Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Dems start doing triage: With exactly three weeks to go until election day, here's a key thing to watch: National Democrats are now beginning to cut off the money flow to some embattled incumbents, in order to shift the cash to other once-safe districts, a key sign strategists have decided their races may be lost.

The victims: Reps Steve Driehaus of Ohio, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida and Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania. Expect the DCCC to cut more Dems loose this week, and keep an eye on that as a reliable sign of which districts are all but certain to flip to GOP control.

* And: The DCCC is also cutting funds to Blue Dog Dem Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota.

* Donor-secrecy shocker of the day: Good read: The New York Times does some digging and concludes that the reason wealthy donors are writing six and seven figure checks to Karl Rove's group to sway the midterms is that they know they can do this under the cover of anonymity.

* Laughably deceptive donor-secrecy defense of the day: Former RNC chair Ed Gillespie, Rove's partner in raising and spending millions in undisclosed funds, says the desire of wealthy donors for anonymity is driven by their fear of retribution from Big Brother Democrats who are trying to take government action to ensure transparency in our political process.

Methinks Gillespie has it backwards here: The wealthy donors are contributing huge money to ad onslaughts designed to sway the elections; and in response, Dems are taking steps to force disclosure.

* Again: It's the disclosure, stupid: In an interview with Jake Tapper, David Axelrod argues that this is not just about foreign money -- it's about whether the American people have the right to know who is funding the ads influencing our elections.

This really isn't complicated. The Chamber, Rove, Gillespie et al say it's okay for our elections to be swayed by huge amounts of money coming from undisclosed sources. Dems say this is not okay. The foreign money talk is a diversion.

* Obama backers souring? A new Bloomberg poll finds:

More than 4 of 10 likely voters who say they once considered themselves Obama backers now are either less supportive or say they no longer support him at all.

* The Bush tax cuts were good for workers because I say so: GOP Senate candidate Pat Toomey offers a simple response to a reporter who claimed that the real wages of American workers dropped after the Bush tax cuts: The data I haven't seen, and don't really care to look at, simply can't be right.

* Campaign promise of the day: John Boehner tells a Florida audience that if Republicans are given control of the House, they will propose a bill to cut spending "every single week."

Clip and save for future reference.

* Who says Rand Paul is against workplace safety? The Kentucky Senate GOP candidate finally finds a worker safety law he can support: One that would protect interns from people like Bill Clinton, who is campaigning for his opponent.

* Today in Senate megalomania: Richard Shelby, one of the GOP Senators blocking the nomination of Peter Diamond to serve on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, knows far more about what constitutes adequate experience in economics than some pointy-headed European Nobel committee does.

* And the Sharia Law plot is even more nefarious than you imagined: CNN's Jeff Simon digs into the matter and finds that one of the two cities Sharron Angle cited as being under threat from Sharia Law doesn't really exist.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 12, 2010; 8:36 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, House Dems, House GOPers, Morning Plum  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: White people haven't gone crazy

Comments

Very good read on foreclosure issues:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=168845

I hope Axelrod does not continue to protect TBTF banks against this systemic fraud.

Kyle Denninger (of market-ticker.org) is Alan Grayson's advisor.

Posted by: Papagnello | October 12, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

edit:

Karl Denninger, not Kyle...

Posted by: Papagnello | October 12, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

"And: The DCCC is also cutting funds to Blue Dog Dem Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota."

If they had any brains at all they wouldn't give a dime to any Blue Dog anywhere. It's like hiring someone to shoot you.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 12, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

"Former RNC chair Ed Gillespie, Rove's partner in raising and spending millions in undisclosed funds, says the desire of wealthy donors for anonymity is driven by their fear of retribution from Big Brother Democrats who are trying to take government action to ensure transparency in our political process."

Yeah because Big Business, the SuperRich and the Plutocrats are oh so vulnerable in today's America. What's next, affirmative action? Why don't we just have the bottom 90% of Americans pay tithe to the Rulers?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 12, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne

Agree with your sentiments;may I respectfully suggest a more entertaining simile...actually not mine but lifted from a commenter about people in Florida who support Rick Scott...

It's like a chicken going to Colonel Sanders and KFC and applying for a job.(rimshot plz)

Speaking of Rick the Scumbag Scott...
3 weeks away and Sink is starting to turn up the heat. Enjoy her latest two minute production and what I hope you pay careful attention to is when a reporter asks Scott why is not releasing the deposition on his Solantic Scam....check out the face and body language...we don't need BillO's body language experts to know a lying scum when we see one.

Watch and week if you are a republican because this jerk is truly pathetic slime.

http://action.alexsink2010.com/p/salsa/web/tellafriend/public/?tell_a_friend_KEY=57

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 12, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

week=weep great typing lol

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 12, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Given what happened to financial supporters of Prop. 8 here in California, there's a legitimate concern of retribution.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 12, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

I've posted in the past on the ugly xenophobia in France re the Rom people (gypsies). It's happening in Italy too...

"These are dark-skinned people, not Europeans like you and me," said Riccardo De Corato, who is Milan's vice mayor from Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's ruling party"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/11/AR2010101105815.html?hpid=topnews

Frigging depressing.

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

"there's a legitimate concern of retribution"

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The American People have the right to spend their money to influence elections. The American People have the right to know who is spending money to influence elections. The American People have the right to react to other people's actions and views. If you don't like it don't live in a democracy.

Full disclosure NOW!

Posted by: wbgonne | October 12, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

When Bill Clinton dies, Democrats will have to embalm and preserve him in a glass case so his body can be paraded around in threatened, congressional districts during election years in hopes of staving off defeat of Democrats.

The silliest question of the day must be:

"Is Nancy Pelosi a Political Liability?"

A better question is:

Have Barack and the Obamacrats been a godsend for Republicans?

No question about that!

Along the same line:

Is the Nobel committee in the tank for Barack Obama??

Posted by: battleground51 | October 12, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Hey folks...check out the Red Menace! on the front page of NRO this morning...
http://www.nationalreview.com/

Posted by: bernielatham | October 12, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Looks like Joe Miller is following the modern electioneering model and is going to do the "my lips are sealed with crazy glue, awful press people".
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/10/12/joe_miller_personal_background

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

Looks like Joe Miller is following the modern electioneering model and is going to do the "my lips are sealed with crazy glue, awful press people".
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/10/12/joe_miller_personal_background

Posted by: bernielatham | October 12, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

"Is the Nobel committee in the tank for Barack Obama??"

Worth noting as a classic example of Occam unshaven.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 12, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

From the Who-Coulda-Guessed Department:

"In a potential sign of Democratic unease with the White House midterm political strategy, some of President Obama's allies have begun to question his sustained attack on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has long claimed bipartisanship but is being increasingly identified as a GOP ally. Some Democrats on Capitol Hill worry that the White House is going too far in charging that the politically powerful business lobby may be using foreign money to fuel its election efforts. The charge ignites strong feelings among job-hungry voters. But Democrats are concerned that it may be overstated and could harm moderate Democrats in swing districts. ... The dispute over the attack on the chamber in some ways echoes an internal debate going on between the Democratic Party's liberal base and more moderate elements that have encouraged ties to business."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chamber-foreign-money-20101012,0,5879844.story

The Democratic Party cannot succeed by being Republican-lite. It is, quite simply, a terrible marketing strategy. And it drives the national discourse ever more Right and further away from common-sense solutions to our pressing problems. Democrats owe it to the country to stand up for Liberalism. And it is in the Democratic Party's self-interest to do so. So what is the problem?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 12, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

More from Karl Denninger:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=168887

Both parties are fraudsters.

Posted by: Papagnello | October 12, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

"The American People have the right to know who is spending money to influence elections."

Really? Is that right in the Constitution? If so, where?

"The American People have the right to react to other people's actions and views."

Same questions. And how is that "right" currently being denied?

"If you don't like it don't live in a democracy."

First, we don't live in a democracy. It is a representative republic. Second, we'll think what we want and live where we want, giving as much regard to your disapproval as to that of an ant.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 12, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Letter To President (Karl Denninger)

Last week I penned an open letter to the Democratic Caucus of California in which I laid bare on the table many of the truths about Foreclosuregate and the injustices that it has exposed.

We now know, with a factual basis, that many of the beliefs and premises I put forward in 2007 and have maintained since are in fact true. The economic troubles that our nation finds itself in were no mistake, were not "unforeseeable" and in fact were not "unforeseen." They occurred as a consequence of deliberate, intentional conduct by those both in government and the financial industry.

As an entrepreneur during the 1990s "Internet boom" I saw these very same schemes and scams run during that time. Securities worth far less than their offering price were shoved through the pipeline, sold to investors on the back of knowingly-false claims. Chief among those claims of the time was that The Internet was doubling in size every three months. This, of course, meant that it would increase in size by a factor of 16 every year, of more than 65,000 times within five years, and of more than 687 billion times within ten.

Within eight years - from 1995 - the "reach" of The Internet would have exceeded the number of persons on the planet, and within ten it would have reached every human, dog, cat, and field mouse as well. In a few more it would reach, quite literally, every bacterium on the planet.

This was clearly impossible, yet this was what was sold to millions of investors. What's worse is that by the the time most of these IPOs happened growth had already slowed dramatically and in fact by 1998, when I sold my firm, it was down to "mere" double-digits on an annual basis, with the major metropolitan markets experiencing almost no net subscriber growth - those who had computers and wanted connections, by that time, had them.

Virtually all of these firms collapsed and the losses were, for those investors, catastrophic.

The same "pump and dump" game was run with houses starting in 2003, orchestrated by the same banks and with the full support and complicity of government. The Realtors' own David Lereah - their chief economist of the time - published not one but two books urging people to buy homes as prices would only go up - for the indefinite future.

As with all manias the law became irrelevant. MERS is in fact at the core of this, as I have been writing about for more than a year. Indeed, in an article I published in 2009 I said:

The underlying issue is that many of these so-called "securities" (MBS, CDOs, etc) were issued "light" of the required legal mandates to keep the chain of assignments and actual consent signatures required for enforcement. Many people charge that the reason behind this was simple volume. I disagree.

I believe that a large part of the root cause of these "lost" documents is to cover up blatant and in many cases outrageous fraud....

hthttp://market-ticker.org/

Posted by: Papagnello | October 12, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I don't know why the committee didn't just give Obama the Nobel for economics. He deserved it last year already.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 12, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

@Q.B. "giving as much regard to your disapproval as to that of an ant."

You're all class Q.B. Do you actually wake up each morning and take mean pills? Is that how you and some of your right wing buddies manage to work up such nastiness?
Or perhaps you just suck on a glass of haterade.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 12, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

No, David, the American People do not have the right to know who is spending money to influence elections (unless you can cite for me such a provision in the Constitution). In fact, anonymous political speech has a long and honored history in our nation. Are you going to call Thomas Paine a "coward" now too?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 12, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"Obama backers souring?"

I think they have curdled!

Dems cutting funding to BLUE DOGS.

Hey Barack, now who's treating who like a dog???

Chamber of Commerce under fire from Democrats over foreign funds>>>

Yeah! The CoC is accepting contributions from that dreaded "flyover country".

In other news Russ Feingold has started drinking TEA and wants to PARTY. Looking for invitations.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 12, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Koch-Head Con Law on the march!

Only in your perspicacious analysis you neglected one thing I mentioned:

"The American People have the right to spend their money to influence elections."

Where is THAT right in the Constitution? And where does it say in the Constitution that business corporations are people? Or that money is equivalent to speech? Answer: Nowhere. However, if we are going to equate money and speech and corporations and human beings it is Americans' right to know who is doing what to influence elections. Read Citizens United if you have any questions. Better yet: go for remedial training at Glenn Beck U. I think the class is called The Cartoon Constitution.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 12, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Axelrod et al. want to protect the banks.

Another good article on the mortgage fraud perpetuated by beltway Dems and GOP:

http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2010/10/the-signing-or-pardon-me-mr-banker-but-your-remic-is-showing/

Alan Grayson, 2012.

Posted by: Papagnello | October 12, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Hey folks...check out the Red Menace! on the front page of NRO this morning..."

Yeah, I started reading that this morning. Looks interesting.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 12, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

"You're all class Q.B."

This from ruk, of all people?
Laughing at your lack of self awareness, my friend.

When someone suggests I don't have the right to live in this country, yes, that person's views are as meaningful to me as an ant's. Perhaps you should think about that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 12, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

When the Nobels awarded their PEACE PRIZE to the world's most nefarious terrorist, Yasir Arafat, they blew all their credibility with most people.

Then came Carter!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 12, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

wbg and ruk, I take issue with your desire to purge the Ds of moderates.

Of course, I am a moderate and have a long history of ticket splitting and voting for the nominee I considered best qualified. My kind were once welcomed in both parties - when Nunn and Boren and Rudman and Danforth ate lunch together in the Senate dining room their table was where folks gravitated to make working compromises. My kind have been increasingly unwelcome in the R Party. My favorite living Senator, Dick Lugar, is probably going to have to retire. My favorite Senator in all my voting years, Lloyd Bentsen, is dead, and his political heir, Bill White, is now my choice for Gov. of TX. TX Rs are now so knee jerk that they label Ds like White "liberals". You guys, on the other hand, would seem to want to purge White from the D Party.

When Chet Edwards and D. H-Sandlin must have a home, their only choice is the Ds, as we speak. Join the Rs in purging us, and we may be strong enough someday to form a Centrist Party, but history is against us. Instead, the fog of polarized politics - think GB in the post WW2 years - will likely thicken.

I, for one, regret the D pullout from under D. H-S, and hope it was not made on ideological grounds.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 12, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Q.B. I've been meaning to address your woeful inability to actually address issues, perhaps like Kevin or 12Bar.

Here is an example of how your reactionary right wing ideological positions simply do not help. I'm going to use the example of the other day when you actually tried to defend those who claimed Obamacare was a "government takeover" You blew your usual hot air and opined that you could justify such an "opinion" You are an attorney correct. Do you know how to debate based on empirical facts. Well let's examine your absurd Gov't takeover position.

A Gov't takeover of our health care system in the literal sense would mean the Gov't owns all health care facilities..determines the number and location of such facilities, hires the providers, doctors, nurses etc. and even determines who is allowed to attend medical schools. That of course would require something akin to a communist dictatorship.

For the sake of discussion let's back down from that FACT and perhaps include the British model. The Gov't does own the facilities and hires the doctors but it DOES NOT forbid private facilities or practice. So in the literal sense it's not TRULY a gov't takeover, but for the sake of debate I could understand if you feel that it is.

Let's back down another notch...single payer (Canadian or Medicare) model. There the Gov't only controls the insurance, although again there is room for private insurers, they are not outlawed as would happen in a true gov't takeover of insurance, much less the medical system.

But of course Q.B. it is impossible to actually discuss issues with you because you are such a knee jerk ideologue. When you conflate "insurance reform" that includes a mandate...with a Gov't takeover of our healthcare system that is just lame. It shows you do not possess or refuse to use an ability for critical thinking...much less nuance.
In the most literal sense you could gripe about "INCREASED" control of the Gov't on our INSURANCE system. But you responded in such an EXTREME fashion as you often do that there is no real room for discussion.

Remember my original point was that there are tea party morons and even some morons who post here who keep referring to Obamacare as a Gov't takeover of our health care system. To further prove their mind numbing ignorance they make sure we realize how stupid they are by hurling words like socialism and communism.

There are some posters here who are truly challenged intellectually...I give them the benefit of the doubt...why disturb their bliss. I expect more out of you Q.B.
Use your brain..again like Kevin...or sold2u who is certainly no liberal..and give up the pedantic name calling and johnny one note extremist replies.

IMHO you are bright enough to do better!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 12, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

David, are you going to call Thomas Paine a "Koch-Head" too? Can you really not see the need for anonymous political speech? I'm sure that the British would have loved to receive "financial disclosure forms" as to the publication of Common Sense or The Federalist Papers.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 12, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3:

Did you read this?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/10/karl-rove-on-disclosing-donors-obama-is-hypocritical.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

First Amendment, New Liberal Translation by wbgonne:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abriding the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grivances, except that it may prohibit or limit expenditures necessar to or in support of speech, prohibit and regulate anonymous speech, and prohibit and regulate speech except by individual, natural persons."

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 12, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

You were asking about Democrats defending Alvin Green. Hopefully you watched Larry O'Donnell last night.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

In the interest of bi-partisanship, such as it is, here's a list of the top ten "Good Men" in politics today as decided by a new online magazine. Maybe next time they'll do the top ten "Women".

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

1. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan
2. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin
3. Mayor Cory Booker, Newark Democrat
4. Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao, R-Louisiana
5. Sen. Al Franken. D-Minnesota
6. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona
7. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana
8. Rep. Mark Strama, D-Tex.
9. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont
10. Gov. Mitch Daniels, Indiana Republican

Citing a "need" to believe that there are still good men in public life, they spent months looking for them. Their list is bipartisan, and has its share of surprises. The criteria cited by the magazine in its accompanying article included integrity, intellectual honesty, respect for their political opponents – as well as their constituents – a belief in open government and a willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion. At a premium were men with compelling ideas, along with the political skill to help advance those ideas.

"Do we endorse everything they stand for? No. But we can respect those we disagree with," the editors wrote. "We looked for men who can see beyond the next election cycle and who have the political courage to lay the foundation for America's future success -- even if it means making unpopular decisions today."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/12/the-top-10-good-politicians-of-2010-breaking-down-the-list/

Posted by: lmsinca | October 12, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1:

"except that it may prohibit or limit expenditures necessary to or in support of speech (unless George Soros and/or Barack Obama are spending said sums)"

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca:

Thanks for the list. If Rep. Cao can win re-election in Louisiana, that will be amazing!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

@mark in austin..

Thanks for your well thought out post. You make a variety of excellent points.

I'll let wbgonne speak for himself not only because it's the right thing to do but because he is more literate than me and can defend himself far better than me.

As for me I do accept your fundamental point. If I have disagreement I think it would be in the word "purge". From my perspective the "moderates" "blue dogs" whatever you wish to call them have obtained an inordinate amount of power.
The conservadems have torpedoed legislation on PROCEDURAL grounds! I don't mind them voting their conscience, but when they join the R's to filibuster in today's new Senate which requires 60 votes to even GET A VOTE...then...perhaps purge is too strong...but certainly do not support them.

Again Mark...it's one thing to speak out on an issue in opposition to your party whether you are a Dem or an R, or to hold a contrary position and vote your conscience when the roll is called, but to join the opposition party in filibustering is just too much! At least IMHO.

I would suggest Mark that a lot of this "purge" talk or anger from the left is as much a result of the SENATE where a majority rule has now been replaced by super majority rule of 60. If I had a nickel for every friend I've had to correct who has claimed..."but the Dems had a 60 vote majority in the Senate why didn't they get a P.O.?" No they NEVER had a 60 vote majority..LIEberman actually campaigned for the R presidential candidate and would have been the Republican V.P. candidate if McCain's advisers hadn't shot down McCain's choice.

The point I'm making is that the average American doesn't understand how the Senate works...they think if you have a majority you should be able to pass legislation...that's simply not true and the conservadem simply add to the confusion by joining in filibusters with the R's to stop legislation not by a vote but by procedural fun and games.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 12, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

"CNN's Jeff Simon digs into the matter and finds that one of the two cities Sharron Angle cited as being under threat from Sharia Law doesn't really exist."

Nope, no racism in this political platform.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 12, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

* Gunman says he watched Beck and read right-wing sites *

Before Byron Williams engaged in a shoot-out with California Highway Patrolmen in July, he watched Fox News' Glenn Beck, listened to conservative radio host Michael Savage, and got news and information from Alex Jones' InfoWars.com and several fringe, right-wing websites.

Normally, there isn't significant interest in what a convicted felon read and watched before heading to jail. But Williams' media diet is getting attention now because two journalists met separately with the gunman to discuss what drove him to target organizations routinely attacked by conservative talkers: the Tides Foundation, a left-leaning charity, and the ACLU. Both journalists asked Williams specifically about the influence of Beck, a popular television and radio host who recently demonstrated his clout by flooding the National Mall with supporters in August.

[...]

Beck, often at his chalkboard covered in wide-ranging conspiracy theories, included the Tides Foundation in his rants that often involve liberal billionaire George Soros or other progressive organizations. Media Matters counted 29 examples of Beck criticizing the Tides Foundation in the year-and-a-half before Williams opened fire.

Pacifica Radio's John Hamilton, who conducted the interview and investigation for Media Matters, wrote that Williams told him that "Beck would never say anything about a conspiracy, would never advocate violence.' However, Williams said that Beck will "give you every ounce of evidence that you could possibly need." Beck, Williams said later, is "like a schoolteacher on TV."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101012/cm_yblog_upshot/gunman-says-he-watched-beck-and-read-right-wing-sites

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 12, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

ruk,

When you want to have a serious discussion, complete with critical reasoning, address the comments I actually made, rather than misrepresenting them, as you have so typically done.

Beyond that, a term like "take over" has no precise or definite factual meaning. It is inherently one of opinion. Today it is illegal for me not to purchase insurance, and the content of that insurance, how much it can cost, and from whom I can purchase it are all regulated by the government. That's a pretty good start on a "take over," and there is quite a strong argument that the legislation is designed and intended to pave the way for a more complete take over. That is the fervent hope of many here at PL itself, you included as I understand it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 12, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

"CNN's Jeff Simon digs into the matter and finds that one of the two cities Sharron Angle cited as being under threat from Sharia Law doesn't really exist."

Nope, no racism in this political platform.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 12, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin:

As you are well aware, majority rule still operates in the U.S. Senate, as legislation needs only 50 votes (plus the Vice President, if there's a tie) to pass. Maybe you can explain that to others here in more simple terms.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

"In the interest of bi-partisanship, such as it is, here's a list of the top ten "Good Men" in politics today as decided by a new online magazine. Maybe next time they'll do the top ten "Women".

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

1. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan
2. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin
3. Mayor Cory Booker, Newark Democrat
4. Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao, R-Louisiana
5. Sen. Al Franken. D-Minnesota
6. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona
7. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana
8. Rep. Mark Strama, D-Tex.
9. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont
10. Gov. Mitch Daniels, Indiana Republican"

I can vouch for Cao. He was one of those community organizers which the rest of his party finds so comical for some reason.

That aside, he's a very pro-Obama Republican. I guess the only one? Also, the only Republican to vote for the original House version of the Affordable Care Act (he switched when Stupak was stripped in the Senate version)

I'm not voting for him, but I would not be the least bit upset if he were to return to Washington. In fact, I think most Republicans hate Cao. If they think people like McCain, Graham, and Bennett are too liberal, then Cao is downright Stalin to those people.

And no matter what his politics are, he's a great person.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 12, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

One more comment of interest before I get to work here. I've been contacted by 3 different polling outfits in the last couple of weeks. The one last night I've concluded was essentially to determine how the race is going regarding our local rep race, go Bill Hedrick. But the interesting question was an either or, instead of a 1-10 rating or choice between several other options.

Is the country heading in the right direction or completely off track and heading for disaster? I was waiting for the compromise position but it never surfaced.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 12, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

It should go without saying that I believe the country is completely off track and heading for disaster.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

All, new Adam Serwer post on the historical underpinnings of Tea Partyism:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 12, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

"The Kentucky Senate GOP candidate finally finds a worker safety law he can support: One that would protect interns from people like Bill Clinton, who is campaigning for his opponent."

What? Rand Paul suddenly doesn't believe in the power of the free market to come up with solutions?

Thus far, I don't think Rand Paul compares favorably to his dad.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 12, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

The story about Ken Buck's handling of that rape case is more interesting than I had previously understood:

At the time, a 21-year-old student had gotten together with a man she used to date. Intoxicated, the young woman invited her alleged attacker to her apartment. She apparently passed out, but woke up to find herself being violated. The attacker conceded to police that the woman had said "no," and the police report added, "he realized he had done something wrong." The same report went on to say he felt "shame and regret" and even tried to "apologize" to the victim.

Despite all of this, Buck concluded the case wasn't worth prosecuting. In his conversation with the victim, in which Buck was recorded without his knowledge, he argued, "It appears to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026081.php

Does the right believe this is the kind of attitude that should be in the Senate?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 12, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Q.B. Again a lame answer. You have paid your entire adult life into the Medicare system...in your OPINION is that a government takeover of our health care system. By your "logic" The government has taken over everything already anyway. When one conflates "opinion" with fact it's impossible to have a rational discussion.
Pretty much the point of my original post.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 12, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

ruk, thanks for your thoughtful response. I accept the distinction you drew regarding cloture votes in the Senate.

I was gratified to read that Sen. Lugar made someone else's best list aside from mine! I also am represented by Mark Strama in the TX Lege and he is actually the most pragmatic state legislator I have ever met.

Ddawd, is Cao's opponent distinguished in any way, or are you simply voting party?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 12, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Greg, your issue with Shelby is reasonable in that an up or down vote should be taken. However from an economics standpoint, your reasoning is specious. The last 31 years the Fed has been dominated by a Harvard trained chairman, and most of it's members have been recruits from elite academia. This is a post 1960's phenomenon, since membership used to be actual bankers with business experience. Nothing in the last 30 year financial history of this nation would suggest that having elite economists on the Fed has kept our nation from economic disaster, and inded in some cases such as Greenspan, probably contributed mightily to the problem. There is no real world evidence to believe that Peter Diamond's academic background will be any more helpful to the economy than that of the equally academically impressive and yet totally incompetent Christina Romer. By the time of her resignation from the administration she demonstrated a singular inability to grasp or forecast the nature of the nation's economic difficulties which will no doubt not be an issue in her next posting at at U Cal, or some other fine institution. Speaking a language that most of us do not understand, (economics)does not serve as a reliable predictor of leadership ability.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 12, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticstill:

Yes, I do want Buck elected to the U.S. Senate. At least he never drove a young lady off a bridge and let her drown in the car ; )

As I commented last night, the burden of proof for a criminal case is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. "It appears to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him" is, whether you like it or not, reasonable doubt.

Next unwarranted attack on a TEA Party candidate? Maybe Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell this time?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

54465446:

That's TWO IN A ROW where you and I agree -- better be careful, or you will be labeled a "wingnut" too -- quick: are you certain that Obama was born in Hawaii?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin

"Thus far, I don't think Rand Paul compares favorably to his dad."

I am in total agreement my "Volunteer" friend. I think Ron Paul could have made that list lmsinca posted earlier. Unlike most politicians he is a man with the courage of his convictions.

Perhaps Rand spent too much time with "AquaBuddha" and unlike Clinton "inhaled"

BTW IMHO Clinton has lobbed some real winners at us...when he said he smoked pot but didn't inhale I thought...what a freakin maroon...why smoke it then? But his real gem was.."I did not have sex with that woman" Couldn't he have come up with something a little more clever...like hiking the Appalachian Trail? :-)
Wonder what excuse Brett Favre will use for sending pics of his "unit" to the hot looking sideline reporter?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 12, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Isn't reasonable doubt for a jury to decide? The guy admitted she said no, she said she was raped. What if it was your daughter?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 12, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Mark, pretty much on policy grounds. I made the decision that if Cao votes for ACA, he's got my vote. If not, then not.

Richmond has got his issues, but he's not William Jefferson. And while Cao votes with the Dems like 70% of the time, Richmond would make that much higher.

And of course, there's the threat that the GOP takes the House. As nice of a guy that Cao is, the country is really hurting now and I simply cannot vote for a Republican and sleep at night. I couldn't do that to my country.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 12, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

No, it's also part of prosecutorial discretion. The guy admitted that she said "no" and then he stopped, apologized, etc. If she consented to the sex, all the way until she said no and he stopped, there's no rape per Colorado law. Of course, it's illegal to tape record a conversation without full consent too ; )

I only have sons. What about Ted Kennedy, did the left believe that was the kind of actual murderer who should be in the United States Senate?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin:

First it was "if Cao votes for Obamacare, he's got my vote." Then it was "if Cao votes for ACA, he's got my vote." As DDAWD admitted, he simply cannot vote for a Republican. Like I said, it will be amazing to see Rep. Cao (R-LA) re-elected!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Both DDAWD and angriestdogintheworld insisted that will never happen ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Plunderbund blog reports that before the DCCC pulled out of OH-1 (Driehaus) the NRCC pulled out. If the GOP pulled out first, why is this being presented as a concession by the DCCC that the race is lost. It looks very competitive from here.


http://www.plunderbund.com/2010/10/11/update-oh-01-confirmed-nrcc-pullout-predated-dccc/

Posted by: cintibud | October 12, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

What does Ted Kennedy have to do with whether a woman deserved to have her rapist prosecuted? Does Ted Kennedy's mistake from 40 years ago excuse every ridiculous thing that a Republican does? Does Ted Kennedy excuse David Vitter, Mark Sanford, John Ensign? Republicans can do anything, say anything because .... TED KENNEDY.

Give me a break.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 12, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Plunderbund blog reports that before the DCCC pulled out of OH-1 (Driehaus) the NRCC pulled out. If the GOP pulled out first, why is this being presented as a concession by the DCCC that the race is lost. It looks very competitive from here.


http://www.plunderbund.com/2010/10/11/update-oh-01-confirmed-nrcc-pullout-predated-dccc/

Posted by: cintibud | October 12, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Plunderbund blog reports that before the DCCC pulled out of OH-1 (Driehaus) the NRCC pulled out. If the GOP pulled out first, why is this being presented as a concession by the DCCC that the race is lost. It looks very competitive from here.


http://www.plunderbund.com/2010/10/11/update-oh-01-confirmed-nrcc-pullout-predated-dccc/

Posted by: cintibud | October 12, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticstill:

As Ken Buck explained to the Greeley Tribune at the time: "A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer's remorse," and added that he hoped "the pitiful facts in this case" would not deter rape victims from speaking out. Do you at least understand why prosecutorial discretion is key to our criminal justice system? You know what they say about "Better that 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man".

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"That's TWO IN A ROW where you and I agree -- better be careful, or you will be labeled a "wingnut" too -- quick: are you certain that Obama was born in Hawaii?'

I'm all about the facts, glad you are becoming that way too! A contemporaneous notice in two local newspapers giving the hospital where he was born is a hard thing to fake. Wouldn't you say?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 12, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

As for my question about Ted Kennedy, no, that does not excuse anything. I simply wanted to know if you thought that HE deserved a seat in the U.S. Senate. Please recall your first question (above):

"Does the right believe this is the kind of attitude that should be in the Senate?"

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

You guys DO realize that you're trying to argue with a dining room table, right?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 12, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

ruk,

I note that you still haven't addressed the comments I actually made and that you misrepresented. Wonder why that is. Perhaps because my response to you the other day is a little harder to address than a straw man.

So let's remind ourselves of that exchange, okay? You were making your usual strident claim that Fox News habitually "lies," and as proof you cited a survey of opinions about Obamacare. You falsely said it was a WSJ poll, when in fact it was an NBC poll.

More importantly, however, this survey was taken in the summer of 2009 and asked the qustion whether those surveyed believed that federal health care reform would "lead to" a government "take over" and other features objectionable to conservatives. And the survey found that more Fox viewers had this opinion than, say, NBC viewers.

Of course, the final Obamacare was not passed until many months later, after many revisions and trips to the ER with near death experiences. Its final content was so mysterious that Queen Nancy famously declared at the end that representatives would just a have to "pass the bill to find out what is in the bill."

My response to all this was to point out how full of logical holes and leaps and fallacies your argument was. To identify a few:

What is a "take over" is a matter of opinion. I'm sorry that you still don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion, but I've come to understand that you are incapable of understanding, so I won't waste more time trying to explain it to you.

The question of what reform would "lead to" is quite different from what the terms of Obamacare itself, as passed, are. Indeed, it has always been part of the unhidden strategy of the left to pass what reform could be had and set the stage for more radical changes later.

The question of what Obamacare would lead to, as posed in August 2009, before we even knew what it would be in final form, is also quite different from that question as posed after passage of the final legislation half a year later, after endless conflict and revision. Your comments thus committed a major historical fallacy.

And on top of all that you committed another whole serious of fallacies of causation, by assuming that the opinions of Fox viewers on the survey questions were held because they watched Fox, which you assumed told these "lies," which you assumed were uncritically accepted, by people you assumed had no other sources of information or opinions apart from Fox, etc.

In short, you made one of the most logically absurd and indefensible arguments I've ever seen on PL, which is a tall order to say the least.

"When one conflates "opinion" with fact it's impossible to have a rational discussion."

Yes, you just keep proving my point over and over. Your entire argument is a conflation of fact and opinion, in addition to being a mountain of logical fallacies.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 12, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

54465446:

No.

pragmaticstill:

You are, of course, under no obligation to answer my questions to you (even though I've answered every question you've asked on this thread). Have a nice life : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

What's that got to do with Ted Kennedy, jake? Because a prosecutor 40 years ago exercised his discretion in not prosecuting Ted Kennedy, Ken Buck was justified in deciding a rape victim should not be given her day in Court after the Defendant essentially admitted to the crime? Really ... Ted Kennedy?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 12, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticstill:

Ted Kennedy WAS prosecuted (and pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a two months suspended sentence). So, no, this is not some tit-for-tat prosecutor's revenge. I was just asking where -- if at all -- you draw the line. You questioned the right's rationale for support Ken Buck (who is NOT the alleged rapist here) among other questions -- all of which I have answered -- and my question to YOU was whether Senator Kennedy deserved to be re-elected. Like I said, there's no obligation to answer.

Have a nice life (at least this "rape" victim is still alive : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

I've answered all of your questions on this thread too. Now, are you CERTAIN that Obama was born in Hawaii?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Joke = dining room table

Set phasers to ignore.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 12, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, Barney Frank (D-MA) loses his seat too : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2: "I've answered all of your questions on this thread too. Now, are you CERTAIN that Obama was born in Hawaii?"

Well, I don't know about 54465445, but I'm as certain as I need to be. More certain than I am of any previous president's birthplace.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 12, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"Again: It's the disclosure, stupid: In an interview with Jake Tapper, David Axelrod argues that this is not just about foreign money -- it's about whether the American people have the right to know who is funding the ads influencing our elections."
---------------------------------------------

Again, disclosure is a ~feature~, stupid, not a benefit. Americans in general don't care much about politics or pay much attention to elections. Why should they care who's funding ads for candidate so-and-so? Where's the pay off? It's just an abstraction at that point. But make the case that a ~lack~ of disclosure makes it possible for shadowy foreign interest with funny accents and mustaches to influence our government, now you're starting to bring it home -- and attacking the credibility of one of the biggest opposing players in the process. It's a two-fer.

Posted by: CalD | October 12, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

http://www.wbur.org/2010/10/12/frank-bielat-debate

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"More than 4 of 10 likely voters who say they once considered themselves Obama backers now are either less supportive or say they no longer support him at all."
---------------------------------------------

Poor babies. Who killed Bambi?!?!

Posted by: CalD | October 12, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Bielat did manage to throw Frank off balance when the congressman was pointing out that Bielat advocates permanent tax cuts for Americans who make more than $250,000 a year.

“One year might make sense, but that’s not what the Republicans are advocating,” Frank said. “It’s not what Mr. Bielat is advocating. He’s advocating…”

“How do you know what I’m advocating?” Bielat asked.

“Because I’ve read what you said,” Frank replied definitively, before showing some impatience with Bielat.

“Do I…what are the ground rules?” Frank asked Braude. “I know when I say something he doesn’t like, that he interrupts me. That’s been the pattern. The fact is, that I’ve read what Mr. Bielat said, and he is for making them permanent, as I have read it.”

Bielat managed to unnerve Frank once again when the two were debating how to put Social Security on sound financial footing.

“What Barney Frank is saying is: ‘Let’s not change anything, because I might lose votes. It’s not my problem now. We’ll kick the can down the road, and hopefully, it works out for the best in 20 or 30 years, and I’m not going to deal with it.’ That’s the wrong approach,” Bielat said.

“That’s the kind of distortion Mr. Bielat uses,” Frank said, interrupting. “I just said I agree with increasing the tax base. I just said it, and he makes believe I didn’t. I said that ‘I think you can increase the degree to which…’”

Now it was Bielat’s turn to interrupt.

“That’s not sufficient, and we both know it,” Bielat said.

“Mr. Bielat,” Frank remonstrated. “Please Sean, don’t do that. It’s a constant issue with him.”

Bielat, the challenger, managed to put the Frank, the congressman, on the defensive ...

Donate to Sean Bielat:

https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=LS0QOAGF2EQE

or mail checks:

Bielat for Congress
P.O. Box 1143
Brookline, MA 02446

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis:

Thanks for your answer.

54465446 (last time I will ask you, I promise):

Are you CERTAIN that Obama was born in Hawaii?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

RE: Democratic Triage

Barring one of their opponents getting caught with a live boy or a dead girl, I'd currently call the following districts all but certain goners (0.7 probability or higher) for Democrats:

AZ 01: Kirkpatrick
OH 01: Driehaus
TX 17: Edwards
OH 15: Kilroy
IL 11: Halvorson
FL 24: Kosmas
IN 08: OPEN
KS 03: OPEN
CO 04: Markey
AR 02: OPEN
NY 29: OPEN
LA 03: OPEN
TN 06: OPEN

Probably time for the national party to cut 'em loose if they haven't already. It's also time to contribute to dccc.org BTW, or contribute again if you already have. There are another 32 districts that they need to fight down to the wire and try to hold at least half of them, and another 22 on top of that that are looking a little worse for wear but mostly seem to be headed out of the woods.

Posted by: CalD | October 12, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Except for SarahPac, I prefer direct campaign contributions:

https://secure.piryx.com/donate/MqXmkiis/SharronAngle/countdown

https://secure.piryx.com/donate/ObyCSaw9/Friends-of-Christine-ODonnell/imyouvideosplash

https://secure.linda2010.com/donate

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

There are plenty of other good GOP candidates out there too. It can't hurt to give them all a little extra push right now. Also, please note that Linda McMahon for Senate 2010 does not accept contributions greater than $100.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

PS: Dalkemper strikes me as just inside the toss-up range. If it were me I think I'd keep her on for now.

Posted by: CalD | October 12, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Beyond that, a term like "take over" has no precise or definite factual meaning. It is inherently one of opinion.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 12, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

---

That is flat out wrong. General Motors was "taken over". AIG was "taken over". A single payer system akin to the British NHS would be a "take over". Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Humana, United Health Care and many other companies are doing just fine. They have definitely NOT been "taken over". You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Words have meaning. And I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 12, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

The editorial writers of the WSJ took on the disclosure straw man yesterday. Here's a snippet of what they had to say:
"Democrats claim only to favor "disclosure" of donors, but their legal intimidation attempts are the best argument against disclosure. Liberals want the names of business donors made public so they can become targets of vilification with the goal of intimidating them into silence. A CEO or corporate board is likely to think twice about contributing to a campaign fund if the IRS or prosecutors might come calling. If Democrats can reduce business donations in the next three weeks, they can limit the number of GOP challengers with a chance to win and reduce Democratic Congressional losses.

The strategy got a test drive in Minnesota earlier this year after Target Corporation donated $100,000 cash and $50,000 of in-kind contributions to an independent group that ran ads supporting the primary candidacy of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. MoveOn.org accused the company of being anti-gay, organized a petition, and crafted a TV ad urging shoppers to boycott Target stores. Target made no further donations, and other companies that once showed an interest have since declined to contribute."

or how about this:
"Chairman Max Baucus of the powerful Senate Finance Committee got the threats going last month when he asked Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman to investigate if certain tax exempt 501(c) groups had violated the law by engaging in too much political campaign activity. Lest there be any confusion about his targets, the Montana Democrat flagged articles focused on GOP-leaning groups, including Americans for Job Security and American Crossroads"
Or how about this:
"Since the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business, though not for unions. Having failed on that score, they're now turning to legal and political threats. Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008."

the whining of the Democrats is as music to the ears.


Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 12, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"Kevin_Willis:

Thanks for your answer.

54465446 (last time I will ask you, I promise):

Are you CERTAIN that Obama was born in Hawaii"


Ok. I'll play the straight man for you, since you're obviously going somewhere. Please enlighten me!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 12, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Just as soon as you answer my question to you.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

@54465446 - Trust me. The reward isn't worth the journey.

BB

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

Okay, Jake, yes short of being in the hospital room, (since I was only 4 at the time) I am certain he was born in Hawaii. Now what?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 12, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

54465446,

Jake is obsessed with birtherism. There is no point in engaging in a discussion with Jake on this topic, because he finds it plausible that a Obama's mother, a teenager pregnant for the first time, left her home, her parents, her doctor and a hospital that was close by in order to travel to Kenya, on multiple flights that would have involved days of travel and layovers in at least three airports) at an expense that would have been equal to the median income, in order to give birth in a country she had never been in, cared for by doctors and nurses she didn't know, all while leaving no records of exiting the U.S. or of re-entering the U.S. with a newborn, yet Jake can't believe that a Certificate of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii on the form used by the State and acceptable as a "birth certificate" under federal law could be proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Don't waste your time.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 12, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I was wondering how long we'd hear about the non-existence of "Frankfort, Texas". Maybe David Byrne or the Cohen Brothers could use it as a movie subject/locale.

Angle is a fake and sad excuse for a candidate.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 12, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

Not only is it plausible, are you aware that someone who claims to have been "in the hospital room" (his paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama) actually said that she was present when he was born in Kenya? That's direct, eyewitness testimony (although not sworn under oath, it was via a translator). Now, what do you say if you are "play[ing] the straight man" and, more importantly, looking at those facts?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw:

Thanks but Jake is pretty harmless. Listening to him helps avoid a few of these posters who get obsessed with the theoretical implications of things that have never happened, but could happen or should happen if only the world was a better place.

Thanks for the reply though.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 12, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"Not only is it plausible, are you aware that someone who claims to have been "in the hospital room" (his paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama) actually said that she was present when he was born . . . "

It must have been very expensive to fly her to Hawaii, but I'm glad she made it in time.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 12, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

@54465445 - Oh, snap!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 12, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

All the parties stipulate that Sarah Obama has never left Kenya. Care to answer my questions now (remember, you are all about the facts)?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I won't repeat these again:

QUESTION #1) Are you aware that his paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, said that she was present when he was born in Kenya?

QUESTION #2) If not, what do you say if you are strictly looking at those facts?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

No stipulates. They give me gas.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 12, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. "You falsely said it was a WSJ poll, when in fact it was an NBC poll."

WRONG. I said it was a joint poll. I even made fun of the NBC portion secure in the knowledge that you would come back with some cr&p about..ohhh but it's liberal...this is why I then AFTER pointing out NBC's involvement said CONSERVATIVE WSJ. I don't know who ACTUALLY does the polling for these joint efforts but BOTH WSJ and NBC sign off on the credibility.

@FBLADE I agree with you words have meaning and if I might nitpick a bit. While I agree with the sentiment of your post..I believe for it to have been a government takeover of HCR it would have needed to be the V.A. for all..in other words a true Socialism model...perhaps like England although again since private practice is not forbidden we could still quibble about government takeover. But I would concede that point.

If as you mentioned Obama had opted for Medicare for all or single payer...IMHO that STILL would not have been a government takeover of our health care system but rather a Government takeover of our INSURANCE SYSTEM. But even that stretches the truth of the words GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER because as is currently the case with S.S. most recipients still purchase PRIVATE supplemental insurance. My 85 year old mother sends monthly premiums to United Healthcare purchased through AARP while my wife and I send $23,000 annually to that same company because we're still 3 years shy of S.S.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 12, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

You will note that I am not asking you any questions.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 12, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Having a government option, so to speak, wouldn't necessarily undercut private insurers, though it could. Personally, I'd be inclined for the equivalent of a voucher plan, funded by a new FICA tax or VAT if you like. Sufficient to provide a plan with reasonable primary care and catastrophic illness. You can shop for insurance with any company you like. Employers are free to supplement the cost with better plans and they get a credit for what their employees would pay.

This is not that different from the pension plans in the UK. There is a subsistence level plan, but most folks have a private plan and don't pay the equivalent of social security taxes. Oddly enough, what I favor for medical insurance is relatively similar to what Republicans favor for pensions and education.

As for notes, I prefer G-flat.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 12, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

jakesD2 wrote:

"I won't repeat these again:

QUESTION #1) Are you aware that his paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, said that she was present when he was born in Kenya?

QUESTION #2) If not, what do you say if you are strictly looking at those facts?"

Hey Jake, I was actually living my life, so I didn't see this. That's fine, everyone else in his family says he was born in Hawaii. Where does that leave us?

See here's the problem with this, and all other conspiracy theories. They always require a large group of people to take actions entirely against their own interest and often common sense, and keep quiet about it for 20-30 years, so that somehwehre in the future someone can weave all these disparate threads togehter and go AHA!

In this case, why would Obama's mother in presumably a very pregnant state, leave the US to journey half way around the world to have a baby in Kenya, only to be back in Hawaii in time for the the father's fall semsester in 1961, where we know he was, before completing his degree in 1962.

Furthermore what would be the advantage of birth in Kenya, since Obama wa already a Kenyan citizen by virtue of his father's Kenyan citizenship no matter where he was born.

Finally, why would his American family go to the trouble of putting a false notice in a local Hawaii newspaper, and of course why would everyone involved lie about it?

That'll do it for now!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 12, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

You asking questions is not the same as actually answering questions.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 12, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

clawrence:

I'm not the one who needs to explain why Obama wasn't REALLY born in Hawaii.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 12, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12:

Good catch! I will not be answering those new questions until he / she actually answers my (already-pending) questions. It's really very simple, either "yes" I did know or "no" I didn't know about Sarah Obama and, if not, why all the excuses.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

54465446:

I only "avoided" your questions AFTER you avoided mine.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 11:33 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