Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Aqua Buddha shakes up Kentucky race: Read of the morning: Josh Green, on the ground in Kentucky, reports that Kentucky voters and radio stations just can't stop talking about Aqua Buddha, with many wondering why Rand Paul won't just man up and cop to his college pranks.

Paul will decide today whether he'll hold a final debate with Jack Conway -- a decision that will have nothing to do with what the polls say and everything to do with his sense of whether his personal honor was violated by Conway's Aqua Buddha ad.

Key takeway: Whatever you think of the ad, the bottom line is that Conway's only hope was to do something to shake up the race in a dramatic way. His ad has clearly done that. Was a Conway victory -- which is still admittedly a tough climb -- something anyone even imagined was possible as recently as last week?

* Push for repeal of health law is a complete bust: A new Associated Press poll finds that only 37 percent support complete repeal. The law, however, remains unpopular, with 52 percent opposed, versus only 41 percent who support it.

* Percent who want the health law expanded as big as those who want repeal: The internals of the above poll show, crucially, that 36 percent -- nearly the same amount who want repeal -- want the law changed to do more to the health care system. It's funny, though perhaps understandable, how the Tea Partyers chanting for repeal got so much more attention than those invisible souls who want an expanded law.

* Dems stirring, but enthusiasm gap remains: The new Pew poll finds the number of Dems who are giving a lot of thought to the election is rising (about time!), but the steroidal enthusiasm among Republicans has widened their lead in the Congressional ballot matchup among likely voters to 10 points.

* Time to wake up, Democrats: One other important number from the Pew poll: Fewer Dems (49 percent) say they're giving a lot of thought to the election than at the same time in 2006 (59 percent), suggesting that having a bogeyman from the opposite party in the White House is a crucial motivator of voters.

* No equivalence between undisclosed spending on right and left, part 973: Don't miss this fascinating New York Times graphic chart showing clearly that all the top groups who don't disclose any of their donors are spending on behalf of Republicans.

* History lesson of the day: Michael Gerson explains why Christine O'Donnell and other self-imagined "constitutional conservative" Tea Partyers are in fact "unmotivated by any strong, developed views of the Constitution."

* Firing of Juan Williams was unconstitutional: Speaking of which, Sarah Palin appears to believe that the Constitution requires NPR to keep Juan Williams gainfully employed.

* No surrender from Sestak: Adam Serwer salutes Joe Sestak for not turning tail and running every time Republicans say "boo" on civil liberties and terrorism.

* Darrell Issa swears he won't bury the White House in subpoenas and investigations: His version of making nice;

"I can continue to be the annoyer in chief if the White House doesn't want to work with us."

* Quote of the day: Prominent Tea Partyer Kelly Khuri: "Some people say I'm extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too."

* And leave Sharron Angle alooooooone! Via Mike Allen, some amusing video of Angle brushing off a local reporter with a loud "SHHHHH!"

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 22, 2010; 8:28 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, Foreign policy and national security, House GOPers, Morning Plum, Political media, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Conservatives declare war on NPR

Comments

HEALTH CARE LAW


It is already 2,000 pages - what do you want?


A 5,000 page bill ???

.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 22, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Re Gerson... best thing I've read from him in this paper by a long shot.

But wanted to point to the research on the Tea Party he cites. It's very illuminating indeed...http://showtime.arkansasonline.com/e2/news/documents/2010/10/13/AVS_2010_Report_FINAL.pdf

Posted by: bernielatham | October 22, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

"* Percent who want the health law expanded as big as those who want repeal...

...It's funny, though perhaps understandable, how the Tea Partyers chanting for repeal got so much more attention than those invisible souls who want an expanded law."

Funny how those "invisible souls" can always be seen by Obama, Gibbs, Emanual, Clinton, and the rest of the Democratic leadership when it's time to punch a DFH in the teeth. Yeah, they see those invisible souls just fine when they want to thank you very much.

Just sayin'...

Posted by: unymark | October 22, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

From above... 47 per cent of tea partiers believe the bible to be the literal word of god.

Again, I highly recommend this research.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 22, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse


HEALTH CARE LAW


It is already 2,000 pages - what do you want?


A 5,000 page bill ???


.

Posted by: LeafofLife
---------------------------------
Right and if it were 10 words long you would support it?

Anyway, Greg's interpretation of Palin's comment is a large stretch. I'm not sure exactly what Palin's comment means, but I don't think she is saying the Constitution requires NPR to keep Williams.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 22, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Joe Sestak was on Hardball yesterday as they shot the segment live in front of a crowd of folks. He looked and sounded great, like a real fighter for the Middle Class. We need him in the Senate.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Bernie (from the previous thread):

"Not interested."

Not surprised.

"If you wish to discuss in some honest manner whether or not sex ed results in a social good or a social negative..."

You mean by declaring certain people to be "stupid"? Is that the "honest manner" you are talking about?

I'd be happy to have that discussion, and to be honest we'd probably agree. But what really interests me at this point is who exactly you were referring to as "stupid", and why. Your reluctance to be explicit on this is telling.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 22, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

I haven't looked at intrade in a while. Here are some quick hits.

89% for GOP taking Congress
59% for Dems keeping Senate*
60% for Buck winning Colorado Senate
80% for Paul to win Kentucky
95% for Coons to win Delaware
58% for Angle to win in Nevada

*According to intrade rules, control of the Senate means 50 members for Dems or 51 members for Republicans. Bernie Sanders and Joseph Lieberman are not counted as Dems for the purpose of this market. So intrade is saying that the Democrats will have 50 seats even without Lieberman or Sanders.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 22, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Is it telling? Do tell.

First part: Where a culture or community rejects proper and effective sexual education, the children of that culture or community will end up stupider about health and reproductive matters than if they had been so educated. One consequence will be (is) greater frequency of unwanted pregnancy.

Second part: As members of a culture or community tend to duplicate in their child-rearing the values/notions of that community (which they experienced as children), the likelihood is that these new mothers/fathers will also not wish to have their children educated on these issues. Thus their children will, as well, suffer a greater level of unwanted pregnancy.

Clear?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 22, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

I should apologize for my tone there, Scott. I'm a tad grumpy. Sorry. You're only partially deserving.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 22, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan re: Sestak

Yeah, I'm with you on that. I'm hoping he can close the gap as well. That "Belle" ad was genius. I heard the first debate was basically a draw, with maybe Sestak seeming more compotent/likeable - but I'm not sure that's enough. I think a strong win in that debate could have sealed the deal. They have one more, and we'll see if he can build on his momentum.

I can't imagine he'll run just that one ad until election day, so I'm curious what his "closing arguement" ad will be. I hope it gets the attention of Dems enough to get them to the polls, because Sestak would make a great Senator.

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

This may not be interesting to anyone else, but since it's my district and I'm fighting for Hedrick, I thought I'd share. I found out about this over the weekend but it's nice to get some national attention. Hedrick's been closing in for 3 weeks now.

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

"Bill Hedrick very nearly defeated Ken Calvert in 2008, and he has returned to challenge him in 2010 in a district comprised of parts of Orange and Riverside Counties in California. Barack Obama won this district two years ago, and Calvert had reason to take this challenge more seriously. So he’s come upon a unique idea: get taxpayers to pay for his promotion and advertising.

The issue concerns “franked” mail. Rules ban members of Congress from sending taxpayer-funded mail to constituents in the 90-day period before an election. Mass mailings of 500 or more copies fall under the ban. Calvert said back in August that he would continue to send the mail, and use a trick to get around the requirements."

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/10/21/ca-44-hedrick-receives-franked-mail-from-opponent-calvert-to-his-house/

Posted by: lmsinca | October 22, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Shavit on Bibi's apparent paralysis...

"...The reality Bibi is facing is an incomparably cruel one. The president of the United States is after him. The Palestinians are acting hostile toward him. The international community has turned its back on him. At the same time, Lieberman is sucking his blood. Opposition leader Tzipi Livni and Likud's Silvan Shalom want his head. The army is nothing to write home about. The administration is nothing to write home about. The politics are politics of dwarfs.

So when Netanyahu looks left and right he sees he is completely alone. No one really understands the enormous mission he has to face, and no one is helping him deal with it. Tough luck. Leaders do not have the right to moan about their bitter fate. Leaders are supposed to lead. If Netanyahu is not a man now, he will be the man who wasn't there."
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/what-is-paralyzing-benjamin-netanyahu-1.320542

Posted by: bernielatham | October 22, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Juan Williams' real crime: Hack punditry
By Steve Kornacki

http://www.salon.com/news/fox_news/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/10/21/juan_william_punditry

"I can't remember him ever advancing any kind of groundbreaking argument, or introducing some dramatically new and intelligent perspective on a major topic. What I can remember him doing -- a lot -- is using flawed, shoddy and easily debunked logic to make arguments that were (seemingly) designed to make conservatives say, "Ah, now there's a reasonable liberal."

A perfect example of this came back in April, when Williams penned an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal that took liberals to task for (supposedly) obsessing over racism within the Tea Party movement. The piece was an instant hit on the right, where the racism charges had touched a defensive nerve. His argument, though, amounted to an intellectually lazy claim that Democrats were alienating "independent" voters by attacking the Tea Party:


Ugh. Never mind that the Tea Party movement represents the Republican Party base -- not "independent-minded swing voters." By one measure, 96 percent of Tea Party supporters who voted in 2008 cast ballots for John McCain. If anything, as Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Joe Miller and Christine O'Donnell are demonstrating, the Tea Party movement and its excesses are actually helping Democrats this year, by scaring "independent-minded swing voters" away from the GOP. Granted, it was early in the election season when Williams wrote his column, but a basic grasp of recent political history would have told him that a vocal, angry, mobilized right-wing is an expected occurrence whenever Democrats run Washington: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson all learned this the hard way.

But Williams wasn't interested in saying something intelligent about the Tea Party movement; he was happy to just accept the notion that it represents an independent force with cross-ideological appeal and to structure an argument around it. It was a classic example of hack punditry: No one learned anything reading it, but it did provide conservatives with a nice talking point: "Look, even a liberal like Juan Williams says this Tea Party-bashing is bad for the Democrats." It would be one thing if Williams' argument were valid and the Tea Party really was a constituency that Democrats need to court; but it isn't -- and he could have discovered that fairly easily.

This same instinct to offer thoughtless concessions to conservatives is, of course, what landed Williams in trouble this week, when he prefaced his comments about Muslims by telling Bill O'Reilly "I think you're right"

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Is this what the local righties want?

"Which is why I think remarks like those from Pence and Buck are actually pretty important. Eleven days before Election Day, high-profile Republicans want Americans to know that a vote for the GOP is a vote against compromise, against bipartisan agreements, and against powerful officials working together with a sense of common purpose."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026251.php

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 22, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

How many millions of commercial plane flights, both within the USA, and in and out of it, take place each year?

Juan Williams is far more likely to get killed by lighting, by gun shot, or car accident, than he is to ever be on the same plane flight as a terrorist.

Juan will fit right in with all those irrational right wing bedwetters.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark at 8:57 AM


I support an approach to health care that treats health insurance companies as utilities - and regulates the health insurance companies to remove the abuses.


I see the democrats as never actually dealing with the abuses alone - they wanted to keep them to justify a massive government program.


I support a stripped-down bill, which would be far less expensive.

The massive government agencies are just not necessary.

Obama's subsidy program is way too expensive - employers are going to see an INCENTIVE to end their health insurance and see their employees go onto the government program.

I am against that.

Health care should remain Employer-based -

I am against a system of subsidies which basically REQUIRES the IRS to administer health insurance PREMIUMS BASED ON INCOME.


So, the IRS will look at your income, and DECIDE how much YOU will pay for health insurance. The lower your income, the larger the portion of your health insurance the IRS will PAY.


So the incentive is to have income "off the books." That is wrong.

AND WHO pays all these SUBSIDIES?

The subidies will BALLOON one everyone learns to game the system.


Posted by: LeafofLife | October 22, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

There is no such thing as "The Enthusiasm Gap" It is a fantasy meme, created by pundits.

It is impossible for Democrats to be any more enthused than they were in 2008, so asking them if they are more or less enthused now, is a stupid question.

The same goes for Republicans. It is impossible for them to not be more enthused now, than they were in 2008, so that is also a stupid question.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

"There is no such thing as "The Enthusiasm Gap" It is a fantasy meme, created by pundits.

It is impossible for Democrats to be any more enthused than they were in 2008, so asking them if they are more or less enthused now, is a stupid question.

The same goes for Republicans. It is impossible for them to not be more enthused now, than they were in 2008, so that is also a stupid question.

Posted by: Liam-still"

I'd like to see if this gap has any historical correlation with election results. At least for generic ballot, you do see some historic correlation. If there's some similar analysis based on the enthusiasm question, I have yet to see it.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 22, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

NPR Corporation for Public Broadcasting


Is this a government agency? It is a government non-profit - HOWEVER the board is appointed by the President.

My question centers on this: IS NPR bound by the Constitution as a government agency is ???


It is quasi-private, quasi-public.


Congress passed a law creating the Corportaion for Public Broadcasting - it was NOT created through a private incorporation.


The FACT that Congress created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting COULD make it subject to Constitutional protections, as if it were a government agency.


I'm not sure - I'm just throwing this out there.


I don't believe the government funding would have much to do with this issue - it would hinge on the CREATION by Congress - and the FACT that the Board is appointed by the President and the Board has to be approved by the Senate.


So there - that may be a partial answer to the topic

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 22, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

@Liam - A while back, I tried to find out how many flights arrive and leave US airports. It is millions per year by the best estimates I could make (I queried the FAA but they responded that this wasn't data they would release). Since 9/11, that adds up to a lot of millions of flights. To say that the real danger here to him or any one of us is statistically insignificant is an understatement, as you suggest.

Considered in this light, the fear-mongering and bigotry and irrationality comes into pretty sharp focus.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 22, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I have a sense that MOST of the electorate made up its mind months ago - in the spring with the FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM.


Obama has been shifting from issue to issue, never finding anything that works.


Sure, the 30-second attack ads will affect the polls - but when people go to vote I believe they will go back to their intial thoughts from earlier this spring and summer.


Obama blew it. Obama had a chance and he messed up. Obama could have done things much, much differently and the results would have been different. And it is not like Obama had a chance to change - the nation only got arrogance from Obama.


The nation KNOWS what it wants - and it is NOT the far-left agenda. The nation wants attention to the ECONOMY. Obama has been completely tone-deaf on these two items. But it is more than that. Obama appears to be INTENTIONALLY DECEITFUL. Obama set out to FOOL THE NATION, and instead Obama ended up fooling himself.


Ironically, Obama appears to NOT believe his platform

But Obama believes he can CONTINUE TO FOOL PEOPLE.


Quite an unusual characteristic. Obama seems to be so confident in HIS ABILITY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE OF HIS LIES.


The country is sick of it. Obama just doesn't get it - once people get onto him, they NEVER give him a second chance.


.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 22, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I'd like to see if this gap has any historical correlation with election results. At least for generic ballot, you do see some historic correlation. If there's some similar analysis based on the enthusiasm question, I have yet to see it.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 22, 2010 9:45 AM |

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

I can easily prove that the gap thing is a complete crock.

Greg posted about a recent poll that reported that 47% of Democrats say they are more enthused about voting in this election than they were in previous elections. How the hell can that be an accurate comparison, compared to when Democrats were sky high about voting in 2008?

The whole "enthusiasm gap" polling is something that must have been thought up by some fantasy sports league type.

In A Nutshell.

They are calling up people and asking them to compare their current emotional state to some vague dates in the past. How many people can actually recall accurately how they felt on specific past election days. I doubt if any of them can, so that makes the results both farcical, and pointless.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Another woman speaks out on Clarence Thomas and his behavior towards females...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102106645.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010102004599

Hard to know what will arise from this but obviously the attack on her will be "she's shopping a book, therefore has a motive other than truthfulness".

Why the hell Thomas' wife made this call is a serious head-scratcher. But a furtherance of the culture war looks to be a consequence or at least a re-stimulation of the angers of the confirmation hearing.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 22, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I have a sense that MOST of the electorate made up its mind months ago - in the spring with the FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM.


Obama has been shifting from issue to issue, never finding anything that works.


Sure, the 30-second attack ads will affect the polls - but when people go to vote I believe they will go back to their intial thoughts from earlier this spring and summer.


Obama blew it. Obama had a chance and he messed up. Obama could have done things much, much differently and the results would have been different. And it is not like Obama had a chance to change - the nation only got arrogance from Obama.


The nation KNOWS what it wants - and it is NOT the far-left agenda. The nation wants attention to the ECONOMY. Obama has been completely tone-deaf on these two items. But it is more than that. Obama appears to be INTENTIONALLY DECEITFUL. Obama set out to FOOL THE NATION, and instead Obama ended up fooling himself.


Ironically, Obama appears to NOT believe his platform

But Obama believes he can CONTINUE TO FOOL PEOPLE.


Quite an unusual characteristic. Obama seems to be so confident in HIS ABILITY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE OF HIS LIES.


The country is sick of it. Obama just doesn't get it - once people get onto him, they NEVER give him a second chance.


.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 22, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Gotta love the tea baggers, part 973:

Former Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), who is running for Congress against incumbent Rep. Mark Schauer (D-MI), has campaigned by attacking the stimulus as a failure. Walberg has claimed the stimulus only killed jobs, and claimed that funds were spent on “socially conscious puppet shows” instead of infrastructure. As Political Correction noted, the puppet show claim is absolutely false. But Walberg has debunked his own claim that the stimulus failed to create jobs in a public forum he attended early in September. Speaking with community members, Walberg acknowledged that his son is employed by a contractor doing projects funded by the stimulus. Walberg’s son is among the 3 million people who gained jobs through the stimulus.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/22/walberg-stimulus-son/

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 22, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Why the hell Thomas' wife made this call is a serious head-scratcher. But a furtherance of the culture war looks to be a consequence or at least a re-stimulation of the angers of the confirmation hearing.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 22, 2010 10:00 AM
..................

That was really a strange way to go about having a conversation with a women you have never talked to before. Call her up, and leave a voice mail message, pretty much saying; I want you to admit that you are a liar. Sure to work.

Virginia Thomas is very active in Tea Party events, so she may be just as dumb as Christine O'Donnell.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Why the hell Thomas' wife made this call is a serious head-scratcher. But a furtherance of the culture war looks to be a consequence or at least a re-stimulation of the angers of the confirmation hearing.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 22, 2010 10:00 AM
..................

That was really a strange way to go about having a conversation with a women you have never talked to before. Call her up, and leave a voice mail message, pretty much saying; I want you to admit that you are a liar. Sure to work.

Virginia Thomas is very active in Tea Party events, so she may be just as dumb as Christine O'Donnell.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"GOP congressional candidate [and Glenn Beck guest] Stephen Broden says violent overthrow of government is 'on the table'"
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/isnt-sedition-gop-congressional-cand

He does add that this isn't his first option. I think that demonstrates balance. The man's a true patriot.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 22, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/21/odonnell-extremist-birther

Reuters
Christine O’Donnell’s fundraising. Almost all of her support among GOP donors has dried up. “the mainstays of O’Donnell’s campaign appear to be local activists associated with the Tea Party movement.” In particular, a group called the 9-12 Patriots and its leader, Russ Murphy, are generating significant support for O’Donnell’s campaign.

During her primary night victory speech, the 9-12 Patriots were the first group O’Donnell thanked for laying the foundation and stirring things up in Delaware.” After her speech, she invited Murphy up to the podium to speak, gave him a hug, and told the crowd: “You’ve got to hear the story about how he started the 9-12 Patriots.”

Murphy went on to talk about Karl Rove, but he did not share with the audience or the cameras his views on President Obama — that he believes Obama is not a U.S. citizen, and did not even win the popular vote in the 2008 presidential election. For his book “The Backlash,” author Will Bunch “traveled America looking for the heart of the so-called Tea Party movement” and interviewed members, and sat down with Murphy and two “lieutenants” in the 9-12 Patriots. They explained their opposition to Obama:

The trio led me through a long and mostly fact-free explanation of how Obama only won in 2008 because of the Electoral College, and they even tried to deny his 100,000-vote landslide win in Delaware, finally telling me it was only because of “the handout people” in Wilmington, with its large minority population. Murphy went further, telling me that Obama is “not American” and insisting he hasn’t presented “the documentation” to prove he’s eligible to be commander in chief. The second factor that empowered their movement was the blend of news and misinformation they receive from the popular Fox News Channel and especially from Glenn Beck, whose televised call for the creation of a 9-12 movement is what inspired Murphy to launch his band of “patriots.”

In September, the blog Political Chili outlined some of Murphy’s views that are even more disturbing. He was a “delegate” to the “Continental Congress” held in St. Charles, Illinois in November 2009. The “Articles of Freedom” the delegates produced there called for, among other things, abolition of the Department of Homeland Security, the establishment of 50 state militias, and they declared that President Obama “was not born on U.S. soil” and called for the U.S. Congress to investigate the “citizenship status of the President,” with impeachment as an eventual recourse.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Yes I'm sure that Greg will have an entire piece today - devoted to attempting to say that the WHOLE REPUBLICAN PARTY SUPPORTS THE STATEMENT OF ONE CANDIDATE

Which is simply not true


But Im sure Greg will push the "violent overthrow" issue pretty hard.


OH, but your guy DID SAY THAT.


OH, BUT HE DID SAY THAT


The only logical response would be to dig up some extreme statements by democratic candidates, and demand that Greg say whether the ENTIRE democratic party supports those statements or not.


But that would FORCE GREG TO BE REASONABLE.


We can already see it coming .....

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

Bernie:

"Is it telling? Do tell."

It tells me you are (properly) embarrassed by your gratuitous insult and, dare I say, bigotry, and hence would prefer to keep it snidely implicit rather make it explicit.

"Where a culture or community rejects proper and effective sexual education..."

But that, of course, is precisely the debate...what constitutes "proper". You are simply assuming that your sense of it is self-evidently correct, and therefore anyone who disagrees must be "stupid".

"the children of that culture or community will end up stupider about health and reproductive matters than if they had been so educated."

Being uninformed about something is quite different from being stupid.

"Thus their children will, as well, suffer a greater level of unwanted pregnancy."

Perhaps, but that does not make the children "stupid". Again, to drive the point home, do you conclude that Afircan-Americans and Latinos are "stupider" than other demographics simply because their incidence of teen (unwanted) pregancy is higher?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 22, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's hearty endorsement of Joe Sestak, a good read:

- Sestak for Senate: He's the voice of reason in a season of anger -

Pennsylvanians are not likely to find a more high-contrast choice Nov. 2 than in the race for U.S. Senate. Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Joe Sestak are vying for the seat held by Arlen Specter for the last 30 years.

Mr. Toomey wants to reduce the role of government on virtually every front. Mr. Sestak believes government should play a role in improving the lives of Americans. Based on interviews with both candidates, the choice for the Post-Gazette is easy.

In a nation with double-digit unemployment, businesses shipping jobs overseas, a health reform targeted for repeal by special interests, a Congress incapable of forging smart energy policy and a tax-cut extension that could shower billions of dollars on the rich when the deficit can ill afford it -- Joe Sestak is the voice of reason.

[...]

After his 4-year-old daughter was diagnosed with brain cancer (she is 9 now and in remission), Mr. Sestak realized the life-or-death value of good health care. The experience later made him an ally with President Barack Obama in the fight to improve Americans' access to health insurance. While he acknowledges that the reform is not perfect, the congressman deserves credit for working to abolish egregious insurance industry practices that hurt average Americans [...]

Joe Sestak supports a smart energy policy that will rely less on fossil fuels, create jobs by growing sustainable technologies and reduce oil imports, thereby enhancing security. While his opponent rails about the federal deficit, Mr. Sestak would help reduce the red ink by extending the Bush-era tax cuts only to households with up to $250,000 in income. Renewing tax cuts to the rich would add $700 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

That's understandable from Pat Toomey's point of view. While one of his TV ads highlights a family restaurant business in Allentown, Pa., he was a currency trader on Wall Street, first at Chemical Bank, then for the British investment banking firm Morgan Grenfell. Later, he was a consultant in Hong Kong before returning to the United States and moving to Pennsylvania.

[...]

He lacks the bark of a Rick Santorum, but he would easily replicate the former senator's voting record. An analysis last May by Pollster.com said Mr. Toomey was more conservative than 98 percent of all members of Congress since 1995 -- and much more conservative than Mr. Santorum. Which raises the question, do Pennsylvanians really want to turn back the clock?

With Joe Sestak on the ballot, voters don't have to. His views are in sync with the state and his voice calls for moderation. For that reason, he has earned the Post-Gazette endorsement.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10290/1095542-192.stm

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 22, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Preaching sexual abstinence only to teens, does not work. The Palin family are living proof of that.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

This video from the Bill Hendrick campaign on the "a noun, a verb, and Nancy Pelosi" onslaught is really good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tse1J-d0QJ0

Posted by: michael_conrad | October 22, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

All, new Adam Serwer post on the conservative assault on NPR:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 22, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

@sc3:"Where a culture or community rejects proper and effective sexual education..."

But that, of course, is precisely the debate...what constitutes "proper".

Look the data is in on this. States with the least accurate and complete reproductive education have higher teen and out of wedlock pregnancy rates.

You can argue until the cows come home about what "PROPER" means. I stick to the words accurate and complete. Telling students that condoms are ineffective is false information. Explaining the biology of reproduction accurately, that is, the egg and sp3rm uniting and the fertilized egg implanting in the uterine wall is accurate information. The fact that the pre ejacu1ate fluid is full of sp3rm and can impregnate a woman even if ejacu1ation does not occur inside the vaginal canal is accurate information. The types of contraceptives available, how to properly utilize them, and the advantages and disadvantages of each type is accurate information.

"Sex is evil, save it for the one you love..."

"Condoms are ineffective in combating AIDS and other STDs and avoiding pregnancy. "

"Abstinence is the only viable option for dealing with sexual feelings."

"Masturbati0n is evil and should be avoided at all costs."

"Gay people are fundamentally "sick" or "confused" and can be "cured."

These are the conservative "facts" on reproductive education. All false...

Posted by: srw3 | October 22, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

@LOL: Health care should remain Employer-based -

This is the least intelligent thing I have seen written in a long time...

Employer based health insurance is a vestigial artifact of wage and price controls. It makes no economic sense and locks people into jobs because they can't afford to lose their insurance if they change jobs or start their own company.

What about employers who don't offer affordable insurance (that would be a large plurality of employers)?

What about unemployed people? Do they lose their health coverage because they can't find a job?

There is no rational reason to continue employer based health care aside from institutional inertia and people's dislike of change...

Posted by: srw3 | October 22, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

This is why it's good to keep STRF/LOL around. In the middle of this morning's rant, he did hit an interesting idea. Unless the new system is fine tuned perfectly there will be a large incentive for employers to dump their healtch care, or reduce it to the absolute minimums required by law. For sure it will an attorney stimulus bill.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 22, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

For sure it will an attorney stimulus bill.

Posted by: 54465446
------------------------------------------
I was at a legal conference the day the reform bill was passed and that is exactly what the bill was jokingly called.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 22, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

srw:

"You can argue until the cows come home about what "PROPER" means"..."

Good, because that is precisely what the issue is.

"These are the conservative "facts" on reproductive education."

You are sadly misinformed.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 22, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Which will make the single payer option all the more attractive. Sybil never fretted over the Insurance Industry death panels dropping people, or refusing to every cover many of them.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"Proper" is what The Church Lady says it is. Well, isn't that special!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Ethan and Liam:

This morning's quote from Senator Bob Corker of TN, not known to be a bomb thrower, and usually one of the "moderate" members of the GOP:

“There is not a thinking person in Washington that believes the health care bill that passed will work. Not one," Corker said in a live interview. "It’s not going to work. It’s going to be dismantled."

“It’s a Ponzi scheme," he added. “The financing for it absolutely will not work.”

Corker believes that Democrats will help work to dismantle the law, which he said was “very damaging to our country.”

Posted by: 54465446 | October 22, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Sean,

Corker does not believe that Democrats will help dismantle it. He knows full well that is what The Tea Party is demanding, so he is just blowing smoke at them, to keep them fired up for election day.

Nothing will get changed, that President Obama does not want to have changed, because the Senate will either remain with the Democrats, or they will have more than enough votes to prevent Republicans from even getting close to sixty votes. The Republicans insisted that sixty votes must be found for every bill, and they will have to live with that, once they become the Majority again.

And even if they overcome that, they will still find it almost impossible to overcome a presidential veto.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

@SCott - good grief. You work so hard at whatever it is you do other than attend. Last comment to you on this.

Stupid has a broader sense than you allow for your rhetorical purpose here (or maybe in your understanding, who knows). Where a person is uninformed or, particularly, where a person is misinformed, their abilities to make discernments, indeed their abilities to perceive, are reduced from what would be the case if they were informed or accurately informed. Thus our use of a phrase like "made stupid" or "why are liberals so stupid?"

I'm not interested in any other aspect of the term than that one because it is the only aspect that is available for change.

With a bit of imaginative work on your part, you'd get the relationship between that last sentence and why I might study education theory, logic and propaganda.

Past that, you're free to make whatever conclusions you find comfortable.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 22, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Liam I pretty much agree with you. I was using his statement as an illustration, that even relative moderates agree that the fiscal underpinnings of the health care package are untenable.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 22, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Sean,

I disagree with that conclusion. Guys like Corker are just saying what they think the Tea Party wants to hear. Remember this is the same Republican leadership that passed the Prescription Drugs bill, with out providing a single offset dollar to pay for it. In fact, they blocked all attempt then, and in the New Health Care bill, to allow Medicare to negotiate bulk price reductions with the Drug companies.


They are just blowing smoke at the voters, just like they did in the past. Their slate of candidates are all refusing to spell out any major cuts they would pursue, to reduce the deficits.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

let me take this on:
=============
GOP congressional candidate [and Glenn Beck guest] Stephen Broden says violent overthrow of government is 'on the table'"
=======================
Here is more of the quote from the leftie web site "crooks and liars"
"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option."

guess what, I agree.

While I am NOT advocating violent overthrow of our government, I agree with the sentiment expressed by our declaration of independence:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--"

If we cannot demonstrate the fact that we have withdrawn our consent to be governed by a pack of crooks and liars via the ballot box and we are unwilling to suffer further evils, what other course comes to your mind Bernie?

To me it is really quite simple. Liberalism rests on a few basic tenents. Among these is the belief that a hard working and obedient citizenry will hand over a significant portion of the fruits of their labor to the government so that folks like Barney Frank can dispose of the money as they see fit.

An armed and reticent population that is unwilling to descend placidly into serfdom destroys the basis for modern liberalism. After all, how can liberalism function effectively without access to signficant amounts of other people's money?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 22, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

@sc3: do tell...What facts that I listed are not true? What "facts" do you want to the do you think are the most important to have in reproductive education? Clearly, the few things I listed are not exhaustive but they are definitely integral to any discussion of reproductive education. What are your facts that you think are integral?

PS: SC3, I would like to acknowledge that you were correct in disputing my earlier claim that medical research in the first half of the 20th century was mostly funded by the govt. Govt funding was significant then (if only in the tax exemption that educational institutional enjoy) but it probably did not constitute the majority of the funding. Still, without govt funding, medical research would be stunted and skewed even more towards diseases of the rich...

Posted by: srw3 | October 22, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Liam:

As you may or may not know, I am a huge opponent of the pandering to old people that goes on because of the Senate. The perfect example is the Prescription drug bill, and it is non-partisan pandering.

You and I are old enough to remember that Reagan's age was an issue in the 1980 campaign. Yet Regan's age at the time of election, would make him only the 29th oldest Senator today. He would have been the 31st but for the deaths of Byrd and Kennedy. This ossification of what is supposed to be our greatest deliberative body has serious policy issues.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were average age 45. The Constitutional Convention was 43. The "nine old men", the Supreme Court that Franklin Rooselvelt derided and which was the oldest court ever averaged 71 years. That would make them about 24th in the current Senate. Roosevelt himself was only 63 when he died.

The concerns of the old are in preservation of their existing life, not in making necessary changes. You have had far more Senators fighting for the right to die in office, Thurmond, Kennedy, Byrd, Specter, than you do for fundamental change in our government!

Ok that's it for now. your opinion?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 22, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

@ss28:If we cannot demonstrate the fact that we have withdrawn our consent to be governed by a pack of crooks and liars via the ballot box and we are unwilling to suffer further evils, what other course comes to your mind Bernie?...An armed and reticent population that is unwilling to descend placidly into serfdom destroys the basis for modern liberalism.

Its called voting...its pretty premature and silly, not to mention seditious, to even suggest second amendment solutions when only around 50% of the population VOTES! Since most races are rarely more than 60-40, a minority of the population actually votes for the winning candidates. If the groundswell of tea bagger anger is so huge (the Koch bros, Dick Armey, Karl Rove, and Rich Berman are the really just ordinary voters fed up with govt), will even 2/3 of population VOTE? Chances are no. Hasn't happened since before 1960. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html) ....and "other people's money???? No its our money. WE pay OUR taxes so that government can function in delivering services and funding initiatives for us as a society. If you don't like it, why don't you get the 1/2 of people who don't vote to agree with you and go to the polls...or even convince a majority of people who actually vote to elect a majority who want to dismantle large parts of the government at all levels. Railing about big government and high taxes is easy and popular. Cutting programs that people like and depend on is very hard and unpopular...That is why candidates like Dan Maes (CO governor candidate) said over and over this morning that govt is too big and must be cut, but can't, won't, and/or didn't SPECIFY PROGRAM TO CUT AND AMOUNTS TO CUT after repeated attempts by the interviewer to get him to be specific.

Posted by: srw3 | October 22, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Sean,

You know what my suggestion was. A retirement age, for all Senators, Congress members and Presidential Candidates.

The founders set a requirement for how old someone must be, before they are eligible to run for President. Back then most people did not live long enough for them to even think of putting an age cap on who can seek the office.


I recall Reagan's debate with Mondale, where he started rambling about some trip down a coastal highway, and he left everyone befuddled as to what the hell he was talking about. I expect that was a symptom of the onset of Alzheimer's.

I have long felt that Nancy called a lot of the shots, during his second term, because he was not up to doing so. She was the one who called Howard Baker, and brought him in, to replace Donald Regan. She was the one who called Donald at home, and told him he was fired.

I have often wondered if Ollie North and Bill Casey did not do a lot of freelancing on Iran Contra, without getting the OK from Ronnie, because he was no longer capable of staying on top of things.

As I said before: If we can set an age limit on when a Passenger Plane Pilot must retire, I certainly think we should put some age restriction on who we are going to allow to pilot the entire free world.

It is a killer job, for even young candidates. 24/7 dealing with all those heads of states, and all those domestic issues, and then having to go around making appearances, not to mention setting time aside for all those silly events, such as meeting with over paid spoiled athletes, and pardoning a turkey.


Posted by: Liam-still | October 22, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

It is called reading pal.

try it, it will do wonders for your image.

Do you honestly believe that by WRITING IN CAPS I will somehow come to care more about what you say? Really?

And spare me the smarm about taxes. Liberalism is just tax and spend and tax and spend. All that nonsense about funding us as a society simply proves that you've never been on the street in the 'hood.

try it some time. Like reading, it will do wonders for you. Why you might actually understand why people in America are rejecting your silly and undefined notion of "social justice".

so let's talk about voting shall we? What did the decision not to prosecute the new black panthers do for confidence in the voting system?

How many states have failed to purge their voting rolls of deceased citizens? Why doesn't the DoJ enforce the relevant sections of the voting rights act as they should relative to that?

Isn't it interesting that so many military ballots won't count this year? Did you see the Ramirez cartoon today? It is perfect. Obama sitting on a flag draped coffin saying "so we missed the deadline for military ballots. It's no big deal. See, he can't vote anyway"

Nice huh?

So I'll repeat: if we cannot demonstrate that we've withdrawn our consent to be governed by this pack of crooks and liars, what alternative is there?

If election laws are ignored or unenforced, if rampant cheating is widely acknowledged, if the government continues its long train of abuses and usurpations and the process of voting is so tainted as to be rendered illegitimate, what other course recommends itself.

Here is a question: are you over the threshold that Obama declares is "rich"? If not, are you in support of raising taxes on those that are? If so, you are liar. You do want to spend other people's money. Of course you do. You're a liberal and that's what liberalism boils down to: taking money from productive people and giving it to non productive people while keeping a fair amount of it for themselves.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 22, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

how about this for instilling confidence in the voting system:
"there must be a fountain of youth in states such as Maryland, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Tennessee: None of them removed a single dead voter during that two-year reporting period. Many counties in states such as Alabama and Rhode Island also show a similar miracle — no voters were removed from their voter rolls for having died. If you have any ailing family members, these are obviously the states they should move to quickly. There are also several states — South Dakota, Mississippi, Texas, Kentucky, and Indiana among them — with more registered voters than (according to the Census) people of voting age."

Written by a former DoJ laywer, Hans Von Spakovsky.

Or how about this from J. Christian Adams, the guy who blew the wistle on Holder's refusal to enforce sections of the motor voter law:

"The “Motor Voter” law was passed in 1993 to promote greater voter registration in the United States. It did this — most Americans now know from visits to the DMV — by requiring states to offer voter registration materials whenever someone had contact with a variety of state offices. These included welfare offices, social service agencies, and motor vehicle departments.

A lesser-known provision also obliged the states to ensure that no ineligible voters were on the rolls — including dead people, felons, and people who had moved. Our current Department of Justice is anxious to encourage the obligations to get everyone registered, but explicitly unwilling to enforce federal law requiring states to remove the dead or ineligible from the rolls.

In November 2009, the entire Voting Section was invited to a meeting with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, a political employee serving at the pleasure of the attorney general. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Motor Voter enforcement decisions.

The room was packed with dozens of Voting Section employees when she made her announcement regarding the provisions related to voter list integrity:

We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it."

Nice, huh?

What was that you were saying about voting pal?


Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 22, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Liam:

Does this interest you at all?

Today, the President named Denis McDonough as asst. National Security Advisor replacing Thomas Donilon who was elevated to the top National Security Advisor post after James Jones left.

So the President's top two security advisors now have absolutely no background whatsoever in the military, law enforcement, prosecution, the intelligence business, or even crisis management.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 22, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"good grief. You work so hard at whatever it is you do other than attend. "

We could, I suppose, trade barbs on what we think the other is doing here. But I grow weary.

"Stupid has a broader sense than you allow for your rhetorical purpose here..."

Perhaps, but it seems unlikely, to the point of absurdity, that you meant it in any way other than as a gratuitous insult. You can maintain, however implausibly, that you were simply making a non-offensive observation about how "informed" a certain demographic of the population is, if you like, but I certainly don't believe it. It's pretty hard to imagine you ever declaring that African-Americans and Latinos are "stupid people" based on the disproportionate rate of teen pregancies in that demographic, much less expecting us to believe you were simply making a non-controversial observation about their access to information. Yet here you are declaring people in the "Bible Belt" to be precisely that for precisely that reason. It is not clear to me why, in this respect, we should take your claim to be in a class any different than the plain bigotry of a racist who dared say the same thing about African-Americans or Latinos.

"Last comment to you on this."

No need to announce it, at least for my sake. As I have told you, I am indifferent to whether you respond or not.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 22, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Do as I say not as I do...DFTT

@ss28: if we cannot demonstrate that we've withdrawn our consent to be governed by this pack of crooks and liars, what alternative is there?

You repeat the same illogical rant.

Withdrawing one's consent = electing those that share your views. Its silly to say the people have withdrawn their consent when more than 40% of people don't bother to even vote. Right now it's impossible to know if there is a majority for either conservatives or liberals because of the (40-60% depending on the election year) plurality that doesn't even bother to vote.) Probably teabaggers don't try to get those people to vote because they are mostly poor people who are not that interested in the red baiting, nativist, "free market" drivel that the teabaggers tend to include in their rants.

"And spare me the smarm about taxes. Liberalism is just tax and spend and tax and spend. All that nonsense about funding us as a society simply proves that you've never been on the street in the 'hood. "

Take your giant load of condescending poop and consume it with a ladle. I grew up on the south side of Chicago, where poverty was an every day reality.

I understand that you have a vision that smaller govt is inherently better, something that I disagree with. Govt should be the size necessary to accomplish what we as a society tell it to do through our elected officials. But taxes whether raised by conservatives or liberals go to fund the services that we as a society use like streets, roads, fire and police services, national defense, safe food, clean water, safe appliances, safe workplaces, etc. And "tax and spend" is infinitely better than cutting taxes (mostly for the rich), borrowing and spending which is what the repiglicans did for the entire bush administration.

"Here is a question: are you over the threshold that Obama declares is "rich"? If not, are you in support of raising taxes on those that are? You do want to spend other people's money. Of course you do."

We are below the $250K income level for a family. Still I pay a higher tax rate than someone making 30% less than I do, and I don't think that they are taking my money because they pay taxes at a lower rate than I do. I support the EITC, even though I have never been eligible for it. I support progressive marginal tax rates, something that every modern industrial democracy has, BTW.

You can call that taking other people's money all you want, that doesn't make it true.

You're a liberal and that's what liberalism boils down to: taking money from productive people and giving it to non productive people while keeping a fair amount of it for themselves."

What you wrote is not only completely incorrect it is also amazingly stupid.

Liberals don't collect tax money, governments (both conservative and liberal) do. Unless you are saying that all governments that collect taxes are inherently liberal (another ludicrous suggestion).

Can't you get off repiglican talking point

Posted by: srw3 | October 22, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

@ss28: Black panther party...really? That is the best you have? pathetic...

Is it your contention that the 40% that don't vote are being intimidated by 2 guys at 1 polling place in 1 election? Really???

Are you contending that uncounted military ballots make up a significant % of the 40% that don't vote?

Hans Von Spakovsky is as expert on voting rights in the same way that David Duke is an expert on racial equality or the Taliban are experts in enforcing religious tolerance. He is a partisan hack.

"We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it"

Reference??? Context??? Relevance???

The fact is that 40-60% of people don't vote depending on the election. Making the argument that sedition and insurrection is a legitimate way to withdraw consent when it is clearly only a violent minority that believes this is just plain dumb.

Posted by: srw3 | October 22, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

srw:

"What facts that I listed are not true?"

I was simply disputing you cartoonish caricature of conservative "facts".

"I would like to acknowledge that you were correct in disputing my earlier claim..."

That was quite a while ago. Almost forgot about it. Thanks for the acknowledgement.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 22, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm done with you.

given my finite time on this planet I have none to waste on someone who finds the term "repiglican" appropriate.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 22, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

here's another example of vote rigging in action:

"The issue started when employees at the board noticed a number of applications for absentee ballots were going to one of two post office box numbers. When voters apply for an absentee ballot, they are allowed to have the ballot sent to an address other than their home location.

After elections board workers noticed the same post office boxes appeared repeatedly, they started to make random calls to confirm whether the voters wanted their ballots sent to their home or the second address, according to Cathy Overbeck, elections board director.

On most calls the workers found that the phones were disconnected. Those they did get in touch with said they wanted the ballot sent to their home address.

But all of the applications had listed that the absentee ballots were to be sent either in care of Russ Bennett, P.O. Box 829 Proctorville or Charles Maynard P.O. Box 4616, Ironton.

Bennett denied any knowledge about the ballots.

“I don’t know anything about it,” Bennett said. “Now I am telling you I rented that box but I don’t have anything to do with those absentee ballots.”

Maynard did not return a phone call made to his home.

Since 2008 Maynard has voted as a Democrat. Before that he voted as a Republican. Bennett had voted Democrat since 1986 until he ran for Lawrence County Sheriff in 2008, which he did as an Independent. In 2010 he voted Democrat."

Our democracy is truly in trouble. When we cannot express our will via the ballot box because elections are being rigged the Americans are left with few other options.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 22, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

shorter ss28: run away run away....

I thought you were a conservative, not a republican.

I apologize if I have offended your delicate sensibilities with my satire.

Still, the fact that half the population doesn't vote makes the idea that insurrection (or the threat of it) is necessary, a product of a violent and disturbed minority on the right.

"Our democracy is truly in trouble. When we cannot express our will via the ballot box because elections are being rigged the Americans are left with few other options."

Truly pathetic argument. Isolated cases of voter registration fraud or even voter fraud (with no links or even mention of where the story came from) have no relevance to the 40-60% that don't vote in elections. The true irony is that most voter suppression happens when republican state administrations (particularly in the south) inaccurately purge voter roles and deny people the right to vote.

"A massive, coordinated and illegal plan to suppress Wisconsin voter turnout in November was exposed today by One Wisconsin Now (OWN).

The plan, targeting minority voters and students, is a joint effort of the Republican Party, Americans for Prosperity, and Tea Party groups. OWN has somehow obtained both copies of the plan and a recording of a meeting at which it was discussed, both available on a new website, SaveWisconsinVote2010.org--http://americanhatriots.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/wi-gop-tea-party-and-americans-for-prosperity-busted-plotting-coordinated-and-illegal-plan-to-suppress-wisconsin-voter-turnout-in-november/ See SS28, its called a hyperlink and it allows people to see your sources...

Posted by: srw3 | October 22, 2010 9:06 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