'll leave it for you to decide why some here seem to give the story credence.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Halperin goes on:

Economic policy is much, much more serious than Obama's personal character flaws.


Halperin continues:


there is a growing perception that Obama's decisions are causing harm — that businesses are being hurt by the Administration's legislation and that economic recovery is stalling because of the uncertainty surrounding energy policy, health care, deficits, housing, immigration and spending.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2024718,00.html#ixzz1263L6kis


_______________________________

The whole article sounds more like an obit than anything else.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 11, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

The next time any Right Wing Radical makes the ridiculous claim that the "mainstream media" has a "liberal bias" just shove this in their faces:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-foreign-money-us-chamber-commerce-ads/story?id=11853117&page=2

The "mainstream media" is infinitesimally left of Fox News.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 11, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Forget about global warming. Do the right thing, from a clean dependable supply of domestic energy perspective, and we will still be doing the right thing for the future of this country.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 4:43 PM
---

You may not be able to get everyone to agree with you, but that shouldn't stop you from doing your part. Stop driving and start riding a bike. Buy solar panels and heat your house with them. Invest your money in "green" projects; Al Gore could probably give you some pointers. And stop buying appliances that use electricity. Haven't you ever heard of a washboard or a clothesline?

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Most pedophiles probably don't choose to be pedophiles either, for the reasons you cite. So why aren't they in hospitals or treatment centers instead of prisons?
-----------------------------
I'm just curious. Do you purposely conflate homosexuality with pedophiles, or is that a Freudian slip. Surely you don't equate the two? Or do you?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 11, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

In 1950, the United States was fifth among the leading industrialized nations with respect to female life expectancy at birth, surpassed only by Sweden, Norway, Australia, and the Netherlands. The last available measure of female life expectancy had the United States ranked at forty-sixth in the world. As of September 23, 2010, the United States ranked forty-ninth for both male and female life expectancy combined.

USA! USA! USA!
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 11, 2010 4:18 PM
-----

This is obviously a very dangerous place. Don't let the plane door hit you in the butt on your way out of the country. May I recommend Sudan.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

"The U.S Chamber of Commerce may be complaining about its rough treatment from the White House and Dems, but as Sam Stein reports, the Chamber has previously defended its lack of disclosure specifically by claiming they will pay a price in the form of skepticism about its motives and activities. Again: This story is about disclosure, not just about foreign money."

And to put a finer point on it, Greg, it's about sleaziness. It's about whether we Americans still have a sense of decency and a modicum of common sense. Who is going to run this country? The American People or Big Business working through its public relations outfits like the Chamber of Commerce. (I can even remember when the Chamber was a respectable and pro-American association of small business owners instead of a money-laundering vehicle for a cabal of multi-national companies that couldn't care less about the United States or the American People.) It isn't too late for the American People to take control of our country but ...

It ain't dark yet but it's gettin' there
(Bob Dylan_

Posted by: wbgonne | October 11, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

African- Americans are, to use a cliche, still fighting the last war. There are many legal remedies available for discrimination. It may be time to stop self-identifying as an underclass and look to move forward.
---------------------------------
WND quote: "And blacks vote against the party they perceive as denying that America continues to be racist, the party that opposes race-based policies, and the party that celebrates America as if it isn't a racist country. "
----------------------------------
@brigade,

Your sincerely held comment, to the extent that your sentiments resonate within the GOP, IS the reason that blacks vote Democratic, per WND.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 11, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

This is obviously a very dangerous place. Don't let the plane door hit you in the butt on your way out of the country. May I recommend Sudan.


Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 7:52 PM |
++++++++++++++++++++

How interesting that you find it acceptable for the United States to be 49th in the world for life expectancy, and that anyone who expresses dissatisfaction with that level of performance should leave the country.

What is your slogan: "Mediocrity -- Good Enough for Me, Good Enough for My Country"?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 11, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still wrote,
"Concentrate on the big issues instead of continuing to try and turn this pimple into a mountain. It was just short hand, to describe the sort of actor that should be cast, within the offices of those who had been tasked to create the ad."
----

That's the problem, Liam. The Dems have no chance of winning on the big issues, and they know it. Now the "Republicans are crazy radicals" mantra is being supplemented by nonsense about this West Virginia ad and bald-faced lies about the Chamber of Commerce and foreign-financing of campaigns. What's next? Well, I see New York has announced that they'll miss the deadline for mailing military ballots. Who'd have guessed? I wonder how long it will be before I see an NAACP ad of a burning church or a man being dragged behind a pick-up. One thing I KNOW I won't be seeing, is a Dem running on HCR or fashioning ads based on actual issues and Dem accomplishments.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

"That shouldn't stop you from doing your part. Stop driving and start riding a bike. Buy solar panels and heat your house with them. Invest your money in "green" projects"

Millions upon millions of people are. The sustainable lifestyle is a multi-billion dollar industry. Hundreds of billions.

So your belittling those who are living a more sustainable lifestyle just sounds like more of the same whining from the willfully-ignorant right. We've been listening to you people complain for decades. Really, no progress, no science, no advancement... c'mon already.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 11, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey Greg -

Before you do the upteenth story about what a whack job Angle and O'Donnell are, perhaps you can post an item about this member of the GOP who is running for Congress in Ohio who likes to play Nazi dress up-

Posted by: filmnoia | October 11, 2010 5:03 PM
----

Yes, that'll play well. Does filmnoia have his finger on the nation's pulse? Or stuck up his arse? You be the judge.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Bernielatham wrote,
"...They tried to kick Bill Clinton out of office. High-ranking people, like a sitting federal judge and a man who went on to become solicitor general, participated in schemes to spring an impeachment trap on him, and Republican lawmakers winked and went along and thundered about Clinton's morality. They made the Washington air thick with hatred."
----

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Bernie. None of that matters anymore. You shouldn't even bring it up. Don't you follow DDAWD's logic? Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Tom DeLay---all gone from Washington. This new breed of Republicans who've fallen in love with Bill Clinton must be an entirely different animal. Stop living in the past.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Obama will do a Clinton to avoid becoming a Carter. He will drop his holier-than-thou, ultra-liberal, San Fransisco/Chicago, limosine liberal attitude real fast and chum up with his smoking buddy, John Boehner to co-opt many of the Republican ideas similar to what Clinton did after the 1994 debacle.

Obama will become a DINO for at least 2 years. Four if he does a successful Clinton. If not he can try for a successful Carter. Much easier and it's a lifetime job.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 11, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Obama will do a Clinton to avoid becoming a Carter. He will drop his holier-than-thou, ultra-liberal, San Fransisco/Chicago, limosine liberal attitude real fast and chum up with his smoking buddy, John Boehner to co-opt many of the Republican ideas similar to what Clinton did after the 1994 debacle.

Obama will become a DINO for at least 2 years. Four if he does a successful Clinton. If not he can try for a successful Carter. Much easier and it's a lifetime job.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 11, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I am a WV native and can tell you from personal experiece that the general population of the US has some very negative sterotypes about people from my home state. Hicky, like many bigoted terms, may not seem that big a deal to you, but ask the people of WV. I was asked once as a child when traveling out of state if we really wore shoes.

Posted by: tlusk58 | October 11, 2010 5:02 PM
----

If you think it's bad now, just trying replacing Robert Byrd with a Republican.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse


Excuse me, but why do people assume that if marijuana is legalized, that impaired driving would be legal? Alcohol is legal, but driving drunk is not legal.

Just curious.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 11, 2010 5:36 PM
................

The only sober explanation must be that those who assumed that, must have been impaired when they formed such an opinion.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 5:50 PM
----

I lean toward legalization, but I appreciate the concerns of others. Is there a quick test for DUI marijuana like there is for alcohol or would you have to pee in a jug for the patrolman?

Some have voiced concern over the harm of smoking the stuff, but I'm fairly sure there are other means of ingesting it that will still get you high. Also, when weighing the societal costs of legalization, we should also weigh the current societal costs of investigating, arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people for marijuana sale and use. And the damage done to those with a conviction on their record. I know California isn't much into prosecuting people for marijuana, but some other states aren't so lenient.

Some employers routinely require current and prospective employees to submit to drug testing as a condition of employment. Would they be forbidden from testing for marijuana?

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Disclosure?


That might sound good on the surface - but foreign money in US elections is illegal - it isn't about disclosing anything.


Obama's 2008 election should be looked into - and if there was foreign money in that campaign, OBAMA SHOULD GO TO JAIL.

________________________


It is highly improper for Obama to make the speeches he has - to allege that a group has done something illegal - when Obama has no evidence.


In fact, Obama could simply be saying that he thinks the law should be changed to something else....


AND specifically in that case, one group should not be singled out by a sitting federal official.


Obama is just so inexperienced, so unqualified, so completely unwilling to the proper things.


To make these kinds of charges is WRONG - it is Obama acting like a petty dictator - not acting like this is nation run by laws.


Obama should be IMPEACHED.


This is an abuse of the Federal government - it is AN ABUSE OF POWER - THIS IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.


The only one who has done something wrong is OBAMA - THROW HIM IN JAIL IMMEDIATELY.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 11, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

It's entirely possible that a woman can go out on a date and want, hope for, even plan for s*x. If the guy rapes her instead, it's NOT her fault. Rape is forcible, rape is assault. It's never OK, and it's never the victim's fault.

Posted by: cheles | October 11, 2010 7:22 PM
----

What about driving the woman into a pond and drowning her while you're in a drunken stupor? Wouldn't be her fault---but didn't seem to hinder Ted Kennedy's political fortunes.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

cheles, no one is arguing that rape is ok. Admitting that you can't prove that a rape occurred, beyond a reasonable doubt, is within the purview of prosecutorial discretion. Would you also agree that a false claim of rape, after completely consented-to sex is not ok?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 11, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I doubt it Brigade:

Beginning Sept. 1, Ohio's second-biggest employer will no longer hire anyone who uses tobacco. The Clinic, with 36,300 employees, will have a bigger job making its work force in Ohio and Florida smoke-free. The Clinic will phase in the hiring policy, which will not affect current employees. It will extend to all vendors employed on Clinic campuses, however.

Beginning Sunday, all applicants will take urine tests screening for nicotine use. Job seekers won't be flagged unless their nicotine exposure passes a threshold that rules out people exposed only to secondhand smoke.

http://blog.cleveland.com/plaindealer/2007/06/add_tobacco_to_tinkle_test.html

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 11, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Brigade goes from:

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Bernie. None of that matters anymore. You shouldn't even bring it up. Don't you follow DDAWD's logic? Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Tom DeLay---all gone from Washington. This new breed of Republicans who've fallen in love with Bill Clinton must be an entirely different animal. Stop living in the past.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 8:10 PM |

To:

What about driving the woman into a pond and drowning her while you're in a drunken stupor? Wouldn't be her fault---but didn't seem to hinder Ted Kennedy's political fortunes.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 8:30 PM

In just 20 minutes. I guess the past is only worth remembering if Brigade can smear a Democrat with it.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 11, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

battleground51 | October 11, 2010 8:11 PM


You can rest assured - every indication is that Obama is too arrogant and dumb to try anything like that.


One has to give Clinton credit for at least being willing to do what he did.


But Clinton never regained control of Congress - no one ever trusted him enough.


So in his quest to do "something" Clinton

- sold us out with the Free Trade deals

- sold us out by repealing Glass Steagall

- Sold us out by allowing the internet bubble to inflate - and burst

- sold us out by deregulating derivatives.


So while you do have a good idea, sometimes the execution of such an idea leads to such horrible policies, the nation gets hurt.


The nation is better off the faster Obama resigns -


- and he can stop accusing people of doing things - (sounds like the False Charges of Racism all over again)


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 11, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

they don't call you pragmatic for no reason. Bwahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

All the way from "don't live in the past" to Ted Kennedy 50 years ago, all in 20 minutes.
Take your ribbing, brigade, and be a good fellow.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 11, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

"Millions upon millions of people are. The sustainable lifestyle is a multi-billion dollar industry. Hundreds of billions."

Gazillions and bazillions, even. Lol

What's odd, then, is that this booming sub-economy requires that the government "invest" in it and force it on us . . . according to these same liberals.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 11, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

I had no idea Clinton had such awesome unchallenged authority. In my recollection of the 1990s, there was a Republican Congress eager to deregulate everything in sight, to impeach Clinton, and to engage in extramarital affairs while they were doing so.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 11, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

I have a question for the board (minus STRF).

Does STRF really think that the President is going to resign? Isn't there a clinical term for these kind of ideas?

Especially, when you spend hours and hours, days, weeks and months posting reasons why he MUST resign.

Isn't there a clinical term for latching onto an idea, and being unable to let loose of it?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 11, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

"The sustainable lifestyle is a multi-billion dollar industry. Hundreds of billions."

Ethan, I'd advise you not to apply for a job at The Clinic.

Posted by: tao9 | October 11, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Don't tease the Panther!

You folks gotta read this excerpt from Beck's Overton Window and Digby's comment...

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/panther-has-been-teased-sizzling-hot.html

Posted by: bernielatham | October 11, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm just curious. Do you purposely conflate homosexuality with pedophiles, or is that a Freudian slip. Surely you don't equate the two? Or do you?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 11, 2010 7:49 PM
----

As I've said before, comparing and equating are not the same thing. No, I am not equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Someone else compared homosexualty to a disease (sickle cell anemia or whatever it was) because they are ostensibly conditions of the genome for which the individual cannot be held accountable. I was merely throwing another condition into the mix.

For the record, I have nothing against homosexuals. I'm all in favor of civil unions but feel that gays are pushing the envelope by demanding that their unions be recognized as "traditional" marriages. And no, I'm not in favor of denying them the legal advantages of traditional marriages. And my support of DADT for the military is not based on prejudice but on common sense. You shouldn't deliberately mix straights and gays in any circumstance in which you would not mix men and women. And I realize that some of the gays who've been drummed out of the service didn't actually "tell" but were "outed"---I'm not defending that either.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

I was merely throwing another condition into the mix.
-----------------------------
Since you are neutral on homosexuality, simply throwing another condition into the mix does you no honor. Just my opinion.

(If you didn't approve of zouk conflating ped with noacoler, I beg you not to continue in the same vein. It's not fair and you don't even mean it.)

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 11, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

I doubt it Brigade:

Beginning Sept. 1, Ohio's second-biggest employer will no longer hire anyone who uses tobacco. The Clinic, with 36,300 employees, will have a bigger job making its work force in Ohio and Florida smoke-free. The Clinic will phase in the hiring policy, which will not affect current employees. It will extend to all vendors employed on Clinic campuses, however.

Beginning Sunday, all applicants will take urine tests screening for nicotine use. Job seekers won't be flagged unless their nicotine exposure passes a threshold that rules out people exposed only to secondhand smoke.

http://blog.cleveland.com/plaindealer/2007/06/add_tobacco_to_tinkle_test.html

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 11, 2010 8:32 PM
----

I gave up smoking 20 years ago, but I hate this sort of thing. I'm sure it's to hold down healthcare costs, but what's next? In this sort of environment the only people who could take advantage of legalized marijuana would be people who didn't want a decent job.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues, if Obama doesn't resign I hope he at least declines to run again. I'm not quite sure if "hope" is a clinical diagnosis though. Does that answer your question?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 11, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

In just 20 minutes. I guess the past is only worth remembering if Brigade can smear a Democrat with it.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 11, 2010 8:36 PM |
---

You got me there. Actually, I was poking fun because one of Bernie's liberal comrads, DDAWD, chided me last night for bringing up stuff from the past.

Posted by: Brigade | October 11, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Barry could get a job at the clinic.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101010/D9IP0QDO0.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 11, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

FWIW -- I agree with you on the smoking thing Brigade.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 11, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "The new Simpsons show last night was one of their better efforts in recent times. It appears to me, that their shows are better, when the do not allow the Homer character to dominate most of the time alloted."

I enjoyed the Face/Off parody with Sideshow Bob. It was a re-run, I'm guessing, but I hadn't seen it yet.

"There are so many other rich characters that can continue to be mined for comedy gold, but it seems like in the past couple of seasons, the newest batch of writers have lost sight of that fact."

More Professor Frink! More Seymour Skinner! More Ralph and Wiggam. And More Monty Burns story lines. I don't think there's been a good Burns/Smithers centric story line in forever.

Love the Conan O'Brien era. Some great episodes were written during that time period, and I can't help but think CoCos presence had something to do with that.

What's your favorite episode? I think mine is still the one where Bart sells his soul. It's just pitch-perfect. Great writing, great gags, great characterizations . . . loved it. Could have been an episode the Twilight Zone. When they explore a quasi-realistic side of the kid's lives (Bart, Lisa, Milhouse, Nelson, etc), I think they get some of the best episodes.

Of course, I still love Abe Simpson. Especially the flashback episodes where he's a Sgt. Rock style tough guy.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Does STRF really think that the President is going to resign?


--------------


Well if Obama continues to ABUSE THE OFFICE, he should resign.


Obama's policies are NOT doing the country any good


Halperin writes:

there is a growing perception that Obama's decisions are causing harm — that businesses are being hurt by the Administration's legislation and that economic recovery is stalling because of the uncertainty surrounding energy policy, health care, deficits, housing, immigration and spending.


SO WHAT GOOD IS OBAMA ???


__________________________________

I have the GOOD OF THE NATION AT HEART.


The nation and the economy would be much better off if Obama would resign.


IMMEDIATELY.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 11, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade,

Smokers don't just have higher health care costs. They have lower productivity and higher absenteeism.

That said, I don't support using drug tests to screen jobseekers for legal drugs. It is one thing to prohibit people from taking additional breaks in the work day to smoke, or to limit the number of paid sick days an employee can take, it is another matter to refuse to hire someone for conduct that is legal.

Well, time for the evening commute -- on my bike. (There is something else I don't think should be forced on anyone, even though the benefits for personal health and the environment are hard to dispute. In fact, the average American carries enough extra calories stored as fat to fuel him or her through over 1,000 miles of bike commuting).

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 11, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

To clarify -- The Clinic = The Cleveland Clinic, one of America's great hospitals and one of the few things left of which Cleveland can be proud.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 11, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

Does Obama really think he is going to convince ANYONE to vote for a democrat over a FALSE CHARGE OF RUNNING TV COMMERICALS ???


What is the charge again? NO Evidence???

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 11, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama made some RACIST remarks about blacks voting -

Im not going to repeat them - however they were pretty bad.


Blacks can evaluate the economy on their own - they can evaluate how much their jobs have been hurt by OBAMA'S POLICIES.


To imply that ALL blacks are going to vote for democrats - simply on the reason that Obama is black, is totally RACIST.


_____________________


Unfortunately for Obama, the blacks do not live where he needs their votes - so an increase in black voting won't help Obama as much as one might think.


I object to making sweeping generalizations about the voting habits of a group of people BASED SOLELY ON THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN.


That is RACIST.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 11, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade: "But I don't think voting in overwhelming numbers for Dems is necessarily serving the interests of the black community"

Generally, it doesn't benefit any voting bloc to consistently vote monolithically. The party they vote for takes them for granted, and thus has no obligation to address their issues. The party they don't ever vote for writes that voting bloc, and thus their concerns, off. There's no point in trying to cater to the voting bloc that never votes for them. Thus, Neither political party has any incentive to do anything that appeals to the monolithic voting block.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't it Wbgone who's written a book recently? Anyone seen him lately?

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/11/crisis-averted-man-who-threw-book-at-obama-was-overexuberant-supporter/

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 11, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

@re: smoking. I think any company should have the right to have hiring criteria based on health habits. Hooter doesn't hire fat 40 year old guys to wait tables. Especially understand why a place called The Clinic would want to hire non-smokers. However, most smokers can stop long enough to pass one pee test. Unless they're going to randomly test . . .

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Palin isn't going to run (says me)

"Regarding a potential 2012 presidential run, Palin said that would be a matter of whether the country is ready for someone who is "out of the box" or if it wants someone "a little bit more conventional, maybe more electable.""
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/10/11/us/AP-US-Palin-Iran.html?ref=news

Such a clear statement from her regarding her crappy electoral chances suggests that somebody(s) have convinced her of the relevant realities. I doubt she has the intelligence or the character to get there herself. She's already a multi-millionaire as a consequence of the wingnut welfare system and there's much more to be made (without that reading work).

From my perspective, if I'm right and as always I am, this is unfortunate. Nothing would have better portrayed the decline and irresponsibility of the modern conservative crowd than a Palin run. Pity.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 11, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

No pity needed. Palin is going to run (says me).

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 11, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

@bernie,

Why don't you think Mrs. Palin will run for the nomination. I think it is very possible she will. Although I'm just one person, Intrade has a probability contract on her running trading at more than 60%, although the chances of her getting the nomination is trading less than 20%.

Just my opinion--she will announce a run. And she'll keep all of her moneymaking activities going at the same time.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 11, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"the wingnut welfare system"

What does this mean?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 11, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

tao said:
"Didn't say you were a snake."

I am, in fact, rather more like a gazelle (retaining the cloven aspect as a safeguard re final outcomes).

Posted by: bernielatham | October 11, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the clarification from the prev post.

Saw all kinds of gazelle in the Masai Mara when I was in Kenya.

One particular species was interesting for its anthropomorphic aspects.

Here:

http://www.wildwatch.com/living_library/mammals-2/dik-dik

Posted by: tao9 | October 11, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

"Bernie:

"the wingnut welfare system"

What does this mean?"

I bet it involves "propaganda".

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 11, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3, it certainly doesn't mean money donated to MoveOn.org.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 11, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

@Scott: I believe "wingnut welfare" is a pejorative way to describe the marketplace for conservative books, opinion analysts, etc. The lecture circuit.

The idea is that interesting and charismatic conservatives are mostly stupid and incompetent (otherwise, they would be liberals, natch) and could not succeed in a "real" business or, genrally, on their own. So, it requires the financial propping up of the Koch brothers and Roger Ailes and the shadowy cabal of sinister financiers behind Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. And then all the brainwashed zombies who bought her book and watch her on TV. That's "wingnut welfare"!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"I believe "wingnut welfare" is a pejorative way to describe the marketplace for conservative books, opinion analysts, etc."

So, in other words, pretty much the exact opposite of actual welfare. The liberal abuse of language strikes again.

As an aside, can you imagine Bernie's reaction to someone using the term "moonbat" in a discussion with him?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 11, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Didn't former SEIU president Andy Stern recently write a book and then sold a bunch to various SEIU locals?

But that's not welfare.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/28/national/main6907828.shtml

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 11, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Hey! Maybe this will help:

If a very, very high profile political leader asserted something about a political opponent that was, out of nowhere, put into the public square by one of his paid for and sycophantic subsidiary organizations...and that assertion had not been proven but just thrown up on the wall by those sycophantic tweenbots in clear desperation...and media powerhouses normally alligned like Gemini with that high profile leader reported that the assertion was lead-pipe-lock bogus...to the point that a Sunday a.m. news anchor asks the high profile leader's main mouthpiece, "Is that all you've got?"...and then the high profile leader's party released a national advertisement broadcasting the blatant falsehood...which then could be chewed on in the intratubes with a concerned and considered rub of the chin re: "disclosure"...could that scenario perhaps be characterized as...propaganda?

Nah, can't be...too pathetic.

Posted by: tao9 | October 11, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Well, whatcha gonna do? Obama doing so much as breathing suddenly became beneath the dignity of his office.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 11, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

ddawd at 11:51


Again your remark is silly and ridiculous.


Obama's own actions are beneath the dignity of the office.


It doesn't matter about the color one's skin. It matters if one is qualified. Experience matters.

Affirmative action has wrecked this nation - people think they deserve admissions which they don't. People are getting rejected who should be admitted.

Obama is an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DISASTER.

It is time to END FOREVER ALL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and get it over with.


Obama SHOULD BE THROWN IN JAIL.


No Federal Official should be accusing any American Citizen of anything with NO EVIDENCE,


OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN OR BE IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY.


IF NANCY PELOSI WANTS TO SAVE HER SPEAKERSHIP, CALL CONGRESS BACK AND IMPEACH OBAMA.


THAT IS THE ONLY WINNING PLAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS AT THIS POINT.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 12, 2010 2:10 AM | Report abuse

Funny how it appears that the gay and lesbian groups are the only ones left on the playing field.


However, after being betrayed by Obama, these groups are simply taking pot-shots at everyone.


Without an agenda that anyone will agree with, the gay groups are lost in a sea of crazy rhetoric.


NO ONE will agree to teaching children homosexuality under the age of 18.


By insisting that school disticts teach homosexuality to children as young as 7 or 8 years old, the gay movement has destroyed its credibility - worse than Obama has with a false charge of racism.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 12, 2010 2:25 AM | Report abuse

The way for the nation to heal is for Obama to resign.


Think of how happy the country will be


Think of the national unity which will be achieved if Obama would just get lost - and leave, perhaps going back to Indonesia.


The country needs a boost right now.


If the democrats would only agree to get rid of Obama's policies which are a DRAG ON THE ECONOMY, and get Obama to resign - THE NATION CAN BEGIN TO HEAL AGAIN.


The nation deserves this.


There is little reason to have Obama continue this quasi-socialistic pathetic ego-trip he is on in the midst of an ECONOMIC CRISIS.


The economy of the nation is too important to allow one ego to have such an impact on the nation. The democrats are in the middle of wiping out there own party - no one will vote for them ever, again after this fiasco of Obama.

Obama, fiasco - time to resign - if he does that NATIONAL UNTIY CAN BE ACHIEVED.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 12, 2010 2:35 AM | Report abuse

As an aside, can you imagine Bernie's reaction to someone using the term "moonbat" in a discussion with him?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 11, 2010 11:16 PM
----

LOL. That was one of the infamous Zouk's monikers and also the way he referred to all Obamaites.

Posted by: Brigade | October 12, 2010 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Lawrence O'Donnell performed the interview equivalent of oral sex on Alvin Green last night.

Posted by: Brigade | October 12, 2010 6:57 AM | Report abuse

A walk down memory lane with Instapundit to 2008, when raising hundreds of millions in untraceable money -- contributions, not expeditures -- was the cutting edge new dawn of American "democracy."

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/107664/

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 12, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "As an aside, can you imagine Bernie's reaction to someone using the term "moonbat" in a discussion with him?"

A bat on the moon? Such an assertion is clearly one of Goebbels-like propaganda. Your proposal of a lunar Laurasiatheria Chiroptera fails the simplest task: there is no atmosphere on the moon, nor fruit or insects upon which this so-called "moon dwelling bat" could dine.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 12, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

@tao - I'm envious indeed having never made it to Africa. I checked google images for the species and it does have the most remarkable Disney eyes. Easy to understand why school kids fall head over heels for it given its size and face (and grace in movement, I'm sure).

Posted by: bernielatham | October 12, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

"The new CNN poll is very grim for Dems: The two parties are effectively tied on approval/disapproval, even as Dems have been banking on the GOP being viewed more negatively. Worse: More Americans say if Dems win in November they would take us in the wrong direction, rather than the right one, on all the major issues."

This is what the Republicrats have wrought for the Democratic Party. Please think about it.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 12, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

All comedy all the time. Nice.

"Nothing would have better portrayed the decline and irresponsibility of the modern conservative crowd than a Palin run."

I think you guys missed the real point of Bernie's post. But don't worry you've still got your Paladino, Tancredo, O'Donnell, Angle, Paul, Miller and a few others that truly highlight the conservative movement's slide into the realm of science fiction.

Buy hey you guys are truly awesome the way you annihilated Bernie's use of a clever word or two to capture Palin's rise to infamy.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 12, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

12bar asked: "Why don't you think Mrs. Palin will run for the nomination"

First, there's an implicit admission in her statement regarding lack of qualifications. She may have come to this obvious conclusion on her own over the last two years, epiphany aided by the other lucrative options available and her shiny new bank account. Or she may be frightened by the realities of debates/interviews. Or smarter people at the top of the party have talked her down. Likely all those things, I think.

But that the smarter people will be far more acutely aware not only of her polling numbers but of the serious damage a run by her would do to the party/movement. Rove's response to O'Donnell (not merely after her win but his moves to prevent her running back in December) represents an example of what the big boys will do. Electoral success is THE necessary first criterion for what ought to be done. for who ought to be nominated.

She has many other uses which produce far less risk to the Republican establishment and they will prevent her from running.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 12, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Use of "moonbat" terminology was a propaganda tactic clearly laid out in the secret Powell Manifesto and later forwarded by the Koch conspiracy, the neo-Straussian cabal, and the PNAC, as a means to instantiate self-hatred in Bitter Clingers and delegitimize the vanguard of community organizers in their minds.

If you question these facts, you are lazy and unserious.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 12, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: I've argued (and I still think I'm right) that she doesn't want to compete for an elected position again, period. I think she wants to be a kingmaker, and accumulate debts to be owed, and have Republican politicians anxious to curry favor and slow to cross her. So, if she wants a plum cabinet position in the next administration, it could be hers. As one example of a potential back-scratching arrangement.

I think she would have sat out the Alaska governorship, even if she felt it was not terribly productive for the people of Alaska, if she had intended to run for president in any serious way. But, I'd bet money that she's thinking of being Secretary of State Palin, or some such thing.

Still, she may run, and prove me wrong. But I don't think she ever intended to.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 12, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

"I'd bet money that she's thinking of being Secretary of State Palin"

Are you f-ing kidding me?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 12, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

REVENGE OF THE SECOND BLACK PRESIDENT

Many seem to have forgotten that Bill Clinton was our first, black president.

Anyway, Barack Obama and his Obamacrats are trying to do to the rest of America what earlier, liberal Democrats did to the African-American population. That is destroy it's independent will, get it hooked on welfare, destroy it's family unit and religious morality and then convince it that voting for anyone but Democrats would be traitorous.

The black population has been conquered and subdued. Blacks seem to have been sheared like sheep and lie naked before their masters, the Democrat elite.

Obama wants to do the same to the rest of America but we ain't so easy. We are independent, sons of revolutionaries, haters of kings and despots, and just plain distrustful of snobby elitists, pinheads, and tax collectors.

We're not buying what Obama is selling.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 12, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Are you f-ing kidding me?"

I assume you are also a fan of John Carpenter's "The Thing", then?

:)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 12, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

lms:

"I think you guys missed the real point of Bernie's post."

Hihgly unlikely. It is one he makes pretty much incessantly.

"Buy hey you guys are truly awesome the way you annihilated Bernie's use of a clever word or two to capture Palin's rise to infamy."

Do you really find the term "wingnut welfare" to describe what are in fact marketplace transactions to be "clever"? Seriously?

And I'll also ask you this, because I think you are a pretty honest poster. How do you suppose Bernie would respond if someone used the leftwing equivalent of "wingnut", ie "moonbat", in a conversation with him? You may recall that Bernie once shut down a conversation with me simply because I used the term "the One" to refer to Obama, calling it "stupid, cliched and unthoughtful."

But "wingnut" is ever so clever, original, and full of thought, right?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 12, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Really, Kevin. Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to be U.S. Secretary of State? Just what are her qualifications?

Good gravy, this country has to smarten up fast. This isn't American Idol. This isn't a joke.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 12, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"I assume you are also a fan of John Carpenter's "The Thing", then?"

A real fan would know that the actual phrase was "You've got to be f-ing kidding me." (As the head sprouts legs and runs away.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 12, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

This windpower generation investment looks damned promising... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?_r=1&hp

And if we don't do stuff like this, other nations will.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 12, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/the_morning_plum_109.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 12, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin - hard to know of course but I'd think it far more likely that she wouldn't want a cabinet position of any sort. I see little evidence of any work ethic in the lady and certainly little curiosity. If she wishes to be a kingmaker (something like that is going on for sure) I'd imagine this to be ego-gratification and social status desires.

As regards quitting in the middle of her term, I see other possibilities than the one you mention. Over the last three years, the Republicans have been seriously adrift in terms of a leader-figure. Bush kind of screwed that up for everyone and there was no one on the horizon who could come close to matching what Obama represented. This is obviously still the case. Temporary fixes have been tried; recall Limbaugh offering to debate Obama or note the unusual profile of ex vice Cheney who went front and center right after the election. Palin, as a figure the base loved, would have not merely disappeared from the national stage up in Alaska but would have made a fool of herself over and over again if outside the sort of protected bubble presently constructed for her. I expect her decision was encouraged by the Republican power figures who think ahead and who are smart (Rove, Kristol, for two examples).

Posted by: bernielatham | October 12, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

re Scott and "wingnut welfare"... you really do need to widen your reading sources, young fellow.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 12, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Scott

My point was that rather than discuss the possibility of a Palin run, or what that says about conservatives in general, you guys dismissed his post because he used a word you object to. I hate to think how many times I've been called a moonbat or worse here. Qb once referred to me as embittered, hysterical and ranting. Bilgey referred to all of us as slaves. But that doesn't mean I can't or couldn't find something else worthy of discussion in their posts.

I'm just tired of the NEW business as usual aspect of the PL. We've moved into the realm of debating style, not substance, most of the time. No problem if that's the way everyone wants it.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 12, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

@Ims - Nothing to worry about in the above. Kevin's got a wonderful resilience in his ideological stances and Scott doesn't but they're both OK folks if kept out of power. Tao is another matter all together though and my two cats hiss at the screen when he posts.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 12, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

But it occurs to me, Ims, that perhaps you are protesting the testosterone silliness in how this blog can get now and again. If that's the case, I sympathize and apologize. If you see me heading in such a direction, let me know and I'll stop and try to sort out what's going on.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 12, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Bernie, it's no big deal. I just thought it was interesting the way they deflected from the question at hand and thought I'd mention it. I once asked Tao if he'd vote for Palin and got a resounding NO back.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 12, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

lms:

"My point was that rather than discuss the possibility of a Palin run, or what that says about conservatives in general, you guys dismissed his post because he used a word you object to."

I didn't dismiss his post because of his use of one term. I dismissed his post because I've heard it all before ad nauseum. Nothing much original or interesting in it.

"We've moved into the realm of debating style, not substance, most of the time. "

I don't disagree. But hey, I am flexible. If Bernie wants to dismiss me because of my style, I am happy to focus on style and point out the obvious hypocrisy in his standards of discourse.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 12, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Old fellow:

"you really do need to widen your reading sources"

Perhaps, but I don't see how that would make the term any less stupid, cliched, and unthoughtful (to use your own description).

"young fellow"

Ah, if only.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 12, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

"Qb once referred to me as embittered, hysterical and ranting."

For the record, I said you were embittered when you said my critique of the New Deal and failure to blame banks for people's irresponsible borrowing were typical of my let-them-eat-cake, blame-the-victim mentality. It was a rather bitter and vitriolic attack. I don't think I've called you hysterical or ranting, but I suppose it's possible.

Also for the record, I couldn't care less about Bernie's use of "wingnut." It's just a humourous instance of "inconsistency."

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 12, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Scott

Would you vote for Palin if she were running for President?

Posted by: lmsinca | October 12, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

lms:

"Would you vote for Palin if she were running for President?"

It would depend entirely on what the other choices were. We seldom get to vote for our ideal candidate, and very often we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Are there other candidates whom I would much prefer over Palin? Absolutely. Would I necessarily vote for anyone over Palin? Definitely not.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 12, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I will vote for Palin since I am convinced that she is indeed running for President.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin
I have to run but, if you are still kicking about, let me put a serious question to you.

A common plaint from folks who self-describe as Tea Partiers (which we understand to predominantly be the modern conservative movement base) is "We want our country/America back."

What do you think is actually being expressed in this plaint?

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

qb

It seemed to me at the time that you were blaming the entirety of the housing bubble and subsequent crash on the CRA, Fannie and Freddie. The entire debacle was the result of greed and risky profit. Nowhere in the CRA were banks forced to loan money to unqualified borrowers. And Fannie and Freddie were simply jumping on the same bandwagon as everyone else. Unforunately, a lot of the cr@p loans ended up on their books, sort of like musical chairs.

Right now every homeowner with depressed value and no end in sight, thanks again to the shoddy performance of the banks and underwriters, and nearly every unemployed person in this country can thank the financial wizards for their consistency.

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

Yet no bank has ever been “forced to comply with government mandates about mortgage lending.” There are no “government mandates,” and there never were. In order to qualify for government-backed deposit insurance—a benefit that banks aren’t forced to accept but enjoy having—the Community Reinvestment Act and similar measures designed to prevent discrimination in lending (to qualified individuals) only encourage banks to lend in all of the areas where they do business. And Section 802 (b) of the Act stresses that all loans must be “consistent with safe and sound operations”—it’s the opposite of requiring that lenders write risky mortgages.

There are no penalties for noncompliance with CRA guidelines. The only “stick” hanging over banks that fail to meet those standards is that their refusal might be taken into account by regulators when they want to open new branches or merge with other financial institutions. What’s more, there are no defined standards for CRA compliance, and within the banking community, the loose guidelines are considered to be somewhat of a joke.

As Sheila Blair, the chairwoman of the FDIC, asked in a December 2008 speech, “Where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? Nowhere! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth . . . pure and simple.”

http://www.alternet.org/economy/148454/conservatives_push_absurd_lie_that_wall_street_hustlers_were_innocent_victims__of_poor_people?page=2

Posted by: lmsinca | October 12, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham:

I can only speak for myself, and I want my country back from the liberals.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Scott

Thanks for the response. I certainly understand the lesser of two evils choice. We're facing that right now AFAIC in CA, Brown V Whitman. I've decided to vote for Brown but I admit to not being terribly excited about it. I've been know to vote in protest or write in "none of the above". LOL

Posted by: lmsinca | October 12, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

lms,

On the contrary, it seems clear to me that you are the one giving a simplistic and one-sided account. Should anyone be surprised that government regulators and bureaucrats absolve the government of responsibility?

"The entire debacle was the result of greed and risky profit. Nowhere in the CRA were banks forced to loan money to unqualified borrowers. And Fannie and Freddie were simply jumping on the same bandwagon as everyone else. Unforunately, a lot of the cr@p loans ended up on their books, sort of like musical chairs."

I don't recall ever placing primary blame on CRA, but if you think it was not part and parcel of a federal government project of several decades to harness the banking system toward greater "democratization" of lending and "ownership," and to make banks servants of this federal policy agenda, you were not paying enough attention or were looking where your preconceptions dictated.

As for Fannie and Freddie, you are simply factually wrong. The did not simply "jump on the bandwagon." They were created by the government for the very purpose of providing a secondary market for mortgages, securitizing them, being catalysts for greater lending and turnover of funds.

It's amazing to me that you continue to insist that government regulation and manipulation, Fannie and Freddie, and borrowers, not to mention community agitation and shakedown groups like Acorn, had no responsibility for any of it. Absolutely amazing.

Believe me, I'm well aware of the effects on homeowners. I just don't accept the simplistic "Wall Street" explanation you do. It's good for stoking populist fires, but has little else to recommend it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 12, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca:

May I suggest that you vote for one of the other candidates running for Governor instead?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"not to mention community agitation and shakedown groups like Acorn"

qb

You sound sort of reasonable until you mention Acorn. You're as much a product of "populist fires" as you claim I am.

I may not be as nuanced in economic matters as you seem to be, but I know from personal experience and years of experience actually participating in the economic decline of the middle class, yet somehow surviving so far, who and what is responsible for the decline.

I'm smart enough to recognize key indicators when I see them and respond accordingly. Unfortunately, many Americans bought into the whole "flip this house" and "liar loan" nonsense. Undoubtedly, the government, since at least the 80's was complicit or stupid, then the vultures swooped in for the kill.

But vultures are still just vultures.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 12, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

"A common plaint from folks who self-describe as Tea Partiers (which we understand to predominantly be the modern conservative movement base) is "We want our country/America back." What do you think is actually being expressed in this plaint? Posted by: bernielatham"

Well, mostly they don't like it when the 75% of the country who aren't T-People vote in ways they don't like.

They certainly don't like it when the Democrats win 53% of the vote and 60% of the Senate.

They want all us unAmuricuns to stop voting in their elections so they can win.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 12, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Green Party candidate, Laura Wells, is also running for CA Governor.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 11:54 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