Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Harry Reid and Sharron Angle have their big debate tonight at 9 p.m. eastern, and Chris Cillizza has a good curtain-raiser telling you why it matters and what to look for.

* Big boost for libs? In a move that could help Dems in a race that's hugely important to liberal groups, GOP House candidate Charlie Bass of New Hampshire -- who's being challenged by liberal darling Ann McLane Kuster -- is now under scrutiny for work he may have done to benefit a company in which he owned stock.

The Hill reports that when Bass was previously in Congress, he may have arranged a meeting with then President George W. Bush for officials at a wood pellet company, after buying at least $500,000 in shares in that company.

Bass claims his financial disclosure forms were botched. But Common Cause spokesperson Mary Boyle says it may be trouble: "Based on what has been reported, if Mr. Bass is elected to Congress, it appears these allegations certainly merit investigation by the House Ethics Committee."The Dem candidate is a lib hero because she defeated Joe Lieberman's 2004 presidential campaign manager in the primary.

* Huh. National Dems are apparently ignoring smug inside-game commentators: Mike Shear reports that they've concluded that the attack on secret cash funding elections is working, and they plan to intensify it.

* John Cole says that for all their bravado, the Chamber and Republicans secretly worry the Dem attacks are working, and urges Dems to press on.

* But: The Chamber is really, really psyched to have Glenn Beck's support.

* This will drive some discussion: Tim Dickinson says disappointed lefties are wrong: Obama's is a historic presidency.

* Say hello to Senator-elect Marco Rubio? National Republicans are pulling cash out of Florida because they're confident he's on track to victory.

* Jonathan Cohn notes one of my pet points: How perverse it is that Nancy Pelosi and House Dems may end up taking the brunt of voter punishment for what are really the Senate's failings.

* David Broder acknowledges that the Tea Party's impact on the GOP is far more serious than anything happening to Dems, and may be the real cause of our hyper-polarization, which suggests establishment Washington may be starting to come around to this idea in earnest.

* Jed Lewison imagines the debate exchange Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell should have had.

* James Fallows says O'Donnell may be more dangerous than the 'Cuda herself.

* Why did MTV ask participants at today's town hall with Obama to ask the president "light" questions? Do we really need to know whether he wears boxers or briefs?

* Twisted attack of the day: A Newsmax writer is now attacking Eric Cantor and demanding he be removed from the GOP leadership because ... he strongly denounced that Nazi-impersonating House GOP candidate.

* And the headline of the day, from Jonah Goldberg:

Obama's Arrogance Starting to Get Noticed

They've been trying this attack since the McCain-Palin "celeb" ads more than two years ago, so it's about time it finally took hold!

By Greg Sargent  | October 14, 2010; 6:28 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, Happy Hour Roundup, House Dems, House GOPers, Political media, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Yes, voters do care about secret cash funding elections!
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

The Economy is the issue.

Obama continues to nationalize the election - which calls into question his judgement and ability to govern.

Clearly, Obama is mismanaging the democratic party as well as the nation.


The voters will not care about that.


The voters will be PRIMARILY CONCERNED with Obama's horrible job performance on the economy.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 14, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

So, I guy who wrote a ridiculous and stupid book, whose only gainful employment has been due to think tank money laundering punditry and whose mother undoubtedly held his hand through all his Ivy League troubles is our guide for Obama's arrogance?

Let's review Jonah Goldberg's accomplishments for the public good, shall we? Or, even the local good, outside his own revenue stream:

(crickets)

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 14, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

Are you EVER going to comment on the $25 million in UNDISCLOSED money Obama's 2008 campaign received?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 14, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Republicans break the economy, raise the national debt, and eliminate jobs.

Republicans care only about the welfare of the wealthiest one or two percent of Americans, and that issue should be nationalized.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 14, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Greg, any comment on why CNN would televise the Delaware Senate debate last night when the GOP candidate is down by so many points?

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 14, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

MICHELE OBAMA MAY HAVE VIOLATED ELECTION LAWS


Michele Obama after voting today in Chicago - could have violated Illinois law by "electioneering" in a polling place.


Illinois law prohibits electioneering within a certain number of feet of all polling places - and in many cases that footage is actually MARKED BY CONES.


In any event, Illinois Officials have decided to allow Michele Obama to leave the State - while it is determined if she should be thrown in jail.


Unfortunately for her, the whole thing is on video.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 14, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

A Federal Judge has allowed the health care lawsuit to proceed.


It should be struck down - forever.


.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 14, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Car czar fined $5 million:

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

Posted by: sbj3 | October 14, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

I mean, at least some small amount of lip service like "The FEC should also look into Obama's undisclosed millions." But, no, instead I guess IOKIYAD.

P.S. to FairlingtonBlade: at least YOU pretend to care about undisclosed monies flowing into both sides of the aisle.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 14, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

" Jonathan Cohn notes one of my pet points: How perverse it is that Nancy Pelosi and House Dems may end up taking the brunt of voter punishment for what are really the Senate's failings."

Maybe voting on and passing all that legislation is the reason, versus the Senate punting.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 14, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

TERRORISTS MAY BE RUNNING WILD AFTER OBAMA TRIED TO IGNORE THE THREAT


In another stunning reversal, the Obama administration has now admitted that Pakistani Taliban may have TERRORIST SLEEPER CELLS RUNNING WILD IN THE US.


Despite Obama's attempts to deny it, these terrorists are MOTIVATED BY THEIR ISLAMIC BELIEFS -


The Mosque at Ground Zero IS A PROPAGANDA TOOL FOR THE ENEMY - IT IS A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.


Obama is SOFT on terrorism.


Obama has NO IDEA what he is doing.


Let's just hope this terrorist has trouble setting off a bomb like the last two terrorists.
.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 14, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

http://www.mediaite.com/online/must-see-texas-councilman-gives-emotional-it-will-get-better-speech-for-gay-teens/

Posted by: sbj3 | October 14, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"John Cole says that for all their bravado, the Chamber and Republicans secretly worry the Dem attacks are working, and urges Dems to press on."

Oh yes! If they weren't alarmed there wouldn't be the concerted attempts to push back.

This is a critically important issue. It isn't just a matter of massive corporate funding to influence elections, or just a matter of foreign influence in the mix.

Perhaps more basically, it could lead to a real and legitimate populist uprising rather than the faux variety constructed to redirect attention away from the folks who are shoving it to the middle and lower class.

As Media Matters notes today, Glenn Beck is actually encouraging his audience to send donations to the Chamber of Commerce.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201010140032

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Re earlier discussions on the lousy performance of US medical delivery vs other western nations as measured by life expectancy, Yglesias has a great post today showing that this poor performance holds true for those at 65...
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/life-expectancy-at-65/

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

As Media Matters notes today, Glenn Beck is actually encouraging his audience to send donations to the Chamber of Commerce.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201010140032

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 6:50 PM |
===========================

As noted in the comments, one wonders what Beck sponsor Goldline thinks of Beck encouraging his dupes to squander their cash on an outfit that wants to offshore their jobs, rather than squander it on overpriced gold coins.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 14, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell refused to say that she would lie to the Nazis, to save the lives of some Jewish people.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 14, 2010
-------

Hardly the position you'd expect from someone who wants to follow in Joe Biden's footsteps. The proper response for a Biden replacement would be, "I'll lie to anyone and everyone, anytime, anyplace, and for any reason whatsoever.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Why has Obama been PROTECTING THE BIG BANKS

Obama has been warned numerous times about the foreclosure crisis - and Obama has chosen to do nothing for over a year and a half.

Same with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


So Obama has been PROTECTING THE BIG BANKS THE WHOLE TIME.


Ethan - can you tell us why?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 14, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

The MSM are utterly spineless in their inability to call a spade a spade.

Posted by: filmnoia | October 14, 2010
------

Nothing like putting your racist bigotry front and center.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I join with those who have opined that the Repubs should be ashamed for fielding candidates like O'Donnell. That will not bother Mitch McConnell. He will embrace a yellow dog if it means support for Majority Leader of the Senate

Posted by: lifestory | October 14, 2010
-------

Not sure how that would work since a yellow dog is already Majority Leader of the Senate.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama is soft on terrorists.

Obama is soft on the big banks.

What good is he?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 14, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Huh. Good for the National Dems ignoring smug commentators. Wish they would do it more often.

And Jonah Goldberg is a twit who has no business talking about arrogance, not to mention the fact that he doesn't know that "ego" is not necessarily a negative word.

Posted by: carolanne528 | October 14, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Look I would NEVER under any circumstance vote for Palin. However I respect how she made her career. She had absolutely no advantages in life, money, power, influence, nothing. Everything she has, she got on her own. She was obviously a bad choice for Veep, but that was McCain's fault not hers.

Compare that with Hillary who has never achieved ANYTHING in life on her own and turned out to be exactly what she said she wasn't some little Tammy Wynette!


Posted by: 54465446 | October 14, 2010
-------
and then ...
-------
The fact is that she got elected to the Senate as the wife of a sitting president, and that is the ONLY reasson. In fact had Guiliani not gotten caught with his hand (or something else) in the cookie jar, so to speak, at the wrong time he would have beaten her.

We are talking about a woman who is so poltically inept that she blew an absolute certainty as the Democratic nominee for president.

Exactly what are her accomplishments as Sec State, or in the Senate for that matter?

Funny when you ask people about her achievements and qualifications they always bring up law school at Yale but maybe there is good reason, since that was the last time she did anything on her own.

Hillary Clinton is the quintessential "wife of", the ultimate coattail rider!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 14, 2010
-------

LOL. Truer words were never spoken. Rukidding7 got so lathered up over these comments that Hillary can probably feel the slobbers dripping from her backside.

Don't let leichtman1 see these posts or he'll be on the way to the emergency room having suffered a stroke.


Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

"In the next period class we will go over the poof theory of how we all got here"

Posted by: dkeller1 | October 14, 2010 4:07 PM
-------

Why don't you tell us everything you know about how we got here, scissorbill. That should take about as long as it takes to say, "poof."

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

Mike Shear is probably one of those people who don't understand why the Dems are in trouble in the first place. No one who is voting Rep or independent is going to change their mind because of foreign money. To think otherwise is navel gazing at the best, lunacy at the worst.

They will answer the poll question, yes when asked if they want to know who is funding the ad but it won't change their vote in any way. When things go bad at the polls, the people who are pushing this as a winning message will say either:

1) we ran out of time (losers always say this if only the election was a week later!)

2) the voters were too stupid to see how important foreign money is.

My party refused to vote on an issue that had relevance to every American, taxes, and instead pushes an issue that means nothing to the average American pocketbook today, donors.

Good luck with that!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 14, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade: "Hardly the position you'd expect from someone who wants to follow in Joe Biden's footsteps. The proper response for a Biden replacement would be, 'I'll lie to anyone and everyone, anytime, anyplace, and for any reason whatsoever.'"

Actually, given his reaction after 9/11, he would probably have suggested that America write Hitler a $10 million dollar check, no strings attached, and a good faith gesture. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 14, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

For any lurkers who have never before heard that Obama failed to disclose $25,289,671 of his 2008 campaign donations (big surprise, given the support he got from the lamestream media):

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

In addition, over $5 million was returned to (potential) foreign donors and $15,611,429 was deemed to be "incomplete" disclosure, without sufficient information to tell one way or the other. In total, over $103 million was "Uncoded" so we may never know the truth:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 14, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

I'd call COD a career failed politician. Does that work for you? And I'm looking forward to her running again in 2012, so she can extract more $$ from the wallets of you poor deluded saps.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 14, 2010
-------

LOL. She sure won't have to worry about getting money from bustouts like you. Why don't you go cook some more meth or maybe steal some hubcaps.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

@Greg - That column by Broder tempts me to imagine he lives on the same planet as myself after all. But the temptation is mild.

"This is not ultimately a radical nation, and those Republicans who are in love with radical notions of remaking the society to fit their own philosophy will have to be brought back in touch with reality."

Aside from underlining that Broder seems to value the status quo of Washington above most everything else, there's a Rip Van Winkle aspect here that's simply boggling. Where the hell has this man been for the last two decades?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

@54465446ish: "They will answer the poll question, yes when asked if they want to know who is funding the ad but it won't change their vote in any way."

Agreed. I think the money should be disclosed, I think we should know who is paying for political ads, and I certainly don't see sending donations to the Chamber of Commerce (really, Glenn, out of all the things folks could be giving money to?), but I'm not going to vote against Republicans based on the lack of campaign transparency.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 14, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Expect even more low-class personal attacks from CODfish in the remaining two debates.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 14, 2010
-----

The irony, the irony. From someone who was obviously hiding behind the door when the brains were passed out.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Addendum - and we'd expect that Broder would be hesitant to suggest (actually he'd be indignant at the suggestion) that "radical notions of remaking the society to fit their own philosophy" describes Reagan. But of course it does and it is why, in great part, he is revered by the modern right.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are pro-life, until the children of the poor are born.

Christine O'Donnell said last night that she is against abortion, even when the woman has been inseminated by a rapist.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 14, 2010
-------

Hasn't anyone ever heard of what's called "the morning after pill?" Might there be some middle ground between a late term abortion and carrying a rapist's baby to term?

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

"Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice will meet with President Obama tomorrow in the Oval Office."

Posted by: sbj3 | October 14, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

brigade:

Didn't know that I would amuse you so much. I like RUK, bu we are on different planets on this one. Don't know if you saw the exchange between RUK and I on another thread where he again stresses Clinton's education and intellect.

For you:


" . . . and yet many people love her (Palin) in a way that they will never love and never have loved Clinton, because in her they see part of their own story.

Again I would never vote for her, because we are poles apart politically but I respect hard work. Bill Clinton was our most wonkish recent president, and yet he signed both pieces of legislation that guranteed the financial mess we are in, Gramm-Leach and the CFMA. Did he sign them because he wanted to be praised, or because he listened to the wrong advisors, or because he thought he knew more about finance and money than he did? It doesn't matter the outcome is the same.

Hillary Clinto was humiliated by her husband time and time again on the public stage, and what did she do? She took it, because when all you have ever done is ride the train, you go where the tracks are taking you!"

Posted by: 54465446 | October 14, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin pushed through a five billion dollar increase in the amount to be collected from the oil companies.

Alaska has no state income tax, and it already had an annual budget surplus. Palin distributed that extra oil revenue to the people of Alaska. She cut them all a check. In other words; she "spread the wealth around"

Did someone mention something about "a sense of entitlement"? Perhaps they should talk to the Welfare Queen Of Alaska about that subject.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 14, 2010
--------

You've really been bombing the threads today with this chestnut. It was good that you also once made mention of all the federal largess which makes its way from Washington to Alaska. You can't paint someone as a big government liberal on decisions made at the state level alone.

I'm still looking for the post where you say Palin's socialist tendencies have convinced you to stop bashing her and start supporting her for president.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

Who said anything about a late term abortion? Do you really think O'Donnell will distinguish between 1st trimester and 2nd trimester? For that matter, given her rather clear adherence to Catholic doctrine, do you think she would support the use of a "morning after" pill?

Yes, there might be some middle ground on this issue for reasonable people. But I doubt there is any middle ground for Christine O'Donnell. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 14, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

Here's SOME U.S. Chamber of Commerce disclosure at least : )

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cmte=C00082040&cycle=2010

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 14, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2
Okay, I'll say it! You are such a maroon!! This discussion has not been about our President, elected 2 years ago. I commented to you on another thread about McCain's undisclosed funds being higher than Obama's, and you dismissed me, saying the discussion was not about McCain. Well this discussion is not about Obama either. This is about millions of dollars going into funding advertising for our elections that shape the views of American voters. IMHO it is wrong, and it should not happen. It should not happen for R's or D's. It was a terrible decision, and it should be overturned.

Posted by: DinOH | October 14, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

"Due to the Chamber of Commerce's partisan political activities I will no longer utilize businesses that are Chamber members. If and when the Chamber ends its political propaganda I will again frequent Chamber members' businesses. Thank you."

And I intend to utilize non-Chamber businesses from now on. Starting with my bank.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 14, 2010
---------
and then:
---------
Now, given that being a member of the Chamber makes one a supporter of its political agenda, I presume that knowingly patronizing a business that supports the chamber, makes me a supporter of its political agenda as well.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 14, 2010
---------
and then:
---------
Of course it does to the extent that your money helps support the Chamber's Radical Right agenda.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 14, 2010 10
--------
--------

You see, Fairlington, you'll never make it as a liberal. You've got too much common sense.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

DinOH:

I "dismissed" you because McCain is not President of the United States (and he is not complaining about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; he also abided by the agreement to take public campaign funding for the general election, unlike Obama, but that's a whole other topic I agree ; )

IF Democrats are going to get all up in arms about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce not disclosing "secret cash funding elections" (that IS one of the topics above), then it is hypocritical of those Democrats to not also be up in arms about the $103 million that Obama got in 2008.

Anything else I can clarify for you?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 14, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

First, the public is tired of the nonchalant way that smarmy public officials take credit for dishing out someone else’s cash without a thought of paying it back.

Second, there is a growing sense of despair that even vastly increased income taxes cannot cover the colossal shortfalls

Third, it does no good for Beltway technocrats to explain how deficits are good at “stimulating” the economy, or why they do not really have to be paid back. Voters know that such gibberish does not apply to their own mortgages and credit-card bills.

Fourth, there is real fear that something terrible will soon come from this unsustainable level of spending"

Read the whole thing. It makes complete sense to those of us whom Mr Chait would call "nuts". Imagine, expecting fiscal probity from our governments. Why we Americans must be crazy!

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 14, 2010
-------

This post deserved reposting. It's the sort of piece that sends people scrambling for the exits since there's really no intelligent rebuttal than can be made.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

This is rather too funny for words. Roger Stone is presently advising the campaign of Paladino...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/meet-the-leader-of-eliot-spitzers-smear-campaign/64361/

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Boycott the Chamber of Commerce and its member businesses until they reveal their secret donors. Full disclosure NOW!

Posted by: wbgonne | October 14, 2010
-------

Stop hiring liberals NOW! Boycotts can work all kinds of different ways.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Sullivan quotes Obama and then gives his thoughts...

Obama: "Given how much stuff was coming at us, we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right... I think anybody who's occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can't be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion."


Sullivan: "David Corn complains that this is the kind of self-criticism that does not help before an election, and that in arguing that his biggest error was under-estimating Republican obstructionism, the president cannot also argue that he can work with the GOP, if necessary, in the next two years.

I don't agree. This kind of quote is why I still believe, despite my frustrations in some areas, that Obama is the best option we've got and we're lucky to have him. I want a president who can acknowledge error, is not cocooned, can speak publicly about this, and is unafraid of self-criticism. Isn't that why so many of us supported him in the first place?

And, look, another reason we supported him is that after eight years of Rove, we actually wanted a president who got the policy right. I think his success in this is quite remarkable, in fact.

Preventing a second Great Depression, which was a real possibility (and not just the jobless recovery we're in, but a full-scale collapse), rescuing the banks without nationalizing them, saving the auto-companies with precision and technocratic skill (I didn't think it would work at all, and it did), re-setting relations with the rest of the world, bringing a new sanity and balance to Middle East policy, taking out 400 al Qaeda operatives, using the myth of the surge to get the hell out of Iraq (for the most part), upping the ante to get a deal with the Taliban and enacting a centrist, moderate law that for the first time in history ensures that anyone can get health insurance in this country ... really, in perspective, pretty damn remarkable.

Politically, he had to deal with a GOP gone insane, and a propaganda machine of such virulence and relentlessness that you can see he is where he is. But although he is right that he lost the connection to us, his supporters, I don't think he could have kept up the hope and change inspiration indefinitely..."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/the-be.html

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Karl Rove and The Chamber of Commerce are not running issue ads. They are running attack ads against specific Democratic candidates. That is the difference. They are openly partisan attack ads against specific Democrats. That is whyh people need to know That A Secret Sinister Cabal of Wall St. Robber Barons, are trying to install a Republican Puppet Government, which will take orders only from The Wall St. Robber Barons, and the Companies that want tax breaks for sending production jobs to other countries.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 14, 2010
------

Why don't Dems drop this nonsense and do what some have suggested: have the courage to stand for their convictions---run on what you really believe in? How about more spending and higher taxes? Gay marriage anyone? That one's always a winner at the ballot box. What about gun control and more gibberish about how the right to bear arms is restricted to militias? What about legal remedies for enemy combatants? Or amnesty for illegal immigrants?

Shoot, if all else fails, run on your record: HCR, 10% unemployment, the debt, the deficit, the wonderful stimulus, your failure to bring extension of the tax cuts up for a vote. Budget anyone? Well, I guess that won't work either.

I guess lies about foreign money and painting Republicans as crazies is about all you've got. Good thing it isn't selling.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2
Yes, you can clarify something for me. Do you think it appropriate that the Chamber of Commerce can funnel millions of funds into our election process without identifying to the American people where said funds come from? As posted in the article YOU posted, funds are not disclosed under $200. Some funds were returned to their respective donors. I have no problem with the Obama campaign disclosing where those funds came from, in fact I believe that would be wonderful, however I just don't think it's possible. I do believe, however that the Chamber of Commerce is well aware of where their funds come from. They are a business, not a campaign.

Posted by: DinOH | October 14, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

This foreclosure fraud scheme is interesting in a couple of ways. Number one we're hearing a lot of the usual suspects try to pass it off as a technical snafu and also try to quiet the thing down because we wouldn't want the banks to be threatened by their own malfeasance.

And number two, this time they didn't just mess with the homeowners they're foreclosing on, they've messed with a lot of investors on the back end of the deals. Some of these individuals and groups won't take too kindly to being hoodwinked and have a lot more clout than us regular folks.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 14, 2010
-------

This is worthy of discussion. If it happens that all those mortgage-backed securities weren't really backed by mortgages at all, because no one can produce a paper trail of ownership, then won't the people who sold the securities be held liable? Is this all going to turn into another debacle where businesses that are "too big to fail" are on the hook for more than they're worth, then what?

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

The American People deserve an investigation into OBAMA'S 2008 CREDIT CARD OPERATIONS.


The data is still there.


THAT would be a fitting end to the ridiculous rhetoric of Obama and the democrats this week - THAT OBAMA GETS THE INVESTIGATION


hhm


It would be extremely interesting what is in that pile.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 14, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

DinOH:

Yes (as I already told wbgonne, though, there's already SOME U.S. Chamber of Commerce PAC disclosure at least : )

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cmte=C00082040&cycle=2010

As a registered lobbyist, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce complies with additional disclosure requirements here too:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?lname=US+Chamber+of+Commerce&year=2010

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 14, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

ifthethuderdontgetya wrote,
"Republicans break the economy, raise the national debt, and eliminate jobs."

And Democrats are doing the same thing only worse.

-------

"Republicans care only about the welfare of the wealthiest one or two percent of Americans, and that issue should be nationalized."

We've heard that old line of B.S. ad naueum and no one's buying anymore. I care about the bottom one or two percent, where you rank, and my shoes need shined.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Hasn't anyone ever heard of what's called "the morning after pill?" Might there be some middle ground between a late term abortion and carrying a rapist's baby to term?
-----------------------------
Uh, brig, you are not on sound ground here. The morning after pill is considered abortion. According to the Catholic Church, the morning after pill is unacceptable.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 14, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Not for most American Catholics ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 14, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Greg, any comment on why CNN would televise the Delaware Senate debate last night when the GOP candidate is down by so many points?

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 14, 2010 6:37 PM
-----

I don't suppose it had anything to do with the MSM's desire to paint O'Donnell as the face of the Republican Party. Don't hold your breath for a DeMint/Greene debate to be televised nationally.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Not for most American Catholics ...

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

The issue wasn't "most American Catholics." It was Christine O'Donnell's position on abortion. If you have proof that Christine O'Donnell is o.k. with the "morning after" pill, I'm curious to see it, given that she seems to adhere (at least in her public pronouncements) more closely to Catholic doctrine than "most American Catholics."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 14, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

"But: The Chamber is really, really psyched to have Glenn Beck's support."

This is a transcendent moment: the Plutocrats have achieved nirvana. For years, the SuperRich have engaged in a massive wealth distribution scheme: they have attempted to transfer the wealth of the Middle Class to themselves. Big Business, acting primarily through the Chamber of Commerce, has attempted to persuade the American Middle Class to vote against its own economic interest. But so far they done have so indirectly by transferring the costs of their profits onto the Middle Class. Whether these costs have been in the form of Wall Street bailout money or natural resource degradation or diminished wages from the assault on the unions, the transfer of wealth has been largely indirect, in the form of tax tricks, antigovernment voodoo and gimmicks like pretending that industrial deregulation was "freedom." But today we have Glenn Beck, the Rodeo Clown Son of the Plutocracy, persuading the people in his Middle Class audience to send their money DIRECTLY to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents the greatest concentration of wealth in human history AND is actively propagandizing in favor of policies that result in the FURTHER transfer of wealth from the Middle Class to the Upper Class.

The Middle Class is now paying for its own destruction. It doesn't get any better than that for the Plutocrats.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 14, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

This is worthy of discussion. If it happens that all those mortgage-backed securities weren't really backed by mortgages at all, because no one can produce a paper trail of ownership, then won't the people who sold the securities be held liable? Is this all going to turn into another debacle where businesses that are "too big to fail" are on the hook for more than they're worth, then what?
---------------------------
There is a problem here for sure. I'll bet the lawsuit machine is revving up, where the investors will be suing the originators and all the parties in between. These investors have already lost money and I'm sure they are loaded for bear.

Whether any of this will affect the homeowners, I don't know. Right now, the homeowners are getting a short reprieve. Homeowners who aren't paying should be foreclosed.

I am also concerned about the effect on the total real estate market. The market is not helped when people start questioning the good title of all properties purchased in the last ten years. It's not just the foreclosed properties who have title problems, it's all property sold in the last decade or so. Who would even know? I guess that is the point.

I hear the title insurance companies are seizing up. Even if they resume writing policies, you can be sure they will write additional exclusions about these kind of title problems.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 14, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

At this point, there is little reason for the American People to take the liberals seriously.


- Obama's 2008 platform turned out to be a bunch of deceptions and lies

- Obama LIED about what he really wanted to do in Afghanistan

- Obama's health care program IS DRAGGING DOWN THE ECONOMY AND OBAMA FORCED IT ON THE COUNTRY

- Obama and the democrats diverted BILLIONS OF STIMULUS DOLLARS TO DEMOCRATIC PET PROJECTS.

- the nation has had to endure FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM


- AND now this set of deceptions concerning the money


THE AMERICAN PEOPLE have little reason to take the liberals seriously ANYMORE - FOR A GENERATION OR MORE


The liberals have failed - their agenda is IRRESPONSIBLE -


THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE FAR BETTER.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 14, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama is soft on terrorists.

Obama is soft on the big banks.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 14, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Don't hold your breath for a DeMint/Greene debate to be televised nationally.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 8:15 PM
+++++++++++++

Actually, don't hold your breath for ANY DeMint/Greene debate. Not because of the media. Because DeMint won't do it. From Sept. 17:

"SAVANNAH, GA (WTOC) - South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint said he has no plans to debate his Democratic opponent Alvin Greene."

Alvin Greene is a complete idiot, and Jim DeMint is afraid to debate him? And before you start in with "it makes no sense for DeMint to debate someone who has not chance in the race," consider that Chris Coons (leading by about 20 points) agreed to debate Christine O'Donnell three times.

What is DeMint afraid of?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 14, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Uh, brig, you are not on sound ground here. The morning after pill is considered abortion. According to the Catholic Church, the morning after pill is unacceptable.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 14, 2010
------

Then I'll have to part ways with the Catholic Church. Since no one knows the next morning whether or not a pregnancy is going to result, I would consider it a form of birth control. Someone's going to have to give a bit if pro-lifers ever have a prayer of reducing the outrageous number of abortions taking place. Granted, abstension may be the best policy, but c'mon, sometimes people do things that have consequences which must be addressed. And I'm not even talking about rape or incest---the latter is more problematic because the victim is less likely to come forward.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Then I'll have to part ways with the Catholic Church. Since no one knows the next morning whether or not a pregnancy is going to result, I would consider it a form of birth control.

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

Uh, Brig -- the Catholic Church is also against birth control, so the abortion/birth control distinction doesn't help. (Think Monty Python -- "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, and if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.") I honestly don't know if Christine O'Donnell is also opposed to all forms of birth control.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 14, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Uh, Brig -- the Catholic Church is also against birth control, so the abortion/birth control distinction doesn't help.
--------------------------
Yeah, the Church doesn't let anyone out of this blind canyon. That's why a lot of prolife American Catholics are pro birth control. But, in my opinion, the morning after pill falls clearly into the abortion camp. I don't know what Christine believes either. I'm just trying to fairly state the Catholic Church' (U.S.) position.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 14, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure the scales have now fallen off for good.

"Frank, in his most detailed explanation to date about his actions, said in an interview he missed the warning signs because he was wearing ideological blinders. He said he had worried that Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration were going after Fannie and Freddie for their own ideological reasons and would curtail the lenders’ mission of providing affordable housing.

“I was late in seeing it, no question,’’ Frank said about the lenders’ descent into insolvency."

Dang rightwing propagandists!

Re-elect Barny Frank. We're in the best of hands.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/10/14/frank_haunted_by_stance_on_fannie_freddie/

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 14, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

We've heard that old line of B.S. ad naueum and no one's buying anymore. I care about the bottom one or two percent, where you rank, and my shoes need shined.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 8:10 PM |
==================

You know as much about me as you know about anything else, that much as is clear.

You do rival STRF for fact-free spamming, so you've got that going for you.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 14, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

A question for the conservatives here.

Can liberalism ever be a legitimate political theory for governing in America?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

"Can liberalism ever be a legitimate political theory for governing in America?"

I think it can be. I just don't think it's the most efficient way to do things (as I understand liberalism).

Why do you think conservatives do not think it's legitimate?

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

In the mode of Glenn Beck telling his callers to send in their wages and savings to the Chamber of Commerce...

A homeless fellow, clothes torn and pretty dirty, just went past my store pushing his few belongings in a shopping card and playing a radio that I guess he'd found as he harvested garbage cans in the area. He had it turned up quite loud.

He was listening to Rush.

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

BG:

"So, I guy who wrote a ridiculous and stupid book, whose only gainful employment has been due to think tank money laundering punditry and whose mother undoubtedly held his hand through all his Ivy League troubles is our guide for Obama's arrogance?"

Thanks for providing us with the perfect example of the ad hominem. I guess this means you think Goldberg's thesis is pretty solid, then.

BTW, did you actually read his "ridiculous and stupid" book?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 14, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues and Bearclaw,
Maybe I should have mentioned that I'm not a Catholic. I don't even know what ecumenical council produced the church's position on abortion. I can never argue doctrine with Catholics because the doctrine of apostolic succession deprives me of my only weapon---sola scriptura. I'll have to abandon some of my conservative brethren in the "every sperm is sacred" camp.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I meant to say, the Church's position on birth control, not abortion. Sorry.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Brigage,

I'm not an expert on Catholic doctrine either. But I hear a lot about it from the "most American Catholics" I work with.

I'm more of a Wesleyan Quadrilateral guy (scripture, tradition, reason, experience).

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 14, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for providing us with the perfect example of the ad hominem. I guess this means you think Goldberg's thesis is pretty solid, then.

BTW, did you actually read his "ridiculous and stupid" book?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 14, 2010 9:18 PM |
=====================

It'd be nice if you right-wingers actually had a record of opposing fascism, rather than cheerleading a poorly written and argued cartoon of a book titled "Liberal Fascism".

What's your opinion of executive branch power to spy on its citizens without a warrant, ScottC3?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 14, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Can liberalism ever be a legitimate political theory for governing in America?"

Well, obviously that depends entirely on what you mean by both "liberalism" and "legitimate". But in any event, it seems to me that liberalism has been the governing political theory in America for several decades, tempered by a couple of stints of relative conservatism.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 14, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"and we'd expect that Broder would be hesitant to suggest (actually he'd be indignant at the suggestion) that "radical notions of remaking the society to fit their own philosophy" describes Reagan. But of course it does..."

How so?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 14, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

I've been following the foreclosure crisis for quite awhile and have complained here numerous times about the failure of HAMP to modify the loans of deserving applicants, and there were a lot of them. I've also read quite a bit about the new fraud and title paper trail problems. I'm not an economist so I don't know if I have any of this right but here goes.

After reading numerous first hand accounts of dealings with HAMP and knowing someone very close to us who has gone through this process for about 18 months, I believe the banks had a great deal of difficulty modifying loans because #1, after selling the Securitized paper they no longer had the "authority" to modify and were unable themselves to find the end of the thread of ownership (an indication they knew this was coming) and #2, they were simply stalling to build up capital, with trial modification payments and keeping the foreclosures to a slow crawl. The stall worked in the best interest of numerous parties including the government, the banks, and in a unique way the homeowners who followed advice of not making payments until the modification was in place. For the many Americans not facing foreclosure this hasn't worked out so well as it's drawn the process out and our homes are still losing value in most cases.

Now that the problems have come to the surface, which eventually they always do, the banks are being squeezed by both investors and consumer advocates. IMO, laws have been broken and I don't think the people who bought these securities will want to take the hit. Why would they?

It looks like the banks are in trouble again and I just want to go on the record by saying I hope we don't bail them out this time without first bargaining advantage taxpayer, if at all. Talk about Lucy.

Homeowners were deceived by being lead to believe modifications were coming, in most cases they weren't, investors were deceived into buying something that not only depreciated off the cliff but there is no clear title to, and for the rest of us the recession just drags on. The loan originators, servicers and the MOTU's selling the stuff sure made a killing though.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 14, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Scott - Must zip...will be back much later or in morning.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 14, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Gotta love Goldberg.

"After all, this was the man who, as a candidate, descended on Berlin as the leader of a worldwide cause that transcended national borders."

Of course, he followed a President who felt it was his job to lead a coalition to save the universe from the scourge of Saddam Hussein and his imaginary weapons.

"And when asked in a debate what his greatest weakness was, he plumbed his soul and answered that he was disorganized. "My desk and my office doesn't look good," he said. When a man runs as a national redeemer and says his biggest failing is a messy desk, that should be a warning sign that he likes himself a bit too much."

Of course, he followed a President, when asked four years into his Presidency about any mistakes he made, couldn't name any.

"The good news is that it's apparently not racist to call Obama arrogant anymore."

It never was. It's only racist to be racist and call Obama arrogant as a consequence.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca, HAMP was a scam.

The banks were bailed out, and in return they pretended that they would try to do something for distressed homeowners.

Keyword: pretend.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 14, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

The republican agenda is exposed now. They have divided the American populace in order to conquer the treasury for the exclusive benefit of their country club skull and bones pals. To divide and conquer is as old as the bible they hide behind and so are the wars of imperialism they so quickly engage in. As we reenter the dark ages of flat earth and plagues remember who you voted for when it really counted or do you really believe that when the President does it it's not illegal? You do not need a bible to have a moral compass to follow!

Posted by: anOPINIONATEDsob | October 14, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "A homeless fellow, clothes torn and pretty dirty, just went past my store pushing his few belongings in a shopping card and playing a radio that I guess he'd found as he harvested garbage cans in the area. He had it turned up quite loud. He was listening to Rush."

Of course you ran out to explain that Rush hated him, that Republicans made him homeless, and helped him find a local NPR station?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 14, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

"Why do you think conservatives do not think it's legitimate?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut "

No one thinks this. We've been through long periods of self-identified conservatives running the show. They ran huge deficits during the Reagan/GHWB years, they shut down the government because Clinton wanted a budget that wouldn't run up the deficit, they ran up the deficit during the GWB years, they are campaigning to repeal the parts of the Affordable Care Act that are specifially designed to reduce deficits (mandate, Medicare cuts), they filibustered a deficit reduction committee, they are running on a platform of deficit increasing tax cuts.

Pretty much they only thing they have ever done to reduce the deficit in the past 30 years is cut food stamps.

Anyone who is paying attention does not think conservatives don't think liberalism isn't viable. Conservatives live liberalism every day.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who is paying attention does not think conservatives don't think liberalism isn't viable. Conservatives live liberalism every day.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2010 10:22 PM
==================================

If you accept the conservative premise that liberalism is about running deficits. But given their obvious hypocrisy, why do you accept their premise?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 14, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "Can liberalism ever be a legitimate political theory for governing in America?"

Of course. It might be inferior to, say, conservatism or a pragmatic centrism, but it can be a legitimate political theory for governing America. However, in a Democracy (or a Republic) what you tend to end up with is elements of various political philosophies gaining traction and becoming part of policy over time. Thus, though Democrats control the house and the senate and Obama is a liberal, Healthcare Reform more resembled alternative Republican plans than the command healthcare economy proposed by the Clinton administration. Also, many of our politicians may have a particular label, such as liberal or conservative, but may be opposite in some aspects of their views.

Conservatives argue for fiscal restraint, but generally don't apply it in office. Additionally, some conservatives, such as Dubya, are big government conservatives. Thus, we get more entitlement spending and an expansion of government bureaucracy, arguably artifacts of liberal governance, out of a conservative presidency and a Republican house, and usually a Republican senate. And then you have Clinton, and NAFTA, and Welfare reform. Via competition and compromise, we rarely have a purely liberal or purely conservative governance. But were we to have pure liberalism or pure conservatism, neither case might in fact be ideal (or it might be), but both would me legitimate political theories for governing America. One just might be considered to be better, or more principled, by some people.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 14, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

I just read that Glenn Beck, donate to the CofC link and then read elsewhere he's donating 10K. The scam artist strikes again. A lot of fixed income seniors watch Glenn, and adore him BTW, and he's actually asking them to donate to the CofC with members such as Pfizer, AT&T, JPMorgan, on an on. Does anyone think that's a responsible request of your viewing audience? Will they get a can of catfood in exchange? I deplore people who take advantage of seniors.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 14, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

You see, Fairlington, you'll never make it as a liberal. You've got too much common sense.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

---

I'll take that as a compliment. Whether or not anyone considers me ethical, that's up to you. Whether or not I am consistent, that's up to me.

Cheers!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 14, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Obamacare suffers legal setback. States legal challenge can go forward:

"[I]t is obvious that Congress did not pass the penalty, in the version of the legislation that is now “the Act,” as a tax under its taxing authority, but rather as a penalty pursuant to its Commerce Clause power. . . . And, now that it has passed into law on that basis, government attorneys have come into this court and argued that it was a tax after all. This rather significant shift in position, if permitted, could have the consequence of allowing Congress to avoid the very same accountability that was identified by the government’s counsel in the Virginia case as a check on Congress’s broad taxing power in the first place. . . .

Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check."

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/249836/states-speaker-pelosi-theyre-serious-robert-alt

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 14, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: :The Middle Class is now paying for its own destruction. It doesn't get any better than that for the Plutocrats."

I'm not so sure. If the Plutocrats destroy the middle class, then whose backs shall they trod upon? Also, who will send them donations at the urging of Glenn Beck, when there is no middle class to write the checks?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 14, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"I deplore people who take advantage of seniors."

What is your opinion of people who think seniors are incapable of deciding for themselves who to listen to and whether or not they should donate money to a given cause?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 14, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

I have no problem with seniors deciding for themselves, my issue is how is the CofC a cause? I work with seniors and I tend to want to protect their limited resources so I'm offended when they appear to be taken advantage of. Sometimes libertarianism get in the way sound judgment, just my opinion of course.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 14, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Scott

My father was VP for a large heating and air conditioning company and I learned a lot of what I know from him. My husband and I believe we have a responsibility to our customers that is paramount and when we had employees still, they were treated as a precious resource.

It's been a successful business for over 30 years so I guess we did something right, although I admit we're not exactly millionaires. Glen Beck's customers are his viewing audience, hint, hint. The business world should not always be a dog eat dog reality show.

Seniors are highly susceptible to scam artists, my mom almost lost her medicare coverage because of one so I tend to want to protect people from the scammers.

Besides, now that I'm getting closer myself, I'm sort of hoping someone will watch out for me. :)

Posted by: lmsinca | October 14, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

So, Rozen thinks Obama is going to ask Powell to be SecDef. Good choice imho.

Made me think of when Limbaugh went off on Powell and Cheney sided with Limbaugh. I remember Huffingtonpost came out with this comparison of Rush and Powell which was pretty funny..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/archive/236/news/2008/12/16/chicken_v_hawk_rush_limbaugh_a_10750.html

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 14, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Nice, so Oprah bought the audience on Daily Show tickets to DC and Colbert just did the same for his audience.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 14, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

"Why did MTV ask participants at today's town hall with Obama to ask the president "light" questions? Do we really need to know whether he wears boxers or briefs?"
---------------------------------------------

They always do that. Drives me nuts.

Posted by: CalD | October 15, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Scott

One more quickie, I didn't say a word about not listening to or watching Beck, I even admitted that they love him. And I never talk politics with the Seniors I work with, believe me, I know better.

Night all

Posted by: lmsinca | October 15, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

"If you accept the conservative premise that liberalism is about running deficits. But given their obvious hypocrisy, why do you accept their premise?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya"

Good point

Posted by: DDAWD | October 15, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Scott, that's not the definition of "ad hominem." Or at least not all of it. If you use your use your ideological assumptions to guide and shape your faulty -- actually, fuuucking stupid -- premise, then who you are (Lucien Goldberg's fatuous, spoiled son) is what you write. Of course lots of children of privilege and ideology break away from their upbringing and the pressure this exerts to conform, but not Jonah. No, he falls barely from the tree.

And since I know the thesis of the book, and have read enough excerpts to be sure there aren't surprises, I don't have to read the whole thing.

I don't have to have read Rushdie's Satanic Verses to know that the fatwa against him was a hatchet job. I'm sure the Imam's decided the case before they considered the argument. I have weighed JG's arguments and have found them, to say the least, wanting.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 15, 2010 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Beck has shown a great willingness to try and sucker his viewers out of money. The most notable is the Goldline scam.

I don't hold Beck viewers in the highest regard as the guy is an unabashed racist, but still, say what you will about the right wing media, I don't think any of them have stooped that low.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 15, 2010 2:04 AM | Report abuse

*Of Course* its an historic presidency. The most progressive (for its Clinton-esque moderation) since LBJ.

BUT, the Democrats have bought too much into the Right's world-view. We should be as proud and knife-wielding (when need be...) with our Liberalism as LBJ was.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 15, 2010 3:22 AM | Report abuse

The money that you save by refinancing every month can be sensibly used to repay your unique loan or to upsurge your savings. Do not forget to search online for "123 Mortgage Refinance" they found 3.17% rate for me.

Posted by: johnsaxon15 | October 15, 2010 6:34 AM | Report abuse

lms:

"I didn't say a word about not listening to or watching Beck"

True, and fair enough.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 15, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

BG:

"Tha's not the definition of ad hominem. Or at least not all of it."

Let's see..."An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Again, you couldn't have provided us with better example than you did.

"If you use your use your ideological assumptions to guide and shape your...premise..."

We all use our ideological assumptions to guide and shape our arguments, at least in a political context. Doing so does not magically transform an ad hominem into a sensible argument.

"...then who you are...is what you write."

A meaningless, or at least vague to the point of uselessness, cliche. And, even if meaningful, it still does not transform an ad hominem into a logical argument.

"And since I know the thesis of the book, and have read enough excerpts to know there aren't any surprises, I don't have to read the whole thing."

As I suspected. You haven't read it. Which gives us some measure of the value of your denunciations of it.

Did you even bother to read the column Greg linked to yesterday which prompted your silly ad hominem? (Quick...go do it now so you can respond in the affirmative!)

"I don't have to have read Rushdie's Satanic Verses to know that the fatwa against him was a hatchet job."

That is because (I assume) you consider the justness of the fatwa to be logically unrelated to what is in the book. (In other words, nothing he could have written could possibly justify a call for his assassination.) However, if one wanted to declare the book to be, say, poorly written, or offensive, or even fuuuuuuuucking stupid, one probably ought to have the good sense to have bothered to read it first. At least if one didn't want to be thought foolish, anyway.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 15, 2010 7:13 AM | Report abuse

Bernie asked:

"A question for the conservatives here.

Can liberalism ever be a legitimate political theory for governing in America?"

Not to cop out, but it depends what the question means. Political theory can assign various meanings to "legitimate" in this context.

If it means something simply like "has popular acceptance or consent," then in theory it could.

On a more normative view of legitimacy as measuring policy, laws, etc., against natural law or rights, for example, one can easily argue that modern liberalism cannot attain legitimacy. One could even approach the question from a New Testament (Romans) view of government, which in my view requires asking whether a ruler or government is just or wicked in ruling (though the application becomes complicated in a republic).

And, still another approach would ask the question whether modern liberalism is compatible with our constitution and history, which I would argue it is not.

I would tend to argue on grounds like the second and third that modern liberalism cannot ever really attain "legitimacy," because it is unjust and many respects, is contrary to human nature, and is antithetical to our constitution and founding heritage. But again it all depends.

So, can conservatism ever be a legitimate political theory for governing the U.S.?

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 15, 2010 7:24 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: :The Middle Class is now paying for its own destruction. It doesn't get any better than that for the Plutocrats."

I'm not so sure. If the Plutocrats destroy the middle class, then whose backs shall they trod upon? Also, who will send them donations at the urging of Glenn Beck, when there is no middle class to write the checks?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 14, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

No wonder you think Sarah Palin should be president. Hey! Maybe Glenn Beck can be Treasury Secretary for President Palin. Wouldn't that just be so funny?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 15, 2010 7:28 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "No wonder you think Sarah Palin should be president. Hey! Maybe Glenn Beck can be Treasury Secretary for President Palin. Wouldn't that just be so funny?"

No. Can you imagine just how much of your federal budget would be wasted on chalkboards and white chalk with Glenn Beck in charge of the treasury?

To mention, we'd all had to start paying for everything in gold ingots.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/the_morning_plum_112.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 15, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

I meant to say, the Church's position on birth control, not abortion. Sorry.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 9:22 PM |

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

Their position on both issues is; molest young boys, because they can never become impregnated, and the priests can always find some new boy toys, in each new parish they are moved around to.


Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

You've really been bombing the threads today with this chestnut. It was good that you also once made mention of all the federal largess which makes its way from Washington to Alaska. You can't paint someone as a big government liberal on decisions made at the state level alone.

I'm still looking for the post where you say Palin's socialist tendencies have convinced you to stop bashing her and start supporting her for president.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:31 PM
........................

Yes you are correct. Palin did not turn Alaska into a Socialist State, all by herself. All that money that was stolen from taxpayers around the rest of the country, and given to the Welfare State Of Alaska, was because of the work of the state's two Republican US Senators.

Ted Stevens, Lisa Murkowski, and Sarah Palin. Alaska's Axis Of Socialism.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 10:59 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