Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* The co-dependent relationship between Harry Reid and Nevada: Read of the morning: Shailagh Murray gets inside Nevadans' complex relationship with the Federal government and how it's driving the race of Reid's life.

* Will Sharron Angle's transparent race-bating pay off? Ben Smith says her immigration ads are "calculated to produce yet more outcry from Hispanic and immigrant advocates, which Angle's campaign likely sees as working in her favor."

* Brown against white: And the intent of Angle's latest ad couldn't be clearer.

* More enthusiasm gap madness: Only 37 percent of Dems and Dem-leaners report feeling more enthusiastic than usual about voting, a decline from earlier this year, a new U.S.A. Today/Gallup poll finds. The number among Republicans and GOP-leaners: Sixty three percent.

* But the White House is clinging to threads of optimism: Richard Wolffe on why Obama advisers are still holding out hope for an upset.

* The Aqua Buddha frowns upon violence: A local Fox affiliate in Kentucky reports that a Rand Paul supporter stepped on the head of a MoveOn protestor outside the Senate debate. The Paul campaign has strongly condemned the incident.

* But Aqua Buddha recedes into the background: At last night's debate, there was little discussion of Paul's youthful excesses, with Jack Conway dialing it back: "I was questioning your actions, not your faith."

* Grudging concession of the day: David Brooks admits the secret money is a "menace" -- in a throwaway line in the third-to-last paragraph of a column devoted to trashing Dems for making the same point.

* Random thought: I wonder if the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's groups agree with Brooks' claim that the tens of millions of dollars they're raising and spending in the elections are inconsequential and hence a waste of their time.

* Keep an eye on Illinois: Aaron Blake has a new DSCC poll showing the Illinois Senate race a statistical tie, and he suggests it may be one of a handful of Senate contests that are genuine toss-ups on election day.

* Can a McCain Democrat survive in a tough district? This is a new one: Blue Dog Dem Gene Taylor of Mississippi will not only oppose Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. He also wants you to know he voted against Obama in 2008.

* There's always 2012: For all the inevitable talk about how the midterms prove how weak Obama is, a new National Journal poll finds he's in better shape than Reagan.

* And silly scapegoat-seeking Obama keeps ignoring the pundits: At a DCCC dinner last night, the President kept up the attacks on the secret cash funding ads, claiming Dems are "getting snowed under" by undisclosed money bankrolling ads that "completely distorts Democrats' records."

This is just Beltway excuse-making and butt-covering, of course, and this line of attack hasn't produced an instant political turnaround for Dems, so there's no need to ask ourselves whether his claims have any merit.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 26, 2010; 8:30 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, Morning Plum, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Sharron Angle's closing argument: It's us against them

Comments

"For all the inevitable talk about how the midterms prove how weak Obama is"

Obama is not the weak link, here. It's the Democrats, the DNC, and maybe the overall agenda. Except, of course, for fringe right wingers who think a Democratic figurehead is Hitler, and for fringe leftwingers who think Obama is a corporate shill who sold them down the river.

But it's not Obama that might lose in November as much as it is a bunch of weak, obviously-desperate-to-cling-to-power house and senate Democrats.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Why so many Tea Party Males are crazy about Sarah Palin.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio gets to the bottom of it.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/10/sarah-palin-gets-gift-of-pink-underwear-from-sheriff-arpaio.html

"ABC News' Mary Bruce Reports:

Add this to list of bizarre and unusual campaign trail antics: at last week's Tea Party Express rally in Phoenix, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio welcomed Sarah Palin with a pair of pink underwear.

"I just got done welcoming Sarah Palin to our County. Had a nice chat and gave her a pair of pink underwear," Arpaio posted onTwitter, along with a photo of him with the former Alaska governor."

Posted by: Liam-still | October 26, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Of course, David Brooks never admited that the secret money Obama spent in 2008 was a "menace" but then the Democrats all enjoyed the snowfall of that particular Christmas morning.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 26, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure all the inbred neoconfederates are psyched about violence against women today.

YEAH, STEP ON HER HEAD! LMAO

There's blood in the water and I'm sure every Tea Party scumbag out there just couldn't be more excited. Violence and behaving like the ingrates they are is what they LIVE for.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure all the inbred neoconfederates are psyched about violence against women today.

YEAH, STEP ON HER HEAD! LMAO

There's blood in the water and I'm sure every Tea Party scumbag out there just couldn't be more excited. Violence and behaving like the ingrates they are is what they LIVE for.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Back Later. Have a good day all.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 26, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

http://www.fox41.com/Global/story.asp?S=13386076

The male stomping on head of a woman part is merely the worst of what a bunch of those people were up to there. The people committing the assault are the patriots, to make that possible confusion clear.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

But it's not Obama that might lose in November as much as it is a bunch of weak, obviously-desperate-to-cling-to-power house and senate Democrats.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 8:38 AM

Agreed Kevin. I also agree with what you posted last night about 98% of R's and I believe you also inferred D's are not really interested in bipartisanship.
Since you are in the 2% I suggest we form a new party called the pragmatic party.
Our platform would be simple...try to reason out solutions to problems and issues without blind reactionary ideological blinders. My first nomination for the Pragmatic Party - Kevin Willis!

BTW The most recent Newsweek poll backs your assertion that it's not Obama who is the problem but as you suggest the DNC and a host of squishy candidates who don't have the courage of their convictions...if indeed they have any convictions.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/22/poll-obama-approval-jumps-dems-more-fired-up.html

President Obama’s approval ratings have jumped substantially, crossing the magic halfway threshold to 54 percent, up from 48 percent in late September, while the portion of respondents who disapprove of the president dropped to 40 percent, the lowest disapproval rating in a NEWSWEEK Poll since February 2010.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

If Obama's claims have any merit whatsoever, then it is also relevant what undisclosed money bankrolled his ads when he ran for President. Will any journolist actually ask him that question?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 26, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

@Adam (who never participates in the comments)

Re: GOPers Beating Up a Woman

In light of the consistant and numerous examples to back it up, maybe now people like Adam can stop their whiny b**ching about using phrases like "American Taliban"?

"Terrorism: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear."

Synonyms: Intimidation, Radicalism, Extremism, & GOP Electoral Strategy

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | October 26, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Greg wrote: "Grudging concession of the day: David Brooks admits the secret money is a "menace" -- in a throwaway line in the third-to-last paragraph of a column devoted to trashing Dems for making the same point."

I was one of the few liberals writing here (and some other places) who defended Brooks over the last half dozen years. And I think that case can still be made (caveat: relative to most other conservative pundits) But increasingly I have come to think of the fellow as driven by an undignified and unprincipled desire to be on the side of who he thinks is on top.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

These people ARE THUGS in the truest sense of the word.

No amount of "hey the union guys did it" (the usual excuse) will change the fact that multiple men teamed up and violently attacked a woman.

These people ARE the Tea Party.

This is what the Tea Party is ALL ABOUT.

They are violent by nature and don't have the slightest hint of what moral behavior is. They are truly the scum of the Earth. The lowest of the low. The opposite of what this country has stood for, for hundreds of years. They are not patriots. They are CRIMINALS.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

These people ARE THUGS in the truest sense of the word.

No amount of "hey the union guys did it" (the usual excuse) will change the fact that multiple men teamed up and violently attacked a woman.

These people ARE the Tea Party.

This is what the Tea Party is ALL ABOUT.

They are violent by nature and don't have the slightest hint of what moral behavior is. They are truly the scum of the Earth. The lowest of the low. The opposite of what this country has stood for, for hundreds of years. They are not patriots. They are CRIMINALS.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

@Clawrence

Dude you're getting incredibly boring. The birther controversy is OVER and your side lost.

The secret money of 08 controversy that you are trying to drum up is OVER...

But here is the REAL TRUTH for you Clawrence...Barrack Hussein Obama...a black man is YOUR PRESIDENT!!! GET OVER IT!
You're becoming very, very, very tedious.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"The male stomping on head of a woman part is merely the worst of what a bunch of those people were up to there."

What else were a bunch of those people up to?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 26, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Depressing comparison of how the NYTimes has covered the wikileaks revelations and how non-US press (Politico an exception) covered it...
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/25/nyt/index.html

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Funniest and perhaps most cogent political spot of the campaign goes to a creation from the AARP. This is entertaining and on point.

http://www.jackphillipsforamerica.com/

Watch it, you'll enjoy whether you're left, right, or independent. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

@Greg - "I wonder if the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's groups agree with Brooks' claim that the tens of millions of dollars they're raising and spending in the elections are inconsequential and hence a waste of their time."

Don't you just love this one?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Obama's "tens of millions of dollars" were undisclosed too. Were those inconsequential and hence a waste of his time?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 26, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Clawdaddy ... YOU are inconsequential and a waste of time.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 26, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Obama's "tens of millions of dollars" were undisclosed too. Were those inconsequential and hence a waste of his time?

Posted by: clawrence12

Of course not clawrence...now when you here "Hail to the Chief" you can celebrate a black man named Barrack HUSSEIN Obama as YOUR President. If nothing else all that "secret" money was worthwhile just to aggravate pinheads like you. As 12Bar might post...bwaahaahaa

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - How about if you describe the number of separate assaults in that incident (eg the large woman stepping on the smaller woman's back while she's being held down by at least two men; the man's hand on the victim's breast, etc) and how many persons are committing assault. Then you can detail for us the philosophical/liberty issues involved re speech rights. Then, if you want to get real instead of purposefully and ideologically dull as a bag of hammers, you can talk to us about the relationship between political vigilanteism and the police state. I'll grade your submission for no charge.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Sorry "hear" ahhh the homophones strike again. :-) As long as they keep them out of the military.....

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticstill, it's pretty much a given that everything written here is inconsequential and a waste of time.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 26, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

This video is coming up everywhere now. Good.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence....Did you not see the latest post from Drudge....President Barrack Obama broke wind in the Oval office in front of his security advisors...he also forgot to brush his teeth..or apply deodorant...so why aren't you making a big stink about it?

BTW I'm sure this all happened because Sarah Obama told me personally.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

claw, donations under $250 during an election cycle to one candidate is not reportable.

This has been the case since who knows when.

Are you saying you want to change that?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 26, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

'm sure all the inbred neoconfederates are psyched about violence against women today.

YEAH, STEP ON HER HEAD! LMAO

There's blood in the water and I'm sure every Tea Party scumbag out there just couldn't be more excited. Violence and behaving like the ingrates they are is what they LIVE for.

Posted by: Ethan2010
__________________________

So what is it that liberals live for? To be jerks to as many people as possible before they die? Do you keep track of the nonsensical blather that comes out of your fingers? Or are you like Bernie, smug in your knowledge that due to your superior intellect that your are better than your fellow man. All hail Ethan the great. Please lead us poor stupid people out of temptation and into the light of your shadow.

How about just saying that these are criminals? Seems to me that there are alot of criminals that vote democrat too. The prisons are full of them.


And what do you think of Obama's latest "get in the back of the bus" comment. Isn't it racist? If Sarah Palin said it, you'd be outraged.

Posted by: Bailers | October 26, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

RAND PAUL FOLLOWERS GETTING VIOLENT AND ATTACKING PEOPLE WITH OPPOSING VIEWS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR RAND PAUL!!!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 26, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

More of the predictable...

"Despite Saying Government Intervention Puts Industry In A ‘Coma,’ Raese’s Biz Takes Millions In Taxpayer Funds"
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/25/raese-government-contracts/

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ky/kentucky_senate_paul_vs_conway-1148.html#polls

Conway hasn't polled better than 43% this month. This incident won't change that.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | October 26, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Gotta wonder why the clawdaddy is wasting his time at this inconsequential blog. Hey claw, wouldn't your time be better spent teabagging someone (or at least stomping a woman's head)?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 26, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie....I just followed your link to the video...AMAZING! What a bunch of COWARDLY thugs. Too bad they weren't armed so they could exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Seriously...how long is it before someone gets shot? These right wing wack jobs are obviously out of control and an embarrassment to clear thinking conservatives I'm sure...I do not wish to challenge my friends on the right or R's as I consider this exceptional behavior and not truly representative of ALL R's
But let's be honest...carry guns...Senate Candidates talking about 2nd Amendment rights...and now a group of inbred men literally ganging up on ONE woman to assault her...where does anybody suppose this is going to lead? Thanks heavens we only have one more week till election day.

But what happens if the Dems pull off an upset and hold both the House and Senate...are the inbreds going to go away or will Beck/O'Reilly/Hannity and the big fat drug addict in Florida keep them stoked?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Please lead us poor stupid people out of temptation and into the light of your shadow.

Something close to this was the case against Republicans after 8 years of you-know-who.

Posted by: cao091402 | October 26, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Tomasky on Pence's "time to go along and get along is over"...

"This story is just a reminder of how the GOP has so shifted reality in Washington that they now get away with saying things that no one could have said 20, 25 years ago. Back then, if someone had talked like that, David Broder and his friends would've gone into high dudgeon, pelting Pence with great pillows of high-minded rhetoric.

Today, no one bats an eye when a Republican talks like this. And notice: in the same article, Joe Biden continues to insist that compromise is "always possible."

The Democrats - Obama, yes, but all of them really - still hold on to this prayerful hope that Washington can be like it was, back in the 1970s, say. Washington will never be like it was (which had its downsides, too, but was preferable all in all to today). Washington is like the Republicans have made it. In a way one should not begrudge them. They fought, and the Democrats kept saying let's play nice.

Next year, the rubber will really meet the road. If Obama and the White House think they can work with these folks, they're just going to get rolled. And when Darrell Issa, the congressman who'll be running the investigations and subpoena wing of the House GOP, says there's "not a chance" that Obama will be impeached, I basically take that as comfirmation that they're damn well going to try."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Well, I guess every news agency will be talking about Rand Paul followers stomping a woman to the ground for the next couple days.

That's the kind of news Rand Paul really wants I'm sure....lol.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 26, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

As if Conway didn't already have a huge advantage with women. This latest video should fire up a few women to teach those mean old men a lesson that they can't just push and intimidate women any longer.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 26, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Once again, for those who missed it, a really thorough investigative piece on the "tea party" thing...

http://www.alternet.org/news/148598/tea_party_inc.:_the_big_money_and_powerful_elites_behind_the_right_wing's_latest_uprising/?page=entire

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Alternet has to be the top web site I'd say this year for gathering some of the best in depth articles out there.

Washington Indpendent too.

I mean, this blog is great but it's more just a purely political blog that deals more with the day to day horse race stuff.

Littlegreenfootballs is OK too but nothing like Alternet and Independent. LGF is good at highlighting the kooks out there on a daily basis. If you want info on who out there is the wackiest, LGF is the place to go.

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

First it is an Angle supporter punching a woman in the face, now it is a Rand Paul supporter curb stomping a woman's head.

It is a good thing that that Rand Paul supporter had several dozen of his friends there to back him up; that woman probably scared the heck out of him.

But scaring a wingnut is easy. Is there anything they aren't afraid of? There is a reason Republicans LOVE to fear monger: The far right portion of their base is extremely susceptible to it.

PS - I'm not talking about all Republicans. I'm talking about wingnuts that listen to Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.

PSS – What a bunch of cowardly jerks.

Posted by: nisleib | October 26, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Then, if you want to get real instead of purposefully and ideologically dull as a bag of hammers..."

My, you are defensive.

I took your original to be suggesting that you knew of other incidents apart from the one reported. I was curious what they were. If all you were doing was a frame-by-frame analysis of this single incident, fine. You have my full condemnation of everyone involved.

Of course, your insinuation that the assault had something to do with "partiotism" is both dishonest and sleazy, but that is pretty much par for the course.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 26, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

No wonder these bozo's are terrified of Mosque's.

They totally lost control when a defenseless woman with an opposing viewpoint shows up and only in the company of other large men, decide to pin her face and legs to the ground with their feet.

The cowardliness of the Rand Paul supporters on display on the local Fox affiliate explains a lot.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 26, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

@ru - Those are behaviors which have the intention of demeaning and dominating through physical assault. The one woman who walks on the victim and the other who uses his foot on her neck and head are doing something symbolic in that assault which says, "you are no different than the dirt under my shoes. You are sub-human". And yes, this comes as a consequence of what FOX and others are up to on a daily basis. The video depresses me deeply.

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

"How about just saying that these are criminals? Seems to me that there are alot of criminals that vote democrat too. The prisons are full of them."

Epic fail at false equivalency bailers!

You ad hominem attacks simply do not match up against FACTS.

1.) Can you name a single Dem Senate candidate who has talked about 2nd Amendment solutions?

2.)Can you name a single Dem House candidate who has proclaimed that violence as a solution is not off the table?

These are freaking R candidates...supposed leaders.

Can you name a single Dem or progressive rally where folks showed up with weapons locked and loaded...how many examples do we already have from the TP morons?

Do you suppose John Stewart's rally for sanity will include people with weapons...people with signs calling Michael Steele a N? Perhaps they'll portray Steele as a witch doctor...or a pimp...or Hitler or Stalin.

Was the man who flew his plane into the IRS office a "liberal" or conservative?

Was the shooter outside of the Holocaust museum in DC a "liberal" or conservative"

You righties have become incredible deniers...Obama didn't allow the R's to help on HCR when he offered up tort reform in exchange for? Death Panels? "You Lie"
"Obama's Waterloo" Grandpa Grassley dragging out his Senate Committee as long as possible in a simple delaying tactic to obstruct...not actually help legislate.

Really bailers...the violence coming from the right is not unprecedented...but you have to go back 50 years to the '60's to find this kind of large scale violence and violent talk coming from the left. That's just a simple fact!

Look at some of you own posters...laughing about the four kids slaughtered at Kent State...suggesting that when the Tea Party candidates win the only reason they would come into "liberal" or as Sarah Palin might say "unreal" America was to have their knobs polished and their boots licked.

Far too many of you on the right have become uncouth, dangerous anti-social violence prone people. Just as we Americans have chided moderate Muslims for not yelling loud enough in their chastisement of Muslim terrorists...many on the right have dropped the ball in chastising the terrorists from the right.

This is certainly not a mass condemnation, but there are a significant % of losers.
I can immediately think of some exceptions here...Kevin, Scott, tao , Troll would not be trying to defend this BS with false equivalency. Go back to the 60's bailers if you wish to b&tch about this kind of cr7p from the left...today it's obvious the wingNUTS are on the right!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

"Please lead us poor stupid people out of temptation and into the light of your shadow."

Here's a tip for you Bailers, you inbred lunatic:

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS BAD.

ALWAYS.

Idiot.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Ed Kilgore quotes Mark Schmitt and both ask the set of questions that many of us are trying to answer...

"Many journalists never bother to acnowledge when their theories or predictions don't pan out. That's not true of TAP's Mark Schmitt, who's acknowledging that his sanguine attitude towards what Barack Obama might be able to accomplish substantively and poltically via a sort of post-partisan pragmatism wasn't terribly prescient after all:

'Republican intransigence and Democratic fecklessness have been well chronicled. But the more troublesome error in the theory appeared only after those barriers were overcome. Obama's legislative victories, the most significant for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, began to seem like a burden rather than a source of future strength. The Obama presidency isn't over, but his theory of governing -- that change is possible by bridging partisan differences and enacting incremental policies that would pave the way for bigger proposals -- is defunct. What comes next?'

As someone who shared much of Schmitt's optimism, I guess it's time for a little self-criticism as well..."
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/10/time_for_a_new_theory.php#comments

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

All, great new Adam Serwer post on Sharron Angle's race baiting:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 26, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Washington is like the Republicans have made it. In a way one should not begrudge them. They fought, and the Democrats kept saying let's play nice."

The self-delusion of one who would say such a thing is truly staggering.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 26, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

More on these inbred criminals over at TPM:

At the end of the clip, Valle is alert and speaking with the press. However, MoveOn's political director Ilyse Hogue tells TPM that Valle is in the hospital and they're awaiting word on her condition. We'll get you more information when we have it.

Commenter:

The KY bloggers are after them. They have a link with a big picture of the guy who wrestled her to the ground. He was wearing a "Don't tread on me" button while wrestling a woman to the ground for his buddy to literally tread on her head.

http://www.bluebluegrass.com/2010/10/25/republican-rand-pauls-brownshirts-assault-and-stomp-the-head-of-a-moveon-org-woman-before-the-ket-debate/

And btw, the TPM article already has 5469 shares and over 5000 facebook recommends

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/male-rand-paul-supporter-stomps-head-of-female-moveon-member-outside-debate.php

This HEINOUS ACT must not go unpunished. PERIOD.

And I want Rand Paul to make a statement that those responsible should be held accountable to the law if they did indeed break the law (which they obviously did).

Anything less from Rand Paul is condoning violent behavior.

He MUST make a statement, not just about the incident, but about the legality of his followers' despicable, CRIMINAL behavior.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie "As someone who shared much of Schmitt's optimism, I guess it's time for a little self-criticism as well..."

I'll join you in the self flagellation party. I gave the R party a lot more credit for reason and objectivity. Not to beat the horse to death..but when Sen Demented released his famous "Obama's Waterloo" email and Grandpa Grassley kept dragging his heels, hitting the stump in Iowa passing out Glen Beck books and talking about "pulling the plug on Granny" we all should have figured it out.

Hopefully Obama has figured it out by now and his continued talk of bi-partisanship is just that...talk to placate the masses.

IMHO Nobody right or left is going to be able to govern this nation in it's current state with diplomacy and compromise in DC.
It's now all about the bully pulpit and going directly to the people. The one thing R's WILL pay attention to will be polls telling them to knock it off or lose their seats.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

Thanks for that Kilgore piece, I forget to drop in there sometimes. It will be interesting to see where his reflection leads after next Tuesday.

Regarding the attack on the woman at the debate in KY, disgusting. I'm not surprised by it as we seem to have spiraled downward in our "on the street" civility to differing opinions.

I remember attending a candlelight vigil last year for HCR and we were warned to remain silent in the face of the "death panel", Obama as Hitler or "witch doctor" protesters. And I still have my neighbor yelling out the window of his truck at me as he rounds the corner. He doesn't like my yard signs this year any better than 2008 and it's still all Obama's fault. LOL

Posted by: lmsinca | October 26, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

@Scott "The self-delusion of one who would say such a thing is truly staggering."

Call me staggering as well...again...

Obama offered the R's tort reform in HCR and asked what he could get in return...what did he get Scott..."Obama's Waterloo" and Grassley indefatigable stalling in his committee. He got a S.C. idiot yelling "You lie" from the House floor when it was the Palmetto bug idiot who was lying and mistaken.

Again the R's have been forthright about their obstructionist tactics from Demented's infamous email to numerous proclamations from McConnell and Boner.

It is you Scott who remain in denial. I won't call you delusional, but for some reason you cannot face the truth! The entire R agenda for the past two years has been obstruction in a partisan grab for power and it's been clearly articulated as I've just pointed out by the R leaders.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "The self-delusion of one who would say such a thing is truly staggering."

Is it self-delusion? I think it's just an ideological blind spot (and, no doubt, I have one myself), of the nature where one always wants to blame everything on someone or some group they already don't like. Thus, what should more accurately be blamed on politicians, the political class, or accepted as the natural outcome of representative democracy, is instead characterized as the result of the malevolence of once group of people with one particular label.

@bernie: "The Democrats - Obama, yes, but all of them really - still hold on to this prayerful hope that Washington can be like it was, back in the 1970s, say"

You mean, right after heads got busted during the 1968 Democratic convention, and right before the ideologically pure progressive, George McGovern, got handed his hindquarters? And right before we found out about the Watergate break in and the acrimonious impeachment of Richard Nixon? Or are you thinking more about Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon, and then Jimmy Carter beating Ford, then mismanaging the Iranian Hostage crisis (in addition to the whole malaise thing, and the misery index), right before getting challenged--in the primary--by liberal lion Ted Kennedy? Leading to Carter's defeat at the hands of Ronaldus Magnus?

Odd, really, that Democrats would be nostalgic for all that. Really, the Clinton Era would be a much better time for Democrat nostalgia.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca "and it's still all Obama's fault. LOL"

And so tell us..who do you live next door to...Clawrence or STRF. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

@BBQChicken: "In light of the consistant and numerous examples to back it up, maybe now people like Adam can stop their whiny b**ching about using phrases like 'American Taliban'?"

There's a reason folks like Adam don't like phrases like American Taliban (and certainly you don't doubt Adam's progressive bonafides), it's that it only makes the point to the already convinced.

Letting folks demonstrate their own bad behavior, and letting the audience conclude that those people are crazy, is one thing. Telling them that "they" (who is "they", anyway) are "all crazy" alienates a lot of people. Calling everybody who goes to the Tea Parties "American Taliban" is like calling everyone who goes to church "a xtian terrorist" . . . and you're telling them to, essentially, f*** off, we don't need no stinkin' churchgoing, America-lovin', flag-wavin' hayseeds in our party. You're vote? You're votes not good enough. We only want the votes of people who already "get it".

So, by all means. American Taliban it is! Republicans are no different than terrorists. More importantly, they are all the same, and there is no difference between them.

See how that resonates.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin - the context there is a comparison between then and now in actually functioning bipartisan governance, not other matters of the sort you bring up.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "I remember attending a candlelight vigil last year for HCR and we were warned to remain silent in the face of the 'death panel', Obama as Hitler or 'witch doctor' protesters."

What was the reasoning behind that? Just face to face, in case one of them was a real whackadoodle, or in general?

Because there is a middle ground between being mute and calling your fellow citizens terrorists (which, of course, I know you would not do--that's a reference my previous post regarding calling Tea Partiers "The American Taliban", etc. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Here's some food for thought about the difference between today's R's and D's.

Imagine Sen Jim Demented gets the R nomination for President. Imagine he faces Obama and wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college vote when a state has a huge controversy about vote counting that puts Obama over the top. Then imagine enough S.C. justices have died before 2012 for Obama to appoint a D majority to the SCOTUS. Imagine the election goes to the SCOTUS and is decided in favor of Obama along strict party lines.

Now do you imagine Demented behaving like Gore and saying he'd withdraw for the good of the nation? Really? Do you imagine all of Demented's tea bagging supporters accepting the result without any violence.
Of would the guns come popping from behind their "Don't tread on me" flags? Really...think about it.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

ruk:

"Call me staggering as well...again..."

Let's just assume the characteriztion is operative unless otherwise stipulated.

"It is you Scott who remain in denial."

I deny that.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 26, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "the context there is a comparison between then and now in actually functioning bipartisan governance"

Fair enough--though things were different before the 70s, and were certainly different afterwards. The nature of the institutions, the personalities involved, and the demands of the electorate were bound to change. And will change again. 70s bipartisanship was also a by-produt of then more than 20 years of single-party rule in the house. Perhaps if we simply let Republicans maintaing power for 20 or more years, a more collegial and bipartisan atmosphere will return. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12:

You are correct -- it is a waste of time to try to convince Obamaniacs -- I post for the lurkers who have never heard the truth because the lamestream media has been hiding. Neither David Brooks nor Greg Sargent have ever complained about Obama's undisclosed campaign cash. They are both hypocrites:

Obama's Incomplete Disclosure $15,611,429

Obama's No Disclosure $25,289,671

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

That's "tens of millions of dollars" right there. In fact, on top of the UNDISCLOSED amounts Obama's campaign actually spent against McCain, they ended up RETURNING $5,661,816 in campaign donations (some of those were from questionable or outright FOREIGN SOURCES). Lots of his donations were UNDER $200 which carry no disclosure requirements whatsoever, but that doesn't matter to Greg when it comes to U.S. Chamber donations.

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

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

Keep in mind also that McCain got "snowed under" by Obama's unfettered spending 4 to 1.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/obama_reneges_on_public_financ.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Kevin

There had been an incident a couple of weeks earlier during the period of time when family members of lost loved ones were telling their insurance stories (some were more like tragedies) when the protesters were disruptive and a scuffle ensued. In an effort to prevent any sort of injury the organizers decided the best defense was silence. It worked in this case as they wandered off when ignored.

I will also say these were not what I would consider to be Tea Partiers per se. More like wackjobs intent on causing mayhem. And I think my neighbor is more crazy than anything else, but it is annoying.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 26, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "Since you are in the 2% I suggest we form a new party called the pragmatic party."

While that sounds good, centrists don't actually attract many votes. And the very engaged bases tend to hate them.

"Our platform would be simple...try to reason out solutions to problems and issues without blind reactionary ideological blinders."

Well, now, that's just crazy talk.

"My first nomination for the Pragmatic Party - Kevin Willis!"

And then you go and prove it. If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve. ;)

But, thanks.

BTW, I do think that if there is a Republican sweep, it has a lot to do with the further-left base deserting squishy and unprincipled Democrats (probably for 3rd parties, or non-voting), so Republicans would do well to keep that in mind. After 2 or 4 years of Republican rule, and a new crop of Democrats, their past problems with squishy Democrats will be forgotten.

Also, there are other things. For example, I recently heard Bill Clinton speak, and I can't think of a Democrat who is as good at articulating the Democratic message than Clinton. Many of the Democrats are very poor at communicating why I should vote for them (and, vice versa, but the Republicans have momentum). People are compelled by great communicators.

Also, principled folks tend to be respected. You know where they stand. I doubt everybody who votes for Ron Paul agrees with him on every issue. I don't, but I'd vote for him over another candidate who was less authentic (like his son . . . bad dum dum!). Desperate attempts to hold on to power, based on polling (Manchin shooting cap-and-trade with a gun in a commercial is one example, even though that kind of pandering requires so much chutzpah I almost kind of like it) are not compelling to voters.

It's like trying to get a pretty girl to date you by begging, and explaining how much you really want to score with a pretty girl, and how happy it would make you if only she'd go out with you. "It'd be so awesome for me if you'd vote for me this time! Please? Please? . . . Vote Manchin. He said please real nice."

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin....Can you honestly not see what we're talking about here...NOBODY is suggesting that all R's are terrorists...well I can't speak for everybody but I went to great lengths to make the point that the Rand idiots do not represent all R's. By your own admission you are in the 2% that is not stridently anti everything Obama or obstructionist.

You are younger than me but perhaps you were a little boy or have studied enough history. In the 60's the violence came from the left, mostly younger people.
There were NO Dems pols or leaders talking about 2nd Amendment solutions or violence being an option left on the table. In fact the 68 Dem Convention riots were about radical youth D's up against their more conservative parents..also D's. It wasn't the kids attacking R's. But make no mistake I do not defend the violence from the left in the 60's anymore than I'd expect an R to defend all this violence and violent TALK...words do have consequences...now coming from the right.

It's a bit ironic...now the violence is coming from older folks on the right instead of youth on the left. It is what it is...are you trying to deny reality.

I consider you an objective man but sometimes you to fall on that slippery slope of false equivalency...r's hate d's and d's hate r's existentially...it's always been that way etc. No not the way it is today. The violence is growing and there doesn't seem to be a lot of willpower on the right to stand up to it...hell you have Senate Candidate talking about 2nd Amendment solutions...House candidates saying violence should not be taken off the table as a possible solution...TPers walking around with weapons that are locked an loaded...inbreds from S.C. shouting from the House Floor...this REALLY is unprecedented...even compared to the 60's and it's ALL coming from one side of the aisle. Unless you can match up some D comments specifically that rank with those I've just pointed out. Unless you believe the Stewart rally or any other progressive rally draws people who are armed, locked and loaded and bragging about their willingness to "water the tree of liberty".
Again Kevin...not all R's..nowhere near the majority...but ENOUGH R's to be disturbing are behaving like sociopaths!
Denying it or striving for some false equivalency like bailers and the others does not really help the situation.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "And I think my neighbor is more crazy than anything else, but it is annoying."

Agreed. I don't care what your political opinion is, frankly, such harassment is pointless. It's not going to convince you (or anybody else) that you're wrong, wastes everybody's time and energy, and . . . it's like, come on, dude. This is my house. I'm just trying to get the mail.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I deny that.

Posted by: ScottC3

OK Scott...got to give you credit for a funny one there.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"Is it self-delusion? I think it's just an ideological blind spot (and, no doubt, I have one myself), of the nature where one always wants to blame everything on someone or some group they already don't like."

I won't quibble over what to call it. The notion Democrats have "played nice" while Republicans have "fought" is just laughable. Anyone who believes it is staggeringly...something not good.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 26, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Maybe you guys can finally condemn the following assault then now too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXHJQSX78o

Kenneth Gladney was also attacked by a pack of SEIU thugs for simply selling Gasden flags -- some Dem bit the finger off an anti-Obamacare supporter in California -- and we’ve already had one incident of a Dem operative posing as a Rand Paul supporter and making odious racist comments solely for the cameras.

So, until and unless I see a police report on this alleged assault, I’m not taking these charges at face value.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Scott

I've laid out specific examples which you have elected to ignore in favor of "general" (read meaningless) cheer leading atatements with Kevin.

1.) Obama offered up tort reform an R prize.
What did the R's offer in return?

2.) How do you explain Jim Demented's email at the very beginning of the HCR debate to turn it into Obama's Waterloo?
Did Obama respond to the R's in similar fashion...specifics please.

Playing nice...just a couple of examples to let you prove that your equivalency meme is not false..

Can you name a single Dem Senate Candidate that has even suggested 2nd Amendment solutions?

Can you name a single Dem House candidate that has talked about violence remaining on the table if the Dems loes the election.

Can you name a single Democrat who screamed "You're a crook" at Tricky Dicky?
A single Dem rep who yelled anything at Bush? Perhaps that Iraqi who threw the shoe was a Dem.

Can you name progressive rallies...such as the one lmsinca attended for HCR where the attendees came armed, locked and loaded, and bragging about "watering the tree of liberty"? Is it your contention that this only happened once or twice at TP rallies.

Deny it all you wish Scott, but it doesn't negate the facts.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

It was bound to happen. JakeD2/Clawrence is having a conversation between itself

Posted by: Liam-still | October 26, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Ethan,
When you have nothing but calling me an idiot, I know you are intellectually bankrupt. Thanks for playing. Oh, and by the way, I know violence against women is bad. I can't possibly imagine how you would think otherwise. Please, from now on save the all caps response for someone else.

Oh, and the other thing that is bad is thinly veiled racism from the president of the united states. But he's your guy, what do you think.

RUKidding

I don't know about a Dem Candidate, but I can name a Dem Mayor that told a reporter to bend over so he could shove a gun someplace.
The epic fail is on your part. Pull in a bunch of individual idiots and try to compare them to what I said. Did you even bother reading? But since you opened it up, lets ask this.
When people on this board get all butt hurt and start calling names, who is it more likely to be?

"but you have to go back 50 years to the '60's to find this kind of large scale violence and violent talk coming from the left. That's just a simple fact!"

Really? So it's the right that sends people to protest at political conventions that then destroys half the town? It's the right that is responsible for the anarchists that threaten people? It's the right that threaten and sometimes kill researchers because they don't like that animals are used? It's the right that torches SUV dealers and large homes in the mountains.

RU kidding yourself that there aren't just as many dangerous people on the left as there are on the right? And you must be kidding yourself if you think that ONLY the left has ideas.

Posted by: Bailers | October 26, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Liar-still:

I am not "clawrence12".

Luckily, for all of us, this campaign will finally be over in one week.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Bailers:

I'm not yet convinced that the alleged attacker was even someone on the right ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Shorter JD2: WAAAHHHHH!!! Obama was more popular than McCain and raised more money from small contributors...Money raising 2 years ago is a far more important issue than allowing unlimited corporate (including foreign corporate) donations to political activities with no disclosure. This is the big change this year and of course JD2 would rather not talk about that...

Posted by: srw3 | October 26, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Ruk: I did a long post in reply to yours, explaining myself, and noting that yes, violence is always bad, etc. Sufficed to say, I was not saying that everyone is saying every Republican is a terrorist (I was commenting on the good political reasons why Adam might not like the term "American Taliban") and that violence is always bad, etc. I disagree with you a bit on the false equivalencies or that there's never been anything like this before. Indeed, it's actually been a lot worse. It's just that what we experience today has the immediacy of now, while protesters getting clubbed in 1968 was a long time ago.

But, I was trying to backspace and I deleted the entire thing and can't undo, so . . . I tried.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I would be happy to talk about anything with anyone who actually answers my questions in a civil manner.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin

You speak of a "collegial and bipartisan atmosphere" as if it's a joke...and that in of itself is rather telling, don't you think?

Keep in mind what happened here. She was being non-violent. She was using her 1st amendment rights to protest something in a snarky way. She wasn't harrassing nor instigating.

She was grabbed by multiple men, shoved to the ground, held down, and had her head stomped on. That's assault, and if I relayed this story to someone who didn't follow the news and asked where they thought it happened...I'd bet 9 out of 10 people would say the middle-east or some third world country.

Terror and fear are CLEARLY part of the GOPs Electoral Strategy. Look at Sharron Angle's closing ad and it's on full display. Look at the threats of violent from CANDIDATES if they don't get elected. Look at the propoganda coming from the right - this story on FOX was given the headline "scuffle between both sides at debate" or something like that. In no way an accurate discription of the footage.

I merely present the textboook definition of terrorism...it's not MY fault that it could easily be applied to how many Republicans run their campaigns. And yes...some Dems as well. But there's a clear line between negative ads (even personal attack ads) and stepping into the realm of using fear and terror for political purposes. The GOP uses it way, way, WAY more often.

I understand you're a conservative. And I should point out that I don't label Republican VOTERS with these things. Republican VOTERS have been getting shafted just like the rest of us (I'm an Indy), maybe moreso. The real shame is that Republicans aren't actually represented in Congress anymore - the worst elements of the right now control the GOP. It would be like if the Weather Underground ran the DNC.

If anything, the 2nd most frustrating part of all this (1st being the media's complete failure to keep our politicians in check) is that "conservatives" in this country don't wake up and realize the complete bu****t they've been sold on by the GOP...and finally force the GOP to rid itself of the wing-nut crazies and become the legimate Dem counter-balance party that it should be.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | October 26, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "I gave the R party a lot more credit for reason and objectivity."

Well, arguably, they are being reasonable and objective. They want to be reelected, and their base tells them to stop Obama, no matter what, so that's what they do. They are looking out for the interests of those who are going to vote for them (or work against them) next time around. May not be the most principled stand (unless it's the principle of being a conduit for the whims of your most vociferous voters), but it seems like a not entirely unreasonable position, to me, and one (false equivalency!) that Democrats often taken, and often get punished (like, in 2010) for not taking in regards to their most vociferous constituents.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

TheBBQChickenMadness:

We don't even know if this was set up from the LEFT yet.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "I won't quibble over what to call it. The notion Democrats have 'played nice' while Republicans have 'fought' is just laughable. Anyone who believes it is staggeringly...something not good."

Partisan?

Both political parties fight. But the partisans of a given party always feel their side has been "too nice" when they are losing (re: Republican supporters, circa 2006). And I hear all sorts of Republicans even now worried that, once sent to Washington, elected Republicans won't repeal Obama Care, etc., etc.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Kevin...

"But, I was trying to backspace and I deleted the entire thing and can't undo, so . . . I tried."

Oh noooo could that gout be moving up to your fingers...sorry bad form on my part to joke about your pain...although I frequently joke about my own pain when I had to remove that stent from my privates during vacation.

I think our affliction is called "fat fingers". You can see from my misspelling, mismatched number and tense that I have fat fingers as well as fat brain on occasion.

Thanks for trying...your still my nominee and we won't have a problem getting you elected because we're not going to have primaries in the Pragmatic Party...that's were all this extremism really comes from.

Somewhere however...I believe in Australia they have a neat voting system where you get to select your top 3 choices. This means you can vote for a "pragmatic" or "independent" type without fear of "wasting" your vote on somebody like Nader or Perot. I think it's fair to speculate that if we had that feature in Florida it might have been President Gore instead of Bush. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Thank God we never had a President Gore!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

All, the Fox affiliate in CT has agreed not to run that falsehood-laden ad I flagged yesterady:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 26, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 Is Clawrence.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 26, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

@BBQ: "You speak of a 'collegial and bipartisan atmosphere' as if it's a joke...and that in of itself is rather telling, don't you think?"

Telling of what, and why am I (in your opinion) speaking of it as if it's a joke? I much prefer a collegial and bipartisan atmosphere. That being said, what is often referred to nostalgically as a lovely time of bipartisan governance was a time when there was single party rule in the house for almost 40 years. So, perhaps, we should return to that, and see if collegiality returns to the congress.

BTW, historically, big programs, from the New Deal to the Great Society, have often been hard fought. It wasn't all compromise and cooperation.

"Keep in mind what happened here. She was being non-violent. She was using her 1st amendment rights to protest something in a snarky way. She wasn't harrassing nor instigating."

Um, what do you think I was talking about? Or what do you think I was saying?

"Terror and fear are CLEARLY part of the GOPs Electoral Strategy."

You're saying that attacking protesters at rally's for GOP candidates is "part of the GOP electoral strategy". Really? You're scared, and going to vote Republican after this?

Think about what you're saying. The last frickin' think the GOP (or Rand Paul) would have wanted would to be associated with some big guy brutally assaulting a woman at a political rally. It may be the unintended consequence of a political philosophy that involves lower taxes and a strong national defense, but I'm pretty sure "Have Burly Guys Brutally Beat On Women At Rallys" is not in the GOP campaign strategy handbook.

"Look at Sharron Angle's closing ad and it's on full display. Look at the threats of violent from CANDIDATES if they don't get elected."

Which is a very bad thing. However, my point was that the reason folks like Adam whine about calling right wingers "The American Taliban" is that it doesn't play well with folks not already firmly in BBQChicken's corner. You want to (potentially) help Republicans get elected (and certainly, do no damage), then you should feel free to marginalize perfectly legitimate arguments and objections by wrapping them up in hyperbolic language that is emotionally satisfying to you, but is completely ineffective as a critique or attack in the larger population.

"I understand you're a conservative. And I should point out that I don't label Republican VOTERS with these things. Republican VOTERS have been getting shafted just like the rest of us (I'm an Indy), maybe moreso. The real shame is that Republicans aren't actually represented in Congress anymore - the worst elements of the right now control the GOP. It would be like if the Weather Underground ran the DNC."

Actually, I think a lot of Republican voters are represented--their issues are more of the "Stop Obama!" nature. I'm not unsympathetic. However, I'm out of space, so I'll stop now. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Somewhere however...I believe in Australia they have a neat voting system where you get to select your top 3 choices. This means you can vote for a "pragmatic" or "independent" type without fear of "wasting" your vote on somebody like Nader or Perot. I think it's fair to speculate that if we had that feature in Florida it might have been President Gore instead of Bush. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 12:02 PM

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

Many parliamentary systems provide A Weighted Vote System. Because there are usually a lot of small parties on the ballot, in addition to the two or three larger ones; the voters get to cast a vote for their first choice, second choice, and so on. If your first choice gets eliminated in the first count, then your vote is alloted to your second choice, and so on, until a candidate reaches more than fifty percent, and is declared the winner.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 26, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent:

How are you CERTAIN that no one will go to jail if they refuse to sign up / pay for their mandated ObamaCare? Vicki Weaver was shot in the head for a far less grave offense.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"When you have nothing but calling me an idiot"

I didn't have "nothing" but calling you an idiot.

I said VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS BAD. You apparently thing that is "nothing." And that is what makes you a scumbag.

As for "thinly veiled racism," PROJECT MUCH LOSER?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: "I think it's fair to speculate that if we had that feature in Florida it might have been President Gore instead of Bush."

Given that Gore won the popular vote, I think that's pretty much a given. We're not going to change our system, though. It would require a constitutional amendment, and both sides would suspect the other side was up to something . . . ain't going to happen. I do like the idea conceptually, however.

Backspace delete has something to do with the javascript WaPo uses to limit your characters. I had hit the character limit, and was trying to back it up, and wanted to delete an orphan sentence that would make no sense and . . . bam! It was all gone.

No gout in my fingers. And I'm pretty sure it's gout. I ate some non-gout safe food yesterday, and it flared up again, right on schedule. Going to have to radically redo my diet. Which will be a positive, but I'll miss almost everything on the "bad" list.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 26, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Go luck in the mirror, and ask Clawrence for an answer.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 26, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

How is your foot problem coming along? Did you get a diagnosis result yet?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 26, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Edit;

Go look in the mirror......

Damn insomnia. My quack doctor said he had a cure for it. I asked him what it was. He said: get plenty of sleep.( That is a W C Fields line, from one of his movies.)

Posted by: Liam-still | October 26, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

@Liam and Kevin...No sooner than I bring up that system of getting to vote for more than one person..and voila..a story today...

http://www.thenation.com/blog/155550/we-need-majority-rule-elections

"A simple election reform, the adoption of Ranked Choice Voting, could open up the process and allow for real choices in states across the country. Under Ranked Choice, voters don't just tick the name of one candidate and walk away. They rank the various candidates—first choice, second, third, fourth and so on. If their first choice finishes out of the running, their vote is reassigned to their second choice. Thus, an Illinoisan who wants to back the strong Green Party gubernatorial campaign of attorney Rich Whitney could rank Whitney first. If the Green falls short, the vote could then shift to the total of Democrat Pat Quinn.

A Green pipedream? A Libertarian fantasy? Not anymore.

The former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, is saying this is this is a change that needs to be considered—and adopted."

I agree with you thought Kevin...this would be a tough sale...not to the voters or the American public..but to the two parties in power who wish to do NOTHING to dilute that power. If we ever get ranked voting all of the sudden 3rd parties become more viable...and that's nothing the R's or the D's wish to see...although I personally love the idea. Howard Dean will probably be the only party poobah from either side to suggest it however.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7:

Like I said, Thank God we never had a President Gore!

I do not want any change to the Electoral College.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"I've laid out specific examples which you have elected to ignore in favor of "general" (read meaningless) cheer leading atatements with Kevin."

I'm not sure what of mine you consider to be "general" or "cheerleading" statements. But to reiterate, I think the notion that Dems "play nice" while R's engage in hard-knuckle politics is utterly absurd. They both play hardball as and when it suits them. I could, of course, give you a list of my own examples (the Dems, led by TK, smearing Robert Bork, blocking and filibustering Bush's judicial appointments, to name but 2), but of course you will simply shout "false equivalency", the canned response of you (and, of course, Bernie) any time someone produces any evidence contrary to your religious-like faith in the notion that modern Republicans are uniquely evil in one way or another.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 26, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

@jd2:Thank God we never had a President Gore!

no thank the partisan supreme court...which intervened totally contrary to their oft stated preference for states rights, rule of law, etc...

"I do not want any change to the Electoral College."

I guess you don't believe in 1 person 1 vote. I personally am tired of my vote being worth less than someone from Wy.

Posted by: srw3 | October 26, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

The U.S. Supreme Court would not even be here if it weren't for God. As for Wyoming votes being "worth" more, I like that just fine : )

If anyone ELSE (who will answer simply questions in a civil manner) wants to discuss any of that, please do not hestitate to let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 7:42 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