Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Calling the Nevada debate for Sharron Angle: Nevada top-dog journalist Jon Ralston, who has a good read on the Nevada electorate, says she won, because she managed to avoid appearing as "the Wicked Witch of the West."

Ralston also gives the Angle the prize for the most audacious and extensive revisions of history, a.k.a. lies.

* Angle benefitting from efforts to tar her as crazy and extreme: Chris Cillizza says that while Angle was "far from impresssive," she "almost certainly met the low bar of credibility she needed to clear to have a real chance at winning the race."

* And: Jonathan Martin, in the mother of all backhanded compliments, notes that Angle avoided appearing "entirely incoherent."

* But no game changer? Josh Marshall thinks not. And a senior Democrat emails these thoughts:

Boring, which I think is a win for Reid. Democrats hoping for an Angle meltdown didn't get it, but just as important, Reid didn't make any mistakes either. We're a few points ahead 18 days out and the debate did nothing to change that. That's a good thing.

* Angle's vision of government: Only hours after the debate, the Reid campaign went up with a new ad hammering her opposition to mandating insurance coverage of, well, pretty much anything:

* Did "hicky" rescue the West Virginia Senate seat for Dems? The Dem candidate, Governor Joe Manchin, looked to be in trouble in recent days, but now a new poll finds he's opened up a double digit lead over Republican John Raese, 48-38.

* The Tea is only beginning to steep in GOP waters: A worthy New York Times analysis finds that the Tea Party has enough candidates in play to establish a sizable bloc in Congress to push its agenda.

I'll say it again: The impact of the Tea Party on the GOP is only beginning to be felt, and we have no idea where this story is taking us.

* How bad is it for Dems in the House? The new NPR poll finds that Dems have closed the gap in 58 hard-fought districts. But it also finds that there are now 96 seats up for grabs -- and 86 of them are currently held by Dems.

* Say hello to Senator-elect Pat Toomey? Dems are hanging their hopes on internal polls and on Joe Sestak's ability as a closer, but Nate Silver games out why Sestak is unlikely to duplicate the comeback he managed in the primary.

* Outside spending at $220 million and counting: And much of it coming from the right remains undisclosed.

* Bone-chilling quote of the day: In the above link, from Sunlight Foundation chief Ellen Miller: "We are standing at the precipice of unlimited political spending."

* Christine O'Donnell is a classic American type: Great rant from Joe Klein on how the myth of ignorance as authenticity keeps O'Donnell and other Tea Partyers viable, and what it means for our "diseased" society.

* And here's the (alleged) Tea Party con game/shakedown of the day: Howard Fineman reports that O'Donnell threatend Beltway establishment GOP types at a private meeting thusly, in an apparent effort to get them to pony up for her campaign:

"I've got Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys."

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 15, 2010; 8:30 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, Morning Plum, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Thiessen's misleading attack on due process

Comments

Greg:

"What else is happening?"

Amusing column from Krauthammer today.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249806/your-pre-election-post-mortem-charles-krauthammer

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 15, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

"I've got Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys."

The GOP just has no clue what they have unleashed, but they are about to find out.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 15, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

"says she [Angle] won, because she managed to avoid appearing as "the Wicked Witch of the West.'"

Yup. That's part of the problem with attacking your opponents as evil and mentally retarded--you end up setting the bar so low, just showing up allows them to "beat expectations" and win points.

@suekzoo1: "'I've got Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys.' -- The GOP just has no clue what they have unleashed, but they are about to find out."

I don't think the GOP--especially the national GOP--is clueless in regards to O'Donnell. Karl Rove, for one, was dead set against her. And, admittedly, the quote is hearsay, but it seems entirely consistent with everything we've seen from O'Donnell thus far.

Just because she says she's super-conservative and hyper-religious doesn't mean she's not just a flim-flam artist. As it turns out, con games involve lying about who you are and what you believe, in order to gain people's trust, in order to exploit it for personal gain. Who woulda thunk it!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

"I've got Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys."

Whatever. Enjoy your 15 minutes. As of 11/3, you will be a nobody who delivered a safe seat to the democrats.

Posted by: sold2u | October 15, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

"Bone-chilling quote of the day: In the above link, from Sunlight Foundation chief Ellen Miller: 'We are standing at the precipice of unlimited political spending.'"

Or, otherwise phrased: "Terrifying, Unbelievable Horrible, End-of-the-World-As-We-Know-It Quote Of the Day: We are standing at the precipice of unlimited free speech."

Which, for some reason, will be a tragedy for liberalism, apparently. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

A South Carolina Tea Party is going after Jim DeMint for his failure to support a $400 million earmark that would benefit their state. LOL "Earmarks are bad, unless it's for us."

www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026129.php

At issue is a $400,000 earmark for the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study. For locals, the taxpayer money would be well spent, which is why leading Tea Party activists like Mike Murphree have endorsed the earmark. Even right-wing gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley (R), a favorite of the party's base, wants the federal government to pony up.

This year, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another ostensible opponent of government spending and earmarks, requested this earmark specifically. "I'm all for change and all for reform," Graham told the NYT. "But this is where the reality of governing rears its ugly head."

You don't say.

For the right, government-by-platitudes is surprisingly easy. Spending is bad, earmarks are bad, taxes are bad. They tend to run into a little trouble when this worldview runs into practical applications.

South Carolina's other U.S. senator, Jim DeMint, continues to be a "purist" on these issues, so he hasn't backed Graham's request. And as it turns out, the port's plans won't proceed unless both of South Carolina's senators are on board.

By sticking to conservative principles above all else, DeMint is hurting his constituents and his state's competitiveness -- and wouldn't you know it, his conservative fans in South Carolina aren't at all pleased, since they're suffering the consequences of DeMint's ideology.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 15, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Oops...should be $400k, not $400mm

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 15, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

"The system for financing mortgages and regulating that financing has failed, completely and utterly. The mortgage and real estate markets are now in collapse.
Yesterday I wrote about how positive feedback loops lead to collapse. Welcome to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. As I have documented here numerous times, the entire U.S. mortgage market has already been socialized: 99% of all mortgages are backed by the three FFFs--Fannie, Freddie and FHA--and the Federal Reserve has purchased a staggering $1.2 trillion in mortgage-backed assets in the past year or so to maintain the illusion that there is a market for mortgage-backed securities.

There is, but only because the mortgages are backed by the Federal Government and propped up by the Federal Reserve.

The mortgage market is completely dependent on government guarantees and quasi-Government purchases of securitized mortgages. If the mortgage market were truly socialized, then the Central State would own the banks which originate, service and own the mortgages.

But then the private owners and managers of the "too big to fail" banks would not be reaping hundreds of billions in profits and bonuses. And since the banking industry has effectively captured the processes of governance (that is, Congress and the various regulatory agencies), then what we have is a system of private ownership of the revenue and profits generated by the mortgage industry and public absorption of the risks and losses.

Could anything be sweeter for the big banks? No.

The incestuous nature of the system is breathtaking...."

Read more at:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct10/foreclosure-collapse10-10.html

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

I remember a certain web site that must not be named was ecstatic about Sestak beating Spector and I'm pretty sure even helped him financially by encouraging donations and the such then silence....nothing.

It's as thought this web site doesn't know there's a race in PA that Dems are about to loose.

What a shame. PA should have been a win. Does anyone here live there? What's Sestak's campaign been like so far? Is he matching Toomey in campaigning or what?

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

Shoter Kevin Willis: "I want free speech and to hide, also, too."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 15, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Free speech = responsibility not anonymity...

Posted by: Papagnello | October 15, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Kevin Willis: "I don't think the GOP--especially the national GOP--is clueless in regards to O'Donnell. Karl Rove, for one, was dead set against her. And, admittedly, the quote is hearsay, but it seems entirely consistent with everything we've seen from O'Donnell thus far."

I wasn't limiting my comment to the GOP's position on O'Donnell. They are going to have a hard time governing with any/all teabaggers in Congress.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 15, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

"What a shame. PA should have been a win."

I haven't lived there since 1994, but I grew up there. I don't think Specter would have won reelection this year.

Posted by: akaoddjob | October 15, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

What George Carlin said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 15, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Is this the standard Republicans women are always held to? Just not be a COMPLETE fool? This was the standard for Palin, O'Donnell supposedly won her debate because of this standard, and it looks like Angle did too. Any of them ever going to be expected to be substantive?

Posted by: DDAWD | October 15, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Papagnello, I think the banks are going to take the hit on this one. Now we know why they've amassed all those billions and not lent them out for the most part.

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

"On Wednesday, JPMorgan said it had added $1 billion to its reserves to cover faulty home loans that it was obligated to repurchase from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and private insurers. It has set aside a total of $3 billion for potential repurchases.

Even if the larger losses envisioned by Mr. Mehta do not materialize, the foreclosure issue remains a worry. In a report, Paul Miller, an analyst with FBR Capital Markets, forecast that the controversy would cost the banking industry $6 billion to $10 billion. He estimated that each month’s delay cost the banks $1,000 per home loan, so if there was a three-month delay on the roughly two million homes currently in foreclosure, that translated into a $6 billion hit.

In addition to the losses directly caused by the delay, Mr. Miller foresees additional charges totaling $3 billion to $4 billion to cover lawsuits stemming from faulty foreclosure procedures."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/business/15bank.html?_r=1

Posted by: lmsinca | October 15, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

@suekzoo: "Shoter Kevin Willis: 'I want free speech and to hide, also, too.'"

I'm offended and incensed about being called shoter, whatever that means. ;)

That being said, I said nothing about "hiding". I think we should have full disclosure, but I don't think the "bone chilling" quote of the day said anything about anonymity, just unlimited political spending.

@Papagnello" "Free speech = responsibility not anonymity..."

While I don't agree with that equation per se (history is full of cases where free speech essentially require anonymity, or the speaker would end up in jail, dead, or otherwise silenced), in a country where the protection of free speech is enshrined in our constitution, I don't believe that free speech requires anonymity, or that a lack of full disclosure serves the interests of the public, the polity, or even those who wish to anonymously fund political ads (in the long run).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

What else is happening?

Good news for Ohihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/early-voting-off-to-a-fas_b_763074.htmlo, maybe??

Posted by: DinOH | October 15, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

FWIW, the SCOTUS didn't grant anonymous speech. They just granted speech. Dems did try to pass DISCLOSE. But some party blocked it. I forget which one.

Although who knows if DISCLOSE would have held up to legal challenge. We've got a pretty activist Supreme Court, in case anyone didn't notice.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 15, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

These go together, Kevin, like hand-and-glove:

* Outside spending at $220 million and counting: And much of it coming from the right remains undisclosed.

* Bone-chilling quote of the day: In the above link, from Sunlight Foundation chief Ellen Miller: "We are standing at the precipice of unlimited political spending."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 15, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Who will Hannity blame when O'Donnell loses?

a) ACORN (sleeper cells, there are sleeper cells... like terrists!")
b)The Liberal Media (read: Bill Maher)
c) Mike Castle
d) The much-dreaded Fap Lobby

Or some combination? It was Mike Castle, with the liberal media, at the secret ACORN offices! I hope he blames Karl Rove.

Posted by: michael_conrad | October 15, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Don't worry, the campaign against foreign donors will turn the tide in all of those 86 races . . . er, unless we run out of time!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

What else?

A wonderful 90 min documentary examines the Tea Party movement in the context of Big Money's overall propaganda crusade. It is highly recommended and is available online for $1.99 at http://www.astroturfwars.com/

Posted by: wbgonne | October 15, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&hp

Krugman:

"True to form, the Obama administration’s response has been to oppose any action that might upset the banks, like a temporary moratorium on foreclosures while some of the issues are resolved. Instead, it is asking the banks, very nicely, to behave better and clean up their act. I mean, that’s worked so well in the past, right? "

Spanking banks!

Posted by: Papagnello | October 15, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Just because she says she's super-conservative and hyper-religious doesn't mean she's lying either.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 15, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Excellent column by E.J. Dionne:

"The "logic" behind Citizens United is that third-party spending can't possibly be corrupting. The five-justice majority declared that "this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy." You can decide what's more stunning about this statement, its naivete or its arrogance."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/10/AR2010101003045.html

I really think people are beginning to recognize that the SuperRich are trying to take over this country once and for all.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 15, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

kevin-

Its a sad thing when how much $ one spends equates to "free speech".

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 15, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Just because she says she's super-conservative and hyper-religious doesn't mean she's lying either.

Posted by: clawrence12

Super-conservative/hyper-religious doesn't mean she ISN'T lying, either.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 15, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

clawrence-

Except, when she is.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 15, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

papagnello

Have you been following Yves Smith at nakedcapitalism? She's really captured the entire mess and has been reporting on it for a long time.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/10/foreclosure-crisis-finally-hitting-banks-where-it-hurts-their-stock-prices.html

Posted by: lmsinca | October 15, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

@suekzoo: "These go together, Kevin, like hand-and-glove:"

So, presumably, you'll have no objection to unlimited political spending, if the donors are disclosed?

Also, while they may go together like hand-and-glove, in this case, the glove was in the glove compartment out in the car parked on the street, and the hand was in my face, so I focused on the hand. Shame on me, I know.

"Its a sad thing when how much $ one spends equates to "free speech".

Well, I don't think it does. However, I haven't heard a particularly compelling reason why folks with money shouldn't be able to spend that money to get their opinion out, any more than a pamphleteer with a printing press shouldn't be able to print up his broadsheets to his heart's contentment. Or why groups of people should have no particular right to pool their resources to communicate an opinion. Or why corporations shouldn't be able to advocate one side or the other regarding government legislation or spending that would have an impact on them.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

What an awfully dull thread this morning. Ok to liven things up, for me at least, I though about the 2012 race. My conclusion, Obama gets re-elected unless any of three things happen:

1) the economy gets worse from here (even a little economic improvement works big time in Obama's favor))

2) any kind of currently unforseeable personal scandal

3) a major terrorist incident on US soil.

Absent the above three conditions none of the currently proposed list of 2012 candidates can beat him.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Re: Angle, O'Donnell, Bachmann, Palin, etc. There must be accomplished Conservative and Republican women who are appalled that the GOP is presenting these ignorant fools as candidates. Future serious female GOP candidates will be dismissed and diminished by their party's promotion with these ridiculous candidates. Where is the pride from Conservative and GOP women?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 15, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca:

I am following Yves. Great work, also following:

Karl Denninger at market-ticker.org (some have said he's advising Alan Grayson)

Sometimes I check out zerohedge.com (the commentators are a rabid bunch though)

rortybomb.wordpress.com

etc. If you know other sites for me please post, I'm trying to keep up with all this. One thing to fight is the networks invariably featuring only the deadbeat homeowners getting their homes back when owing $800,000, these features skew the real picture.

The too-big-to-jail banks keep saying we need to push the pig through the python, the pig being the mess. They're the pigs though, and this time we need to be the python and push their fraudelent ways and incest with the Fed through and out of our country once and for all.

Posted by: Papagnello | October 15, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

One other thing: It is way past time that the people behind the Plutocratic Propaganda be called to task for the harm they are doing to America and the American people. These selfish people are very destructive and shouldn't be allowed to hide like cockroaches in the dark. Full disclosure NOW!

Posted by: wbgonne | October 15, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Feel free to prove she's lying about being religious / super-conservative.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 15, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

@54465446: "Obama gets re-elected unless any of three things happen"

Well, perhaps if all 3 happen. But I predict that Obama get's re-elected unless, essentially, one of two things happen:

1. He faces a primary challenge.
2. He declines to run.

Otherwise, as I have pointed out before, history favors the incumbent. Although there are examples aplenty of single-term elected presidents, the vast majority of them either did not or could not run for the second term, faced a primary challenge and/or were rejected by their own party, or essentially did have a second term, as they served more than half of the previous presidents term.

Even in the case of the candidate not running or actually being ousted by their own party, the incumbent party still one in many cases. It's even more unusual for the incumbent to get ousted if his election represents the first term of his party occupying the Whitehouse.

That is, if it had been a Democrat in the Whitehouse from 2000-2008, and then Obama had won (thus representing a 3rd term for the incumbent party) Obama would stand a much greater chance of being a one term president.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca:

To what extent do you think Obama was aware of the banks' serial shenanigans? As you said, Yves at nakedcapitalism has been writing on this for a long time, I know Karl Denninger has been hollering for 3 years.

Posted by: Papagnello | October 15, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

"Black voters may be just as engaged as they were in 2008, polls show"

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2010/10/glee-river-deep-mountain-high-soars-with-mercedes-and-santana.html

""So often, the effort to turn out black voters is invisible to the larger white society," Bositis said. "It is happening in black organizations. It is happening in black churches. This isn't something you're going to watch in real time on the Web and television."

Posted by: lynell33 | October 15, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone know a GOP politico that has come out against the banks on this MBS/foreclosure crisis?

And, I know Brown (OR) and Grayson (FL) are coming out somewhat strongly against the banks. Who else on the Dem side?

Posted by: Papagnello | October 15, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

kevin wrote:

"Well, perhaps if all 3 happen. But I predict that Obama get's re-elected unless, essentially, one of two things happen:

1. He faces a primary challenge.
2. He declines to run."

There is no chance that either of the above happens. No sitting president since the Civil War has lost his party's nomination, and the ego required to become president doesn't allow for not running.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

54465446, hopefully your first and third scenarios do not happen. But there's no way to know for sure until election day of course. If you are correct, though, it's time to find a different candidate.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 15, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Kevin: "So, presumably, you'll have no objection to unlimited political spending, if the donors are disclosed?"

I do believe that unlimited spending loses effectiveness at some point, and there is such a thing as diminishing returns to a point of zero. And that over-saturation can become a negative. I don't see how unlimited spending is a benefit to our democracy in the macro sense, and do see how it can keep otherwise viable candidates (of all persuasions and affiliations) from being heard, and that is, in a real sense, a tragedy.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 15, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"Feel free to prove she's lying about being religious / super-conservative."

LMAO. Prove she ISN'T lying about everything else!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 15, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I don't think the GOP--especially the national GOP--is clueless in regards to O'Donnell. Karl Rove, for one, was dead set against her. And, admittedly, the quote is hearsay, but it seems entirely consistent with everything we've seen from O'Donnell thus far.

Just because she says she's super-conservative and hyper-religious doesn't mean she's not just a flim-flam artist. As it turns out, con games involve lying about who you are and what you believe, in order to gain people's trust, in order to exploit it for personal gain. Who woulda thunk it!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 9:01 AM.

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

You are an admirer of Sarah Palin, and have mentioned that you just might vote for her to be the next President.

Yet Palin is the one who keeps pushing for to send O'Donnell to the US Senate?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"What else is happening?"

Has any one touched on Jerry Brown, who looks to be California's next governor? He says we need more welfare and fewer jobs. Talk about your counter-intuitive approaches.

"The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs. Jobs for every American is doomed to failure because of modern automation and production. We ought to recognize it and create an income-maintenance system so every single American has the dignity and the wherewithal for shelter, basic food, and medical care. I’m talking about welfare for all."

Welfare for all. Now, that's awesome. You gotta admit. He just gets right to the point.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

All, new post from Adam Serwer taking on Marc Thiessen:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 15, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I really think people are beginning to recognize that the SuperRich are trying to take over this country once and for all.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 15, 2010 10:24 AM
=======================

Did you play that youtube I posted at October 15, 2010 9:37 AM, wbgonne?

"They're coming for your Social Security...and they'll get it, too."
- George Carlin
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 15, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

New Serwer post:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 15, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "You are an admirer of Sarah Palin, and have mentioned that you just might vote for her to be the next President. Yet Palin is the one who keeps pushing for to send O'Donnell to the US Senate?"

Hey, if I had to agree 100% with everybody I voted for, I'd never vote for anybody.

Want my list on things I disagreed with Bush about?

I do like Palin. But she's wrong about O'Donnell.

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

Welfare for all. Now, that's awesome. You gotta admit. He just gets right to the point.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 11:07 AM

.....

Since you are a big admirer of Sarah Palin, I am sure you fully approve of such an approach. Remember she wrote welfare checks for every person in Alaska, even though they do not have to pay any state taxes.

You can not have it both ways. Palin ran Alaska as a Marxist State.

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

papagnello

"To what extent do you think Obama was aware of the banks' serial shenanigans?"

Well, I know they missed the chance to break them up, but I believe we'll get there anyway. The problem is, it's prolonging the misery. I think it was probably only the banks who knew the paper work fraud was looming. I've seen estimates for next year of losses in the hundreds of billions for the big boys. I guess that's what you get when you hire burger flippers to process the paper work.

And 5 Congress people (I'll have to find out who again) sent letters to Geightner and the head of the FHFA yesterday to strongly URGE oversight in the mess or something along those lines. I'll go find the link.

If you want to read something along the lines of worst case check out Chris Whalen. Not for the faint of heart.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/breaking-news/economy/check-out-chris-whalens-terrifying-presentation-on-the-2011-foreclosure-crisis/?p=19246/

Posted by: lmsinca | October 15, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

clawrence wrote:

"54465446, hopefully your first and third scenarios do not happen. But there's no way to know for sure until election day of course. If you are correct, though, it's time to find a different candidate."

The way we go through candidates today, two years is a lifetime for some Republican to rise to prominence. Among the current group though:

1) Mitt Romney- the logical choice because he would continue the Harvard/Yale stanglehold on the government BUT though you will never see it in poll answers I suspect his being a Mormon will hurt him among the evangelical Christian base, and we simply don't elect successful businessmen to the Presidency. We don't mind family money and connections, oddly enough, but the last stand alone businessman to be elected president was Herbert Hoover.

2) Sarah Palin- as much as she energizes the GOP she would energize the Democratic Party and independents against her more.

3) Mike Huckabee- stale candidate with local and evangelical appeal. 6 years is an eternity to be our of office today and having a tv show where you say things that can be used in attack ads later doesn't help.

4) Newt Gingrich- the Ted Kennedy of the GOP, simply unelectable on any level

5) Rudy Giuliani- again simply out of office too long, a stale candidate, moderation on social issues and less than stellar personal life fail to energize GOP base

6) Jeb Bush- a bright guy, but it's a NAME issue here.

Maybe there are other candidates, but I'm not aware. Feel free to throw out other names if you're bored.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

thelightningwill;

Yeah, obedient and ignorant workers are exactly what the Plutocrats want. Slaves is another word for it. We are headed for big trouble.

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

@Liam-still: "Since you are a big admirer of Sarah Palin, I am sure you fully approve of such an approach."

While I don't fully approve of the approach, I surely admire Brown's chutzpah. As Sarah Palin could no doubt testify, Brown has quite a hefty set of cajones.

"Remember she wrote welfare checks for every person in Alaska, even though they do not have to pay any state taxes."

Well, a sweet deal for Alaskans, no doubt, but perhaps not the best example of prudent governance.

"You can not have it both ways."

About that, my friend, you are mistaken.

"Palin ran Alaska as a Marxist State."

Um, not quite. While money was (and continues to be) appropriated from the oil companies for the privilege of drilling there, the workers still do not own the means of production, so I doubt Marx would approve.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

papagnello

Here's the letter and the list, this is on the Senate side. And I know that Grayson has some Dem reps working from his end as well.

WASHINGTON, DC— U.S. Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Mark Begich (D-AK) today sent a letter to Obama Administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, urging action following recent news reports of widespread improprieties and mistakes in the foreclosure processes employed by mortgage servicers.

http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=2f0c8a60-466a-4f62-af9a-99ea998ea615

Posted by: lmsinca | October 15, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "You are an admirer of Sarah Palin, and have mentioned that you just might vote for her to be the next President. Yet Palin is the one who keeps pushing for to send O'Donnell to the US Senate?"

Hey, if I had to agree 100% with everybody I voted for, I'd never vote for anybody.

Want my list on things I disagreed with Bush about?

I do like Palin. But she's wrong about O'Donnell.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 11:13 AM

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

"She's wrong about O'Donnell". In what way is she wrong about her? It seems to me, this is an example of the sort of people she would surround herself with, were she to ever become President.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

54465446: Mitch Daniels? Tim Pawlenty? Mike Pence? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: Observer691 | October 15, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

kevin-

I see your point and I wasn't as clear as I should've been.

What I was trying to get across is, amount of $ spent shouldn't be the arbiter of * how much* free speech one has.

In the end, each of us has one vote but the system is flawed when it is assumed/requires tens of millions of dollars to run a successful campaign and "communicate opinion".

May Citizen's United will ultimately prove to be the undoing of our runaway campaign spending binge (but I have no idea at this point how that would happen...).

Speaking of opinion, how much substantive information is communicated in a 30 sec. TV spot?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 15, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

"Why would I ever need to masturb@te, when I always have Sean Hannity in my pocket?" Christine O'Donnell.

Was their ever a better time for Craig Ferguson to have his robot sidekick contact Christine, and say:

"In Your Pants!!!"

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

54465446-

Romney continuing a "Harvard/Yale" stranglehold on the presidency? Horrors! You are sounding like O'Donnell...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 15, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin ran Alaska in a manner closer to how Karl Marx would have run it, than Ronald Reagan would have.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"What else is going on?"

From Politico:

"When asked if he was sorry for calling for a boycott, Grijalva responded: 'I am. It detracted from what the real debate was. Nobody is talking about the extreme positions of my opponent that are supported by the tea party because they are consumed with using my position on the boycott to defeat me.'"

No, really? Turns out, even if you think you're in a safe district, it's not smart to call for a business boycott of your *own state* during the middle of a recession, no matter how much you disagree with something the governor or state legislature is doing.

And speaking of the GOP and accomplished women, Ruth McClung is a rocket scientist. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

And speaking of the GOP and accomplished women, Ruth McClung is a rocket scientist. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 11:27 AM

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

Don't inform Christine, Sarah, and Sharron about that. You know how much they despise those Elitists.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

papagnello

One more and I'm out for awhile, to work, from Randall Wray. Take your BP med first.

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

"Indeed, the largest financial institutions were run by their management as what my colleague Bill Black calls “control frauds”. That is, the banks used accounting fraud to manufacture fake profits so that they could pay huge bonuses to top management. The latest data out on Wall Street bonuses show that these institutions are still run as control frauds, with another record year of bonuses paid by cooking the books. The fraud continues unabated.

This is the biggest scandal in human history. Indeed, all previous scandals from around the globe combined cannot even touch this one in terms of scale and scope and stench. This is the mother of all frauds and it will be etched into the history books for all time."

http://www.benzinga.com/general/10/10/524394/time-for-a-moratorium-on-mortgage-fraud

Posted by: lmsinca | October 15, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis votes for a Republican extremist who has repeatedly called Obama a socialist.

His opinion is wholly irrelevant.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 15, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

@Liam: "In what way is she wrong about her? It seems to me, this is an example of the sort of people she would surround herself with, were she to ever become President."

O'Donnell is not an ideological conservative. Maybe she thinks she's religious, but I doubt that. In any case, just because you dress up as a soldier and tell fine tales of the war, you're not actually a soldier unless you, you know, really served in the military. I've worn a real honest-to-goodness camo-jacket, but that did not make me a Marine. Semper fi.

In any case, we might also want to talk about what kind of house we might live in, if we lived on the surface of the sun. Because that is about as likely as a Palin presidency, at least at this point. So who she might surround herself with is, at this point, irrelevant. And I still don't think she even intends to run.

Remember with Colin Powell was flirting with running for president? As I recall, there was a book upcoming. Powell wasn't serious, but made effective use of the will-he-or-won't-he interest of the press? I expect Palin will continue to flirt with running for president, but I'll be surprised if she actually announces.

If she does, I'll be curious about how enthusiastic the other candidates will be about attacking Palin. That would be interesting to see.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "Kevin_Willis votes for a Republican extremist who has repeatedly called Obama a socialist."

Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding everybody, I was afraid they had forgotten.

"His opinion is wholly irrelevant."

Are you trying to say that sharing my 2¢ with the other folks perusing the comments section of the Plumline isn't going to change the world? I am shocked and appalled that you would take such a position.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Kevin,

I still expect Palin to seek the nomination, and I still see it as her's to lose.

I make her an the even money favorite, to be the Republican nominee for President in 2012.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Ruth McClung has a Bachelor's Degree in physics. Here, from her website, is a measure of her "brilliance":

"I have been running since last May (2009) because I cannot stand on the sidelines when politicians in Washington (like my opponent) are grabbing control of our personal freedoms, wrecking our economy, recklessly spending our money, and destroying America's greatness. We need to return to limited government, personal responsibility and integrity, a strong work ethic, and opportunity for all. The American dream is to be self reliant and work to achieve the life that you want, not live off the government."

She is a Palinized Teanut so it's no wonder you like her but don't pretend she is an accomplished woman.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 15, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"Welfare for all. Now, that's awesome. You gotta admit. He just gets right to the point."

Do you have a link? As much as I trust your integrity, I'm finding it hard to believe any serious politician would ever say something so outrageous. Surely there is some explanation...out of context, a joke, something. Please say it isn't real.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 15, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

chuckindenton wrote:

"Romney continuing a "Harvard/Yale" stranglehold on the presidency? Horrors! You are sounding like O'Donnell..."

To deny that the Ivy League schools and in particular Harvard and Yale run this country would be to close your eyes to the obvious.

-the last 4 presidents have been graduates of Harvard or Yale

-all of the nine Supreme Court Justices attended Harvard or Yale

-the Federal Reserve Board presidency for the last 31 years has been held exclusively by a graduate of Harvard.

Coincidence????????

If you have those positions, you don't need any others, but consider also that:

18 of the 25 richest Americans attended just 5 schools, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Columbia and Stanford. Even those who made their money on their own such as the Mars and Walton families sent their children to these schools to become members of the club shall we say.

Your opinion?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Jerry Brown must be taking a page out of Sarah Palin's book; How To Govern As A Socialist, by passing out free money to every resident, of the State.

Sarah and Hugo have a lot in common.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "Do you have a link? As much as I trust your integrity, I'm finding it hard to believe any serious politician would ever say something so outrageous."

I do, but it's not from the campaign trail--it's from 1995, from his Pacifica Radio show:

http://www.thefoxnation.com/jerry-brown/2010/10/14/jerry-brown-flashback-we-need-more-welfare-and-fewer-jobs

When I first heard it, I thought he had just recently said it as part of his campaign. Too bad. That would have been impressive!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

BTW the three things I noted above about the Presidency, the Fed, and the Supreme Court are each individually the first time ever in the history of the republic that any of those institutions have been held by such a small group, let alone all three at the same time.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

observer691 wrote:

Mitch Daniels? Tim Pawlenty? Mike Pence,"


None a national candidate yet, or would you differ?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

When I first heard it, I thought he had just recently said it as part of his campaign. Too bad. That would have been impressive!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 11:51 AM
..................

All you have to do is Google Sarah Palin's very recent history, and explanations, as to why she pushed through a five billion increase on charges to the oil companies, when Alaska was already running an annual budget surplus, and you will have what you were hoping to lay at Jerry Brown's doorstep.

She explained that she wanted that extra money to give it out to all Alaskans. Not spend it on state projects. Just cut checks and Dole Them Out. Get it yet.

She talks about being a Fiscal Small Government Conservative, but she ran Alaska as a place that Hugo Chavez would have admired.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

observer691 wrote:

Mitch Daniels? Tim Pawlenty? Mike Pence,

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

Mitch Daniels just stated that he is open to adding a VAT(Value Added Tax) to increase revenues. In other words; A European style Tax Increase. How Ironic is that.

He also said that he is open to putting a special tax levy on imported oil.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

liamstill wrote:

"All you have to do is Google Sarah Palin's very recent history, and explanations, as to why she pushed through a five billion increase on charges to the oil companies, when Alaska was already running an annual budget surplus, and you will have what you were hoping to lay at Jerry Brown's doorstep."

Why do you keep talking about this as if it were a BAD thing?

Do you realize that this country is STILL governed by the Mining Act of 1872. That mean that the federal government gets no royalties from the mining of gold, silver or copper, and that it must sell public lands on which a claim is being worked for no more than $5.00 (yes five dollars, not a misplaced decimal point) an acre?

Getting royalties out of ANY commodity based corporation is no easy feat.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Jerry Brown also thinks the solution to immigration is to slow down the modernization of Mexico:

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=17902

He's got some fine opinions. Whatever problems Meg Whitman has . . . I mean, wow. If California elects brown, they're going to get exactly what they deserve. Or deserve precisely what they're going to get.

@wbgonne: "She is a Palinized Teanut so it's no wonder you like her but don't pretend she is an accomplished woman."

Which goes to my point that, even if you have a bachelors in physics and are a rocket scientist, if you're a Republican or a conservative, and a woman, they you can't be accomplished. Or particularly smart. And probably not sane.

Is Meg Whitman "accomplished"? She's been vp of strategic planing at Walt Disney, imported Teletubbies into the US, and helped turn eBay from a $4 million company with 30 employees into an $8 billion company with 15,000 employees. But 'm sure thereis a reason why none of that counts. What about Clari Fiorina, who rose from being a management trainee at AT&T to senior vp of their hardware and systems division? Then she was presidnt of Lucent's consumer products business. Then president. In 1998, Fortune magazine named her "the most powerful woman in business". Then she became CEO of Hewlett-Packard, becoming the first woman to be CEO of a Fortune 20 company. But, she's not universally beloved by all human beings, lacks super powers, and is not a Democrat, so I suspect she is also not accomplished.

Or, Linda McMahon, who helped build WWE from a small regional company into a billion-dollar international operation, and was CEO of this billion dollar company until 2009. Of course, that's WWE--and McMahon's not a Democrat--so that doesn't count. Although McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama all made live appearances on the WWE during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Sarah Palin was a council member, mayor, the governor of Alaska. She was also as good as any liberal about bring home the pork and redistributing the wealth--as Liam-Still has recently corroborated, she was second only to Karl Marx in her development of the Alaskan Socialist Utopia. Surely, she's accomplished? Oh, no, wait. There's a not a (D) next to her name. Sorry, try again.

For liberals, it seems "accomplished woman" is synonymous with "liberal woman", and no other definition need apply. /snark

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, ScottC,

Did you guys see this?

* Black voters may be just as engaged as they were in 2008, polls show *

Historically, black turnout for midterm elections has lagged behind the national average, but two new reports offer a bullish outlook for this year.

A major survey conducted by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University found that 80 percent of black Democrats are as interested or more interested in the midterms than they were in the 2008 presidential election, when their enthusiasm helped propel Barack Obama into office.

This year, 62 percent of all black Democrats say they're likely to encourage others to support certain candidates, according to the survey, compared with 47 percent of white Democrats and 57 percent of all Republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101406750.html

It only remains to be seen what kind of racist voter suppression tactics your Republican Party will employ this election cycle.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 15, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1, unless you think she really is a witch, she's not lying about that.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 15, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

@Liam: "Mitch Daniels just stated that he is open to adding a VAT(Value Added Tax) to increase revenues. In other words; A European style Tax Increase. How Ironic is that."

If true, then, it's time he got Tea Partied. ;)

"He also said that he is open to putting a special tax levy on imported oil."

Not a bad idea, especially if it is accompanied by opening up more domestic drilling.

@Liam-Still: "She talks about being a Fiscal Small Government Conservative, but she ran Alaska as a place that Hugo Chavez would have admired."

I'm not quite sure--do you object to what she did, then? Or are you becoming a Palinista? Because it seems like you'd approve of her tactics--if she were a Democrat. Am I missing something (entirely possible, btw, as I often do).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

kevin willis:

I was with you for part of the ride, but you went overboard.

Carly Fiorina drove HP into the ground, so I doubt shes' getting any awards today.

Linda McMahon was only the public front for a corporation that expanded based on intimidation of it's rivals, and systemic organized drug use by it's emplyees. To say she also has her "Tammy Wynette" aspects is to say that Vince McMahon is a much more accomplished serial philanderer than Clinton ever thought he could be. (we didn't even get around to the total organized misogyny of the WWE)

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

* Pension fund sued Rick Scott for insider trading *

Rick Scott wants to be governor of a state that once filed suit accusing him of insider trading.

In 1997, as the FBI unleashed a massive criminal investigation of Scott's hospital chain, Florida's State Board of Administration filed a civil lawsuit accusing Scott and his fellow hospital directors of profiting from a culture of corruption and selling stock 23 days before federal agents raided the company's offices in Texas.

Ultimately, a judge dismissed the insider trading complaint without trial, but an appeals court said there was a chance that Scott should have known "of the arrangements that allegedly violated health care laws and regulations."

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/pension-fund-sued-rick-scott-insider-trading-dismissed-claim-then-settlement

* Rick Scott said to want to ban all abortions in Florida *

A state legislator claims in a new message to supporters that Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott has pledged, if elected, to throw his support behind a bill that would make abortion illegal in Florida in nearly all instances, including rape and incest.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/rick-scott-said-want-ban-all-abortions-fla

RICK SCOTT = REPUBLICAN SCUMBAG

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 15, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

Oh I also forgot that WWE is organized so that virtually all of it's employees are independent contractors, so that it provides none of the usual benefits to the government of having a large corporation with many employees.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Meg Whitman is an accomplished businessperson. Condi Rice is an accomplished woman. Margaret Thatcher was an accomplished woman. And there are plenty of others from the Conservative world. Palin and her Grifter Mamas are Ignorant phonies suitable only for American Idol and ludicrous to contemplate for high elective office. Of course, since like most Conservatives you consider government a joke, American Idol candidates and Grifter Mamas seem perfect to you.

BTW: if you think a Bachelor's degree makes someone accomplished ... well, what can I say.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 15, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "It only remains to be seen what kind of racist voter suppression tactics your Republican Party will employ this election cycle."

None, I expect, not that your side won't make plenty of examples up.

For the love of Pete . . .

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,


I want you to stop being two faced, when it comes to Sarah Palin. You just keep trying to make it about Democrats. I pointed out to you, how her record as Governor, completely conflicts with her's, and your's expressed philosophy of how government should work.

Palin also is the one who is leading the charge to have freaks like Christin O'Donnell take over the Republican Party, and yet you still keep trying to put a conservative shade of lipstick on that Short Term Socialist Governor Of Alaska.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

54465#########:

"...so that it provides none of the usual benefits to the government of having a large corporation with many employees. "

Which, as we all konw, is generally the purpose of large corporations...to provide benefits to the government.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 15, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Of course, since like most Conservatives you consider government a joke, American Idol candidates and Grifter Mamas seem perfect to you."

You need to work on your mind reading skills. I don't think they work as well as you think they do.

@wbgonne: "if you think a Bachelor's degree makes someone accomplished ... well, what can I say."

Snob! ;)

In the case of Ruth McLung, the fact that it's a Bachelors in physics, and that her after graduation career was, essentially, rocket science, I'm not as quick to dismiss her. She's certainly more accomplish than Grijalva, who also has a Bachleors degree. In sociology.

By the standards we're holding McClung to, presumably you will agree that Raul Grijalva is also not particularly accomplished.

And, BTW, I have a bachelors degree in Photo/Computer (apparently the only one, as they changed the majors after I chose that as my major) from an art school in Memphis, TN. So, it's possible that I'm just easily impressed.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

54465446-

I'm well aware of those their representation in gov't. I don't have problem with it. In fact, I think its a great thing:the more well-educated, the better.

Maybe I misread your intent, I was referring to what I suspected was an anti-elitist tone in your post. My apologies if I got that wrong.

Hey, the Southwest Texas State Teachers College has a presidential alumnus, but he really got his education in 30+ years of electoral politics...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 15, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

@Liam: "I want you to stop being two faced, when it comes to Sarah Palin. You just keep trying to make it about Democrats. I pointed out to you, how her record as Governor, completely conflicts with her's, and your's expressed philosophy of how government should work."

Well, perhaps. But she's MILFy. Plus, she likes hogs, guns, and vets. What's not to like? ;)

Alas, if her socialist tendencies exhibited in Alaska should be sufficient to make me renounce her, shouldn't they be sufficient to make you embrace her? If I'm being two-faced in this case, I think you must be, too.

And, if you haven't noticed, I don't always take an inflexible hard line against government pork. You may not recall, but one of the points I was critical about Sarah Palin was her "bridge to nowhere" trope. Not only was she not responsible for killing it, it should not have been killed, because it was a frickin' bridge to an airport, not a "bridge to nowhere".

That she secured government largess for Alaskans, rather than for government programs, is something I think is reasonable. While I think pork and earmarks might be subject to better review, and ought be in their own bills rather than tacked onto other stuff and used to negotiate votes for something totally unrelated, I don't object to all government pork or earmarks. I support infrastructure spending.

"Palin also is the one who is leading the charge to have freaks like Christin O'Donnell take over the Republican Party, and yet you still keep trying to put a conservative shade of lipstick on that Short Term Socialist Governor Of Alaska."

You gotta admit, with the glasses and the lipstick and the accent, she's kind of hot. Right?


Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I find it ironic, that many of the red states, dominated by elected Republicans, receive far more money back from DC. than they send there. Yet they never stop whining about Washington taxing them too much, when in fact the opposite is true. Many of those Red Welfare States are in the South. Why don't they just stop taking tax revenues out of the pockets of the States that send more money to DC than they get back.?

Alaska under the Ted Stevens/Lisa Murkowski/Sarah Palin, Axis Of Socialism, was a prime example of a state that was ripping of tax payers of other states, while at the same time complaining about how Washington should not be taxing so much.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

You are the one who keeps offering up the MILF excuse. Palin does not campaign on a platform that I could back. She campaigns on one that you can back. I merely point out, that she Governed in a manner that was completely opposite to what she calls for, when she campaigns.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

@54465446: Last I looked, HP wasn't in the ground. Regardless of how imperfect her management as CEO of a leviathan computer company might have been, to say she is not accomplished is an extremely selective interpretation of the word. Look at her resume. Unless accomplishment is taken to me "agrees with me and manages things the way I would", then she is accomplished, as is Linda McMahon, irrespective of accusations of serial philandering, drug use (in wrestling? no, please tell me it's not so. And Santa Clause, too?) or moral qualms we might have with her ball-busting climb up the ladder of success.

But, let's assume that, because we object to their management styles and strategies, that they are thus "unaccomplished". What has a perky young physicist, who perhaps graduated with a mere bachelors degree in physics, and has only spent a few short years being a rocket scientist, done to be considered unaccomplished compared to Raul Grijalva, former school board member and proud possessor of a bachelor's degree in sociology?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"I choose not to run for president in 1928."

Calvin Coolidge

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"By the standards we're holding McClung to, presumably you will agree that Raul Grijalva is also not particularly accomplished."

Neither McClung nor Grijalva -- or your or me or anyone else for that matter -- is "accomplished" BECAUSE we have B.A.s. A bachelor's degree in modern America is equivalent to what a high school diploma was 50 years ago. And it doesn't make any difference whether the degree is in physics, math or philosophy. But that isn't the point anyway.

A person can be accomplished in all kinds of fields and all kinds of ways. What we are discussing now are the qualifications that are PERTINENT to the job of being an elected national official in America today. A B.A. is of marginal relevance because it is pretty much assumed. That's reality.

Maybe you can tell which leadership qualities you see in Sarah Palin. Or Sharon Angle. Or O'Donnell. Or Bachmann. Or Blackburn. Or ... And then explain why the Conservatives and the GOP seem to insist that their female candidates be twits. Isn't that insulting to women?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 15, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

More on the African-American vote:

* To avoid GOP romp, Democrats must get out black vote *

The study identifies 20 competitive House contests — 15 of them in the South — in districts with African-American voting populations of 10 percent or more. They include three districts in Virginia, three in Ohio, two in Louisiana and two in Arkansas.

"If Democrats retain half of these seats, it would be difficult for the GOP to gain the 40 seats necessary to regain the majority in the U.S. House," the report says. "Further, there are two GOP-held seats where black voters are a substantial bloc, and every Democratic pickup will make the GOP's goal of 40 more difficult to attain."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/14/102063/to-avoid-gop-romp-democrats-must.html

It's a shame the GOP hates black people, isn't it Kevin?

Those could be YOUR party's voters.

But they aren't.

Your party is too busy targeting African-Americans and subjecting them to humiliation and unwarranted scorn -- ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, Van Jones, Skip Gates, others -- to be considered racially tolerant.

You are the party of racism.

We support African-Americans in every way and thank our African-American brothers and sisters for supporting the Democratic Party!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 15, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

A rocket scientist can also be a wackjob.

Remember that guy who was credited with inventing solid state transistors, who then spent the rest of his life trying to convince the nation that black people are mentally inferior to white people?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Read it for yourselves.

"Mitch Daniels open to VAT, oil tax hike"


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43648.html

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

I hereby recuse myself from all proceedings related to Stanford University ; )

Kevin_Willis:

If Christine O'Donnell personally convinced you that she was an authentic, religious Conservative, would you support her then? Or, only if she wore glasses, put her hair up, and spoke with an accent?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 15, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

@gallup:

* Obama Performing Well Relative to Congress' Low Ratings *

Obama's 26-point average lead in approval is high versus past presidents' margins

Since he took office, President Barack Obama's job approval ratings have averaged 26 percentage points higher than Congress' approval ratings in surveys where both were measured at the same time. This is a greater presidential approval edge than what Gallup found for four of the previous five presidents, with the exception being the elder George Bush.

[...]

Today and throughout his time in office, President Obama has received a substantially higher approval rating from the American people than has Congress. The average 26-point gap between the two thus far into Obama's term is substantially higher than Gallup has found during most recent administrations. Obama's approval ratings have also been running substantially higher than Americans' satisfaction with the direction of the country. Currently 21% of Americans are satisfied, identical to congressional approval.

Given all this, it appears that Obama is performing above par relative to the broader negative political climate, although the reason is not clear. His approval rating has been below 50% for most of this year -- not good for his party heading into midterm elections -- but given that Congress' ratings are hovering around 20%, it could be much worse.

Some Democratic candidates have avoided associating their campaigns with President Obama and even shunned presidential visits to their districts. But Americans' anger seems directed more at Congress than at Obama, and given Obama's continued high approval from members of his own party, it is likely that he could, at the very least, be effective at motivating the Democratic base to turn out.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143690/Obama-Performing-Well-Relative-Congress-Low-Ratings.aspx

Read the whole thing...

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 15, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

scott wrote:

"Which, as we all konw, is generally the purpose of large corporations...to provide benefits to the government."

LOL I am sure you understood that I meant having a large corporation in your state should provide payments for government services that are at least equivalent to the demands. For instance, none of her employees are elgibile to collect unemployment, and if injured will have to be treated in the emergency room (unless they get their own private plan).

There's a reason states and citites court large companies and it's not to have a bunch of independent contrators.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

What about John Thune, Chris Christie, Gary Sinise, David Petraeus, or Ray Odierno?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 15, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

chuckindenton wrote:

"I'm well aware of those their representation in gov't. I don't have problem with it. In fact, I think its a great thing:the more well-educated, the better.

Maybe I misread your intent, I was referring to what I suspected was an anti-elitist tone in your post. My apologies if I got that wrong."

It is a bad thing, in fact it is a terrible thing. It is also an unprecedented thing, that people from these institutions completely control the government, not only it's actions but who is even eligible.

I'm certainly not against education in any way, but we're not talking about education we're talking about a pipeline that is closed to outsiders.

Don't you think it beyond irony that 200, even 100 years ago there were only a small percentage of the number of colleges available today and few graduates, yet even then the offices I cited were not as tightly controlled as they are today.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

clawrence:

Gary Sinise? Hey I like CSI as well as the next guy, but I don't see how it qualifies you for the presidency.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

You are only considering the "independent contractor" performers in WWE. The corporation however is headquartered here in Connecticut, is publically traded now and (as of February 2010) does, in fact, have 585 regular-wage / salaried employees with benefits. Big Hollywood studios do the SAME THING with actors.

http://ir.corporate.wwe.com/corporateprofile.aspx?iid=4121687

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 15, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Reagan was an actor too.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/11/actor-gary-sinise-floated-as-possible-gop-savior/

Lt. Dan is the Man!

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 15, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Kevin wrote:

"But, let's assume that, because we object to their management styles and strategies, that they are thus "unaccomplished". What has a perky young physicist, who perhaps graduated with a mere bachelors degree in physics, and has only spent a few short years being a rocket scientist, done to be considered unaccomplished compared to Raul Grijalva, former school board member and proud possessor of a bachelor's degree in sociology?"

Sorry, I completely lost the question in all that.

McMahon in my eyes is Hillary Clinton in a ring with turnbuckles, a total coattail rider.

Fiorina is a smart woman, but she did a terrible job at HP. That's why Mark Hurd had to come in and fix things.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

clawrence:

I mean you literally are talking about all the GOP national office holders. Who can say about them? They have a huge gap to overcome as unknowns unless any of those three things I discussed above happens.

Not the year for generals to run for President, that only works after victorious wars. Put Petraeus and Odierno down as 0.0% possibilities, even to get their party's nomination.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

jake:

I take it you're an alumni of Stanford. My oldest is applying. She has the grades, but unless they come up with some big bucks, unlikely since we are middle class, she can't afford them.

Ok enough about that. I would be violating my own postings about turning the threads into chat rooms.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

clawrence:

Gary Sinise? Hey I like CSI as well as the next guy, but I don't see how it qualifies you for the presidency.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 1:11 PM |

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

What about Cliff Claven, and Jack Baur? They should make an ideal Republican ticket for Clawrence to get behind.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Yup. That's part of the problem with attacking your opponents as evil and mentally retarded--you end up setting the bar so low, just showing up allows them to "beat expectations" and win points.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

---

It's a tricky point. Reid can only win by casting her as an extremist (not sure where the mentally retarded bit came from). Angle is a good deal more credible than CO'D as she does have some history in the legislature.

Bush 43 (as well as Palin) are good examples of this. Both were underestimated. In my view, Bush was a better debater than either Gore or Kerry. Winning a political debate means connecting with voters, not "winning" a point. I considered voting for him, but the whole fuzzy math thing turned me off. It is a valid field of mathematics and Gore saw the entitlements balloon coming. Bush judged, correctly, that the electorate would rather be the frog than the ant. I think I've got my nursery tale right.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 15, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2: "If Christine O'Donnell personally convinced you that she was an authentic, religious Conservative, would you support her then? Or, only if she wore glasses, put her hair up, and spoke with an accent?"

I didn't say anything about wearing her hair up. How did you know?

That being said, let's just say . . . I'd have to think about it. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Palin, well, not, we now know the perfect Tina Fey impersonator. Who knew that Julia Louise Dreyfuss makes a great Tina Fey? That or a great Liz Lemon. Now JLD playing LL playing SP would be seriously meta.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 15, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Hey, you aren't the only one who watched Miss Davis in "Varsity Blues" ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 15, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

TERRORISTSSS!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!

TALIBAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IMMINENT ATTACKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!

What's that? It was just a flashlight?

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/fox_news_five_minute_terrorist_attack_video_1.php

Anyone who watches F'd News is an idiot.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 15, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I didn't say anything about wearing her hair up. How did you know?

That being said, let's just say . . . I'd have to think about it. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 15, 2010 2:25 PM

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

Christine claims that she does not let her hair down, unless you count her having Sean Hannity in her pocket, as doing so.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"* The Tea is only beginning to steep in GOP waters: A worthy New York Times analysis finds that the Tea Party has enough candidates in play to establish a sizable bloc in Congress to push its agenda. I'll say it again: The impact of the Tea Party on the GOP is only beginning to be felt, and we have no idea where this story is taking us."

This, more than anything, is a Republican only nightmare. It is the one category where the "enthusiasm gap: is very likely to dominate.

The most likely places for T-Crazy gains in the Congress are Red States where the T-s ambushed a old line Republican and the OLR gamely soldiered on for the T-Crazy. There will be T-People in Congress, and they are quite likely to be a bigger problem for republican leadership than for Democratic leadership.

They will have gotten to Congress because the T-Wing, having won where its people showed at the polls and discouraged republicans stayed home. They are going to want their fair share of the spoils, and that will probably mean chairs or ranking member positions, to the exclusion of the R's currently filling the positions.

Thus Boehner stands no chance of getting the Speaker's gavel, because if the R's do get the House the T-s are going to demand that that was THEIR doing and want the top spots because of it. He only stays minority leader if the outright T-s do very poorly, and even then only until the long knives get finished carving up the opposition. By mid summer expect much of the Current republican Leadership corps in both the House and the Senate to be relegated to the back benches, and Bachman and Demint to rise to the very top tiers of leadership. The radicals haven't been happy for some time, and they will have the troops and the ammunition to take down the old guard when the vote counting ends.

When the Congress doesn't change hands, expect that there will be a wholesale housecleaning, followed by a very obstructionist cabal trying to run Congress from the minority benches. Two years of that ought to finally teach "Independents" the absolute folly of punishing the party that gets things done for not getting everything the "Independents" wanted done.

We are about to get a raucous demonstration of what kind of damage these politically unchurched heathens can cause, and that ought to be a real unmanning of the GOP old guard, prior to the relegation of an emaciated elephant to the wilderness of old Political cartoons.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 15, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"Who will Hannity blame when O'Donnell loses? a) ACORN (sleeper cells, there are sleeper cells... like terrists!") b)The Liberal Media (read: Bill Maher) c) Mike Castle d) The much-dreaded Fap Lobby
Or some combination? It was Mike Castle, with the liberal media, at the secret ACORN offices! I hope he blames Karl Rove.
Posted by: michael_conrad"

Oh come on. He will blame the same people he always blames. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.,

They let democrats vote, and every body knows that when you do that they vote for democrats.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 15, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

"There is no chance that either of the above happens. No sitting president since the Civil War has lost his party's nomination, and the ego required to become president doesn't allow for not running. Posted by: 54465446"

Excepting Chester a Arthur and Andrew Johnson, although Johnson was really a Democrat and ran, along with Lincoln, on the Constitutional Union ticket.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 15, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

If Christine O'Donnell loses by a small amount, it's not unreasonable to point out that attacks by Republicans like Rove and Castle could have made the difference (I doubt that there will be any exit polling done in Delaware to prove that either way). Whatever happened to Reagan's 11th Commandment?

On the House side, it would be completely unreasonable for new members to demand committee chairs / Speaker's gavel. If they have unrealistic expectations like that, everyone will be in for a Civics 101 lesson.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

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

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




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company