Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Sam Stein reports that Dem Rep. Scott Murphy is running the toughest pro-health care ad of the cycle -- even though he's in a tough race and getting attacked by his GOP opponent and a third party group on health care.

* Who says liberals need to "buck up"? The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is busting its hump to help get embattled liberals like Dem Rep. Raul Grijalva reelected, and Grijalva tells me that it's a sign that progressive "infrastructure" is "maturing" and "really able to make a big difference."

The PCCC and Democracy for America are vowing 500,000 calls for their chosen candidates by election day.

* Interesting pushback: John Boehner's PAC gave $5,000 to that Nazi impersonating House GOP candidate, but won't try to get the money back, in part because he was wearing an SS uniform and not a Nazi one.

* Rasmussen finds the Nevada Senate race a dead heat, with Sharron Angle edging Harry Reid, 49-48.

* But: CNN finds Reid ahead, 46-43. Both polls, interestingly, are of likely voters.

* And: The national parties are about to sink big money into Nevada, upping the intensity level. The DSCC is set to enter the race for the first time, and the GOP is responding in kind.

* Brutal column from Jon Ralston, who argues that Angle's massive fundraising haul is being financed by "hatred."

* Karl Rove's groups join with a third to pump $50 million into ads attacking Democrats in the final stretch.

* Chamber executive veep Bruce Josten keeps up the absurdly misleading comparisons between Chamber spending and that of labor.

Also: Josten claims that the White House and Dems want disclosure because they are out to silence and intimidate donors who want to preserve the right to anonymously influence the outcome of our elections and, by extension, who runs our government.

* Think Progress targets the Chamber again.

* Steve Benen:

Karl Rove and his fellow GOP hatchetmen are raking in obscene amounts of undisclosed money, using it to lie to voters, all the while lying about the campaign finance fiasco that's allowing them to buy an election cycle.

* The chief of the NRCC predicts Republicans will make a gain of House seats in the "mid 40s" or higher, which would of course flip control.

* A wave...of negatives ads: Media Matters reports that right wing groups have run over 60,000 ads since Aug. 1st.

* Digby reads Rand Paul's college letters.

* And Evan McMorris-Santoro says Rand the conservative Republican Senate candidate has sold out the views of "College Paul."

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 13, 2010; 6:24 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, Happy Hour Roundup, House Dems, House GOPers, Political media, Senate Dems  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sharron Angle on Sharia law in America: "That's what I had read"
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Agreed. It is dangerous for Coons. I wonder why he is doing it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 13, 2010 6:20 PM
=====================

You mean she might turn him into a newt?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR EXPRESSIONS OF SUPPORT


I didn't realize there would be so much concern for me.

Thank you again.

I can see you all missed me.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR EXPRESSIONS OF SUPPORT


I didn't realize there would be so much concern for me.

Thank you again.

I can see you all missed me.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

STR:

Good to see you back!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

The best moment of the debate tonight:

Christine O'Donnell whips out her Holocaust Cloak and advances towards Coons saying "There shall be no survivors." Coons flees and drops 20 points in the polls.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 13, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Jake

Such a discussion today -

and nothing but Tea Party bashing - attempts to smear MILLIONS of Americans with the actions or words of one or two people.


It is all an attempt to intimidate the Tea Party supporters from expressing their Freedom of Speech -

They want to stop MILLIONS OF AMERICANS from exercising their Freedom of Speech.


Meanwhile, OBAMA ADMITS there is no such thing as a "shovel-ready project" - when Obama lead the country to believe that he had "hundreds" of those kinds of projectes ready to go and be funded by Obama.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm now convinced that "Dean" of Nevada reporters Ralston is a moron.

I contributed money to Angle and it had nothing to do with hate - it had everything to do with an attempt to counter Greg's advocacy on Reid's behalf.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 13, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

SBJ. The women wants to treat you as a sub-human because of your sexual orientation. It looks like it is about hate,and your willingness to support those who despise you.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

SHOVEL-READY PROJECTS


The only shoveling going on was OBAMA CLAIMING he had shovel-ready projects.


Has anyone counted how many times OBAMA HAS LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ???


This has gotten way out of control - every campaign pledge that Obama did not live up to has to count as a lie or a deception.


Especially those, like the Afghan War, which Obama seemed to not be able to wait to do something different than he pledged during the campaign.

And don't forget Obama refusing to stick to his word on campaign finance.


Obama the LIAR.


Obama LIED. How many times???


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Politico and Boehner display a rather deficient understanding of the Nazi party and the SS. The Schutzstaffel was formed as part of the Nazi party, it was headed by Himmler, its members were chosen based on Nazi ideology of racial superiority, and it implemented the "Final Solution." There hardly can be a uniform MORE "Nazi" than an "SS" uniform. You could argue that a Wehrmacht uniform is not "Nazi," but an SS uniform??? Yeesh!

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 13, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who are praying for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin and his brave challenge to Obama's eligibility:

The new trial date was just set today for December 14, 2010.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

"that's allowing them to buy an election cycle."

There ya go. This IS all about making (false) excuses for Dem 2010 midterm losses.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 13, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who have not been praying for the duty avoiding coward, who has abandoned all those who are serving in harm's way, his new trial date is set for Dec. 14, 2010

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

* Is Cell Phone Bias Skewing Polls? *

A new Pew Research study finds that not only can landline-only surveys exaggerate the Republican enthusiasm because cell-only users tend to vote more Democratic, but they also may be even more biased than in 2008.

In three of four congressional election polls conducted since spring, estimates from landline-only samples had slightly more Republican support and slightly less Democratic support. One of the polls showed no difference. In the most recent congressional poll, Republicans led Democrats 46% to 45%, among landline-only users who were registered to vote. But when cell-only registered voters were included, Democrats took the lead, 47% to 44%. Among likely voters, Republicans held a 12 point lead among those with landlines only, 53% to 41% but the lead shrinks to seven points, 50% to 43%, when cell-only voters are added.

Jon Cohen: 'While Pew's update to their long-running research on cellphones and surveys isn't a broad rebuke to pollsters who don't interview on cellphones, it raises fresh doubts about the precision of the reams of polling data fueling estimates of what may happen on Nov. 2."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/10/13/is_cell_phone_bias_skewing_polls.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/10/pew_cellphone_bias_may_be_bigg.html

GREG,

This would be a great topic to cover tomorrow, dontcha think?

* Illinois Democrat: Mark Kirk's 'Voter Integrity' Effort Is 'Karl Rove Politics' *

"That sort of Florida-style voter intimidation is disgusting, illegal, and smacks of the Karl Rove politics that Illinois voters are sick of," Giannoulias said.

[...]

"It does seem to be an institutional strategy to be doing this type of work, and certainly we believe these are code words they have been using, like 'voter integrity.' Earmarking minority and low-income sites to do it in, there's no excuse for what they're trying to do," Dorf said.

He said the Giannoulias campaign asked state officials to provide additional personnel on election day to protect voters.

"We also are writing similar letters to other states attorneys, to the three U.S. Attorneys for the northern, central and southern districts of Illinois, to Lisa Madigan, the state attorney general, as well as to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division," Dorf said. "So we're putting the word out, we're putting everyone on notice that this is going on."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/illinois_democrat_mark_kirks_voter_integrity_effor.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 13, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

@Greg and all....I get that this election is about the economy and specifically jobs. But we find ourselves distracted by all manner of things except important issues.

For effin sakes this is the midterms and I've heard nothing from candidates in EITHER party talk about two wars. I am a fiscal conservative just as much as Kevin or Q.B. or Scott or SBJ. The difference is instead of gutting our social programs I'd rather get a handle on our incredibly ignorant defense expenses that aren't even defending us!!!

Can someone explain to me how Petraues COIN strategy is going to work. How are you supposed to win the hearts and minds of people who we hate. They are freaking MUSLIMS. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at polls of the American public or to see the protests not just in NYC but Tennessee even liberal bastions like California against the simple construction of a Mosque or in NYC's case a "Community Center". How are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of people we have shown so much hatred?

We left 50,000 troops in Iraq and we've replaced others with heaven knows how many civilians. In other words after "withdrawal" we still have over 100,000 Americans there and are spending additional billions when we can't even afford health care and want to begin trimming S.S. WTF is wrong with us. Are we really just a nation of war mongers.
Please read Andrew Bacevich's "Washington Rules..America's Path to Permanent War"
Permanent war is exactly what Petraeus is already lobbying for and the recent change in our National Security Advisor hopefully signals that Obama has grown a pair and will finally bring ENDLESS WAR to a conclusion.

Even my Fox watching friends and relatives have stated these wars have been and ARE huge mistakes. Get the eff out and get out quickly. Cut our losses. Stop being the bullies of the World.

Back during the Vietnam War Senator William Fulbright said something that fits even more today given that the Bushies used to put freaking Bible verses on their daily National Defense docs...Fulbright said "A nation can confuse itself with virtue...and a great nation is particularly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations...to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is in it's own shining image. Once imbued with the idea of mission, a great nation easily assumes that is has the means as well as the duty to do God's work. The Lord after all, would surely not choose you as his agent and then deny you the sword with which to work his will."

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

* Rape case catches up with Ken Buck *

If you thought that high-heels gaffe was the height of Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck's offensiveness, think again. The Colorado Independent is bringing to light a 2005 rape case that the Weld County District Attorney declined to prosecute, in part because the alleged victim had a prior sexual relationship with the accused attacker. Today, the newspaper released the transcript of a taped phone call the accuser had with the alleged attacker in which he acknowledges that he raped her. It goes a little something like this:

Victim: "You do realize that … it's rape."

Suspect: "Yeah, I do."

Victim: "Like in a number of different ways, because I didn't want to do it and because I was intoxicated and because I was afraid."

Suspect: "Yes I do. I know."

The Independent explains, "In establishing whether there were grounds to arrest the suspect, Greeley police had the victim phone the suspect from the police station. That call was recorded and entered into evidence." The recording was made without his knowledge, so it can't be used in court -- but it was presumably part of the evidence Buck considered before declining to prosecute.

http://www.salon.com/life/violence_against_women/?story=/mwt/broadsheet/2010/10/12/ken_buck

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 13, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

America must regain its national character and re-establish its integrity. For most Americans there are things more important than money.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 10:23 AM
-------

My, my. Do tell. Did you just figure this out? When conservatives mention character or integrity---things like the sanctity of life---liberals customarily mock them for voting "against their own interests" because they haven't focused exclusively on material things, like most of the liberal underclass do.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

* Raese: Laser network would deter missile strikes *

Republican Senate candidate John Raese says the U.S. needs a $20 billion system of lasers to shoot down missiles, even though experts say such technology is in its infancy.

At a tea party forum in West Virginia’s Eastern Panhandle, Raese said the 1,000 laser systems are of "paramount importance."

[...]

Laser-based deterrent systems have long been discussed, but are far from reality.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20101013raese_laser_network_would_deter_missile_strikes/

Looks like this story is only just starting to make the rounds...

This link from the Boston Herald.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 13, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Big Money thinks Average Americans are disposable assets who must be trained and controlled through relentless propagandizing.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010
----

Now replace "Big Money" with "Democrats" and "Average Americans" with "Minorities" and you just might be on to something.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw

WHERE did you get such an intimate knowledge of Nazis?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

If Obama truly expects the GOP to be cooperative after November then we have a much bigger problem than I've realized with our president. The only way the GOP will cooperate is if Obama does exactly what they tell him to do.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 10:42 AM
-----

And why shouldn't he? Supporters like you will continue to lick his boots no matter what he does. And it's fairly clear from his recent comments that he's cutting the endangered Dems loose---all that talk about how he's been too liberal and should have worked more closely with Republicans on tax cuts in the stimulus bill. LOL. What have I been telling you about blind fidelity to one party? Your vote is like money; if it's already in the bank, no one is going to work for it.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who are praying for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin and his brave challenge to Obama's eligibility:

The new trial date was just set today for December 14, 2010.

Posted by: JakeD2
++++++++++++++++

Except (as predicted by military law experts) the military judge denied all discovery requests and witness requests related to the President's citizenship, on the grounds that the President's citizenship is legally irrelevant to whether the orders of LTC Lakin's superior officer were lawful. So LTC Lakin can't challenge "Obama's eligibility."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 13, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

In other words the wealthy have done an excellent job of keeping the average American citizen completely ignorant of the reality of what is happening...

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010
---

LOL. Obviously. Is that why the Dems were able to win the Presidency and both houses of Congress? Because those who voted for them were ignorant? That's what I'm beginning to think. By "the wealthy" who pulled the wool, I take it you mean all those undisclosed Obama contributors. I recall that he far outspent McCain.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Several Media sources are reporting that movie offers are pouring in to tell the story of the trapped Chilean minors,

So please do not ruin it for me, and others, by giving away the ending.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Everyone -- don't get sucked in by me. The fewer people respond to my nonsensical posts, the more likely I'll go away.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 13, 2010
-------

One can only hope.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"I am a fiscal conservative just as much as Kevin or Q.B. or Scott or SBJ. The difference is instead of gutting our social programs I'd rather get a handle on our incredibly ignorant defense expenses that aren't even defending us!!!"

So you would cut 1.3 trillion in defense spending? Is that your fiscal conservatism?

How much more would you spend on social programs than we are already spending?

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Those aren't Democrats, they are Republicrats and they are at the moment the most destructive force in American politics because they neuter the only viable impediment to the Plutocrats' control over the country. The Republicrats are traitors to the Democratic Party and that is why the Chamber supports them. That is part of the payoff for selling out America to Big Business.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010
-------

Vote them out! Vote them out!

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

STRF,

"The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," by William Shirer. You might try reading some history.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 13, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

More great thoughts from Fulbright that are still as true today as when he uttered them.
History has already judged Fulbright correct about Vietnam...and just as certainly shown the folly of the NeoCons like Cheney,Wolfiwitz,Rumsfeld and Mr. Mistake John McCain. How many freaking times do they have to be wrong before they are held accountable? WMD. Wrong...Short War...Wrong
Greeted as Liberators..Wrong..Mission Accomplished Wrong....did these guys get even one thing right....Fulbright certainly did back then and his thoughts are just as applicable today..

"In nations as in individuals, bellicosity is a mark of weakness and self doubt rather than of strength and self assurance. The true mark of greatness isn't stridency by magnanimity"

Fulbright pointed out that we should lead through example...make our democracy such a shining example that people would want to emulate us...not constantly bully them with superior military force.

Meanwhile the Chinese are eating our lunch because they are not WASTING money on militarism or adventures around the world. They are spending their money on infrastructure, green energy, IT and things that are actually productive!!!!

How about econ 101 "Guns or butter?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_or_butter

"The "guns or butter" model is generally used as a simplification of national spending as a part of GDP. The nation will have to decide which level of guns and butter best fulfill its needs, with its choice being partly influenced by the MILITARY SPENDING AND MILITARY STANCE OF POTENTIAL OPPONENTS."

CONSERVATIVE estimates have the U.S. spending 40% of the World's defense spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000–2009. The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 25–29% of budgeted expenditures and 38–44% of estimated tax revenues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_spending

38-44% OF OUR FREAKING TAX REVENUES. Tea party morons should either address this or S-T-F-U about the deficit. Am I the only REAL fiscal conservative on this site?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

The reason the "good old days" seem good to a number of folks is because they were kids OR they where white males for whom the "good old days" were pretty darn good.

Posted by: vintagejulie | October 13, 2010 11:50 AM
-------

You can always count on a certain amount of this crap whenever you get liberals together. Rotten white males! Racists! Sexists! LOL. See how that sells today on main street.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who are praying for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin and his brave challenge to Obama's eligibility:

The new trial date was just set today for December 14, 2010.

Posted by: JakeD2
________________________

Jake, I agree with you more often than not. But on this one, I have to disagree. His orders were not from the President, and even if they were, his legitimacy of command isn't an issue. He disobyed four orders from his superiors (whose legitimacy is not in question), and he should be punished.
I don't see a way to support someone like this, and not also support the people that disobyed orders under Bush because they thought it was an illegal or immoral war.
I may not like Obama's politics, but he is the President. And the orders are from the military chain of command in furtherance of the President's policy decisions.

Posted by: Bailers | October 13, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Interesting stuff:

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/

Posted by: sbj3 | October 13, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

"Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ‘til the end of time!

… But He loves you!"

George Carlin

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010
-----

Yes, that invisible man in the sky. When ole George crossed over, I'm sure that's the first man he looked for and the last he wanted to meet. I wonder how he likes it there. Probably as well as Liam will.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm predicting that the aftermath of 2010 will reveal a lot of problems with election machines, lots of election fraud, and hand-wringing over our broken democracy--at least, in districts won by Republicans. Just a hunch.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010
-------

I'll lay money on that. Democrats never LOSE elections; they're always STOLEN. If they couldn't spell 'Gore', imagine the trouble they'll have with 'Sink' and 'Reed'.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

I know it's hard to believe, but not everything is some grand liberal media conspiracy.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 13, 2010
-------

No, mostly they're just grand Chamber of Commerce conspiraces.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

"The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 25–29% of budgeted expenditures and 38–44% of estimated tax revenues."

Interesting way to look at budget statistics. Looked at this way, non-defense would have to be 71-75% of the expenditures and . . . probably 80-95% of revenues?

Sorry, but 25-29% of the budget is hardly out of line, and you aren't any fiscal conservative because you think we should slash defense.

"38-44% OF OUR FREAKING TAX REVENUES. Tea party morons should either address this or S-T-F-U about the deficit. Am I the only REAL fiscal conservative on this site?"

Not only aren't you the only one, but you aren't one at all.

"CONSERVATIVE estimates have the U.S. spending 40% of the World's defense spending."

If only we could get that to 60% we'd be even safer.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Bailers:

That's the WHOLE question though. If Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, he is not "President" and Lt. Col. Lakin is right to disobey an illegal order. That is way different than when George W. Bush was in charge, because there was never any question that he was legally President. If GWB gave a military order today, that wouldn't have to be obeyed either.

Notwithstanding, I'll take "more often than not".

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Well, obviously. If Glenn Beck says that Republicans aren't racist, then they aren't racist. After all, saying that Obama is seeking reparations is an honest policy difference!

Posted by: DDAWD | October 13, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I sure hope ruk will answer my questions about his passionate fiscal conservatism.

If cutting defense spending is the answer, how much and what would he cut to balance the budget?

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

I'll lay money on that. Democrats never LOSE elections; they're always STOLEN. If they couldn't spell 'Gore', imagine the trouble they'll have with 'Sink' and 'Reed'.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:31 PM


ACORN

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 13, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

When we do so, then we can boycott all their businesses, and all those who do business with them.
We will find out who those Sinister and Corrupt Masked Election Bandits are, and then we will turn the spotlights on them.
Posted by: Liam-still
-------

Well gee, Liam. Maybe that's why they're not going to tell you who they are. Besides, if they did, you wouldn't be able to blame the upcoming election results on all that nefarious foreign influence. I think the voters are going to give you something---in your pants.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Ethan's litany of muckraking posts, although weakened by their sources and clearly spun as negatively as possible, has made something clear to me:

It's the midterms, sure, so each race is going to have it's own character. But as to having a unified, coherent Dem message as in 2006, the campaigns today are completely untethered from the main party's, ie Obama/Reid/Pelosi, issues and record.

I'm just south of Murphy's district and good on him for running on his record.

But on the ground, because the locals know the candidates and the true story, the voters in the statewide and congressional districts won't give a damn about the dug-up stuff that the around-the-bend proggs love to read in HuffPoSalon because it validates their Olby-fueled obsessions.

Especially w/10% unemployment and "no such thing as shovel ready projects."

Posted by: tao9 | October 13, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

@Q.B. "So you would cut 1.3 trillion in defense spending? Is that your fiscal conservatism?"

Not 1.3 trillion at one wack. I don't know anybody...not even fiscal hawks like Paul Ryan who believe we'll cut the deficit overnight or in one single swoop. I'm simply pointing out that as Willie Sutton famously said.."he robs the banks because that's where the money is" I'd look first at our defense spending because that's where the money is!!! Certainly we've already WASTED over ONE TRILLION in Iraq which pretty much matches the figure you just tossed out. Remember the Defense budget..what they actually tell us about is far different from ACTUAL EXPENDITURES. Bush and his boys have not really budgeted for the two wars using all kinds of supplementals which when taken into account mean we are spending about 50% now (all things considered VA etc..don't imagine you're against providing prosthetics etc for our Vets wounded in combat) on our defense. There's mind numbing room for savings with a strategic and tactical change not to mention waste and corruption which occur throughout government.

"How much more would you spend on social programs than we are already spending?"

I'm not prepared to spend any more on social spending. In fact Obama has launched auditors throughout our spending to identify waste and fraud. I'm with you Q.B. let's not spend another penny until we've rooted out all the waste and fraud.
Medicare/Medicaid is currently rife with fraud. Rick Scott is the most egregious example of a wealthy scumbag who defrauded the taxpayers...at least the gov't got him fired and recouped 1.7 BILLION from his Corp. Medicare fraud in South Florida is legendary and the Gov't is currently cleaning that up.

Remember during the HCR debate I pointed out that the VA now has higher marks than the private sector. You were justifiably surprised because the VA used to have a horrid reputation...however in the 80's Congress got angry..took action and cleaned up the mess. The VA now treats patients more efficiently for an average of $5,000/per versus $6500 per in the private system.

I'm not for bigger government. I'm for more efficient government...and fairer gov't. If S.S. needs reform and that is certainly debatable...before we move to raising the age...let's simply institute means testing of recipients. In short I'm not a knee jerk in favor of increasing social programs. Root out the waste and fraud and make them fairer.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

~400,000 registered Republicans in Nevada. ~18% voted for Angle, 82% did not.

Posted by: kishorgala | October 13, 2010 5:18 PM
----

Dang. She most be pulling a lot of Democrats and Independents, judging form the polls.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

When conservatives mention character or integrity---things like the sanctity of life---liberals customarily mock them for voting "against their own interests" because they haven't focused exclusively on material things, like most of the liberal underclass do.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:01 PM
===================================

No, we mock you conservatives for your sustained, over the top hypocrisy.

Maybe you enjoy lectures on morality by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Dave Vitter, and John Ensign.

Maybe you're a fool.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

@tao..."Surely you appreciate some good muckraking. What a time honored American tradition that goes all the way back to our Founding Fathers. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I just realized I made a silly math guesstimating error above. Using the % of tax revenues stat ruk cites above, of course, nondefense spending is probably around 125-130% of revenues.

So you've got a bit of a problem, ruk, as my questions have been pointing out.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Why did you change your name, STRF?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 5:42 PM
------

Why don't you change yours? Just think, you could slip in two or three of your screeds anonymously before everyone figured out it was just ole Liam the threadbomber.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! O'Donnell told Coons he's just jealous that he wasn't on SNL : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

I just realized I made a silly math guesstimating error above. Using the % of tax revenues stat ruk cites above, of course, nondefense spending is probably around 125-130% of revenues.

So you've got a bit of a problem, ruk, as my questions have been pointing out.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 7:48 PM
==============================

Republicans created our fiscal problems by cutting revenue. Solution?

Don't elect Republicans.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Look at how the expectations game trapped Gore, when Bush came in to the first debate with very low expectations having been established by the national media.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 6:27 PM
------

I remember it well. Bush really cleaned his clock.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"I'm simply pointing out that as Willie Sutton famously said.."he robs the banks because that's where the money is" I'd look first at our defense spending because that's where the money is!!!"

No, it isn't. You could eliminate the entire defense budget and it would leave half the deficit, roughly $700 billion.

So, say you only cut defense in half. The deficit would still be on the order of $1 trillion.

The money is in the welfare state -- the part that is mainly unconstitutional to begin with and certainly no part of the intended role of the federal government.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

tao:

It seems as if "rukidding7" picks and chooses which time-honored American traditions that go all the way back to our Founding Fathers that he likes (anonymous political speech, not so much ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

You mean she might turn him into a newt?

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010 6:28 PM
------

I hope not. Someone's already turned him into a buffoon. You too.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

I hope not. Someone's already turned him into a buffoon. You too.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 7:57 PM |
====================

Don't quit your day job (assuming you've got one).
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Politico and Boehner display a rather deficient understanding of the Nazi party and the SS. The Schutzstaffel was formed as part of the Nazi party, it was headed by Himmler, its members were chosen based on Nazi ideology of racial superiority, and it implemented the "Final Solution." There hardly can be a uniform MORE "Nazi" than an "SS" uniform. You could argue that a Wehrmacht uniform is not "Nazi," but an SS uniform??? Yeesh!

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 13, 2010 6:47 PM
------

Jehoshophat! Could the country survive having a Speaker who didn't know that?

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans created our fiscal problems by cutting revenue."

Factually false. Revenues are higher than they've ever been.

Our fiscal problem is spending over 3.5 TRILLION dollars or nearly 25% of GDP by the federal government.

Solution: Never elect another Democrat.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who have not been praying for the duty avoiding coward, who has abandoned all those who are serving in harm's way, his new trial date is set for Dec. 14, 2010

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 6:53 PM
----

You're kidding! What's Clinton done now?

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

"Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." Mt5:22

dontletthefiregetya

Posted by: tao9 | October 13, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. Typical hot air. I provided links and you provide your typical bloviating. I pointed out that NOBODY thinks we can eliminate the deficit overnight. The annual deficits under Bush were 500 billion since 2003. Since he left the economy in shambles Obama obviously spent bigtime on the stimulus. The stimulus is not an annual expenditure.

Clinton left Bush a BALANCED BUDGET!!! With entitlement programs!!! Bush ran 500 Billion deficits...the "projected" defense spending for 2011 is between 1 and 1.2 TRILLION...THAT IS AN ANNUAL EXPENDITURE!!
Cut half as you suggest and that's 500 billion...coincidentally the ANNUAL DEFICIT RUN BY G.W. Bush.

Again the first priority is to get our ANNUAL BUDGET BALANCED...then we can work on the pent up debt and begin to pay it down. I think it will require a ten year plan whether it's R's or D's who solve this problem.

50% of ACTUAL TAX DOLLARS annually are currently being spent on military activities when you adjust for all the ancillary costs...including the interest on the debt created by military spending!
You are simply a knee jerk right wing ideologue Q.B. who rarely contributes to any sensible conversation about our nations problems. Why do you bother to post. I'll save you the time. I'll simply type this for you several times a day and we'll hear all we need to know EVERYTHING Q.B. has to offer.

Cut taxes...cut entitlement spending.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Jehoshophat! Could the country survive having a Speaker who didn't know that?

Posted by: Brigade
+++++++++++++++

I know this is difficult, but try this exercise in imagination.

(1) Imagine that Nancy Pelosi says, "Well, that's an SS uniform, but at least it isn't a Nazi uniform."

(2) Imagine conservatives howling in outrage about Pelosi's ignorance of the enemy so many Americans died to defeat in WWII.

Got it?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 13, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Rukidding7 wrote,
"More great thoughts from Fulbright that are still as true today as when he uttered them. . .
Fulbright pointed out that we should lead through example...make our democracy such a shining example that people would want to emulate us...
-------

Uh, you mean THIS J. William Fulbright?

"Fulbright was one of 19 senators who issued a statement titled, "The Southern Manifesto," condemning the 1954 Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education and defending segregation."

Hmmm.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

I actually like a little muckraking...and ruk too.

Both keep things lively.

Posted by: tao9 | October 13, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Don't quit your day job (assuming you've got one).

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010
------

If people like me didn't work, who'd pay the taxes to support freeloading D-baggers like you?

The disclosure I want to see posted is a list of all the names of the infamous 47%. If anyone's in favor of a tax hike---like thunderthighs---I want their hypocrisy on display.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

You are simply a knee jerk right wing ideologue Q.B. who rarely contributes to any sensible conversation about our nations problems. Why do you bother to post. I'll save you the time. I'll simply type this for you several times a day and we'll hear all we need to know EVERYTHING Q.B. has to offer.

Cut taxes...cut entitlement spending.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 8:06 PM
========================

If wingnuts had the facts or the law on their side, they could pound the facts or the law.

Since they don't, they just pound the table.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

"Q.B. Typical hot air. I provided links and you provide your typical bloviating."

You provided a wikipedia link, as if that's a reliable source. But I didn't quibble with your "facts." I simply pointed out the other side of the statistics you cited.

And you of course don't challenge a thing I said, since it was entirely accurate.

"The stimulus is not an annual expenditure."

No matter how you try to slice it or excuse it, Obama has thrown all spending restraint out the window. Non-bailout spending has increased over 20% un two years under this drunken sailor. And the economy is bogged down despite the "stimulus" money down the rat hole.

"the "projected" defense spending for 2011 is between 1 and 1.2 TRILLION...THAT IS AN ANNUAL EXPENDITURE!!"

I've seen no such figures, but, accepting that large projected increase for the sake of argument, it is entirely on Obama's head, along with Nancy and Harry, of course. Why are you complaining about Bush or Republicans, when it's your own party planning to jack defense spending?

"Cut half as you suggest and that's 500 billion...coincidentally the ANNUAL DEFICIT RUN BY G.W. Bush."

Fascinating.

"50% of ACTUAL TAX DOLLARS annually are currently being spent on military activities when you adjust for all the ancillary costs...including the interest on the debt created by military spending!"

Now you've arbitrarily jacked up the figure you yourself gave above. But, as I pointed out above, by the same token we spend around 130% of total revenues on nondefense. On the social and domestic spending you favor.

You just keep proving my case. There is no way we can pay for this welfare state. It is killing our economy and cannot be sustained long term. Defense spending is minor in comparison, and defense spending should be the highest priority. It is not optional.

"You are simply a knee jerk right wing ideologue Q.B. who rarely contributes to any sensible conversation about our nations problems."

Yawn.

"Cut taxes...cut entitlement spending."

And your mantra: raise taxes, cut defense spending. You never say anything different.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

"Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." Mt5:22

dontletthefiregetya


Posted by: tao9 | October 13, 2010
----

LOL. I think thunder's fate was sealed a long time ago.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Imagine conservatives howling in outrage about Pelosi's ignorance of the enemy so many Americans died to defeat in WWII.

Got it?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 13, 2010 8:10 PM
--------

Or better yet, imagine Pelosi saying how she'd been snookered and lied to by the CIA about . . . oh, wait!

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

If wingnuts had the facts or the law on their side, they could pound the facts or the law.

Since they don't, they just pound the table

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010
------

Yes, we've noticed how your Dem candidates are pounding law, facts, and running on their records. NOT. LOL. What a dolt.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

This is one of the most despicable things I've seen a Democrat say yet:

"“For the past week, John Boehner has chosen to remain silent about his embrace of this Nazi enthusiast running for congress, now we know why, it turns out he was financing his congressional bid,” said Ryan Rudominer, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “"

What a nonstory.

Then there's this, above:

" know this is difficult, but try this exercise in imagination.

(1) Imagine that Nancy Pelosi says, "Well, that's an SS uniform, but at least it isn't a Nazi uniform."

(2) Imagine conservatives howling in outrage about Pelosi's ignorance of the enemy so many Americans died to defeat in WWII.

Got it?"

Someone apparently didn't read the (ridiculous) story. The Nazi/SS comment was by an aide to Iott or whatever his name is.

But what else is new. Democrats always call Republicans Nazis. That's how a completely unprincipled party rolls.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama had ZERO SHOVEL READY PROJECTS


It is absolutely amazing how much LYING Obama does.


When will the American People wake up? Democratic strategists today said that Obama's interview indicates that he has already "thrown in the towel" on this year's elections - and he is trying to find someone to blame -


All his major advisors have already left the administration.

So, there is no one left to blame but...... Obama.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Good for Scott Murphy.

My most entertaining read of the day was on FB, where my right wing cousin's daughter posted a powerful rejection of Glenn Beck and all he stands for, and right wingers in general. And the extremes of capitalism. Seems she's been reading Chesterton on distributism.

It was a breath of fresh air. I hope she remains sensible.

Hello to RUK, Liam, Ethan and company. Don't let the real threadbombers drive the good guys off this board. Some people have nothing better to do than to pollute the playground and drive off intelligent discourse. You don't see liberals ruining conservative threads. But some people have no lives.

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | October 13, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

The disclosure I want to see posted is a list of all the names of the infamous 47%. If anyone's in favor of a tax hike---like thunderthighs---I want their hypocrisy on display.

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 8:25 PM
==================================

I believe the Bush tax cuts should expire, as they were designed to do by the Republicans who passed them.

They were a huge mistake, and are the biggest cause of the mess we find ourselves in now.

What's hypocritical about that?

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter." - Dick Cheney

Republicans only pretend to care about deficits when Democrats are in charge of the White House. That's hypocrisy.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

After wading through post after post of Shecky Greene quality one-liners, I have a new appreciation for the easily recognizable double-spaced posts of STRF.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 13, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Brigade, imagine Pelosi saying the CIA lied. Which turned out to be correct. So if conservatives howl with outrage when she is correct (as they did when she said the CIA lied), imagine the crucifixion that would await her if she implied that the "SS" somehow wasn't "Nazi." Fox "News" would devote programming to the history of the Nazi party and the creation of the SS as a unit within the Nazi party, all to show that Nancy Pelosi doesn't know the history of our country's wars and can't be patriotic enough to be Speaker.

But Boehner? IOKIYAR.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 13, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

"But Boehner? IOKIYAR.'

What did Boehner say?

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

"...imagine Pelosi saying the CIA lied. Which turned out to be correct."

Was it ever verified that Pelosi wasn't briefed re: enhanced interrogation?

IIRC that controversy was left way up in the air as to who was zoomin' who.

Posted by: tao9 | October 13, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

IIRC that controversy was left way up in the air as to who was zoomin' who.

Posted by: tao9 | October 13, 2010 9:02 PM
=======================

What's not controversial is which party decided that torture was the new black.

So, tao9, for or against torture? You can call it "enhanced interrogation" if that makes you feel better about yourself.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

I'm curious if anybody thinks that the Republican dude who play acted a Nazi really has Nazi beliefs?

I agree there he displayed some, er, questionable judgement if he'd planned on running for office at a future date.

But is he a Nazi? Or sympathetic to fascist causes?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 13, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Very much against torture.

I'll talk, I'll tell you anything you want if you please stop posting snot here.

Posted by: tao9 | October 13, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Very much against torture.

I'll talk, I'll tell you anything you want if you please stop posting snot here.

Posted by: tao9 | October 13, 2010 9:16 PM
=====================

1) I'm not going to stop posting here.

2) I wonder why you support the Republican party if you oppose torture?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

But is he a Nazi? Or sympathetic to fascist causes?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 13, 2010 9:15 PM
.................

I have not been following the story very closely. HOw often did he dress up in the SS Uniform, and did he really also dress up one of his son's in a similar uniform?

Are there any reports of him having spoken favorably about what Hitler or the Nazi movement was all about?

Are there people who dress up as WW2 Japanese soldiers, and participate in reenactments?

If we knew the answers to those questions, we might be better able to determine if he is a Nazi fan, or merely a goofball with a weird hobby.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1 wrote,
"Yes, Brigade, imagine Pelosi saying the CIA lied. Which turned out to be correct."
-------

Don't taint your soul with lies, bearclaw. Read the following and don't bother furnishing any of the ridiculous spin and misinformation you've been seeing on winger websites.

"Ms. Pelosi has said repeatedly she wasn't told then that the agency had used the technique of waterboarding, or simulated drowning, which critics say is torture. The agency released a document that said Ms. Pelosi had been briefed on the treatment of "high value" detainee Abu Zubaydah, who at the time of the briefing had been waterboarded more than 80 times. Republicans have repeatedly challenged Ms. Pelosi's statement."

"CIA director, and former Clintonista, Leon Panetta said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was told the truth by the CIA in briefings about torture or enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT’s). Panetta stated that it is not the policy of the CIA to “mislead”, as they have been accused by Pelosi."

Posted by: Brigade | October 13, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

tao:

"I'll talk, I'll tell you anything you want if you please stop posting snot here."

Now that got me to laugh.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 13, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

@Kathleen...thanks...sometimes it is frustrating to deal with people who feel more comfortable spending money on bombs that kill innocent woman and children than they do spending on their own fellow Americans who might be in genuine need.

Yes all unfortunates in our country are simply lazy...innocent children and our own brave men and women wasted in futile neocon BS are simply collateral damage.

BTW Bill Maher's political reporter interviewed the Ohio R who parades around in SS gear. The man is NOT a NAZI which Maher and his reporter emphasized several times (imagine that happening on Fox if the guy was a Dem). However the website of the organization that does these reenactments published their admiration for some of the things that the Nazi's accomplished. The guy nor his organization are for the holocaust however the rest of the German effort...not so bad.

The kicker to all of this is that the man told Maher's reporter that he actually got involved with this group because of his son and it was some really good father son bonding. Give new meaning to the term "Fatherland" I guess.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse


Obama said he had "hundreds" of shovel-ready projects - ready to go.


The stimulus is A BIGGER HOAX THAN GLOBAL WARMING.


It is out-of-control what the liberals want to do to this great nation.


WE ARE TAKING OUR NATION BACK !!!


WE ARE TAKING OUR NATION BACK !!!!

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

The Nazis were defeated 65 years ago.


We are still in two wars in the Middle East - and terrorists are still trying to place bombs in this country.


In fact, C-4 military explosives were found in Lower Manhattan just this week -


Get a grip democrats.


You make a big deal about an American in an old uniform - but you seem like you could care less about terrorists trying to kill people.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

STRF You are an idiot who doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Why don't you just do everybody a favor and crawl back into your hole.

The stimulus contained the largest middle class tax cut (NO Q.B. I'M NOT FOR RAISING TAXES...JUST ON THE TOP 2% YOU IDIOT)..our employees each got about 3% more in their paychecks every week thanks to this cut.
This is 3% more than we have been able to afford to provide in a raise...and so the stimulus DID HELP our small business as well as our employees!

That's a freaking FACT BUT YOU IDIOTS ON THE RIGHT SIMPLY DO NOT ACCEPT FACTS YOU BRAINLESS MORONS!!!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Hello to RUK, Liam, Ethan and company. Don't let the real threadbombers drive the good guys off this board. Some people have nothing better to do than to pollute the playground and drive off intelligent discourse. You don't see liberals ruining conservative threads. But some people have no lives.

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | October 13, 2010 8:46 PM
...............

Hello Kathleen Mavourneen.

Don't worry about them. It is almost all in good fun, and I enjoy a bit of the back and forth.

Did you watch the Coons/O'Donnell debate? I caught most of it.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Well it looks like it is going to be a long night here on Plumline, because STRF's case of Explosive Keyboard Diarrhea, has returned with a vengeance.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Warm up the:

In Your Pants!!!

Posted by: tao9 | October 13, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

"That's a freaking FACT BUT YOU IDIOTS ON THE RIGHT SIMPLY DO NOT ACCEPT FACTS YOU BRAINLESS MORONS!!!!!!"

Ya know, for me, it's the six exclamation points that sells this.

As they say, "It's not the steak, it's the sizzle."

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 13, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

rukidding


Numerous economic studies have proven that the recession was over in June 2009 - long before the stimulus could have helped the economy at all.

The democrats ABUSED the stimulus - they treated it like a giant piggy-bank to fund every democratic project and democratic interest group they could think of.


I have seen signs all over the nation - stating that a stimulus project was going on - but NOT ONCE have I seen actual workmen DOING ANYTHING behind or near those signs.


I guess Obama and crew hired SOMEONE to put up the signs - but that is about it.


The country does NOT need a $1.3 Trillion dollar deficit. WHAT in the world makes you think it is a good idea to spend that kind of money.


Seriously - WHAT KIND OF KOOL-AID ARE YOU ON - if you think it is a good idea to spend that kind of money.

Do you even KNOW what the INTEREST on that money is going to be - every year for the REST OF YOUR LIFE - AND THE REST OF YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES???


You are an irresponsible crazy person.

You really are.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Tao,

Listen to this recording from 1919. Imagine what he would sound like, had he today's recording technology available to him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRQasqmKwqM

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Anyone here who would, outside of some significant mental error such as can occur with a stroke or after consuming a bit of under-done potato, expend time in actually READING a post by STRF, that person beyond doubt has not nearly enough to do.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Liam...how did the debate go?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7

The tax cut for most people in the country averaged $20 per month - WHAT is anyone going to do with that?


$20 per month does NOT save the economy - when most of that got spent on Chinese goods.


OK - check that- those tax cuts stimulated the economy - THE CHINESE ECONOMY


Meanwhile - all the money did not grow on a tree - it had to be BORROWED


And the US taxpayers have to pay INTEREST on that money year after year after year.

The democrats WASTED the stimulus money - and Obama pretty much admitted it this week with his "shovel-ready confession" -

Sort of like a "Taxi-cab confession" - but Obama's was more like - I made dozens of speeches telling people we had HUNDREDS of shovel-ready projects -

AND YOU KNOW WHAT - WE HAD NOTHING - WE ALWAYS HAD NOTHING.

Obama should resign. His job performance has gotten way too ridiculous.

The guy has no idea what he is doing, he appears clueless. His ego causes him to make major mistakes.

He just CAN NOT handle the job.


Let go of it. Let go of Obama.


Someday, there will be another BLACK MAN who can actually do the job - not this one.


He might even be a .... oh no.... the horrors of it alllll


he might even be..... a Republican.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell had a serious deer in the headlights moment. The question was what recent Supreme Court decisions do you most disagree with. She was utterly clueless. I'm sure there will be something on her website shortly written by an aide.

Lambs for the slaughter.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 13, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

McWing:

"Ya know, for me, it's the six exclamation points that sells this."

I don't know. I think it was the nuanced shift to all caps 4 words in. Very subtle, and just at the right time. Capitalize "freaking" or fail to capitalize "FACT" and somehow it's persuasive power is lessened. As it is...hugely effective.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 13, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Well Fairlington, besides Citizens United and Bush v Gore, what recent Supreme Court decisions do you most disagree with?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham at 9:56 PM


How about that moment that you realize you are getting freeze from ice cream - and then it gets worse ?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "Laser-based deterrent systems have long been discussed, but are far from reality."

The guy with the lasers gets my vote. A much better use of the money than another preemptive war.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

"A wave...of negatives ads: Media Matters reports that right wing groups have run over 60,000 ads since Aug. 1st..."
---------------------------------------------

...and all they got was this lousy T-shirt.

Posted by: CalD | October 13, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I posted this earlier today, but for those who haven't seen it...


"Where Would You Rather Live?

Would Americans be more comfortable in a more eual society? In a new Harvard-Duke study, analysts gave over 5,000 Americans wealth distribution figures for two unidentified societies, charted left (see link), and asked those surveyed where they would choose to live.

by a 92 to 8 percent margin, Americans prefered Society A, a society ith the distributio of wealth of Sweden. Society B reflects the US wealth distribution"
http://www.openleft.com/diary/20437/the-consensus-for-much-greater-wealth-equality-in-america

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Anyone here who would, outside of some significant mental error such as can occur with a stroke or after consuming a bit of under-done potato, expend time in actually READING a post by STRF, that person beyond doubt has not nearly enough to do."

How would you know unless...er...never mind.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 13, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

If only one could bold and italicize. We can only ponder the nuance lost, the minds changed.

Pity.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 13, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

The money is in the welfare state -- the part that is mainly unconstitutional to begin with and certainly no part of the intended role of the federal government.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 7:56 PM


_________________________

Do you mean the parts of the budget which the democrats JAMMED-PACKED with massive government programs???

Those ?


AND who signs the massive contracts with the unions? Democrats.


So the unions support the democrats in the elections - then the democrats sign contracts with the unions.


AND GET THIS - in many cases - the public doesn't EVEN KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS - they call union negotiations "labor related" - and they hold the talks in secret.

Or the get lawyers to be there - and the DEMOCRATS claim attorney-client priviledge to HIDE THE UNION NEGOTIATIONS.


AND of course, the democrats send the bills for the lawyers to the taxpayers.


ALL UNION CONTRACTS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE BY THE VOTERS -


AND if it fails, the contract is trashed forever, no fall-back procedure to ratify the contract if the voters reject it.


THROW OUT ALL THE UNION CONTRACTS AND START FROM SCRATCH.


ALL OF THEM.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

"NO Q.B. I'M NOT FOR RAISING TAXES...JUST ON THE TOP 2% YOU IDIOT"

I suppose that statement makes sense to liberals.

"This is 3% more than we have been able to afford to provide in a raise..."

You expect us to believe you couldn't afford a 3% raise for employees?

"so the stimulus DID HELP our small business as well as our employees!"

Whether or not that is a fair characterization, the tax cuts obviously were not part of the new spending.

"That's a freaking FACT BUT YOU IDIOTS ON THE RIGHT SIMPLY DO NOT ACCEPT FACTS YOU BRAINLESS MORONS!!!!!!"

I'm guessing you are drunk. I'm just not sure whether that would make you look better or worse.


Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse


Liam...how did the debate go?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 9:58 PM

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

I thought that Coons came across as been in complete command of the facts. He had that certain statesman like quality, that is rare these days. Ms. O'Donnell came stuffed with attack points that she needed to get out, and the format was not allowing her to do so, so she kept trying to avoid answering the questions, and instead kept trying to talk about what she wanted to talk about.

She appeared to have had a huge plate of right wing boiler plate talking points for lunch, and she needed to regurgitate them.

She really got stuck on one question, which both candidates were required to answer:

She was asked to state a recent supreme court decision that she disagreed with. She got that startled deer in the head lights look, and finally said that she could not think of any. Then she did a strange thing; she asked the moderator to to list some of them, so she could pick from them. The moderator said no, you are supposed to provide the answer, so Ms. Donnell rambled on and on about some recent lower court rulings that she did not like, and had to be reminded again, that the question was about the Supreme Court.

Of course Coons had the recent Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate spending in political campaigns, down pat, and he hit it out of the park.

Ms. Donnell appeared to be flustered and rushed her closing statement, even though she went first. She was reading it from notes, but she still flubbed some of it. With regard to the war in Afghanistan she said that we needed to stay there "until we overcame freedom".

From my perspective Coons did not appear to make any slip ups. He refused to take the bait from the moderator, and declined to go after Ms. O'Donnell on the litany of her past silly statements, on the Maher show, etc.

I doubt if she made any headway in closing the gap tonight. All in all; my overall impression of her was that she comes across as being a weaker version of Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

@Scott - I allow for three posts. In 92% of cases, this is adequate as a determinative.

Though entirely coincidental, by the way, that 92% is exactly the same as the earlier percentage noted in my previous post - that is, the percentage of Americans who would prefer to live in Sweden than the US as regards redistributive social arrangements - they just have to be asked this question in a manner that does not include reference to the Alamo.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

"The guy with the lasers gets my vote. A much better use of the money than another preemptive war. "

Only if they are mounted on sharks' heads. That must be the extra $500 billion ruk says Obama is going to spend. I assume for that price we are getting some seriously genetically enhanced sharks.


Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm guessing you are drunk. I'm just not sure whether that would make you look better or worse.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 10:17 PM |
==============

Projection, the art of wingnuts.

Your politicians built our 12 trillion dollar deficit, but still you insist on lying about it.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

he guy with the lasers gets my vote. A much better use of the money than another preemptive war.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 10:11 PM

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

Especially when undergoing corrective vision surgery.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Coons wasn't dressed as a Trotskyite?

Or with a Lenin-hat?


I actually thought Coons was going to show up for the debate all dressed in red.


Christine O'Donnell DID bring her black cat, right?


rukidding, are you blogging while drunk again - you said you were drinking the other day while on this blog.


AA - might be a good idea.


BWI - Blogging While Intoxicated.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER


The question was not fair to Christine O'Donnell, because she probably agreed with Citizen's United


Again -

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


Well Fairlington, besides Citizens United and Bush v Gore, what recent Supreme Court decisions do you most disagree with?


.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

That is where her lack of political experience came into play. A seasoned campaigner would have just replied: None of them. I agree with all their recent decisions.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell


Just might get a significant sympathy vote - Also Toomey will be running a good number of commercials in the Philadelphia market, which are going to help her.


Sestak is slipping - and he doesn't help Coons much.


My feeling is that if Christine O'Donnell can pull within 7 points by election day, she will win.


Harry Reid - Toast


Feingold - Toast


Blumenthal - WILL actually move to Vietnam

Murray - Toast


Conway - Toast


Crist - Toast


Sestak - Toast


WHAT DO YOU HAVE AT TEA PARTY ???

------ TOAST.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Of course, I meant our 12 trillion dollar debt, not deficit.

Built by Republicans, for Republicans.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 13, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

@Liam The deer in the headlights moment came at a point I don't understand...the Supreme Court Question. This is EXACTLY one of the questions that embarrassed Sister Sarah in the now infamous Katie Couric interview.

Of course we know how that interview went for the Wasilla ignoramus SNL simply took it verbatim and had comedy gold...wonder if Kristin Wiig is warming up for this Saturday with a reprise of poor little ole Christine?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

@Ruk: "That's a freaking FACT BUT YOU IDIOTS ON THE RIGHT SIMPLY DO NOT ACCEPT FACTS YOU BRAINLESS MORONS!!!!!!"

Ruk! Really?

I feel like I do when my daughter starts picking up her BFF's bad habits.

So, Ruk, I'm afraid we're not letting you spend the night at Ethan2020's house this weekend.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you rain forest creature. Who ever wins on election day will win.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

I wasn't aware I was a candidate for the U.S. Senate. I'd go for Kelo vs. the city of New London. That was the case that let a municipality take land away from someone and give it to a developer.

BB

[I remembered the case, but had to look up the details. Still puts me one up on CO'D]

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 13, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Of course we know how that interview went for the Wasilla ignoramus SNL simply took it verbatim and had comedy gold...wonder if Kristin Wiig is warming up for this Saturday with a reprise of poor little ole Christine?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 10:38 PM |
..................

SNL might try to do something with it, but she struck me as being too dull a persona to do much with.

Like I mentioned before; had she been a more seasoned politician, she probably would have immediately said: I disagree with none of their recent decisions. In fact I think they made the correct calls on all of them.

It was right there in front of her. She kept trying to think about one she could say she disagreed with, but since it is a Right Wing Court, of course she agreed with them. All she had to do, was say so.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

I watched the Coons/O'Donnell debate. Christine did better than I expected, but that was a pretty low bar. At least she didn't wink. I thought Christine did better than Mrs. Palin in her debate with Biden. She better spoken, for one thing.

She definitely got caught a couple of times making statements she couldn't back up. The supreme court was one and there was at least one other example where she said she would put something on her web site. I'm surprised she didn't have an answer to the Supreme Court question, since that criticism been around on the internet for some time.

Coons definitely exuded competence and experience. He helped himself when he talked about his pastoring work. I think he and the questioners looked like the grownups and Christine looked like the teenager. There were a few times when she would interrupt "yes you did...yes, you did say that...". That made her appear even younger and less statesmanlike.

I'll give Christine credit for chutzpah. She's got her talking points, and it appears she doesn't worry too much if she can't really back them up with data. She seems to think that someone saying something is equivalent to proof. But she gave as good as she got. Gutsy.

Of course, Coons won the debate hands down. But Christine might get some points for guts. And she might get a little sympathy. There are always people who identify with the underdog, I've learned to my surprise.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 13, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

FAIRLINGTON

Still waiting for you to answer the question on the Supreme Court - aside from Citizens United and Bush v. Gore - name a case you disagree with.


The thing is - most people in Delaware probably can't name one either -

Christine O'Donnell is going to get a massive sympathy vote. No person should have to go through what she has.


The democrats seem to have forgotten that Congressmen and Senators are supposed to represent the PEOPLE.


They are not in Washington simply to install a far-left agenda, spend money - and borrow.


The liberals have LOST all sight of what government is supposed to be -


ALL registered democrats should have to pay for Obama's debt - ALL the interest - just send them a BILL for the rest of their lives -


And everyone else should pay zero.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Liamaleen,

Just got back from youtube. Had no idea there were so many extant recordings. Some guy had JM singing DonGiovanni!

Grand.

Thanks, man.

Posted by: tao9 | October 13, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Associate Press

Reports say that Christine O'Donnell twinkled her nose several times during the debate - unnerving Coons who brought a hammer and sickle to the debate.


Yes, Christine did wear black, she did have a black cat with her - and she did leave on a broom.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

What is the name of that girl in the movie: Election? Is it Tracy Flick? My 70 year old memory sometimes struggles to recall such details. Anyway; Christine came across like that character, but without the far more youthful sparkle and certainty. She used to have more of that, when she was appearing on the Bill Maher shows.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Bill Maher helped Christine O'Donnell -


Everyone knows Bill Maher is trying to be mean to her.

And the thing is - the tape is from 10 years ago. She goes on his show - and this is how he acts now.


AND Bill Maher tried to BLACKMAIL HER - he said - come on the show or I will release more tapes - that is wrong.

I don't think Bill Maher gets points from anyone for this -


Christine O'Donnell is going to get a second look from people - the media has not been kind - and they have been over-board.

In contrast, after Obama - who wants a BEARDED MARXIST in the Senate - e

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Liamaleen,

Just got back from youtube. Had no idea there were so many extant recordings. Some guy had JM singing DonGiovanni!

Grand.

Thanks, man.

Posted by: tao9 | October 13, 2010 10:57 PM |

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

Your very welcome. It is amazing stuff.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"that is, the percentage of Americans who would prefer to live in Sweden than the US as regards redistributive social arrangements"

Actually, no, that is not what the study showed. The study asked people about their preferences regarding the distribution of wealth. It did not ask them if they preferred redistributive policies in order to attain such a distribution.

But, in any event, for people who do prefer such redistributive policies, I highly recommend they move to a place called, strangely enough, Sweden. A bit depressing in the winter, what with the lack of sun light and all, but a lovely place nonetheless, and with ready-made policies to their liking already in existence without the hassle of having to actually get a reluctant population to vote for them.

BTW, any idea on the emigration stats from the US to Sweden and vice-versa?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 13, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

I know of one Swedish Immigrant who came to America, made a quick fortune and then returned home. In fact; to steal a line from David Letterman; she was the leading money winner on the PGA tour, this year.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse


Bill Maher helped Christine O'Donnell -


Everyone knows Bill Maher is trying to be mean to her.

And the thing is - the tape is from 10 years ago. She goes on his show - and this is how he acts now.


AND Bill Maher tried to BLACKMAIL HER - he said - come on the show or I will release more tapes - that is wrong.

I don't think Bill Maher gets points from anyone for this -


Christine O'Donnell is going to get a second look from people - the media has not been kind - and they have been over-board.

In contrast, after Obama - who wants a BEARDED MARXIST in the Senate - e

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Proposition: Let us put America up for sale.

Reasoning: The corporate entities who have interests here and wish to grow those interests are now spending billions in order to achieve that growth through effecting electoral results which will better permit them to write America's legislation to their taste (a commonplace already, of course) and to stop any legislation arising from other interests which they deem unhelpful to them. Citizens, for example.

There's no real problem in any of the above, of course, as this is the way in which capitalism works when freed from smothering constraints. Further, as the people involved are at the very top because they merit that position - that's how they got there - they are our betters.

Is there a negative? Yes. The billions being spent to place agreeable candidate in place is going, almost all of it, to other larger corporations in advertising and media. In other words, we are allowing these people to effectively purchase the nation but in doing so, they pay themselves rather than us. What do we get out of this transaction? As they write the tax laws, not that. We get Reality TV.

So. What we really must demand is that all monies raised for political campaign ads and campaigns be tossed into a large kitty and then divided up between us. We could have one last government bureaucrat write the checks and then we'd shoot him. Everyone would have a bunch of fresh cash and we'd be led by the very same people as now anyway.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Bill Maher should be deported back to Kenya, and his birth certificate should be given to Dinesh D'Souza, so that he can run for President Of the USA.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Bernie,

Since it appears to be up to you and I to save America, I want to do my part. With that in mind;

A Modest Proposal,

On how to solve the undocumented immigrants problem.

Instruct all of them to declare that if they were to become citizens of the USA, they would be inclined to vote for Republicans.

The next time Republicans regain control in Washington, they would quickly grant citizenship to every one of them.

There you go. I have done my bit for the country. You're welcome America!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 11:31 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

Yes, it's Tracy Flick. That is an interesting observation. Christine IS too old to be the ingenue even though she comes across that way. She still looked a good twenty years younger than anyone else sitting at that table. That was a striking image (to me).

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 13, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Proposition: Let us put America up for sale."

Us? A little presumptuous of you, my foreign friend.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 13, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama's policies are STILL dragging the economy down.

The health care plan is still hurting hiring.


The deficit spending is STILL at all-time levels.


AND YET, the liberals still want to chit-chat about something that some Tea Party person said ten years ago.


This election is about the FUTURE

Are we going to get the economy moving again - REMOVE OBAMA'S DRAGS ON THE ECONOMY -


AND STOP THE DEFICIT SPENDING


Or are we going to continue down Obama's path to complete economic disaster ????

YOU DECIDE WHAT KIND OF AMERICA YOU WANT

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

She appears to be stuck back in her late teen years. She still tries to bluster her way through subjects that she really has very little real knowledge off.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

I am happy that Obama decided to nationalize the election.


I just proves how incompetent he is.


Hold some more rallies Obama - make some more stupid statements - keep going - it just proves what we have been saying - keep going Obama.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

I am happy that Obama decided to nationalize the election.


I just proves how incompetent he is.


Hold some more rallies Obama - make some more stupid statements - keep going - it just proves what we have been saying - keep going Obama.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 13, 2010 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell did a fantastic job tonight at the debate

She certainly us qualified to handle the position


I think it was inappropriate to have a camera behind the candidates. When has there ever been a debate in American history with such camera angles ???

It is a new low for CNN


Posted by: Classic777 | October 14, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell did a fantastic job tonight at the debate

She certainly us qualified to handle the position


I think it was inappropriate to have a camera behind the candidates. When has there ever been a debate in American history with such camera angles ???

It is a new low for CNN


Posted by: Classic777 | October 14, 2010 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell did a fantastic job tonight at the debate

She certainly us qualified to handle the position


I think it was inappropriate to have a camera behind the candidates. When has there ever been a debate in American history with such camera angles ???

It is a new low for CNN


Posted by: Classic777 | October 14, 2010 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell did a fantastic job tonight at the debate

She certainly us qualified to handle the position


I think it was inappropriate to have a camera behind the candidates. When has there ever been a debate in American history with such camera angles ???

It is a new low for CNN


Posted by: Classic777 | October 14, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Major brands always give out their popular brand samples (in a way it is similar to coupons) I use these guys to get mine http://bit.ly/aJWSXv enjoy your samples

Posted by: donnaadamo | October 14, 2010 6:36 AM | Report abuse

"I thought Christine did better than Mrs. Palin in her debate with Biden."

She must have done well, then, because Palin destroyed Biden, although it was more like Biden destroyed himself with all his laughable gaffes and lies. Of course, the media wasn't about to point them out, but they were real enough. So if O'Connell did better than Palin, she had a pretty good night.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 14, 2010 7:00 AM | Report abuse

As far as targetting the Chamber, perhaps liberals should consider a boycott of its members, along the lines of the Color of Change campaign against Fox and Glenn Beck. They do not have to worry about Apple.

Posted by: rhallnj | October 14, 2010 7:12 AM | Report abuse

@Liam - Let us don coonskin caps, pick up fife and drum, and march together into the dying light.

@Scott - I have presumed. Perhaps not excellently but I am recently here and so haven't quite gotten the hang of how you guys do presuming with such panache.

@Classic - some patience in waiting to see your riveting submissions made visible would be, perhaps, in order.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 7:13 AM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/opinion/14oren.html?_r=1&hp

Shorter Michael Oren...

We will grind them down into powerlessness, submission and shame, take their land for ourselves, and then (citing the sacredness of international laws and standards) do more of all the above because we can. Oh, and it's all their fault.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 7:23 AM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

She appears to be stuck back in her late teen years. She still tries to bluster her way through subjects that she really has very little real knowledge off.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 11:45 PM
-----

I've noticed that. But I still think 12Bar is a nice person.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

You owe a correction on your item about Boehner and his PAC's contribution to Iott's campaign.

You phrased it to suggest that Boehner/his PAC are not requesting return of the money "because" of the kind of uniform Iott was wearing. The article you linked doesn't say that at all. It only mentions that an aide to Iott made that distinction in saying there is no reason for Boehner to request a refund.

As you can see from the comments above, at least several lefty commenters appear to have been misled (or perhaps wanted to be misled) in precisely this way to believe Boehner made this distinction. You should post an update correcting this item, since it is plainly incorrect and misleading.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 14, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "Actually, no, that is not what the study showed. The study asked people about their preferences regarding the distribution of wealth. It did not ask them if they preferred redistributive policies in order to attain such a distribution."

Bingo. I actually prefer a more even distribution of golden eggs, myself, but I don't think killing the goose that lays them is the way to get it, either.

"But, in any event, for people who do prefer such redistributive policies, I highly recommend they move to a place called, strangely enough, Sweden. A bit depressing in the winter, what with the lack of sun light and all, but a lovely place nonetheless, and with ready-made policies to their liking already in existence without the hassle of having to actually get a reluctant population to vote for them."

Heck, and you can get pretty close to it, in America. While there are still greater disparities of wealth, many of the policies that lead to the desired wealth redistribution are on display in California. If you want to live in a place that represents a high degree of liberal governance, you've got California (and some select cities are about as far to the left as a municipality can get). You've got Vermont. You've got Michigan. Especially Detroit. America has several of it's own liberal utopias, right here on American soil. No need to move to Sweden. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 14, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

qb: "She must have done well, then, because Palin destroyed Biden, although it was more like Biden destroyed himself with all his laughable gaffes and lies."

I thought Palin did all right, but I could almost see the vice-like grip of McCain's Palin-hostile handlers on her throughout. Biden did make some gaffes, but he actually did better than I thought he would (given that this is the same guy who thought our reaction to 9/11 should be to just write a $100 million dollar check to Iran, no strings attached).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 14, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Shorter Michael Oren..."

I'm curious, Bernie...do you have a special Jew Decoder Ring that allows you to know what they really mean despite what they say, or is it strictly a function of your overactive imagination?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 14, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

As far as targetting the Chamber, perhaps liberals should consider a boycott of its members, along the lines of the Color of Change campaign against Fox and Glenn Beck. They do not have to worry about Apple.

Posted by: rhallnj | October 14, 2010 7:12 AM | Report abuse

I like this idea.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 14, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Kevin,

I wouldn't disagree that the McCain handlers had Palin off balance and were basically undermining her all along, but Biden did more than make some gaffes in their debate. He made gaffe after gaffe, and not just small ones but howlers. If you go back and fact check his (always pompously delivered) claims, it is like a nonstop comedy routine, from the nonexistent restaurant to the wrong article of the constitution to complete mangling of mideast history. The funniest parts were when he tried to claim Palin was making gaffes (e.g., about the Consitution) when she was right and he was wrong.

He did "better" than might have been expected, imo, only because he lacks the least bit of self awareness and capacity for shame. Much like the standard lefty who thinks of him as a "statesman."

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 14, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/the_morning_plum_111.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 14, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

"I like this idea."

I do, too, and I think it should go both ways. Business should boycott all liberals and Democrats. They shouldn't be allowed to have jobs or buy products.

Let them go off and form their own fairer, more egalitarian economy where wealth is spread around instead of created. Their entitlement mentality tends to lead to laziness and indolence anyway, so they are not exactly ideal employees. Let them work for George Soros, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Michael Moore, James Cameron or one of their other sugar daddies. Or they can just go form a food coop or something or work for Obama Battery Corp. Ethan says that is a huge growth industry.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 14, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Scott, from the ramparts of the crumbling Alamo spoke:
"Actually, no, that is not what the study showed. The study asked people about their preferences regarding the distribution of wealth. It did not ask them if they preferred redistributive policies in order to attain such a distribution."

Kevin, on hearing 'under the B, 92", realizing he's just won a ZipBang toaster:
"Bingo. I actually prefer a more even distribution of golden eggs, myself, but I don't think killing the goose that lays them is the way to get it, either."

You boys have closed this one together quite nicely. Shall I turn to the modern phrase, epistem.... no, I won't bother.

Sweden, we'll note, is not a goose expired. Nor Canada. Nor other such nations with a rather more agreeable (as 92% might put it) set of social arrangements.

America is what its citizens agree it is. If citizens agree that blacks are or ought to be equal, that there ought to be a minimum wage, that all citizens ought to have access to affordable health care, that the few very wealthy and powerful ought not to determine the fates of millions of others less fortunate, that redistributive policies already in place ought to be further expanded, then that is what becomes "American". Or shall we return to segregation and lynching for Saturday night fun? Shall we return to a full absence of worker safety laws?

Scott's implicit argument here is that citizens would be less likely to adopt policies necessary to bring them to a social arrangement they would prefer (by 92% to 8%) if the words "commie" or "socialist" are attached. And that's surely so.

Thus, the moral of the story - the very interesting (though amoral) success of those who have wealth and power to convince citizens in the US that the social arrangement they actually want (by 92 to 8) is unnatural, immoral, un-American and not really what they really want after all.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - It's a Likud decoder ring. I got it from Ha'aretz. It's held up very well and I can certainly recommend one for yourself.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"America is what its citizens agree it is."

Which isn't a very useful axiom when citizens disagree with each other.

"Or shall we return to segregation and lynching for Saturday night fun?"

A complete non-sequitur. Very weird indeed.

"Scott's implicit argument here is..."

...the same as his explicit argument. The study doesn't show what you claimed it showed. I guess you are acknowledging that fact, since you've chosen to dissemble rather than dispute it directly.

Now, as for your implicit, and quite nearly explicit, argument...Americans are too stupid to know and/or too easily manipulated to get the policies that they really want. It's a theory, I suppose.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 14, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Re decoder rings etc... here's a piece by Ari Shavitz making the (more tempered than Oren's) case re Israel/Palestine. Shavitz is a very smart and balanced fellow...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-core-of-the-conflict-1.318988

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

"Thus, the moral of the story - the very interesting (though amoral) success of those who have wealth and power to convince citizens in the US that the social arrangement they actually want (by 92 to 8) is unnatural, immoral, un-American and not really what they really want after all."

Good stuff, Bernie.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 14, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - citizens of any nation (or members of any group) are never in total concord. America has never been so, rather obviously. Yet we expect you'd hold that the term "American" means something other than possession of a piece of paper.

The example of America's history with blacks, lack of labor laws, women having right to vote, etc - all quite unimaginable now other than to some Tea Party types - is a simple observation on how "America" or "true Americanness" is an evolving concept or set of concepts. Blacks and whites in the same swimming pool was previously considered by some to be a violation of true Americanness. This is not complicated.

Question to you. Do you believe that the American population is, in any serious or measurable or real sense, different from any other population?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "Sweden, we'll note, is not a goose expired. Nor Canada. Nor other such nations with a rather more agreeable (as 92% might put it) set of social arrangements."

Well, not yet, as they say. However, I grant you, there are clearly ways of redistributing wealth that doesn't turn a country into a 3rd world nation, although one might expect some of that wealth simply to reallocated to friendlier climes. If I were a Swedish plutocrat, I might well declare my residence to be in the Caymans or in Hong Kong.

Plus, the presumption that the American left won't take a hatchet to the poor goose's head in order to solve the problems of inequitable distribution simple because Canada and Sweden did not is hopeful, but I, perhaps, am more pessimistic on the front.

"Scott's implicit argument here is that citizens would be less likely to adopt policies necessary to bring them to a social arrangement they would prefer (by 92% to 8%) if the words 'commie' or 'socialist' are attached."

Well, if you suggest that it will be done by government mandate, and that politicians will be picking whom to take from and who to give to, I think people might not be as enthused about that, for not entirely outrageous or immoral reasons. You don't have to call it communist or socialist, you simply have to candidly explain the mechanism by which the goal will be achieved.

"Or shall we return to segregation and lynching for Saturday night fun? Shall we return to a full absence of worker safety laws?"

I don't think anybody would recommend that, or that it is, in fact, apropos of anything being discussed. Unless the goal is to make sure that, in any even mild debate regarding issues with a conservative, you feel an obligation to get Nazis or lynching in--you know, to help the poor unwashed who might be observing the discussion understand who is really the bad guy in this scenario. /snark

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 14, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "Question to you. Do you believe that the American population is, in any serious or measurable or real sense, different from any other population?"

Both latitudinally and longitudinally, yes. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 14, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

@wb - Scott's a little bit stuck by his ideology but there's a very tricky thing in here that Isaiah Berlin wrote about (I recommend a printout of this essay).

See the full paragraph on page 374 beginning "This paradox has beeen..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=ve_5ewpc8pMC&pg=PT387&lpg=PT387&dq=%22This+paradox+has+been+often+exposed.%22&source=bl&ots=m3SLwPeHK2&sig=43ibtSCNcvliSDtf2JeUCm5ULkw&hl=en&ei=Ywy3TOjfNIr2swPCxtCjCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22This%20paradox%20has%20been%20often%20exposed.%22&f=false

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin - Ya think yer really funny, doncha?

I was going to ask you earlier. Have you read from Rawl's Theory of Justice?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin - I have no idea whether Swedish plutocrats have means to hide income. Can't speak to it.

Re you pessimism on the American left's possible future behaviors, I really don't share it and don't understand why you would think the dynamics different here than elsewhere. The left in Europe, particularly, is much more established than here and the entire political spectrum is further left than the US (let's ignore Italy so that my murderous urges towards their present leader doesn't blossom this fine morning).

Re redistribution and mechanisms for it... Scott, or those who argue his position, have a clear moral point in protesting when the community decides to take from someone affluent and give that to others. I won't get into this here but the obvious response is that here, as is pretty much always the case, there are other moral principles in play as well and that sorting them out or weighting them against each other is never easy.

But the mechanisms have been put in place elsewhere in various shapes and arrangements and by consistent polling of citizen happiness with their systems, citizens approve (an irony here is that I think those citizens elsewhere tend to contrast their situation with that of America and that if America went strongly towards social democrat arrangements, that contrast would be lost).

In the US, there would be great protest from certain sectors (just as we see now) against movement towards such a social arrangement. Where you and I might disagree is on why this is to be expected. One can point to the pioneering/frontier nature of America's formation and other historical features which make it unique but I'm unconvinced these are critical even if contributory. My apprehension of the problem is similar to that of Dewey, "Politics is the shadow cast by business."

Re lynching... no attempt to slander in that. Merely to take a shiny example of how a culture can change in how it thinks about itself, about how it is defined, about what is can be proud of and ashamed of. As I just said to Scott, it was to make the point that cultures are in flux and who they "really" are is never a fixed thing.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "@Kevin - Ya think yer really funny, doncha?"

At least twice as funny as I actually am.

"I was going to ask you earlier. Have you read from Rawl's Theory of Justice?"

I must confess my ignorance. Unless this the the Lou Rawls' Theory of Justice. To whit: "You'll never find, as long as you live, someone who loves you tender like I do".

I'm very familiar with the Lou Rawls' Theory of "You're Gonna Miss My Lovin'". ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 14, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

"The PCCC and Democracy for America are vowing 500,000 calls for their chosen candidates by election day."
---------------------------------------------

It's about time they did something productive.

Posted by: CalD | October 14, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

bernie:

"Question to you."

Interesting. Despite your steadfast refusal to answer the questions I put to you, you still feel comfortable requesting me to answer yours. Lucky for you, I suppose, I am not comfortable avoiding questions by claiming that the questioner isn't open to having his mind changed....even though that is at least as true with regard to you as it is to me.

"Do you believe that the American population is, in any serious or measurable or real sense, different from any other population?"

To the extent that culture can be measured, sure.

Now, question to you: In what way is what writers at NR do any different at all to what Greg does here, such that NR is engaging in propaganda but Greg is not?

"Scott's a little bit stuck by his ideology..."

But Bernie, of course, is entirely free of his ideology.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 14, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

"Both polls, interestingly, are of likely voters."

I don't see why this is interesting. In both cases there is a statistical tie. If both are truly polling likely voters you would expect results like this, and both outcomes are equally valid.

In other words, the race is too close to call, and both polls testify to that.

Posted by: akaoddjob | October 14, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company