Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* The ever-expanding House map keeps Dems on defense everwhere: I'm told National Republicans are expanding their list of Dem targets yet again, airing a new NRCC spot targeting Blue Dog Rep. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, who hadn't been thought vulnerable:

The ad is a response to an earlier spot by Davis claiming his challenger, Dr. Scott DesJarlais, as having a history of violent attacks against his estranged wife. The larger point is that the fertile territory for Republicans keeps expanding -- Tennessee has been especially bad for Dems this cycle -- and Dems are playing defense all over the map.

UPDATE, 11:51 a.m.: I'm convinced I was wrong to suggest the possibility that this ad is a head fake, because it's less than three weeks until election day. I've edited the above to correct.

* The false equivalences between Chamber and lefty groups just won't stop: U.S. Chamber of Commerce executive veep Bruce Josten on Fox last night:

"This began with a liberal blog, a subset of John Podesta, the chairman of the president's own transition team after his inauguration, his own Center for American Progress, which interestingly is largely funded as a start-up by George Soros and doesn't divulge its own donors. And the administration didn't even disclose all of its donors in the 2008 election cycle in the run-up to the campaign."

Of course, CAP has never run any ads, and according to Open Secrets, the Obama campain disclosed 90.2 percent of the hundreds of millions he raised. It's going to be interesting to see who's willing to call out these kinds of distortions and who lets them skate.

* Maybe those pundits scoffing at the Dem attacks on the anonymous money were...wrong? Mike Allen flags a key number from the new Bloomberg poll: Forty seven percent say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate aided by ads paid for by "anonymous business groups," versus only 9 percent who say the opposite.

As I noted here yesterday, those who claim voters don't care about this issue might consider trying to determine if there's any, you know, evidence of this.

* What all that anonymous money is funding: One of Karl Rove's groups is up with a new spot in Nevada accusing Harry Reid of "disdain for the job-creating private sector."

* Not backing off: Veep Joe Biden keeps up the pressure:

"Just tell us where the money's coming from. Why can't the Chamber say, 'These are where the contributions are coming from?' Why can't Karl Rove tell us where the contributions are coming from?"

* Obama admits acting too liberal, fantasizes about coming era of GOP cooperation: In a new interview with Peter Baker, Obama admits he allowed himself to look too much like an "old tax and spend Democrat."

And: Obama says he believes that after November, Republicans will "feel more responsible" and may "offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way."

* Big bad scheming Nancy Pelosi conspiracy theory of the day: A Dem Congressional candidate claims the DCCC yanked his ad funding because he's refusing to back her as Speaker. Good way to get attention from right wing blogs, I guess.

* Do Americans really hate big government? It's not so clear cut, sayeth Gallup.

* About those Gallup polls showing a massive GOP edge: Polling guru Mark Blumenthal says you shouldn't be surprised if it narrows considerably in the next couple weeks.

* Pratfall of the day: Michele Bachmann defends the Chamber's ad onslaught by claiming it's funded out of a "separate PAC" bankrolled by only American donors. Of course, that separate PAC, which does exist, would require disclosure, which is why it isn't funding the vast majority of the Chamber's ads.

* And Sharia law is coming to a community near you: Brian Montopoli has a dispiriting rundown of all the GOPers and conservative opinionmakers around the country who are trembling -- or pretending to tremble -- about this imminent takeover.

My personal favorite: Columnist Andrea Peyser warns: "Coming soon to a TV in your child's bedroom is a posse of righteous, Sharia-compliant Muslim superheroes." You have to pity the poor chumps who get taken in by this con game.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 13, 2010; 8:31 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, Foreign policy and national security, House Dems, House GOPers, Morning Plum, Political media  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Paladino's apology shows Dem timidity enables discrimination

Comments

"Obama admits he allowed himself to look too much like an "old tax and spend Democrat." "

Well duh. The only "change" is that he is even farther to the left and an even bigger spender.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 13, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Of course, it's not a distortion to point out that 9.8% of the hundreds of millions of dollars Obama raised was not disclosed. Didn't JakeD take care of this yesterday?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 13, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

I can't think of a worse way for President Obama to step all over his own message and the message of many Democrats running for office in less than a month than to predict, with NO evidence whatsoever and in fact plenty of evidence pointing tot he contrary, that Republicans will play ball with him next year.

WTF??!!??!!

Once again they make it hard to be a Democrat this cycle even though I still plan on voting Dem.

Posted by: sgwhiteinfla | October 13, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

The issue is not about "CAP has never run any ads." ThinkProgress is getting the liberal word out though. Talk about false equivalences.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 13, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Re Josten of the Chamber of Commerce on FOX...

Yesterday, the C of C said they would be doing no media interviews on election funding or money sources. Yesterday, I said that they'd be using FOX.

And in Britain, broad and nearly universal warnings of the dangers that Murdoch's media plans hold for discourse and for democratic governance...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/12/AR2010101205244.html?hpid=sec-world

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Charlie Brown believes that this is the November when Lucy will cooperate, and not pull the football away, at the last minute.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Greg:

"Of course, CAP has never run any ads..."

So, just to be clear, it is OK for an organization with secret donors to engage in any political activity as long as they don't run ads, is that it?

I thought the issue, as you keep saying, is "disclosure". Now you seem to be saying that it is disclosure only for a single kind of political acitivity, ie running ads. Please clarify.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 13, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

"Nor did the Chamber of Commerce restrict itself to matters of business in the 1970s. The organization helped to build a bridge between the social backlash against the civil rights, gay rights, feminist, and antiwar movements and the business backlash against regulation and the welfare state. Nation's Business ran monthly columns by James, J. Kilpatrick, a southern journalist known for his vigorous defense of segregation during the 60s, on matters such as school prayer, crime, the Equal Rights Amendment, public employee unions, the Panama Canal Treaty, and other staples of conservative political debate. ... It ran articles celebrating the property tax revolt that exploded in California in 1978, calling for deregulation to solve the energy crisis, and warning that the collapse of Social Security was imminent." (Invisible Hands, p. 205).

We are witness to what 40 years of Big Business propaganda has done to our great nation.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

In Israel, democracy or oligarchy? (from Ha'aretz)

"Tonight Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will convene a number of top officials, including Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, to decide whether to create a panel on the most charged and frightening economic issue that Jerusalem has faced in years: economic concentration. The tremendous clout wielded by a mere handful of tycoons over the masses."

http://www.haaretz.com/business/captains-of-concentration-get-their-day-1.318730

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Remember back when The Tea Party movement used to pretend that they were all about ending the influence of special interest blocs, and big money, in DC?

Now they remain silent, and are going to vote for Republicans who are being promoted by secret cabals, who are laundering campaign funds, through Carl Rove and The Chamber Of Commerce.

The Robber Barons Of Wall St. have bought The Republican Party, lock,stock, and barrel, and The Tea Party Crowd are completely in bed with them.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

The NYT interview is definitely not one of POTUS' better moments, that's for sure. The Obama meta in progressive quarters following the midterms is going to be intense.

In other news, the NRSC is going after Joe Sestak big time. Here's to the Dem grassroots/netroots pushing back.


Posted by: michael_conrad | October 13, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

I'm a little tired of all the negativity.
Let's see what the master of hate Q.B. can find wrong with this post of mine.

I simply wish to say to all my Chilean brothers and sisters and in particular to the miners, their families and the people who rescued them...muy bueno! Felicitaciones!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Ohhh boy, the neoconfederates are out in force because they OPPOSE full disclosure.

They PREFER not to know who or what is funding the candidates they support. They PREFER to be completely in the dark on the financial interests that are significantly influencing our candidates and government.

Willful ignorance is a panacea for the Republican Tea Party set. As long as the GOP candidates keep saying "tax cuts" and "deregulate every industry," everything will be alright. To hell with reality.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 13, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Ohhh boy, the neoconfederates are out in force because they OPPOSE full disclosure.

They PREFER not to know who or what is funding the candidates they support. They PREFER to be completely in the dark on the financial interests that are significantly influencing our candidates and government.

Willful ignorance is a panacea for the Republican Tea Party set. As long as the GOP candidates keep saying "tax cuts" and "deregulate every industry," everything will be alright. To hell with reality.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 13, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

The White House demands that the Chamber of Commerce release the names of all donors to it's Political Action Committee but back in 2003 Robert Gibbs was the spokesman for a Political Action Committee that refused to issue the names of it's donors after the PAC attacked Howard Dean.

It appears to me that Gibbs is a hypocrite!

Posted by: mwhoke | October 13, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

"Obama admits acting too liberal, fantasizes about coming era of GOP cooperation:"

Greg:

To say the least, I'm as sensitive as the next guy to anti-Liberal rhetoric emanating from the White House but I'm not so sure that;s how Obama intended that comment. Here is the full blurb:

"In the magazine article, Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,” realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” and perhaps should have “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” in the stimulus."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/president-obama-looks-forward-and-back/?ref=politics

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

From the 1971 Powell Memorandum to the Chamber of Commerce (the Plutocrat's manifesto):

"But independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.

Moreover, there is the quite understandable reluctance on the part of any one corporation to get too far out in front and to make itself too visible a target.

The role of the National Chamber of Commerce is therefore vital. Other national organizations (especially those of various industrial and commercial groups) should join in the effort, but no other organizations appear to be as well situated as the Chamber. It enjoys a strategic position, with a fine reputation and a broad base of support. Also -- and this is of immeasurable merit -- there are hundreds of local Chambers of Commerce which can play a vital supportive role."

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html

Propaganda, plain and simple. We are being indoctrinated by Big Business from the day we are born until the day we die.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

In chatting with my poor old Fox watching mom yesterday she swore up and down that TARP was Obama's creation and it justified the Tea Party's wrath. Two problems with that...first it was Bush not Obama..second it has been a very successful program especially when compared to Saint Ronnies solution for the S&L crisis.

And so unlike Q.B., JokeD, STRF and the other EXTREME "johnny one note" paritisan hacks on this blog I'm happy to give credit to G.W. Bush and Paulson for doing the right thing with TARP. Way to go R's!
Seriously no snark intended!

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

Originally expected to cost the U.S. Government $356 billion, the most recent final net estimate of the cost, as of October 5, 2010, will be close to $30 billion, including expected returns from interest in AIG.[1] This is significantly less than the taxpayers' cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s. The cost of that crisis amounted to 3.2% of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the current crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1%."

This along with Gov't takeover is just more proof that the teabaggers and folks like Q.B. operate in a "fact free" zone!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

So far,so good with the rescue of the miners, but can the media cover more than one story at a time?

I sure was glad to see that The GAP Logo crisis has been averted. Are you kidding me?. Hordes of Americans became outraged over a font change in the damn logo!

I am glad to see that the great Logo Crisis has been resolved before John McCain was forced to suspend his campaign, to take charge of the GAP meltdown.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "Of course, it's not a distortion to point out that 9.8% of the hundreds of millions of dollars Obama raised was not disclosed."

Also, while I'm not one for a tit-for-tat, was it only 9.8%, at least in the sense that the Chamber of Commerce donations are undisclosed? For example, in the case of Obama (unless I'm mistaken), wouldn't they consider a donation that came to him from the Chamber of Commerce to be disclosed. Arguably, 100% of the Chamber of Commerce advocacy on the part of Republicans is disclosed--it's coming from the Chamber of Commerce. Ergo, do we know the full chain of all of Obama's money, or just that last one-or-two organizations doing the donating?

From the far right Newsweek magazine: "The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that's an illustration of a truly democratic campaign. To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don't have to be publicly reported. Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. 'Good Will' listed his employer as 'Loving' and his occupation as 'You,' while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had 'no clue' who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name."

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/10/03/obama-s-good-will-hunting.html

Also, at this point, only 9.8% is unaccounted for? Really?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Sinister Big Money is using Karl Rove and The Chamber Of Con Artists, as their beards, in order to put their puppet government in place, without ever having to reveal who they really are.

Americans; vote for all candidates that Karl Rove's Crossroads Groups, and The American Chamber Of Con Artists oppose.

If they will not treat you like real Americans, and revel the names of their Robber Baron backers, then you must reject them.

Vote against The Chamber Of Con Artists, because they want to send all the good paying production jobs to China, and other cheap labor countries

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"And in Britain, broad and nearly universal warnings of the dangers that Murdoch's media plans hold for discourse and for democratic governance..."

Right. For decades the BBC exercised a coercive monopoly over the broadcast media in the UK, but it is Murdoch's non-coercive non-monopoly that represents a "danger" to "discourse and democratic governance".

BTW, Bernie, you are aware that all of the signatories to this letter calling for Murdhoch's acquisition to be stopped are, er, evil corporations, aren't you? Aren't you worried that these greedy corporatists are just trying to manipulate the government into passing regulation favorable to them just so they can make money?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 13, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "I simply wish to say to all my Chilean brothers and sisters and in particular to the miners, their families and the people who rescued them...muy bueno! Felicitaciones!!"

Now you're just showing off your foreign language skills.

"Let's see what the master of hate Q.B. can find wrong with this post of mine."

You know, "irascible" and "curmudgeonly" are not synonymous with "hate". If QB talked the way he does about the school principal and "the man", he would be characterized as being "extreme" and "rebellious" and having "attitude", not hate-mongering. ;)

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

A cover up of the dire financial straits that Milwaukee County is in, just to give Scott Walker(R), the guy who created the disaster, a chance to win the Governorship in Wisconsin. The head of the committee that decided to not issue the report, until election day, is also the Republican candidate's campaign chairman. Hmmmmmmmmm

Walker has run on the claim that he has been such a great fiscal manager as the Milwaukee County Chief Executive, and that he will do the same for the State Of Wisconsin. He has been campaigning on this claim, while all the while he knew that he has brought Milwaukee to the brink of financial ruin.
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/104647809.html

"Milwaukee County government is in such dire financial shape that state lawmakers should push through legislation that would allow it and other local governments to file for bankruptcy.

That's one of several recommendations included in a super-secret report drafted by the Greater Milwaukee Committee last month. This group of movers and shakers has decided to hold off releasing the details until after next month's election.

But a copy of the report's draft executive summary obtained by No Quarter shows the powerful committee is looking to recommend doing away with the elected county executive's post, slicing county worker benefits and spinning off the zoo, the bus system, the parks and much else under separate commissions.

If these dramatic steps - or something like them - aren't taken county government will collapse, the draft report suggests. In fact, in just six years, the report estimates, the county's pension and health care obligations will eat up every dollar raised through the county tax levy.

"The short-term 'solutions' and one-time 'fixes' have been exhausted," it says. "Without real reform, the County will be forced to eliminate whole areas of service to our community."'

"Michael Grebe, the head of the conservative Bradley Foundation, is chairman of both the Greater Milwaukee Committee and the campaign for Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, the Republican gubernatorial nominee. Walker is taking on Mayor Tom Barrett, the Democratic nominee."

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin....But you are a softy when it comes to Q.B. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

ScottC: Sure, I'd be glad to clarify. I support full disclosure of donors by ALL groups, Dem or GOP, just as Obama and Dems tried to accomplish by the DISCLOSE act.

This does not, however, change the fact that comparing the Chamber/Rove with CAP is a completely bogus equivalence.

Clear now?

Posted by: sargegreg | October 13, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

The "Obama did it too" canard is actually quite revealing IMHO. All the righties are claiming that the Chamber is complying with the law so there's nothing to complain about but Obama also complied with the law but the righties want to complain.

The point is not who did or did not comply with the law but that the law should be changed to require full disclosure. If the right wants to disagree with that, fine, state your diagreement with the concept of disclosure. If someone on either side is violating the law, they should be investigated and prosecuted.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 13, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

@sgwhiteinfla: "Once again they make it hard to be a Democrat this cycle even though I still plan on voting Dem."

But they make it easy and fun to be a Republican, even if a lot of the Republicans are really lame in this election cycle. Seriously, the Democrats are doing way more to get Republicans elected than the Koch bros. or The Chamber of Commerce (except for encouraging them to devote so much attention to the Chamber, which is sort of likely running against the Lions Club or the local 4H, but I digress).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

n chatting with my poor old Fox watching mom yesterday she swore up and down that TARP was Obama's creation and it justified the Tea Party's wrath.
Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 9:26 AM

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

Did you try reminding her about McCain suspending his campaign, to rush back to Washington to work on the TARP bailout, when Bush was President?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan

My Empire State brother you and I are engaged in a tight contest...which state Republican party can come up with the sleaziest low life Gubernatorial nominee.

Just when I think the Sunshine State has the prize wrapped up...I see those infamous emails Paladino sent and he opens his mouth up once again. My Irish aunt married into an Italian family and they are my favorite cousins. I look forward to the Saturday after Thanksgiving meal even more than the Turkey on Thursday...wonderful braciole..great meatballs...incredible sauce...having said that...Paladino comes across just like a Lieutenant in Tony Soprano's family. This guy does a great impersonation of a Mafia thug...is it simply an impersonation?

But we here in the Sunshine State can counter Ethan. We have Rick "Fifth Amendment" Scott...and BILLIONS in taxpayer ripoffs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSN5zNSffOE

Perhaps Ethan we should let the other posters vote. Which gubernatorial candidate is the biggest sleazeball...is it N.Y.'s Paladino? Or FL's Scott?

Wow that really is a tough call!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Sheesh. As if there wasn't enough to worry patriots, now there's this!

"In a new interview, GOP congressional candidate Ilario Pantano (whose candidacy -- and controversial past in Iraq -- we've been following) talks of his fears of the Chinese launching an attack equivalent to "1,000 Pearl Harbors" from Cuba, in what he calls a "second Cuban missile crisis" or "CMC2"."

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/10/13/ilario_pantano_interview

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Liam,
This is at least the third thread that you've posted this comment about Scott Walker. It's also the third thread that you posted your comments about "Sinister Big Money is using Karl Rove and The Chamber Of Con Artists"

I know I've already answered why the quotes you are using are out of context with the reality of the situation in Milwaukee County, and the article you quote.

What you are doing now is thread bombing.

Posted by: Bailers | October 13, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

@pragmaticstill: "The point is not who did or did not comply with the law but that the law should be changed to require full disclosure"

Agreed. When I point out the inconsistencies in the Obama campaigns donation picture, it's not a defense of the Chamber of Commerce, or non-disclosure of campaign donations. I understand the concept of political anonymity in the days of Publius, but I don't think that's a compelling argument re: political advocacy groups spending tens-of-millions of dollars on political campaigns in the present day. In this long-established Democracy, where free speech is protected and enshrined (as it was not when Thomas Paine first issued anonymous political tracts), clarity and disclosure is best.

@Greg:"I support full disclosure of donors by ALL groups, Dem or GOP, just as Obama and Dems tried to accomplish by the DISCLOSE act."

Also, I supported the idea of the DISCLOSE act, but the NRA exemption gave any organization that could find a way to claim 500,000+ members an inexplicable exemption. Which the Chamber of Commerce could probably have done after one membership drive. So, to be fair, it wasn't a serious solution.

And weren't some Democrats opposed to the NRA exemption?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Bernie,


Where does he stand on Outsourcing our manufacturing jobs to China? Surely he must be against The Chamber Of Commerce aiding and abetting such a dangerous foe.

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

"The Chamber of Commerce [] now has 3 million members and spends millions of dollars each year lobbying on everything from opposing paid maternity leave to fighting card-check regulations that would make it easier for workers to organize unions. ... The Chamber on Commerce's National Chamber Litigation Center is especially active, filing lawsuits to protect business and market principles, and the organization has played a special role in trying to guarantee the business-friendly justices such as Samuel Alito and John Roberts are appointed to the Supreme Court." (Invisible Hands, p. 267).

Citizens United = Mission Accomplished.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

"Did you try reminding her about McCain suspending his campaign, to rush back to Washington to work on the TARP bailout, when Bush was President?"

It wouldn't make any difference Liam. My poor mom is 85 and she operates in the Faux news fact free zone. She is very fragile and given to bouts of worry and fear. That is actually what pis&es me off most about Faux. They play on her fears and amplify them. It really is a despicable thing to do to an 85 year old.

One bright spot...despite Beck, Faux or anybody else my mother has figured out Afghanistan and Iraq. "What are we trying to win there" she asked. Mom they would say it's the war on terror. She responds, "But that's just silly, 19 guys attacked us on 9/11 shouldn't we be concentrating more on keeping terrorists from getting on our planes instead of wasting all those billions in foreign countries?" Duh! Ya think? Now watch the right wing idiots come out in defense of Georgies excellent adventure in Iraq which has already wasted way north of a TRILLION $ with no real end in sight. Nothing like reactionary ideologues who have sacrificed any pretense at open minded critical thought!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Greg:

"This does not, however, change the fact that comparing the Chamber/Rove with CAP is a completely bogus equivalence."

Bogus except, of course, in the sense that none of them disclose their donors, regarding which they are equivalent. And which, you've been claiming up and down, is precisely the point. So why are you focusing on the CoC/Rove and not CAP, unless it is for the transparently obvious political reasons?

"Clear now?"

No. You seem to be very exercised over Rove's failure to disclose his donors, but you are not at all exercised over CAP's failure to disclose its donors. Why?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 13, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3, one more time: I want ALL groups to disclose their donors.

Dems and Obama TRIED to pass legislation that would have made that happen, and I support that.

The Chamber/Rove are running millions upon millions of ads without disclose who is paying for them. CAP is running zero ads. The equivalence is comically dishonest.

You can pretend that isn't clear if you want, but I don't need to explain myself any further.


Posted by: sargegreg | October 13, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

People comparing Liberal Group expenditures with the Chamber of Commerce are being ridiculous. Back in the 80s, for example, the Chamber outspent Unions 500 to 1. My guess is that today the ratio is closer to 5,000,000 to 1.

Who is spending how much money to influence American elections? Full disclosure NOW! Only cockroaches and rats hide in the dark.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Is Heritage Foundation disclosing its donors? That would be equivalen to CAP, no?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 13, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Scott Walker(R) has been the Executive of Milwaukee County for the past eight years.

He has been going all over Wisconsin bragging about what great shape he has put Milwaukee county in, while all the while he knew that there was a detailed report being kept from the public, that revealed that the exact opposite to what Scott Walker has been claiming, is the real truth. The report clearly reveals that Scott Walker has brought about the financial ruin of Milwaukee County.

He has been lying and lying, to the voters of Wisconsin, about what shape he has left Milwaukee County in.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Greg:

"The Chamber/Rove are running millions upon millions of ads without disclose who is paying for them. CAP is running zero ads."

So, then, it isn't just a lack of disclosure that has you exercised, but is also the type of political activity being undertaken. Running ads with funds from undisclosed donors is, for you, very very bad, but engaging in the activity that CAP engages in is not nearly so very very bad, it seems.

So, then, the question arises: what makes running ads with funds from undisclosed donors so much more objectionable than engaging in other political activities with funds from undisclosed donors?

(Granting, of course, that you do object to the latter, just not nearly so much as you object to the former.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 13, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Yglesias is now on his way home after his first trip to Israel. If you are interested in a comment from him...

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/heading-home/

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama is complaining about foreign money, not disclosure

The reason the democratic groups may have reduced their use of funds which are eligible for the rules of nondisclosure has nothing to do with any stand on disclosure rules.

It is because a year and a half ago Obama put the word out that he would rather have democratic money flow into groups which his people controlled rather than independent groups. That is a separate issue from a while back


The problems are complex. But the main one is how to create a level playing field while agreeing on a system of rules to reduce the influence of big money special interests


If you hear a pol who is professing that they want campaign finance reform while only proposing restrictions on the other side, throw the guy out and never listen to him again


Obama raised $700 million in 2008. And he made a critical mistake pulling out of the campaign finance system. It shows that Obama has never been serious about changing how Washington works

No one wants to work with a guy like Obama. He brings someone in for a meeting which is supposed to be in the spirit of bipartisanship but then Obama is rushing to criticize that person in the media before they leave the driveway

The best thing fir America is to get Obama out if office as soon as possible. Obama, his deceptions and lack of integrity are now the OBSTACLE to getting anything done in Washington

Obama ruined himself. He really had a chance to do something serious. But everytime there is a deception, a lie and some character flaw that makes Obama worthless

Obama is now the obstacle

Posted by: Classic777 | October 13, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

"devote so much attention to the Chamber, which is sort of likely running against the Lions Club or the local 4H"

No accident, that. The Chamber of Commerce was selected to be Big Business' propaganda vehicle precisely BECAUSE it had a good reputation. Now the Chamber of Commerce is a snarling pack of wolves gorging on the carcass of American society. Why don't reputable companies repudiate the Chamber? Where are the pro-American businesspeople and businesses? Making money need not be antithetical to the good health of America but that is how the Chamber operates, as if it is at war with the American people. Please resign from the Chamber of Commerce.

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

I favor full disclosure in campaign contribs.

I think "Citizens United" was a game changing decision, and certainly not one that reflected judicial restraint.

I think it was not correct on its face to treat publicly traded corporations as associations of individuals for the purpose of seeking redress of grievances. They are creatures of state law, designed to avoid the liability issues of associations and partnerships for the purpose of protecting passive investors. Passive investors do not by necessary implication select active corporate management to speak for them politically. The case confused apples [association] and oranges [investment].

Nevertheless, as long as USCoC has the right not to disclose, it has the right. The Ds can make hay on the issue, but there will not be a legislative fix this session,
and probably not for awhile. Of course, if CoC is doing violence to its tax exempt status, an IRS audit may determine that.
That will not occur soon, either.
============================

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

"Which gubernatorial candidate is the biggest sleazeball...is it N.Y.'s Paladino? Or FL's Scott?"

Seriously.

In all honesty, I think your guy takes the cake. Sleezeball bigots are a dime-a-dozen in the GOP, so Paladino is just echoing the racist, misogynistic sentiments of the Republican Tea Party base.

But it takes a special brand of evil to scam Medicare out of hundreds of millions of dollars, then turn around and run for Governor of the state with a disproportionate number of senior citizens.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 13, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse


"Did you try reminding her about McCain suspending his campaign, to rush back to Washington to work on the TARP bailout, when Bush was President?"

It wouldn't make any difference Liam. My poor mom is 85 and she operates in the Faux news fact free zone. She is very fragile and given to bouts of worry and fear. That is actually what pis&es me off most about Faux. They play on her fears and amplify them. It really is a despicable thing to do to an 85 year old.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 9:56 AM

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

One trick that I have developed, that you might wish to consider trying:

I Google The Wall St. Journal and Fox News, for their TARP reporting, back when Paulson and Bush were asking for it, and getting it passed. I print out those reports from FOX and the WSJ, showing the dates of the articles, and put them right in front of those people. Providing them with those news accounts, from their own favorite news sources, gets some of them to admit that they were wrong, and gets the rest of them to stop claiming that Obama was to blame for the TARP bailout package.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"Obama admits acting too liberal, fantasizes about coming era of GOP cooperation:"

For offering up a health care payment regime that fifteen years ago was the Republican proposal?

He offers up a GOP idea and then thinks in retrospect it makes him look like an old timey liberal?????

Posted by: akaoddjob | October 13, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

If that is *really* what Obama believes about the GOP being all-of the sudden "responsible and cooperative", he's lost his freaking mind. And I would love to eat my hat if I'm wrong.

I'm not going to be eating any homburgers...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 13, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

On being impervious to evidence, Jon Chait writes:

"In 1993, conservatives unanimously predicted that Bill Clinton's tax increase on incomes over $200,000 would slow growth, reduce tax revenues, and likely cause a recession. Instead, of course, the economy boomed and revenue skyrocketed. Then George W. Bush cut upper-bracket tax rates, and conservatives predicted that this would cause the economy to grow even faster. Instead, the economy experienced the first business cycle where income was lower at the peak of the business cycle than it had been at the peak of the previous business cycle. It is rare that events so utterly repudiate an economic theory. None of this evidence has penetrated the conservative mind to the slightest degree. Reading the right-wing press, it is exactly as true today as it was 18 years ago that reducing Clinton-era upper-bracket tax rates holds the key to economic growth."
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/78304/pat-toomeys-epistemic-closure

Would anyone (anyone over 12, that is) care to elucidate what they believe is expressed with "we want to take our country back"?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest/Classic777 is complaining about foreign money, not disclosure

The reason the democratic groups may have reduced their use of funds which are eligible for the rules of nondisclosure has nothing to do with any stand on disclosure rules.

It is because a year and a half ago SaveTheRainforest/Classic777 put the word out that he would rather have democratic money flow into groups which his people controlled rather than independent groups. That is a separate issue from a while back

The problems are complex. But the main one is how to create a level playing field while agreeing on a system of rules to reduce the influence of big money special interests

If you hear a pol who is professing that they want campaign finance reform while only proposing restrictions on the other side, throw the guy out and never listen to him again

SaveTheRainforest/Classic777 raised $700 million in 2008. And he made a critical mistake pulling out of the campaign finance system. It shows that SaveTheRainforest/Classic777 has never been serious about changing how Washington works

No one wants to work with a guy like SaveTheRainforest/Classic777. He brings someone in for a meeting which is supposed to be in the spirit of bipartisanship but then SaveTheRainforest/Classic777 is rushing to criticize that person in the media before they leave the driveway

The best thing fir America is to get
SaveTheRainforest/Classic777 out if office as soon as possible. SaveTheRainforest/Classic777, his deceptions and lack of integrity are now the OBSTACLE to getting anything done in Washington

SaveTheRainforest/Classic777 ruined himself. He really had a chance to do something serious.

But everytime there is a deception, a lie and some character flaw that makes SaveTheRainforest/Classic777 worthless

SaveTheRainforest/Classic777 is now the obstacle

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 13, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

"Nevertheless, as long as USCoC has the right not to disclose, it has the right."

Just because someone has the legal right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Part of our problem in America is that we have lost all sense of honor. If you can get away with it, do it, that seems to be our national motto. This must change. America must regain its national character and re-establish its integrity. For most Americans there are things more important than money. But not for Plutocrats orchestrating the Chamber of Commerce. Money is all they care about. Money is freedom. Money is speech. Money is liberty. It is a sickness of venality and greed that has infected the entire country.

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

"Would anyone (anyone over 12, that is) care to elucidate what they believe is expressed with "we want to take our country back"?"

The TNR graph you posted actually lays it out for us.

"Taking our country back" means more money to the rich and a weak economy for the rest of us. That's what every single Republican is fighting tooth and nail to achieve.

They will lay down their lives for a slow, weak economy and massive amounts of debt.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 13, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Good grief. Newtie is succcccchhhhh a scumbucket...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/gingrich-faxes-doctors-in_n_759871.html

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

""Obama admits he allowed himself to look too much like an "old tax and spend Democrat." "

Well duh. The only "change" is that he is even farther to the left and an even bigger spender."

Count on qb to bring the unhinged stoooooopid.

Posted by: akaoddjob | October 13, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

"Unlike GOP Corporate Donors, Labor Campaign Spending is Transparent"
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/10/labor_campaign_spending_is_tra.php#comments

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Would anyone (anyone over 12, that is) care to elucidate what they believe is expressed with "we want to take our country back"?"

Sure. I think it expresses a perception that the nation has been/is being fundamentally transformed in a way not to the liking of the person using the expression.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 13, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

The Gang Of Five Right Wing Supreme Court Activists have constructed a No Speed Limits, Bribery and Corruption Super Highway.

The Robber Barons launder their bribes through Karl Rove and The Chamber Of Con Artists. After their bought and paid for Republican Puppets take office, they will then repay their Corrupt Masters, by passing legislation that The Wall St. Robber Barons and The Jobs Outsourcing Chamber Of Con Artists want.

Welcome to the New Improved American System Of Corruption; Where Government Of The Robber Barons, By The Robber Barons, and For The Robber Barons Shall Rule Supreme.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Re; The Plutocrat Manifesto:

"Why, Powell asked, should businessmen patiently tolerate their critics? After all, they were the trustees of universities like Yale. They owned the media stations that reported on Nader. They has resources, money, and social prestige. ... They then should marshal their power to influence the universities, the media, the courts." (Invisible Hands, p. 159).

An orchestrated propaganda campaign financed by the SuperRich to foster their own aims against the interests of America and working Americans. Wait until I describe the savage attacks on union workers and unionizing. Big Money thinks Average Americans are disposable assets who must be trained and controlled through relentless propagandizing.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Obama is incompetent in running the nation. But his incompetence also extends to running the democratic party


Everyone agreed there was a bipartisan consensus that the ONLY chance for Obama was to avoid nationalizing the election

WHAT does Obama do??? Obama goes off and nationalized the election with a bunch of half-truths and lies.


Obama is stupid

Obama has to get off the campaign trail. He isn't helping any democrat. The last thing the democrats need right now is to remove the public that Obama is out there, lying about something else


The idiots have taken over


Obama is a walking disaster for the democrats. Please put his picture on tv more. Every rally Obama holds is worth a million dollars in ads for the Republicans. Keep going. Can Obama schedule two rallies a day?

Posted by: Classic777 | October 13, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

"Newtie"

Careful Bernie...you don't want to be mistaken for MoDo, do you?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 13, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

About the POTUS comments:

My problem with them is that if the GOP wins big, they're not going to be working with him in a serious way or any way, they're going to looking for fake scandals to run with and -- if the Baggers get their way -- trying to impeach him.

Nothing he can ever do or say, short of resigning, will change their hatred for him. Maybe he gets this and I'm reading the article wrong. I just hope no one is surprised when they say that Bo Obama is trying to impose Doggy Sharia low or whatever and Obama must be impeached at once.

Posted by: michael_conrad | October 13, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

ScottC, and any other Republican:

Do you OPPOSE full disclosure of the funding sources of all campaign-related expenditures?

If so, why do you oppose full disclosure on funding sources?

If not, and you support full disclosure, could you support a law made by Congress that would mandate full disclosure for all campaign-related expenditures?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 13, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

All, new post from Adam Serwer on Carl Paladino and homophobia:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 13, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"Taking our country back" means more money to the rich and a weak economy for the rest of us. That's what every single Republican is fighting tooth and nail to achieve.

They will lay down their lives for a slow, weak economy and massive amounts of debt.

________________________

I think "Taking Our Country Back" means that the politicians (who are almost entirely composed of the rich) stop trying to demonize people that have alot. It means that the middle income people and rich that are supporting what appears to be a permanant poor, with nothing asked of them in return. The only thing that is asked is more more more in taxes and fees.

I am not opposed to paying taxes for police, fire, roads, and schools. I also accept the notion that as a society I have a responsibility to take care of people that can't take care of themselves. That does not mean the drunks or drug addicts, or just generally lazy, that get food stamps, housing assistance, and all sorts of things for free. What do we ask of them? Nothing. Not even for them to stay drug free. Or spend time doing something to improve the society they are leeching off of.

"Taking our Country Back" means acknowledging that business is actually a good thing, and government regulation more often than not hinders growth and prosperity than helps it. Loosen up the regulations so business owners can hire people to work in their factories, instead of lawyers and accountants to answer to government demands.

Posted by: Bailers | October 13, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

michael_conrad:

I'm hoping Obama's comments are just recognition of political failure, that Obama has not succeeded in convincing the American people that he is on our side. If Obama truly expects the GOP to be cooperative after November then we have a much bigger problem than I've realized with our president. The only way the GOP will cooperate is if Obama does exactly what they tell him to do.

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

Bernie asked; "Would anyone (anyone over 12, that is) care to elucidate what they believe is expressed with "we want to take our country back"?"

Scott replied: "Sure. I think it expresses a perception that the nation has been/is being fundamentally transformed in a way not to the liking of the person using the expression."

A person holds that some change or changes ought to be reversed because that person believes some change or changes have occurred and they don't like it/them.

It's like a window, long closed, has now been opened.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Later.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

"Do Immigrants Hurt Employment for Americans?
By ELISE FOLEY 10/13/10 10:14 AM
Via Ezra Klein, the National Bureau of Economic Research released a study this month on whether immigration hurts the economy and takes away jobs from American-born workers. In the study, which also looked at the impact of outsourcing, economists Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano, Giovanni Peri and Greg C. Wright determined that immigration can actually boost American employment and push native-born workers into higher-paying positions that require more communication.,,"
http://washingtonindependent.com/100538/do-immigrants-hurt-employment-for-americans#more-100538

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"Loosen up the regulations so business owners can hire people to work in their factories"

What regulations?

Environmental regulations? Labor regulations? Which ones in specific?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 13, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

@akaoddjob "Count on qb to bring the unhinged stoooooopid."

Yes and the predictability is getting boring.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

If Obama was serious about campaign finance reform, he would propose something which aimed at a level playing field.

But Obama's own actions have destroyed his credibility on this issue

Obama is therefore UNABLE to change Washington. Obama ruined his term in office when he pulled out of the campaign finance system


The democrats have to get serious


If you are a democrat and you care about this country, the best thing to do is to clear Obama and his far left crew out. And get someone in there who has credibility and who can get something done. Obama does not have the ability OR character to get anything done.

Posted by: Classic777 | October 13, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

This is simply beautiful!

"Where Would You Rather Live?

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

by a 92 to 8 percent margin, Americans prefered Society A, a society ith the distributio of wealth of Sweden. Society B reflects the US wealth distribution"

http://www.openleft.com/diary/20437/the-consensus-for-much-greater-wealth-equality-in-america

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

What the right wingers mean, when the say: "we want to take our country back" is:

Democrats have no right to consider it their country too.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne

Well said.

Posted by: michael_conrad | October 13, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Ought to have added this bit to last post on US citizens' notions regarding redistribution of wealth and equality.

"This is, in fact, as the authors go on to explain, an attempt to essentially operationalize philosopher John Rawls "veil of ignorance" from his Theory of Justice. And the results are truly eye-opening"

If you aren't familiar with Rawls and the 'veil of ignorance' then it is really worthwhile to get acquainted.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 13, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

@bailers...you are obviously one of those people who live in a fact free zone!!!

"The only thing that is asked is more more more in taxes and fees."

You are aware aren't you that our taxes are not at their LOWEST POINT IN 50 YEARS!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

"stop trying to demonize people that have alot."

You mean like Rick Scott current REPUBLICAN candidate for Governor of Fla.
He bought up dozens of hospitals...cut thousands of jobs..his chain was featured in a network report about profits taking precedence over the quality of health care.
His company fired him and paid 1.7 BILLION in Medicare/Medicaid fraud (means he ripped you off as a taxpayer bailers) His latest venture Solantic has already been involved in several charges of fraudulent behavior. He earned ten million annually for the past three years and paid 15% of it in taxes. Meanwhile I have to debate people like you and Q.B. and Scott over the horrors of letting the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% expire which would increase their MARGINAL rate over $250,000 by a whopping 3%! The joke is on all of us. These rich people you don't wish to see demonized never get close to the current 36% try 15%!!!!! And how does he get demonized? He gets the R nomination for Governor. Which freaking people are you talking about bailers that are suffering from our "demonization"? The Koch Brother...Steve Forbes..losers who INHERITED all their wealth, not through their intellect or hard work but simply through good fortune!

Then you say..."I also accept the notion that as a society I have a responsibility to take care of people that can't take care of themselves. That does not mean the drunks or drug addicts,"

That is a contradiction. By definition alcoholism and drug addiction are DISEASES and so by definition those folks ARE people who can't take care of themselves.
Obviously you've been fortunate enough to never have that disease touch your family or know anybody who suffers from addiction.
Addicts do not CHOOSE to be addicted.

And so we can gather Bailers by "taking our country back" you mean you'd like to revert to the late `19th century and the Gospel of Wealth..where the wealthy were rich because God loved them and the poor and addicted were poor because God didn't favor them. That's why you are what is referred to as a reactionary.
Definition of REACTIONARY
: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I seem to recall that "The Veil Of Ignorance" was the original proposed title, for The Glen Beck Fox Cable show.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Greg, you keep hammering home this foreign money issue, now with polls. Sorry this is a big loser issue. First of all, the number of undecided is probably very low at this point, only enough to turn the absolute closest races. Secondly it defies common sense, that with so many other huge issues on the table 10% unemployment, Afghanistan, mortgage foreclosures, health care, tax cuts, that there would be more than a TINY number of people wonkish enough to care about this.

This is just more of the stupidity that kept my Democratic Party from voting on the tax cuts before the break.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 13, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis:

Given new technology, and especially the reach of the Internets, there are even MORE important reasons now for "Publius" type anonymity these days.

clawrence12:

You are right, but that's obviously not going to stop Mr. Sargent from lying about it. As I've pointed out, Obama's campaign did NOT disclose where "all" of his donations came from.

Incomplete Disclosure $15,611,429

No Disclosure $25,289,671

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

That's "tens of millions of dollars" right there. In fact, on top of the UNDISCLOSED amounts Obama's campaign actually spent, they ended up RETURNING $5,661,816 in campaign donations (some of those were from questionable or outright FOREIGN SOURCES). Lots of his donations were UNDER $200 which carry no disclosure requirements whatsoever.

You add it all up and it's more than $103 million from Obama -- compared to less than $100,000 from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- using that same link I gave, above, you can see for yourself that up to $103,353,467 (27%) in donations to Obama were "Uncoded" so we may never find out how many of those were proper.

But, the Dems aren't all upset about that, I notice. When is Al Franken going to send a letter to the FEC demnding an investigation into Obama's campaign? While we are at it, how about FULL DISCLOSURE from Ezra Klein as to journ-O-list too?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3-

Well, you are right about the "perception" that the country is being changed. That's the key- perception. And, the FOX news crew will hammer that *perception* till the cows come home.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 13, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Hey, JakeD2:

I have a life, so I didn't see your from yesterday until late. He's your answer:

"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?"

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 together 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 June 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 13, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie...

Since the increasing disparity of our wealth distribution and the shrinking middle class is one of my pet issues I posted that survey a couple of days ago. The St. Pete Times ran an entire Op Ed front page article based on that article a couple of Sunday's past.

Another amazing thing about the results is that REPUBLICANS by a LARGE MARGIN also selected the Swedish wealth distribution over our current distribution in the U.S.

The main focus of the Time's article was that Americans are literally ignorant when it comes to wealth distribution. The real nugget in that survey is not just that we'd prefer something far more akin to Sweden than the U.S. but just how WRONG Americans were when they were asked to select (multiple guess) how our current wealth distribution is divided.

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

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

54465446:

I saw your (later-asked) questions to me. As you know, I will not be answering those until you actually answer my (already-pending) questions to you.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

ScottC,

I left some questions for you at 10:37 AM.

I'd be interested in your answers.

Anyone else on the right who wants to take a stab, go for it.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 13, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

jakeD2:

Way to avoid tough questions. I had thought better of you! Oh well. As you know YOU are the one who is challenging things. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 13, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Now the Chamber of Commerce is a snarling pack of wolves gorging on the carcass of American society"

Yikes! I'd hate to think what that might mean about the Shriners, or the purveyors of Grit magazine. I can only imagine what type of deceit and snarling evils they are engaged in.

But I see what you mean. Supporting business-friendly Republicans and Democrats! How nefarious of an organization called "The Chamber of Commerce"!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ten-democrats-chamber-commerces-happy/story?id=11864010

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

For the record: Ethan2010, ChuckinDenton, and Liam-still didn't answer questions I asked them in prior threads either. As always, I am ready, willing and able to answer ANY AND ALL questions for others as long as you return the same common courtesy.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"It's like a window, long closed, has now been opened."

Or perhaps a window, long opened, has now been closed. Or perhaps a window, long opened halfway, has now been opened all the way. Or closed all the way. Or perhaps a window, long perfect, now has a crack in it. Or...

I'm sure we could come up with all kinds of metaphors, although I am not sure of the purpose they serve. The fundamental explanation remains...some change is taking place, and some people don't like the change. Hence the plaint. Does that not make sense?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 13, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Everyone -- don't get sucked in by Joke. The fewer people respond to his nonsensical posts, the more likely he'll go away. The Adam Serwer boards are already Joke-free.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 13, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "What the right wingers mean, when the say: "we want to take our country back" is: Democrats have no right to consider it their country too."

So, when Democrats say they want to take their country back, what they mean is that Republicans have no right to consider it their country, too--right?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-dean-you-have-the-power-to-take-our-country-back-570513.html

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

54465446:

At least I don't avoid simple questions -- you could have easily admitted "yes" or "no" but instead chose to dismiss my questions and only ask yours -- seriously, though, if anyone ELSE wants to discuss (meaning "answering my questions" in a civil manner) the issue of Obama's eligibility or even specifics re: the burden of proof, especially in a QUO WARRANTO action, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

"But I see what you mean. Supporting business-friendly Republicans and Democrats!"

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

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

BTW: Obama's eligibility is implicated in Greg's thread today ("President" and "Veep Joe Biden" as well as the open-ended question: "What else is happening?").

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

I thought you were GONE for today?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "If not, and you support full disclosure, could you support a law made by Congress that would mandate full disclosure for all campaign-related expenditures?"

Absolutely. I support a campaign finance system where an interested party can advocate in anyway they please, and everything must be disclosed, by everybody. No loopholes for the NRA, or other groups.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"So, when Democrats say..."

Thanks for that link. I knew it (or something similar) was out there and have been looking for it.

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

"Supporting business-friendly"

What utter garbage.

"Business-friendly" to the Chamber of Commerce means the ability for massive multi-national corporations to do ANYTHING they want in order for higher profits. According to the CoC, corporations should be able to abuse workers, abuse the environment, abuse the government, abuse the economy, sicken and kill people with their products, prey on the easily duped, and generally run roughshod over Americans in any and every way imaginable. Only if you support THAT regime are you deemed "business-friendly" to the CoC.

Of course Kevin would agree with the CoC. He is either ignorant or disingenuous on pretty much every single issue.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 13, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "The Republicrats are traitors to the Democratic Party and that is why the Chamber supports them. That is part of the payoff for selling out America to Big Business."

So, they only authentic Democrat is one that is hostile to Big Business? Sounds like you folks need to do a Tea Party style purge of your milquetoast Republicrats and limousine liberals.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

So, when Democrats say they want to take their country back, what they mean is that Republicans have no right to consider it their country, too--right?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-dean-you-have-the-power-to-take-our-country-back-570513.html

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 11:33 AM |

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

As far as Howard Dean saying that, I agree with you, but I do not agree with you that he is Democrats saying it, unless you know something about Howard possessing a Tea Party sized collection of personalities.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Today is the BIG DAY for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin's challenge to Obama's eligibility (I ask all right-thinking Americans to keep him in your prayers):

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28556

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I'm still trying to find out just who the "take our country back" folks think took our country.

Is it the majority of Americans who voted for President Obama they want to take the country back from?

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

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

o, they only authentic Democrat is one that is hostile to Big Business? Sounds like you folks need to do a Tea Party style purge of your milquetoast Republicrats and limousine liberals.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 11:45 AM |
.............

Things are really going to pick up for Democrats after all those Blue Dogs get replaced by all those Liberal Republican opponents. Nancy Pelosi will be delighted to have their all out support.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"they only authentic Democrat is one that is hostile to Big Business"

Nope. The only authentic Democrats are those who aren't in Big Business' pocket. You mistake that for hostility because Big Business --operating through front groups like the COC -- has so indoctrinated the country that one is now considered a socialist unless he subscribes to the Plutocrats' Free Market Uber Alles propaganda.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I'm still trying to find out just who the "take our country back" folks think took our country.

Is it the majority of Americans who voted for President Obama they want to take the country back from?

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

Posted by: vintagejulie | October 13, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

As a life long Liberal Democrat, I think that lately we have been too greedy, by keeping America all to ourselves, and in a gesture of atonement, we should relinquish or hold on the country, and give it back to Karl Rove and The Chamber Of Con Artists.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

o, they only authentic Democrat is one that is hostile to Big Business? Sounds like you folks need to do a Tea Party style purge of your milquetoast Republicrats and limousine liberals.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 11:45 AM |
.............

Things are really going to pick up for Democrats after all those Blue Dogs get replaced by all those Liberal Republican opponents. Nancy Pelosi will be delighted to have their all out support.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Funny how the two of you agree that Republicrats are good for the Democratic Party. Funny.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "What utter garbage . . . Of course Kevin would agree with the CoC. He is either ignorant or disingenuous on pretty much every single issue."

I love you, too, Ethan. But not only that--I respect you. Thanks for helping to keep me humble. It's a favor, alas, I am unable to return.

@ScottC3: "Thanks for the link . . . "

That's not the only one, but Howard Dean is the definitely the guy who made the most public noise. Google "take the flag back from Rush Limbaugh". Howard Dean said that at almost every speech. Because, you know, conservatives are entitled to wave the flag. Because they aren't real Americans. Hee-hee.

But something tangentially related from the left is the amount of "Democracy is broken" or "Democracy has failed" opinions/editorials/what have you that come from the left when Republicans win elections. There's no other way to interpret that point of view--Democracy is bad when Republicans win.

I'm thinking mostly of emails I received from AlterNet and MoveOn.org in 2004 and 2006. Democracy was broken (and rife with fraud) in 2004. In 2006, Democracy "still worked" and election fraud? What election fraud?

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

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

"As a life long Liberal Democrat, I think that lately we have been too greedy, by keeping America all to ourselves, and in a gesture of atonement, we should relinquish or hold on the country, and give it back to Karl Rove and The Chamber Of Con Artists."

So it's OK to attack Republicans for being in bed with the COC and Big Business but not Republicrats who do the same. Got it. And you self-proclaimed "life long Liberal Democrat(s)" wonder why your party is a failure.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

They have been good for making the Democrats the House Majority, and the Republicans the powerless minority.

But, not to worry, once you have seen the last of all those Blue Dogs, you will really enjoy how much stuff will get passed by the Pure Liberal Minority Party in the house.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"Today is the BIG DAY for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin's challenge to Obama's eligibility (I ask all right-thinking Americans to keep him in your prayers):"

He hasn't got a legal leg to stand on. Pray for something that has a chance.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 13, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Funny how the two of you agree that Republicrats are good for the Democratic Party. Funny."

Actually, I think Republicrats and RINOs are both good for the country, and the political process. I put that above what's good for the Democrats, Republicans, Federalists or Whigs. That's just me. I'm crazy-loco like that.

And keep in mind, Republicrats vote with the Democrats between 75% and 90% of the time.RINOs vote with the Republicans in similar numbers. Purging folks because they occasionally vote against their party masters and may speak with less vitriol against their opponents doesn't strike me as terribly healthy for the respective party.

However, when purges get rid of entrenched politicians, that can be good. Republicrats and RINOs who have been in office for 20+ years, I have to admit, I'm not sad to see them go.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"the Republicans the powerless minority."

Your nuts if you really believe that. The GOP and Conservatives completely dominate this country and it has only gotten worse since 2008. The Democrats are losing! And -- far more importantly -- so is the country. And a large part of that is due to the Democrats being unable to muster a coherent populist message because the Republicrats dictate what the Democrats can do.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

"I love you, too, Ethan. But not only that--I respect you. Thanks for helping to keep me humble. It's a favor, alas, I am unable to return."

I would say that I respect you too, but your handling of race issues is deplorable. You seem to have a mental block that precludes you from dealing with race issues in a rational, sensible way. Other than that I respect you a great deal more than the other right-leaners who post here. I think you're dead wrong on most issues and think you're disingenuous on many others (the "business-friendly" comment for example), but I would respect you a GREAT deal more if you were able to handle race issues in a more equitable, sensitive, sensible fashion.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 13, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "They have been good for making the Democrats the House Majority, and the Republicans the powerless minority."

The Republicans have hardly been powerless, and seem likely to convert their obstructionism into a lot of electoral victories. However, in a different environment--one where unemployment was 5%--the Republicans obstructionism would have worked against them, and the Democrats power (and ability to advance legislation) would have been very dependent on the blue dogs.

But, the Republicans (as a recently rebuked, now-minority party) have been busy tossing out their moderates, so the Democrats should do the same thing. It just makes sense, given that the Democrats didn't just win historic majorities 2 years ago, Blue Dogs included . . . oh, wait, they did? Well, then. Okee-dokee.

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

"All things are possible for those who love God and are called to His purposes."

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"Purging folks because they occasionally vote against their party masters and may speak with less vitriol against their opponents doesn't strike me as terribly healthy for the respective party."

Ha! What about "purging" folks who vote against their leaders on procedural votes? Or campaign for the opposition party's presidential candidate? Or who put a hold on their president's OMB nominee to extort policy concessions? Or who undermine every effort the party makes to distinguish itself from the putative opposition? You talk about these thing as if your watching through binoculars from an Ivory Tower. This isn't a discussion of theoretical party alignments, it is Big Business taking over the only two political parties that matter in this nation.

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

jakeD2:

God has nothing to do with this.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 13, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"given that the Democrats didn't just win historic majorities 2 years ago, Blue Dogs included"

After the Worst President in History nearly destroyed the country, the American people decided we had no choice but to abandon the GOP. Two years later, the Democrats are poised to get walloped by the same despicable and deranged GOP. And you think that constitutes political success for the Democrats? No wonder you love Republicrats.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

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

… But He loves you!"

George Carlin

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Let me put a fine point on it:

Republicrats represent the Plutocrats effort to corner the American political marketplace. Big Business already owns the GOP and now they've commandeered enough of the Democratic Party to render it ineffective. That means total political domination for the Plutocrats. No one is representing regular Americans anymore. No one.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Kevin...I could have gone with you until the past two years and particularly in the Senate. I have been a registered I for a number of years but because I watch what is happening to my country...waaahhh I want my country back...I've voted Dem for the past decade or so, ever since my last totally stupid vote the first time around for G.W.

If the Dino's, Republicrats, whatever simply objected to issues on personal conscience and then voted against said legislation when it came up for a vote, I'd respect their independence. However since the R's have turned the Senate into a super majority rule not simply majority rule the DINO's have been disastrous for our nation and the Dem party. It would have been one thing to vote against a P.O. or a single payer solution (the preferred solution by the public in poll after poll after poll)
http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html
But to join the R's and block even the ATTEMPT at legislation through procedural fun and games in the Senate was despicable as well as costly. Let it come up for a vote. They could have expressed their disfavor and opposition BY VOTING THEIR CONSCIENCE...to side with the opposition in a filibuster is simply reprehensible...the few denied the majority even the opportunity to vote.
The R's motivation was clear from the get go in HCR...not to solve the nation's health care crisis, but rather to simply concentrate on "Obama's Waterloo" the country be damned. It's despicable for the R's to have acted out of craven desire for political power...it's simply inexplicable for 2-3 Dinos to block the rest of the Party from EVEN VOTING ON THE ISSUE. DISGUSTING.

Again as I have posted previously, these Dino's in the Senate also gave the Dems a horrible reputation for being ineffective.
Time and time again, on this very blog, morons wail..but the D's had the 60 votes they needed...NO..LIEberman was under consideration as the REPUBLICAN VP candidate. He campaigned enthusiastically for McCain/Palin....hardly to be counted as a Dem vote!

Dino's in the House to not particularly disturb me...the House is a large body and still fairly representative. The Senate has become a joke of a deliberative body where Senators from incredibly small states wield equal power as those from states with literally hundreds of times the population. They are bought out cheaply. The Dinos in the Senate gave the entire Dem party a black eye as being a party unable to govern. Get rid of all of them. Until the R's get to that 60 vote margin turnabout is going to be fair play.
There should never again be ANY R LEGISLATION allowed to even come up for a vote until the R's can muster the required 60 Senators!!! Dino's included!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

Above, I was asking right-thinking Americans to pray (to God, not Ayn Rand ; ) for Lt. Col. Lakin. Maybe you are talking about something else.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "I would say that I respect you too, but your handling of race issues is deplorable."

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I suppose. I don't think I'm ever going to be able to make you happy in that regards.

"You seem to have a mental block that precludes you from dealing with race issues in a rational, sensible way."

Well, all right. I'd just argue that simply saying it doesn't make it so. It's easy to pronounce on the mental deficiencies of others, but, in my experience, such pronouncements are often posturing or projection. Your mileage may vary, but that's one of the reasons I try (not always with success) to avoid it.

"I think you're dead wrong on most issues"

Fair enough.

"and think you're disingenuous on many others"

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but I would argue that you are, in that accusation, dead wrong. I may be wrong, but I am not, in any exchange, intentionally disingenuous.

"but I would respect you a GREAT deal more if you were able to handle race issues in a more equitable, sensitive, sensible fashion."

Alas, we disagree about what that means, and whether or not I do (naturally, I fancy myself a highly-evolved specimen of humanity in all ways, and am unlikely to agree with your low opinion of me, in any category).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: "Senators from incredibly small states wield equal power as those from states with literally hundreds of times the population."

I consider this a feature, not a bug, myself. But, yes, ruk and wbgonne, I see the objection to DINOs and RINOs, and particular ones, certainly. Still, I'll err on the side of internal moderation within a party, as to which I prefer.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 13, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic Party can only obtain a majority in the House, and most likely also in the Senate, by working as a big tent broad based coalition. There are not enough liberal districts and states in the land, for Liberals to become the Majority Congressional Party, all on their own.

If if it were up to me, I would create more liberal states, and districts, but I can not make moderates and conservatives vote for liberal candidates. Hell Liberal candidates can not even defeat Blue Dog candidates in Democratic Primaries, let alone in the actual election contests.

I will settle for the next best thing; in order to keep Democrats in the majority, so that they can at least stymie much of what Republicans want to do.

A lot of worthwhile legislation was enacted by Democrats since President Obama took office.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"Above, I was asking right-thinking Americans to pray (to God, not Ayn Rand ; ) for Lt. Col. Lakin. Maybe you are talking about something else."

Jake, didn't somebody say that you were an attorney? Maybe I got that part wrong. If so, then you realize that 1) the court has no jurisdiction (although courts almost never admit that at the lowest level), 2) Lakin has no legal standing to bring the case, and 3) Lakin does not receive his orders from the President, nor does any other soldier and so could not win even if the other two above were not an impediment.

There actually is a much more logical reason for all the supposed secrecy, although it's not nearly as exciting and does not concern the birthPLACE of the President.

I do find it amusing though (and forgive me if this offends your religious sensibilties) that you would think any God worthy of the name would be interested in such an issue, but not in the million other wrongs going on across the world.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 13, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"Would anyone (anyone over 12, that is) care to elucidate what they believe is expressed with "we want to take our country back"?"

As soon as you tell me what Howard Fean meant when he said it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-dean-you-have-the-power-to-take-our-country-back-570513.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 13, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"The Democratic Party can only obtain a majority in the House, and most likely also in the Senate, by working as a big tent broad based coalition. There are not enough liberal districts and states in the land, for Liberals to become the Majority Congressional Party, all on their own."

You are ceding the debate before you even have it. I bet that if you polled Americans on 10 important policy questions the so-called "liberal" positions would win overwhelming popularity. Now if you conducted the same poll by asking people whether they are "Liberals" or not, the majority would say no. That is largely a result of bad politics by the Dems. The American people in fact remain largely "liberal" and still overwhelmingly favor the New Deal and environmental regulation, etc. But the word "liberal" has been so demonized for so long (Chamber of Commerce, e.g.) that the Democrats have internalized it and now have their own anti-Liberal wing called the Republicrats.

Believe it or not, a tent can be too big and when it is, it collapses. As we are witnessing right now.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

whgonne wrote:

"You are ceding the debate before you even have it. I bet that if you polled Americans on 10 important policy questions the so-called "liberal" positions would win overwhelming popularity. Now if you conducted the same poll by asking people whether they are "Liberals" or not, the majority would say no. That is largely a result of bad politics by the Dems."

I agree with most of what you write. I blame it on the worst most inarticulate group of Dem leadership since the Carter years. Who can blame anybody for loathing Harry Reid, or laughing at Joe Biden, or trying to figure out what Tim Geithner is saying (when he talks at all) or seeing how bored Clinton looks at State, or how Napolitano just doesn't get the illegal issue from the average American standpoint.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 13, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Nonsense. National polls have no bearing on the outcome of elections in individual districts. If liberal candidates could win in those Blue Dog Districts they would be at least winning in the Democratic Primaries.

The Right has their Tea Party, and I think you should consider forming something similar. Might I suggest you consider naming it: The Pot Party?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

You will hopefully forgive me for no longer answering your questions to me.

If anyone ELSE wants to discuss the court martial being brought against Lakin (he hasn't filed a lawsuit himself), let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"National polls have no bearing on the outcome of elections in individual districts. If liberal candidates could win in those Blue Dog Districts they would be at least winning in the Democratic Primaries."

This is just stupid. Of course the fact that most Americans favor "liberal" positions matters. That means OPPORTUNITY to expand the Democratic voting base. You're obsession with "how things are" blinds you to the possibility of things being different with even a modicum of effort. Your cite to the travails of "liberal" candidates within the Dem Party is laughable. Considering how liberals are demonized by everyone -- including, apparently "lifelong liberal Democrats" -- it is astounding that liberal candidates can win anything anywhere. That, of course, indicates just how powerful liberalism could be of the Dems committed to it, instead of cowering in terror when the Radical Right sneezes. You're so deep in the weeds you can't even se the sky, never mind the forest.

"The Right has their Tea Party, and I think you should consider forming something similar. Might I suggest you consider naming it: The Pot Party?"

Pretty funny. But not nearly as funny as a political party that would rather lose than do what's right for the American people or what the American people want. Only that's not funny, it's tragic.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

P.S., Typographical homonyms are the bane of my existence. Please excuse.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Move to a Blue Dog district, and run in the 2012 Democratic Primary as a Liberal. You will be lucky to come in second in an uncontested primary.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"Move to a Blue Dog district, and run in the 2012 Democratic Primary as a Liberal. You will be lucky to come in second in an uncontested primary."

Blah blah blah.

Later.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 13, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"The ever-expanding House map keeps Dems on defense everwhere: I'm told National Republicans are expanding their list of Dem targets yet again, airing a new NRCC spot targeting Blue Dog Rep. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, who hadn't been thought vulnerable..."
---------------------------------------------

...and in all likelihood, still isn't. Not for nothing, but I wouldn't immediately rule out the possibility that Republicans could be finding several districts they assumed all year they'd be winning in a walk may not be such push-overs after all, prompting them to start looking farther afield. But if they want to spend their money on races they probably can't win, that's cool with me.

Posted by: CalD | October 13, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"Later."

We've heard that before!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"You will hopefully forgive me for no longer answering your questions to me.

If anyone ELSE wants to discuss the court martial being brought against Lakin (he hasn't filed a lawsuit himself), let me know."

Actually, I didn't think I was asking you any question, but in re-reading my post I see that I was. My post was more rhetorical about the impossiblity of Lakin's challenge and the nature of God's intervention.

I don't quite understand the birther thing. The circumstances of a person's birth are often very painful. For instance how many know that Steve Jobs is really half-Arab, and by THEIR law at least a Muslim. The circumstances of his birth are quite analogous to Obama's except that he was given up for adoption. Not a question for you Jake, but to the community in general. I wonder if all the insane "Obama is a Muslim" people would be distressed to know about Jobs, or not?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 13, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

That is a contradiction. By definition alcoholism and drug addiction are DISEASES and so by definition those folks ARE people who can't take care of themselves.
Obviously you've been fortunate enough to never have that disease touch your family or know anybody who suffers from addiction.
Addicts do not CHOOSE to be addicted.

And so we can gather Bailers by "taking our country back" you mean you'd like to revert to the late `19th century and the Gospel of Wealth..where the wealthy were rich because God loved them and the poor and addicted were poor because God didn't favor them. That's why you are what is referred to as a reactionary.
Definition of REACTIONARY
: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics

Posted by: rukidding7
___________________________

Sigh.

I'm sorry that you feel that people who are alcholics or drug addicts have no control over their lives. I guess that is some consolation to the families of people killed by drunk drivers, who then claim they had no control over their actions.

A disease is something that happens and we can't control. My child getting leukemia was a disease. Does that mean that a drunk is equivelent to a 2 year old on deaths door?
Don't give me that rightous bullshit that druggies and drunks have no control over the substances that they WILLINGLY put into themselves. Don't try and tell anyone except your dillusional self that a drunk who gets into a car after drinking too many beers and kills someone has ANYONE to blame but themselves. Yes they don't choose to be an addict, but they willingly shoot up, or drink, or snort every time they choose to fulfill their vice.

And did I say anything about God choosing who was rich or poor? No, I didn't. So stop putting words in my mouth. Get off the smug pills and wake up. Or maybe that just proves liberalism is a disease you have no control over. I wonder what the treatment is.

Am I reactionary? Maybe, but only to complete idiots like you that REFUSE to blame anyone for any of the ills in the world. Many of the people who are rich have earned it, the old money people aside. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say many of the people who are poor have earned it too by not graduating high school, CHOOSING to commit crimes, or generally being a drain on society instead of an assest.

Posted by: Bailers | October 13, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

And one more thing RUKidding all of us,

I know nothing about the Florida race. If what you say is true he should be in jail. I won't defend him. I will defend people like my father in law that I believe made over $250K a year as a small business owner. He built his business from the ground up. He treats his friends, family and customers fairly and friendly. Those are the "rich" people I'm defending.

Where is your defense of the rich in Hollywood or sports, that make millions of dollars for doing something most of us do for free. Where is your defense of those bozos?

Posted by: Bailers | October 13, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Bailers:

Great post (sorry to hear about your child though).

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 13, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

bailers...not only are you reactionary but you are ignorant...not in the pejorative sense..or in any attempt meant to insult you but to simply point out a fact. You are WRONG!!!!

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

"Alcoholism, also known as alcohol dependence,[1][2] is a disabling addictive disorder. It is characterized by compulsive and uncontrolled consumption of alcohol despite its negative effects on the drinker's health, relationships, and social standing. Like other drug addictions, alcoholism IS MEDICALLY DEFINED AS A TREATABLE DISEASE."

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

"Drug addiction is a PATHOLOGICAL or abnormal condition which arises due to frequent drug use. The disorder of addiction involves the progression of acute drug use to the development of drug-seeking behavior, the vulnerability to relapse, and the decreased, slowed ability to respond to naturally rewarding stimuli."

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

"In medicine, pathology is the study and diagnosis of disease"


Don't know where you attended college but you should demand a refund if you took any biology or medical courses. Perhaps you went to the University of Bailers where bailers opinion is passed off as fact when indeed the EDUCATED EXPERTS are in complete disagreement with bailers.

By the way whiner...notice that you didn't mention or react to the FACT that our taxes are at their lowest point in 50 years! But then would upset the teabagging narrative of just how unfair our taxes are wouldn't it now.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

bailers

"Where is your defense of the rich in Hollywood or sports, that make millions of dollars for doing something most of us do for free. Where is your defense of those bozos?"

That is what as known as a "non sequitor"
It has absolutely nothing to do with my post. It is an entirely separate issue.
And you as might be expected totally miss the point. Rick Scott was an example of how frequently the wealthy manipulate our system. He is a true scumbag.

I do not need to defend or attack the wealthy. I'm simply pointing out FACTS!!!
The wealth in our country has shifted in the most dramatic fashion since 1929 right before our Great Depression. If you don't find it morally reprehensible that the wealth of our nation is being increasingly shifted to those who need it least, that millions of folks are working MORE THAN 40 hours yet still don't qualify for basic healthcare fine...be as heartless as you appear in your posts....but at least use your brain...studies show that when societies get income distribution out of whack and the middle class shrinks then OBJECTIVELY..not morally...their economies suffer based on traditional metrics like GDP, inflation etc.

Scott C has posted that he has wealthy friends who have given more to charitable causes than all of us combined. I do not doubt Scott's claims. There are plenty of fine folks who happen to be wealthy, and I have no reason to doubt that you father in law is one of the nice guys. There are also plenty of scumbags who happen to be wealthy. The same could be said of the middle class and the same could be said of the poor. All poor are not lazy, just as all wealthy are not scumbags.

However when people go caterwauling about a 3% increase OVER $250,000 right after the Bush tax cuts succeeded in increasing the wealth among the top 2% astronomically...well forgive me for being crude but it's simply idiotic!!!!

The rich are not hurting!!!! The taxes are at their lowest point in 50 years!!!
80% of the tax relief under Bush ended up in the hands of the top 2%. Increasing the marginal rate by 3% is exactly what Clinton did when job creation blew away what happened under 8 disastrous rule(certainly for job creation) under Bush. The Bush economy certainly trickled down on all of us...unfortunately is wasn't a shared part of the pie..it was yellow and has a foul smell...much like the entire Bush Admin.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 13, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Didn't The Right Wingers elect one of those "rich Hollywood Bozos" as their President, and don't they still "worship" that "rich Hollywood Bozo".


I wonder how Jon Voight, Cliff Claven, Chuck Norris, etc feel about being called "rich Hollywood Bozos"?

Was Charlton Heston also "a rich Hollywood Bozo"? Surely he fit the description. Also; haven't the Republican elected a lot of former professional athletes to Congress, and even to the US Senate.

Seems to me, that Right Wingers are the ones who take all those "Bozos" seriously, and chose them for their leaders.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 13, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

RU -

"Drug addiction is a PATHOLOGICAL or abnormal condition which arises due to frequent drug use"

We are splitting hairs. My point is that drug addition is a willing illness. I take great offense when anyone equates a disease, which is out of the control of someone, to a treatable condition that is entirely controllable by the individual.

But call it what you want.

Posted by: Bailers | October 13, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

By the way whiner...notice that you didn't mention or react to the FACT that our taxes are at their lowest point in 50 years! But then would upset the teabagging narrative of just how unfair our taxes are wouldn't it now.

Posted by: rukidding7
_________________________

Fair point. From a quick look, you are right. But we'll have this discussion in a few years when the greatly increased spending means taxes have to go up to pay for all the borrowing we've done. And while that certainly started under Bush, your guy hasn't slowed it down much has he?

Posted by: Bailers | October 13, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

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

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




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company