Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Women drifting to the GOP? Given the huge amount of effort Dems have put into wooing the female vote, the most amazing number in today's New York Times poll has to be that women support Republicans by four points -- a sharp reversal from last month, when Dems led by seven.

The larger trend is also worth noting: Republicans have wiped out Dems' 2008 gains among other key demographics, too: Roman Catholics, the less affluent, and independents, who now prefer the GOP by 15 points.

* It's the economy, you bleedin' idiot: Some other numbers from the Times poll: Only 26 percent say their vote will be about putting Republicans in, and only 27 percent say it will be about kicking Dems out. Meanwhile, a far larger group, 45 percent, say it will be about something else.

Also: Only 24 percent say their vote will be for Obama, and only 29 percent say it will be against him. Far more, 42 percent, say he's "not a factor."

* Obama asks bloggers to keep holding him -- and mainstream media -- accountable: The President tells the libs:

We benefit from the constructive feedback and criticism that we get, and it helps hold us accountable. But you guys obviously have also done a great job holding the mainstream press accountable, and that's really important to us.

Get ready for a lot of knowing snickers about this one.

* Obama also endorsed filibuster reform: He also told the bloggers:

I will say that as just an observer of our political process that if we do not fix how the filibuster is used in the Senate, then it is going to be very difficult for us over the long term to compete in a very fast moving global environment.

* There's no denying health reform is liability for Dems: The Wall Street Journal finds that in the 92 most competitive House districts, 55 percent support the candidate who want repeal. That $100 million in ads against reform since passage had nothing whatsoever to do with this, of course.

* But it was still the right thing to do: When the inevitable recriminations begin about whether passing health reform helped destroy the Dem majority, let's all keep in mind this graph brought to you by Ezra Klein.

* Labor abandons Blue Dog Dems: While it's true that labor's threats to primary moderates who opposed health reform never materialized, the other side of the story is that labor has largely abandoned them, leaving them defenseless against the ad onslaught of the right.

* Senate GOP is determined to learn from history: Paul Krugman says the Mitch McConnell "one term president" quote means Senate GOPers realize they erred in not trying to quickly destroy Bill Clinton after 1994
and are determined not to make that mistake again.

* DNC: We're winning, at least for now: The DNC puts out a memo making a detailed case that the GOP "wave" isn't materializing in 11 key early vote states, where more Dems have voted than Republicans.

* Sobering statistic of the day: By CNN's estimate, the number of Dem-held House seats in play is more than ten times higher than the number of GOP-held ones in play.

* She's a rock star!!! It's going to be fun to watch commentators discuss the 'Cuda's influence if Lisa Murkowski manages to prevail over Sarah Palin/Tea Party rock-star Joe Miller.

* And the Tea Party is very reassuring to the rest of the world: Foreign Policy rounds up a bunch of international coverage of the Tea Party and finds the movement isn't exactly doing wonders for our global image, though in fairness the international views of the "movement" seem to be mostly just enhancing previously-held views of America. Interesting stuff.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 28, 2010; 8:30 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, Independents, Labor, Morning Plum, Political media, 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: Rand Paul camp flip-flops on returning stomper's campaign cash
Next: Obama was right to go on the Daily Show

Comments

Filibusters were acceptable only when he was in the U.S. Senate.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 28, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

@Greg You have an excellent blog...I enjoy your posts and thoughts as well as that of many commenters both left and right.

I frequently LEARN things from the Plum line...what a concept:-)

This morning, as I do most mornings, I went back in the evening roundup to pickup the thread to see what I had missed after 9PM. Oft times there are some really cool late night discussions. I discovered a wonderfully enlightening discourse on the bond market and what it might mean for our economy. 12bar, sold2u and others were very informative.
There was also the usual interesting political discussion.

HOWEVER...I had to wade through between 25% and 50% of useless, time wasting, mindless stuff as well.

AGAIN...please consider simply moving posters names to the head of their posts.
I don't believe banning is a solution. The mentally challenged person who bothers us the most has more sock puppets than you can keep up with and there are several others who simply post ad hominem attacks.

I am a big boy and don't get my fee fees hurt by these but quite frankly they are simply boring, time wasting, and generate bile on the blog.

The solution is simple...no banning..an egalitarian solution...put the posters names at the head of their comments...we are all adults and can use our scroll wheels. Icing on the cake would be a delete button if possible. It would help clean up threads that people revisit...especially the longer ones like the evening roundup and the morning plum.
I like to go back to these during work breaks to see what I have missed.

Just my 2 cents worth of whining. :-)
By and large this is an EXCELLENT blog, you have solid journalistic credibility and have attracted some very erudite and informed posters to your comment section.
Why let a few idiots spoil it. Names on top PLEASE....

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 28, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama = World-Historical Hypocrite

http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/10/28/obama-hopes-to-change-the-filibuster/

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 28, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

rukidding7

You are still continueing your constant drumbeat of harassing other posters.

Broadcasting your intentions to ignore people - and encouraging others to ignore and isolate others - that is nothing but harassment.

And you beg the moderator to give you more tools to do just that - continue and expand your harassment.

There is no other way to discribe your whining.

You are bullying people - it is beyond harassment. Your personal attacks and nasty comments have not worked. You trying to organize other posters against certain people have not worked. So, you are looking for other ways to continue your bullying. In short, the totality of your attitude is "intent to harass," and you should be banned.


.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama = World-Historical Hypocrite

http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/10/28/obama-hopes-to-change-the-filibuster/

Posted by: quarterback1
------------------------------------------
What is a World-Historicaly Hypcorite? That doesn't really even make sense.
As to your point, yes, I mean he's the only one who's ever switched positions on this topic. It would be great if an enterprising journalist obtained quotes from each side voicing concern about the filibuster process just to show that this might be one of the few areas where the Right and Left seem to agree.

Also, why is Obama pushing for filibuster reform when it looks like Dems might be the ones who need to use them in the next Congress?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama = World-Historical Hypocrite

http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/10/28/obama-hopes-to-change-the-filibuster/

Posted by: quarterback1
------------------------------------------
What is a World-Historical Hypcorite? That doesn't really even make sense.
As to your point, yes, I mean he's the only one who's ever switched positions on this topic. It would be great if an enterprising journalist obtained quotes from each side voicing concern about the filibuster process just to show that this might be one of the few areas where the Right and Left seem to agree.

Also, why is Obama pushing for filibuster reform when it looks like Dems might be the ones who need to use them in the next Congress?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Greg

In addition to the clear "intent to harass" of several posters, there is something else. Rukidding7 has been doing nothing but "thread-bombing" for months.

When the liberals were "thread-bombing," it was never an issue.

Only when conservatives started making their message heard was "thread-bombing" ever identified as an issue.

It appears that there is a case of selective enforcement.

And selective on a partisan basis. When Ethan was capitalizing letters, it was never, ever an issue. These are bogus issues - and selectively enforced on a partisan basis.

Seriously.


Sure seems like this entire blog has become an "UNDISCLOSED CONTRIBUTION" to one side.

.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Count me as a flip-flopper on the filibuster as well. I can't say what the line is for acceptable or not, but Republicans have leaped over it with a running start. This is no way to run a country.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

LMAO I think Mr Sock puppet has made my earlier point...and all because I simply asked for names at the head of posts so we would all be FREE to pick and choose who we read!

Since I'm on the subject of idiot posters.
The vast majority of folks who contribute here are interesting and informative...from the left, right, and center. For the 10-20% who need a little help...how about a definition and perfect example.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Now considering BOTH of those defintions how about the PERFECT example....

"SolarEnergy, what a ray of light shining all the way back to the Bat Caves and Belfreys...RUK is a well-known Serial Seminar (SS) toaster poaster from the Saul Alinsky/Noam Chomsky Seminary of disruptive forum assault that trains radical religious bottom of the rotten apple barrel soldiers of mis-fortune. He has been invited to join the human race, but steadfastly insists on hanging around in the shadows of the Progressively Progressive sliders down the slippery slope towards the brink and over into liberal failure Purgatory...
Posted by: SpendNomore | October 27, 2010 11:45 PM

It's not that I'm insulted, I consider the source. But I am aggravated to have to waste my time on such mindless drivel, totally devoid of example, links, or anything informative.

Please Greg...names at the top of posts!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 28, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

[Greg whined: "Republicans have wiped out Dems' 2008 gains among other key demographics"]

Don't sell the Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate short. The POR agenda wiped out those "2008 gains" without any help from Republicans.

Own it.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | October 28, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

@politicalwire:

A new Hays Research poll in Alaska shows Scott McAdams (D) surging ahead of Joe Miller (R) in the U.S. Senate race, 29% to 23%, allowing the unnamed write-in candidate -- most of which are presumably for Sen. Lisa Murkowski -- to lead the contest with 34%, with undecided voters still at 13%.

"With a 68% disapproval rating, and Miller's trend line looking like the flight of the Hindenberg even before the latest scandal hit the news, the chances of him actually pulling it off and winning this election are slim."

Scott McAdams, only 5% down! Go Scott!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

@politicalwire:

A new Hays Research poll in Alaska shows Scott McAdams (D) surging ahead of Joe Miller (R) in the U.S. Senate race, 29% to 23%, allowing the unnamed write-in candidate -- most of which are presumably for Sen. Lisa Murkowski -- to lead the contest with 34%, with undecided voters still at 13%.

"With a 68% disapproval rating, and Miller's trend line looking like the flight of the Hindenberg even before the latest scandal hit the news, the chances of him actually pulling it off and winning this election are slim."

Scott McAdams, only 5% down! Go Scott!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

@politicalwire:

A new Hays Research poll in Alaska shows Scott McAdams (D) surging ahead of Joe Miller (R) in the U.S. Senate race, 29% to 23%, allowing the unnamed write-in candidate -- most of which are presumably for Sen. Lisa Murkowski -- to lead the contest with 34%, with undecided voters still at 13%.

"With a 68% disapproval rating, and Miller's trend line looking like the flight of the Hindenberg even before the latest scandal hit the news, the chances of him actually pulling it off and winning this election are slim."

Scott McAdams, only 5% down! Go Scott!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

"Don't sell the Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate short. The POR agenda wiped out those "2008 gains" without any help from Republicans.

Own it.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst "

The irony is that if Democrats actually got to implement their agenda the way they wanted to, without dilution from Republicans, they would be destroying the Republicans now.

And it's pretty clear. McConnell has said that the goal of the Republican party is not to run the country, but to defeat Obama in 2012. If Obama's agenda would lead to his defeat, McConnell would stand back and let the Dems do what they wanted. instead, he feels the best strategy for defeating Obama is to BLOCK the so-called liberal agenda.

No matter what the pundits say, the USA is a left of center nation. Which is why McConnell is intent on preventing the nation from getting where its people want to go.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

@politicalwire:

A new Hays Research poll in Alaska shows Scott McAdams (D) surging ahead of Joe Miller (R) in the U.S. Senate race, 29% to 23%, allowing the unnamed write-in candidate -- most of which are presumably for Sen. Lisa Murkowski -- to lead the contest with 34%, with undecided voters still at 13%.

"With a 68% disapproval rating, and Miller's trend line looking like the flight of the Hindenberg even before the latest scandal hit the news, the chances of him actually pulling it off and winning this election are slim."

Scott McAdams, only 5% down! Go Scott!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Ethan, how do these polls work? Do they just list all three options as if all three are on the ballot? Presumably a lot of Murkowski's voters will not write her in because they don't know to do so and I'd have to think a heavy majority of those will vote for Miller.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Oh jeez! I kept getting page time-outs! I'm really sorry! Please delete all but one instance of my post.

Also, I second RUK's idea of putting names at the TOP of posts. Should be very easy to change for wapo tech gurus. Thanks.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Oh jeez! I kept getting page time-outs! I'm really sorry! Please delete all but one instance of my post.

Also, I second RUK's idea of putting names at the TOP of posts. Should be very easy to change for wapo tech gurus. Thanks.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

The filibuster is now UNCONSTITUTIONAL?! "In fairness, in fairness, Democrats used it ah when Bush was in office and and felt very comfortable using it. Although not to the extent that it's been used today. What we've been seeing is unprecedented."

So, where's the "fairness" again?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 28, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Last week Bernie used the occasion of a report from the CDC showing that teen birth rates in the northeast were lower than in what Bernie called the "Bible Belt" to suggest that those people who advocate abstinence only sex education are both stupid and produce stupid offspring. It seems, however, that Bernie's reading of the data is a tad questionable.

According to Robert Rector, while the incidence of teen births is indeed lower in the northeast, the incidence of teen pregnancy is not. One simple word explains this seeming paradox...abortion.

"States with permissive sex-ed policies tend to have substantially higher rates of teen abortion. For example, the CDC report lauds California, New York, and New Jersey for relatively low teen birthrates. But it isn’t because those states have low pregnancy rates, it’s because they lead the nation in promoting abortion among teenage girls.

Contrary to the breathless claims of Planned Parenthood, there is no evidence that states with liberal sex-ed policies have lower teen-pregnancy rates. In fact, the evidence suggests that, after adjusting for important racial differences among states, those with liberal sex-ed policies actually have higher rates of pregnancy for girls under 18."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/251283/permissive-sex-ed-linked-higher-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-robert-rector

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 28, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "Scott McAdams, only 5% down! Go Scott!"

I think Miller takes it, I think McAdams would actually have a better chance if Murkowski had dropped out of the race. In any case, it's going to be close. I anticipate some recount drama.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 28, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

"the most amazing number in today's New York Times poll has to be that women support Republicans by four points -- a sharp reversal from last month, when Dems led by seven."

Which makes me wonder if their polling sample is large enough. Such swings don't make much sense to me, otherwise.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 28, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD, no idea about this particular poll, but is obviously an important question. I'm not sure if its even settled in AK law. Write-in names were first not allowed to be listed in the voting booths, but I think the AK SCOTUS ruled that they CAN be listed. But a few things seem certain: 1) voters like Murkowski, 2) they dislike Joe Miller (68% disapproval!) and 3) McAdams is surging at the right time despite being attacked in ads by both Murkowski and the Miller-friendly NRSC.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Ethan = threadbomber

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 28, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

"...women support Republicans by four points -- a sharp reversal from last month, when Dems led by seven."

It is the result of attacks on female conservatives. Women (liberal or conservative) may not agree on issues, but we all agree that to insult them just BECAUSE they are women is uncalled for. And the left has Bullied women and frankly TEA far too long. THIS is why the left will lose. Americans want CIVIL discourse and the exchange of ideas, not juvenile lambasting, and personal trivial attacks on candidates.

Signed - a female TEA supporter.

Posted by: stvjo | October 28, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Women (liberal or conservative) may not agree on issues, but we all agree that to insult them just BECAUSE they are women is uncalled for.
----------------------------------------

Any chance you could support the position that liberals are attacking women because they are women? At least with respect to Angle and O'Donnel it appears that they are being attacked because of their rather conservative positions, some bizarre comments and other standard political reasons.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

[DDAWD whined: "dilution from Republicans"]

That is so lame.

pathetic

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | October 28, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Re the Women up by 5% for GOP, that is interesting but believe it would have roughly half the statistically significant value of entire poll, so margin of error north of 5%.

Posted by: BillB10 | October 28, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Scott

"In fact, the evidence suggests that, after adjusting for important racial differences among states, those with liberal sex-ed policies actually have higher rates of pregnancy for girls under 18."

Not true in CA at least. Their assertions re racial differences are just un-true. The comparison of states with similar demographics clearly shows that CA is a leader (again) in dealing with teen pregnancy and abortion rates. I know it's an inconvenience for abstinence only advocates that the full range of sex education tools offer a better chance of reducing both, but I'm afraid in CA it's true nonetheless.

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

"California’s progress may be especially remarkable given the characteristics of its population. Stemming from broader, persistent economic and social inequities, there are large and longstanding racial, ethnic and income disparities in the state, and a primary driver of any state’s teen pregnancy rate is its demographic makeup. Nationally, for example, about 13% of black teens and 13% of Hispanic teens become pregnant each year, compared with 4% of whites. Similarly, women living in poverty are almost four times more likely to become pregnant unintentionally than women of greater means.

It would be expected, then, that teen pregnancies would be substantially more common in California than in the nation as a whole— as, indeed, they were in 1992. But by 2005, California had achieved a rate only slightly above the national average (75 vs. 70 per 1,000 women aged 15–19). Moreover, between 1992 and 2005 the state made more headway in reducing teen pregnancy within its borders than did any other state. And this decline in the total teen pregnancy rate consisted of declines in both the teen birthrate and the teen abortion rate: Teen births dropped 47% between 1992 and 2005, and teen abortions declined a whopping 66% from their peak in 1988 to 2005 (from 76 to 26 per 1,000). (It is worth noting that these declines took place in a state known for its progressive abortion policies. California is one of 17 states that use their own funds to subsidize abortions under Medicaid. Moreover, voters in California have repeatedly rejected attempts to require parental notification for teens seeking an abortion.) Indeed, California’s experience stands in sharp contrast to that of other areas of the country with similarly challenging demographics, but very different laws and policies."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/13/2/gpr130218.html

Posted by: lmsinca | October 28, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

From the NYT, this is what we are up against. I hope you all realize "we" didn't "win" the Cold War. It is still raging. There was a break in the action while the one party crony capitalist states re-tooled their economies and learned the levers of the "free" trade system, international banking and monetary policy in particular.

"The People's Daily editorial blasted concepts such as multiparty democracy and separation of powers as unsuited to China, and praised the country's authoritarian socialist system as the best way of concentrating resources and accomplishing major tasks.

Western democracies were founded on colonization, exploitation and slavery, and would crumble if not for welfare payments to their underprivileged citizens, it said."

Americans need to stop blaming each other and realize what our lives might be like if we lose the cold war.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 28, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

@Scott Are you suggesting that abstinence only education works? Or simply that sex ed courses, condoms etc are no better than abstinence only?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 28, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

@shrink2 I've been enjoying your posts...not sure whether I agree with all of them...but agreement is not required for enjoyment. :-)

"Americans need to stop blaming each other and realize what our lives might be like if we lose the cold war."

I accept your statement wholeheartedly with one caveat...this "war" will not be won militarily but economically. And right now the Chinese are kick our backsides economically. When they absorb enough of our debt think of the power they will wield in our nation...and they won't need to launch a single ship, launch any missiles...they'll do it economically.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 28, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

"The irony is that if Democrats actually got to implement their agenda the way they wanted to, without dilution from Republicans, they would be destroying the Republicans now.

And it's pretty clear. McConnell has said that the goal of the Republican party is not to run the country, but to defeat Obama in 2012. If Obama's agenda would lead to his defeat, McConnell would stand back and let the Dems do what they wanted. instead, he feels the best strategy for defeating Obama is to BLOCK the so-called liberal agenda.

No matter what the pundits say, the USA is a left of center nation. Which is why McConnell is intent on preventing the nation from getting where its people want to go.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse"

Please keep thinking that way.

A delusional opponent is quite an advantage.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 28, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Never mind Quarterback and his "World-Historical" hyperbole.

I think he's suffering from histerical impulses. I've been reading him for a year now. Contary to his assesments, I'm pretty sure historians won't rank Obama at the bottom of the list.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 28, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

ruk, yes. A paradigm shift. Unlike the end of the British, Ottoman, Roman, etc. time in the driver's seat, if they have their way, this one won't be bloody. It'll be bought out from under us. Imagine if the Goths, Vandals etc., didn't raid the Roman Empire, but cultured it like a pearl, slowly, steadily making the wealth of the empire their own.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 28, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Keeping science out of politics. That's the ticket!

"But even if you grant that the poll was the victim of an organized attack, I'm still amazed by what we can learn from it. In response to the question "Which policy options do you support?" 42 percent of the respondents chose the answer "keeping science out of the political process.""
http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2010/10/27/keep_science_out_of_politics

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

@shrink2 "Imagine if the Goths, Vandals etc., didn't raid the Roman Empire, but cultured it like a pearl, slowly, steadily making the wealth of the empire their own."

Great simile! I really don't wish to imagine that because that is precisely what is frightening me right now. I have children and grandchildren and I worry about what we're leaving them.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 28, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Story on NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741

Posted by: twaid | October 28, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

lms:

"Not true in CA at least."

The stats you refer to do not support this. They simply show that CA has been successful in reducing its rate from previous highs, not that CA's rate is lower than the "Bible Belt" states from Bernie's post. The only comparison to other states in your stats says that CA's rate is higher (albeit "slightly") than the national average.

The Guttmacher data (from 2005) has not been adjusted for racial demographics (as Rector says it should be) but it still actually shows precisely the relationship that Rector was talking about. California ranks 15 in the nation in terms teen pregancy rate, but drops to 24 in terms of teen births because its abortion rate is so high...6th in the nation. New York is even more stark It ranks 11th in the nation in terms of teen pregnancy rate, but drops to 43rd in teen births. Why? Because it ranks 1st in abortion rate.

BTW, I have no brief for abstinence-only sex education. I'm just pointing out that the data does not seem to show what Bernie wanted it to show, much less does it suggest that people who advocate for abstinence only education are "stupid".

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 28, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

All, new Adam Serwer post on why Obama was right to go on Jon Stewart:

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

...and RU, I appreciate the advice. Will see if we can do that.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 28, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Story on NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741

Posted by: twaid
___________________________________________

I also found this story on sanctions in Iran to be interesting:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130872015

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

ANOTHER assault by Tea Party

-Washington Man Arrested For Allegedly Assaulting Anti-Rossi Protester-

A 72-year-old man was arrested for allegedly assaulting a 23-year-old activist protesting Dino Rossi's Republican campaign for Senate in Washington state yesterday, according to local reports.

The incident occured outside GOP headquarters in Walla Walla County where the demonstrator, Christie Stordeur, was "one of five protesters standing about 40 feet from the entrance of the office," according to the Tri-City Herald.

Stordeur and the other protesters "were wearing bags over their heads and holding a sign that looked like a check." That's when Victor Phillips, according to a Sheriff's deputy on scene, walked over to Stordeur to "lift her bag off her head." When Stordeur "lifted her arm in defense," Phillips hit it "with 'force.'"

The Herald reports that the deputy on scene "immediately stepped between the two and arrested Phillips on a charge of investigation of assault."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/washington-man-arrested-for-assaulting-anti-rossi-protester.php

Just horrendous. These extreme right wing goons and thugs are simply disgusting and anti-American.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

ruk:

"Are you suggesting that abstinence only education works?"

That depends on what is meant by "works".

Does it reduce teen sexual actiity? It makes sense that it would, and data seems to support that.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/02/Evidence-on-the-Effectiveness-of-Abstinence-Education-An-Update

Does it result in fewer teen pregnancies than the absence of any such education? Probably.

Does it result in fewer teen pregnancies than a "safe-sex" alternative education does? I would have doubted it, but the data referred to by Bernie do not establish that is doesn't.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 28, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Obama is hypocritical about filibusters! And, it's definitely NOT "unprecedented" as to judicial nominees, so he's lying too. Yesterday, no one hear could even name a SINGLE Obama nominee who has been prevented from taking the federal bench. Maybe, today, someone will answer that question?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Scott

I wasn't commenting on your beef with Bernie, only commenting that since the 1990's CA has made great in-roads in reducing both teen pregnancy and abortion even with our more liberal sex ed and pro-choice policies and such a diverse demographic. I think it proves, at least in CA, that these policies are working.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 28, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Scott C said: "much less does it suggest that people who advocate for abstinence only education are "stupid"."

Of course, that wasn't what I said. Rather that students who are are not educated re sexual matters (or biology or mathematics etc) will end up stupider than if they had been educated.

My post just above tells a pretty scary story. Obviously, SA readers aren't going to hold such opinions and some rightwing activists set to skewing that poll (again, to create a false picture of consensus). But it seems proper to imagine that among those respondents, the notion that science ought to be kept out of the political process is just jim-dandy.

And if we consider which set of folks in the modern conservative coalition have been eager and active in denigrating science, this incredibly self-destructive propaganda initiative makes a sort of sense - fundamentalist religious groups (Darwin, age of earth etc) and corporate entities plus their front groups and lobbyists (cancer rates for smokers, pollution and health factors related, global warming, consequences of massive reductions in biodiversity, etc etc).

Posted by: bernielatham | October 28, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1:

He did say "in fairness, Democrats used it ah when Bush was in office" though he left out that HE was one of those Democrats ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

"I have children and grandchildren and I worry about what we're leaving them."

As we battle over who is to blame for this mess, we have placed our country in a reverse mortgage relationship with China. Equity is being drained as we maintain our living standards, all of our entitlements to boot.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 28, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

-Jobless claims drop to 3-month low-

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly fell last week, touching their lowest level in three months, a government report showed on Thursday.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 21,000 to a seasonally adjusted 434,000, the lowest since the week ended July 10, the Labor Department said, and the second straight drop.

[...]

Last week, the four-week average of new jobless claims, considered a better measure of underlying labor market trends, fell 5,500 to 453,250.

The number of people still receiving benefits after an initial week of aid dropped 122,000 to 4.36 million in the week ended October 16. That was the lowest reading since the week ended November 22, 2008.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/10/jobless_claims_drop_to_3-month_low.php

If this election is really about Jobs and the Economy, people should be voting for Democrats.

It's not about either.

This election cycle is ENTIRELY about Republican efforts to stymie the recovery and Republican Tea Party bamboozlement of American voters.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

"Contary to his assesments, I'm pretty sure historians won't rank Obama at the bottom of the list."

True, Chuck, but that's only because those historians are Alinsky-loving, anti-colonial, elite-arugula-eating, commie-pinko, marxist, radical leftists like Obama.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 28, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

@Scott....Perhaps we're talking about the same thing but I believe abstinence education only works if done properly in the home. I don't believe schools can really help. And even if done properly in the home it's not foolproof as we've seen in the Palin household...not to pick on her over this because that's below the belt..she just happens to be the most famous advocate of abstinence and therefore an obvious example.

On the other hand a humorous, true anecdote to show that It CAN work. My mother was very open about sex with me.
She assumed I would fool around and counseled protection or absolute abstinence. My mother had truly convinced me that if I got a girl pregnant my life would be ended...difficulty attending..perhaps no higher education...stuck with one woman before I was mature enough to appreciate it...she had me completely wigged out.

Fast forward to my Junior year in High School and my first real dating. I went "steady" with a Freshman cheerleader. Her parents were gone to the movies and we were making out on the sofa when she asked me, "Would you like to see me naked?" You can imagine the response of any 17 year old male..."YEAH!!!!" She went upstairs to her bedroom and then called me up to see. There she was next to her bed in all her naked glory. My mother's words flashed before me...my life would be over...I looked and said, "Wow you're really beautiful! I'll call you tomorrow morning." Then I raced back down the stairs and ran home which only happened to be a few blocks away. A real stud! NOT! LMAO And so I guess if you can instill ENOUGH FEAR you can make abstinence work.
Although I must confess my senior year I purchased condoms. I'm not really a big fan of abstinence, but then I'm a libertine liberal right?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 28, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

In April of 2005, Senator Barack Obama spoke on the Senate floor in defense of the filibuster. He critiqued Republicans who wanted to abolish the filibuster for judges as the practitioners of an “ends justify the means” strategy.

On April 13, 2005, Senator Obama expressed his support for the filibuster.

"Everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse. Now I understand that Republicans are getting alot of pressure to do this from factions outside of the chamber, but we need to rise above the ends justify the means mentality."

Senator Obama also implied that those who did not support the filibuster were not patriotic because the right to “free and open debate” is what our Founders had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

"If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party, then millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice if fear that the already partisan atmosphere in Washington will get be poisoned to the point that we will not be able to agree on anything and doesn’t serve anybody’s best interest and it certainly isn’t what the Patriots who founded this democracy had in mind."

http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/10/28/obama-hopes-to-change-the-filibuster/

If the Dems LOSE their Senate majority, I bet that they will suddenly stop talking about abolishing the filibuster ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

"Yesterday, no one hear could even name a SINGLE Obama nominee who has been prevented from taking the federal bench. Maybe, today, someone will answer that question?"

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe no one answered your question not because they couldn't but because they didn't want to?

Most everyone here understands that you're a sophist so what would be the point? You twirl round and round in circles until you get cornered and then you end up asking someone a ridiculous question and when they refuse to answer you play the "I won't answer your questions until you answer mine" game. It's gotten boring and predictable.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 28, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

@shrink2 I agree with your "reverse mortgage" observation and also with your observation that this is all happening while we urinate away any attempt to correct the situation with partisan rancor and the blame game.

The only proactive thing I can think of at the moment is to counsel my son to have my grandchildren aged 2 and 1 learn Chinese.
I'm not being snarky or sarcastic...I think any American who master's Mandarin will have a real advantage in the future.
I used to believe Spanish would be the smarter choice...no longer..Chinese is now my first choice of second language.

If I wasn't so old, and the language so difficult, I'd attempt to master it myself.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 28, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

ruk, isn't that a little tmi...naked freshman cheerleader...where was I, oh yeah, the economic debacle and Cold War Act II...still distracted...

Posted by: shrink2 | October 28, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

ObamaCare was a bigger disaster than Democrats realize.
Americans are realizing that ObamaCare was not about fixing anything at all... it was
about "taking over" healthcare, it was about power for the Democrats.
Our health insurance premiums continue to rise, in the meantime.

Posted by: ohioan | October 28, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

@Jake-

I'm not sure if they have backed up what they said, but at one point Republicans wrote this letter which seems to threaten a filibuster of judicial nominations:

http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=3c522434-76e5-448e-9ead-1ec214b881ac

Anyway, is there anyone who isn't a hypocrit on the whole filibuster issue, Republican or Democrat?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"Couldn't" or "wouldn't" means the same result. If you don't see a point in rebutting what Obama is falsely claiming as UNPRECEDENTED, maybe someone else will.

Have a nice life : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

@SCat "True, Chuck, but that's only because those historians are Alinsky-loving, anti-colonial, elite-arugula-eating, commie-pinko, marxist, radical leftists like Obama."

You left out educated, which by definition also makes them elitists. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 28, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

"Our health insurance premiums continue to rise, in the meantime."

As if there were any way that was going to stop. You are all beholden to the health industry unless and until you do take control of it. The "reform" bill, contrary to your assertion, makes you ever more beholden to the industry.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 28, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark:

I'm not hypocritical on the whole filibuster issue. Keep in mind also that Greg Sargent has never included ALL of the facts in his partisan rants (for instance, when he didn't include O'Donnell's full quote from the debate about THE PHRASE "separation of church and state" not being in the Constitution ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

"As if there were any way that was going to stop. You are all beholden to the health industry unless and until you do take control of it. The "reform" bill, contrary to your assertion, makes you ever more beholden to the industry."

AMEN! Or as one of our departed posters used to say...WORD!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 28, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps his pictures do not do him justice, but Saul Alinsky does not look Kenyan, and yet he must have been in Kenya to have started indoctrinating the Infant Obama, back in the early sixties. Mr Alinsky died when President Obama was just eleven years old, so of course Mr. Alinsy must have brain washed him, when he was just a Wee Kenyan Lad.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 28, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The giant, stink bomb called OBAMACARE has already affected health care costs.

My employer provided, insurance costs are going up significantly in 2011.

Our representative explained that the bigger than expected increases are due to new federally mandated regulations.

Thanks Obama!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 28, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Jake-
Yeah, I was referring to politicians being hypocritical regarding filibusters. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the feeling I get is that their feelings about filibusters is directly related to whether they are the majority or minority party in Congress. Then again maybe the media just trumpets those who advocate for the nuclear option while ignoring the many that see it as part of the political process.

There is no debating that the use of filibusters, in general, was upped by the Democrats during Bush and reupped by Republicans post 2006. I hope someone in politics shows some moral courage rather than childishly pointing the finger at the other said and saying "They did it first."

Yes, Greg's "omissions" are why I started researching this on my own.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

"Democrats: 'If We're Gonna Lose, Let's Go Down Running Away From Every Legislative Accomplishment We've Made'"

http://www.theonion.com/articles/democrats-if-were-gonna-lose-lets-go-down-running,18333/

"WASHINGTON—Conceding almost certain Republican gains in next month's crucial midterm elections, Democratic lawmakers vowed Tuesday not to give up without making one final push to ensure their party runs away from every major legislative victory of the past two years.

Party leaders told reporters that regardless of the ultimate outcome, they would do everything in their power from now until the polls closed to distance themselves from their hard-won passage of a historic health care overhaul, the toughest financial regulations since the 1930s, and a stimulus package most economists now credit with preventing a second Great Depression.

"There's a great deal on the line, and we know it isn't going to be easy for us," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), speaking from the steps of the Capitol. "But if we suffer defeat, we will do so knowing we cowered away from absolutely anything we produced that was even remotely progressive or valuable in any way."

"And we will keep cowering right up until Election Day," Reid continued. "From Maine to Hawaii, in big cities and small towns, we will collapse into a fetal position and refuse to take credit for our successes anywhere voters could conceivably be swayed by learning what we have achieved on their behalf."

Democrats are spending millions of dollars on a last-minute campaign to remind Americans how utterly spineless they are.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) acknowledged the task would be difficult, but said Democrats would remain steadfast in permitting their opponents to deride the accomplishments of the $787 billion Recovery Act, even as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that the 2009 measure has created millions of jobs.

"While the stimulus isn't a cure-all, we owe it to the voters to scatter like pigeons whenever the Republicans grossly mis characterize it as a wasteful giveaway," Pelosi said. "Their sleazy, cynical distortions may win them votes in the end, but we will not let that happen without doing whatever it takes to sit idly by and let them get away with it."

According to party leaders, the Democrats are putting their sweeping new health care law at the top of the list of accomplishments to back away from, mainly by allowing its most popular provisions—federal subsidies to make health care more affordable; allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26; and rules that prevent sick people from being denied coverage—to be summarily dismissed as "Obamacare."

"Thanks to our efforts, a lot of people don't even realize they may already be benefiting from these reforms," Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL) said. "They certainly don't realize they might be one of the 30 million currently uninsured people who will be provided coverage......

Posted by: Liam-still | October 28, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

The giant, stink bomb called OBAMACARE has already affected health care costs.

My employer provided, insurance costs are going up significantly in 2011.

Our representative explained that the bigger than expected increases are due to new federally mandated regulations.

Thanks Obama!

Posted by: battleground51
----------------------------------------
Your insurance representative blamed Obama rather than his own company? You don't say!

So know your mad at Obama rather than your insurance company. Hmmm...who does that seem to benefit?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Of course, that wasn't what I said."

Of course. You rarely come out and just say such bigoted things explicitly. You simply imply them, which is precisely what you were doing when you said:

"The statistically most advantageous means to producing more stupid people..."

We could get into parsing this, if you wanted, but I think it is pretty obvious to everyone what you were implying, regardless of whether or not you actually believe it in your less nasty moments.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 28, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark:

I hope you are not thinking that I am whining about "They did it first" -- quite the contrary, I am actually attacking the SUBSTANCE of Obama's outright lie -- there has been no "unprecedented" use of the filibuster by the GOP, at least in my field of expertise, judicial nominations. Do you know how many of GWB's nominees the Dems prevented from taking the federal bench?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

So know your mad at Obama rather than your insurance company. Hmmm...who does that seem to benefit?

-------------------------------------
Oh my...I just committed two cardinal sins. Got both now and you're wrong. Time to take a break from commenting.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

OBAMACARE is recycled HILLARYCARE. HILLARYCARE was wisely rejected by a bipartisan congress in the early 1990s.

The very partisan congress of 2010 did not act wisely and now must pay for it's sins.

There are no more moderates. They are all conservatives now. Obama did what Rove could not do. Rove is studying Obama to get some solid pointers.

Obama has driven women away.

Young punks are bored.

Minorities are frustrated because the federal, gravy train did not dump a load at their doorsteps.

Is Obama trying to out Clinton Clinton, circa 1994.

If Obama wins a second term he will have topped even the schlickmeister. A neat trick.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 28, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I will tell you: FORTY-FIVE! That's right, the following 45 GWB nominees were all blocked by the Dems (Sen. Obama himself voted against cloture on many):

William E. Smith, Loretta A. Preska, Shalom D. Stone, Claude Allen, Rod J. Rosenstein, Terrence Boyle, Robert J. Conrad, Steve A. Matthews, William J. Haynes, II, E. Duncan Getchell, Glen E. Conrad, Charles W. Pickering, Henry Saad, Philip P. Simon, Carolyn Kuhl, William Gerry Myers III, James H. Payne, William H. Steele, Miguel Estrada, Brett Kavanaugh, Peter Keisler, Lincoln D. Almond, Mary Donohue, Thomas Marcelle, Gene E. K. Pratter, Carolyn P. Short, Paul S. Diamond, Colm F. Connolly, Thomas Alvin Farr, David J. Novak, William J. Powell, David R. Dugas, J. Richard Barry, Daniel P. Ryan, Gustavus Adolphus Puryear, John J. Tharp, J. Mac Davis, James Edward Rogan, Frederick W. Rohlfing III, Gregory E. Goldberg, Richard H. Honaker, William F. Jung, Jeffrey Adam Rosen, and Michael E. O'Neill.

Tragically, one other nominee, Susan Bieke Neilson, was FINALLY confirmed only three months prior to her death -- after a four-year battle over her nomination -- eventually, Bush declined to make nominations for 23 other current or future federal district judgeships in the 110th Congress rather than incur further Democratic obstruction.

Quite a difference from Obama claiming what is happening now is UNPRECEDENTED, don't you think?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"Labor abandons Blue Dog Dems: While it's true that labor's threats to primary moderates who opposed health reform never materialized, the other side of the story is that labor has largely abandoned them, leaving them defenseless against the ad onslaught of the right."
---------------------------------------------

No doubt they will find the Republicans who replace them to be more supportive of their agenda.

Posted by: CalD | October 28, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"Sobering statistic of the day: By CNN's estimate, the number of Dem-held House seats in play is more than ten times higher than the number of GOP-held ones in play."
---------------------------------------------

Probably has something to do with the fact that only 10 to 15% of congressional districts are ever actually in play, and Dem's won most of those in the last two election cycles.

Posted by: CalD | October 28, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The Insurance Cabal raised he rates through the roof, every year that Bush/Cheney were in power. They also used their very own Death Panels, to drop coverage of people who might get sick.

Republicans back Privatized Death Panels, and Unrestricted Rates Raises; by their Insurance Racketeering Puppet Masters.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 28, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Why is America always behind Europe??

When Europe was slowly falling into socialism, America seemed independently conservative.

Now that Europe has overextended itself paying out for it's socialistic excesses and has started pulling back, America is going socialistic under the Obamanation.

America was correct in the first place. We could have saved a few trillion dollars by standing pat and letting Europe flap in the wind with it's schizophrenic socio-political fads.

There is one RIGHT way.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 28, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark:

Maybe when you are done with your break from commenting, you will answer my questions to you. Maybe not, like S-cat above.

Bottom-line, if there is any "shortage" of judges on the federal bench -- and I am not convinced that there is -- it is primarily because of the DEMOCRATS refusing to fill those spots while Bush was in office, not the Republicans now. Most of those positions wouldn't even be available for Obama to nominate, except for the Dems originally keeping them open. In the law, as an equitable remedy, a party with "unclean hands" is not allowed to take advantage of a bad situation that THEY themselves created.

In addition: "Obama has nominated roughly 40 fewer people for judgeships than either Bush or Clinton at this point. The smaller number of nominees has been a surprise because Obama once taught constitutional law and installed a team with vast experience nominating and confirming judges.

"It seems like it has not been a priority," said Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. "It's been surprising because he's a constitutional lawyer, he knows how courts work, how important they are. It seemed like an easy bone to throw to his base to make a mark, a lasting mark."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/06/obama-judicial-appointees_n_706590.html

Ouch, that hurts! Why didn't Jon Stewart or any of those liberal bloggers ask him about that?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Winston Churchill was one of the wisest, world leaders in the history of the planet. He warned his beloved Britain about the evils of socialism until his dying day. He was ignored.

Now that Europe and Britain are creeping towards bankruptcy, are stuck with non-productive, welfare states, and are being swamped by hordes of unskilled, uneducated immigrants, it is beginning to awake from it's druggedlike slumber.

It could be too late for Europe.

America! take heed.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 28, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Jake-
In the law, as an equitable remedy, a party with "unclean hands" is not allowed to take advantage of a bad situation that THEY themselves created.
-----------------------------------------
Maybe that's why Obama isn't nominating anyone.

Just kidding, I don't really think that guilt is driving the lack of nominations. I'm not that big of a slapee.

Here is some information I have dug up on Obama's Judicial nominees:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/judicial_confirmations.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15judicial.html?_r=3

I need to look at this more, but I don't see anything saying Nominee X was filibustered. But there appear to have been other delay tactics employed.

The thing I found interesting about the American Progress link was the success of Bush nominees. The rest of that article draws some odd conclusions. I mean how can you compare the success rates when Obama has only been in office for a short period. It's just an overly simplified analysis.

As for your question about Jon Stewart, are you serious? He also didn't ask about dozens of much more important topics. He clearly wanted to discuss the disappointment people on the left feel towards Obama and didn't stray too far from that.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3,

When I saw Bernie's original comment on Sex Ed and his follow-ups I immediately thought of Justice Ginsburg's comment re The Hyde amendment: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.""

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 28, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"Success"?! FORTY-FIVE judicial nominees were blocked, one more barely lived long enough to get confirmed, and 23 more that Bush finally just gave up on and didn't nominate. Quite a difference from Obama claiming what is happening now is UNPRECEDENTED, don't you think?

BTW: I am serious, of course -- Obama brought up FILIBUSTER REFORM twice on Jon Stewart's show and before that with the liberal bloggers -- mine are simply logical follow-up questions to that.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The DEMOCRAT leadership is ruining the party.

Here's why: It worships a Marxist, multicultural, polyglot, socialist model as it's socio-political ideal.

It has contempt for the American majority simply because it is a mostly homogenous, monolithic population of old style, yankee independents.

The leftists that pull the strings in the Democrat party desire a broken-up society of many sub-cultures and languages so that the unwashed denizens cannot get along together without the party elite acting as referees, interpretors, wise men, and enforcers of rules. Rules made up by the elite, naturally.

This stuff can be made to work in chaotic, third-world nations but not in America.

The elite, mandarins of the masses realize this and it is the main reason they want to erase America's borders. Removing our borders, especially the one to our south, is the best way to remake America into a third world bedlam.

Ripe for picking.

ObamaNation anyone??

Posted by: battleground51 | October 28, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Jake-
"Success"?! FORTY-FIVE judicial nominees were blocked, one more barely lived long enough to get confirmed, and 23 more that Bush finally just gave up on and didn't nominate. Quite a difference from Obama claiming what is happening now is UNPRECEDENTED, don't you think?
-------------------------------------------
Bush's nominees were approved at the same rate as nominees of other Presidents. So whether it's 45 or 145, the pure number is only important when it is placed in the context of the number of nominees.

In contrast, Obama's nominees are being approved at half the rate. To provide context to that, it is early in Obama's administration and he appears to be nominating fewer people which is going to impact the percent who are approved.

That said, to strictly say filibustering nominees is unprecedent is false and was also false when Republicans said the same thing a few short years ago. And, in my opinion, it is too early to say the rate of Republican filibusters is unprecedented.

As for John Stewart, I understand your point and while I think it was fine for Stewart to stick to his theme and focus, it is a fair criticism.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Which "rate" are you talking about?! Is that some total number of nominees? Because it's not for JUDICIAL nominees, that's for sure. Now, if the GOP are filibustering all of the other Czar positions, or Dawn Johnsen as the head of OLC, more power to them!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Which "rate" are you talking about?! Is that some total number of nominees? Because it's not for JUDICIAL nominees, that's for sure. Now, if the GOP are filibustering all of the other Czar positions, or Dawn Johnsen as the head of OLC, more power to them!

Posted by: JakeD2 |

--------------------------------------

The links I provided discuss only judicial nominees. I'd be happy to look at any links you have indicating the links I provided are wrong.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"I will tell you: FORTY-FIVE! That's right, the following 45 GWB nominees were all blocked by the Dems (Sen. Obama himself voted against cloture on many)..."

LOL! 45. Wow. That's pretty big number to rack up in 8 short years. I can well understand your outrage. So I guess if Republicans had blocked 97 Obama nominees in a single day, that would no doubt be even more upsetting to you, right?

Posted by: CalD | October 28, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

No, CalD, if those nominees eventually get on the federal bench anyway, it's not comparable at all -- you could also get completely silly and hold 97 cloture votes for the same nominee -- then the "rate" would go through the roof ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

To follow-up.

Here is another article:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/1023_courts_wheeler.aspx

In the article they say Bush nominated 322 judges and as you've said 45 were filibustered which is about 14% which corresponds to the 86% success rate cited in my link.

It will be interesting to see how the judicial nominees are treated during the rest of the Obama administration. So far they are being delayed more than during the early Bush administration. There is good reason to think things will be worse for Obama. The Republicans got control of Congress in 2002 which likely helped Bush, wherease Obama is going to lose several seats if not cede the majority entirely. Even if the Republicans don't get a majority, they will pick up enough seats to make more filibusters likely and harder for the Dems to break the filibusters.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Of course things will be "worse" for Obama! That's how MOST right-thinking Americans want it. My point, as to judicial nominees at least, was that the complete blocking GWB's 45 (not to mention additional 23 that were given up on) is WAY WORSE than Obama's 13 (and that's just so far, as you've noted, in one term -- God forbid he gets another term -- which is not even over yet, so it's really unfair to compare stats yet).

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

It's also not fair to COMBINE statistics (when the GOP controlled the Senate and confirmed 100% of GWB's nominees, with the Dems taking over and confirming hardly any of GWB's nominees).

At least I appreciate you discussing this issue in a civil manner.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 28, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Of course things will be "worse" for Obama! That's how MOST right-thinking Americans want it. My point, as to judicial nominees at least, was that the complete blocking GWB's 45 (not to mention additional 23 that were given up on) is WAY WORSE than Obama's 13 (and that's just so far, as you've noted, in one term -- God forbid he gets another term -- which is not even over yet, so it's really unfair to compare stats yet).

Posted by: JakeD2
----------------------------------------
Well, 13 in two years is a higher rate (13 X 4 = 52)than 45 in 8 years, so you are simply wrong. And that's ignoring the fact that Obama hasn't nominated very many judges.

Now if you take the rate at which Obama's nominees are being approved (44%)and extrapolate that out over 8 years and assume that he nominates as many as Bush (322), you would get about 180 blocked nominees. And you want it to be even more difficult. Given all that, unprecedented would seem to apply.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 2:35 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