Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* It appears that Senate Democrats may be laying the groundwork to accept the idea that temporarily extending the Bush tax for the rich constitutes some kind of compromise.

* E.J. Dionne urges Dems not to consume themselves in an intra-party battle over last night's results, and counsels them to save their energy for the real war to come.

* Setting the record straight: Most of the House Dems who voted against health reform also lost.

* Tea Party in the House! Brian Beutler reports that Michele Bachmann, who has her own national Tea Party base, is now making some noises about running for a GOP leadership slot, the House GOP Conference chair.

Bachmann says the post needs a real conservative. And yet she's challenging Rep Jeb Hensarling, who in many ways is more conservative than she is, which suggests this is more of a self-aggrandizing stunt than anything else. Because she can!

* Smellin' more blood: Erick Erickson has already announced his target list of moderate Senate Republicans that will be in the Tea Party's crosshairs in 2012.

* Ross Douthat reminds euphoric conservatives that Dems got a whole lot done that they really, really hate, and that it isn't getting undone all that easily.

* Michael Scherer says Obama, by describing last night's losses as a "shellacking," was just tossing some red meat to a press corps hungry to see Obama talk about what a loser he is.

* Mike Tomasky urges Obama to understand that he has no choice but to play hardball.

* Ezra Klein wonders how many House seats Dems would have to lose in order to make it no longer worthwhile to extend health care to 32 million Americans.

* Paul Krugman blames the professional center.

* Is the real problem the White House chain of command?

* Oddly enough, it turns out that the position that pretty much everything the Federal government does is unconstitutional is not much of an asset for candidates for higher Federal office.

* And a quick note to readers: The Morning Plum will resume tomorrow at the usual time, because I know how empty your lives have been without it.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | November 3, 2010; 5:44 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Happy Hour Roundup, House Dems, House GOPers, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Orrin Hatch, on whether he sees wiggle room on Bush tax cuts: "No, I don't."
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

When will the democrats realize they are their to represent the people - not constantly sacrifice what the people want for their own gain.

The immigration issue is a case in point, the democrats are more interested in whether the immigrants will vote for them, than what is BEST for the nation - and whether there are enough jobs for the millions of illegals and their children.


We saw this with health care and the Iraq War - the democrats seem to be more motivated by some desire for electorial advantage - rather than what is best for the nation.


The American People are sick of it - competely.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

When will the democrats realize they are their to represent the people - not constantly sacrifice what the people want for their own gain.

The immigration issue is a case in point, the democrats are more interested in whether the immigrants will vote for them, than what is BEST for the nation - and whether there are enough jobs for the millions of illegals and their children.


We saw this with health care and the Iraq War - the democrats seem to be more motivated by some desire for electorial advantage - rather than what is best for the nation.


The American People are sick of it - competely.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

"Bizarro world as Gallup finds that a plurality thinks the number one priority for the new Congress should be passing another economic stimulus package to create jobs."

Not at all, we knew we were never serious about cutting the budget. Was that even an issue? Who cares, that was a long time ago.

Who is more predictable Ross Douthat or Paul Krugman? ....sorry I fell asleep...where am I?

Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"It appears that Senate Democrats may be laying the groundwork to accept the idea that temporarily extending the Bush tax for the rich constitutes some kind of compromise."

I'm shocked, socked that Democrats consider capitulation compromise. Um, no I'm not. This was preordained when the Dems wouldn't bring a tax vote before the election. Cowards still.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is culpable here, as well – and the Democrats generally. From the president down, they never – against the right-populist onslaught – defended their idea of what society should look like. Split between their centrist and liberal wings, they saw the lightning on the horizon and ran for cover"

Tomasky nails it.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

And so does Krugman:

"So, we’re already getting the expected punditry: Obama needs to end his leftist policies, which consist of … well, there weren’t any, but he should stop them anyway. What actually happened, of course, was that Obama failed to do enough to boost the economy, plus totally failing to tap into populist outrage at Wall Street. And now we’re in the trap I worried about from the beginning: by failing to do enough when he had political capital, he lost that capital, and now we’re stuck. But he did have help in getting it wrong: at every stage there was a faction of Democrats standing in the way of strong action, demanding that Obama do less, avoid spending money, and so on. In so doing, they shot themselves in the face: half of the Blue Dogs lost their seats. And what are those who are left demanding? Why, that Obama move to the center."

Insanity is ...

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm still trying to figure out what role the Bush Tax Cuts played in the decline of private sector jobs by 673,000 and the increase of government jobs by 1,803,000 during the Bush years.

And does anyone think that just maybe Boehner, McConnell, Hatch et al are returning favors to the CofC, Rove's un-named donors, or the Koch brothers by pushing the non-jobs producing tax cuts?

Also,I always like to look to Ed Kilgore when Dems take a "shellacking". :)

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

"Finally, something must be said about the electorate that produced these results. According to national exit polls, 2010 voters broke almost evenly in terms of their 2008 presidential votes; indeed, given the normal tendency of voters to "misremember" past ballots as being in favor of the winner, this may have been an electorate that would have made John McCain president by a significant margin. Voters under 30 dropped from 18% of the electorate to 11%; African-Americans from 13% to 10%, and Hispanics from 9% to 8%. Meanwhile, voters over 65, the one age category carried by John McCain, increased from 16% of the electorate to 23%.

These are all normal midterm numbers. But because of the unusual alignment of voters by age and race in 2008, they produced a very different outcome, independently of any changes in public opinion. Indeed, sorting out the "structural" from the "discretionary" factors in 2008-2010 trends will be one of the most important tasks of post-election analysis, since the 2012 electorate will be much closer to that of 2008. That's also true of the factor we will hear most about in post-election talk: the "swing" of independents from favoring Obama decisively in 2008 to favoring Republicans decisively this year. Are these the same people (short answer: not as much as you'd think), or a significantly different group of voters who happened to self-identify as independents and turned out to vote?"

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/11/a_wave_with_an_undertow_but_no.php

Posted by: lmsinca | November 3, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

The primary concern of the democrats should be what the people want - not forcing their agenda onto the people.

The democrats have become such a disperse coalition of special interests - gays, blacks, liberal women, hispanic and insane environmental groups - that the democrats have LOST ALL SIGHT of the American People and what they want.

The democratic coalition has isolated itself from the American People - and they get further isolated from talking to themselves and squabbling with themselves.

Look at the map -

The democrats are isolated in little tiny densely populated districts on the coasts. the situation does not look promising.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Greg, I just can't get regular without my Morning Plum.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 3, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I could see a deal where Democrats agree to extend all the tax cuts for a couple of years and the Republicans agree to an infrastructure spending bill in return.

Posted by: sold2u | November 3, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Recall way back when the Democrats were in control of both political branches and were urged, begged, cajoled and threatened by the Left to do everything they could then because it wouldn't last. But the Liberals were rebuffed by the Republicrats who thought it politically prudent to do less. For those keeping score at home, that didn't work either politically or policy-wise.

Allow me to summarize: F**CK THE REPUBLICRATS!

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Because I know you are all anxious for results, I'll just let you know that about 7 percent of ballots remain to be counted in the Oregon gubernatorial race. The Republican (and former NBA player), Chris Dudley, leads Democrat John Kitzhaber by about 11,000 votes. But most of the remaining ballots are in Multnomah County (Portland), where Kitzhaber is getting about 70% of the vote, and the math (admittedly a liberal discipline) indicates Kitzhaber will win by somewhere in the 7,000 to 11,000 vote range.

In the highly unlikely event the race ends up tied, the next Governor will be selected through a free throw contest, which strongly favors the Democrat, Kithaber. (For those who never suffered watching Dudley play basketball, he was a career 45% shooter from the free throw line).

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 3, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

With all due respect wbgonne, you're getting pretty wearisome. I don't think there's much air at all between our politics, but I really find it impossibly difficult to keep reading you bang that drum, because I tend to loath ideologues of all political colors. Yes- I wish we could have been more liberal and reached for that brass ring, but the truth of the matter is, that's not possible. Should we have bent over backwards for the Republicrats like we did? By no means, they should have met us halfway. It ties into what ashotinthedark and I were discussing in the last thread- everyone needs to treat this like a bargaining table, not a hostage situation.

I've spent a lot of time throwing around my fair share of political invective in recent years, and I'm finally understanding- it isn't what we need, and it is eminently possible to keep the right, center, an left happy in this country, if everyone would just take the gun away from their temple and work it out like the civilized human beings that we should expect our politicians to be.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | November 3, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

bear, I sure as hell hope Kitz gets those votes and wins. When we were in OR in August I couldn't believe the idiotic and mediocre NBAer had the gall to even run for Guv.

Hope you dodge that slow white bullet.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 3, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Credit for the Economic Stimulus and Economic programs


Obama has been running around the country attempting to salvage some credit for the economic programs.

However, Obama's attitude over the past two years has been that he HAD to do the work on the economy, and he was FORCED to divert his attention from what he really wanted to do.

The American People give Obama ZERO CREDIT for doing what he was forced to do, what he seems to appear that he didn't WANT to do.

It is the deflation that Obama gets for his arrogance.

I sense that the American People are going to have the same attitude towards Obama when he finally does compromise with the Republicans Obama will get ZERO credit again - because Obama is being FORCED to do it by the voters.

And if Obama drags his feet, and does it grudgingly, Obama will get even less credit, perhaps even get hurt by the process.

Obama is not Clinton - to force a showdown and think that Obama is going to come out on top is just not going to work.

Besides, the Republicans are studying the same 95 showdown - and they are brushing up on what they believe may have been their strategies.

It's like a football game between two teams - if the two teams play again, the game is completely different because both teams made adjustments based on the first game.

Obama is confused.

Obama would be wise to make major concessions on the health care bill right away - and get that issue off the table and disspell some of the public's anger.


Obama apparently doesn't get it. Actions only matter now - and no one will tolerate Obama being disingenuous or lying or playing games.

The American People have spoken, the Republicans have the MANDATE.

Obama is a lame duck UNTIL HE CAN PROVE OTHERWISE.


.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne refuses to have a civil discussion with Republicans.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 3, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne

What is the score we are supposed to have at home right now? I just want to check if I've got it right.


.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Did anybody notice how Californian's DID NOT BLINK in this election? They did not lose HOPE and FAITH in their State or this Country, even though unemployment is third highest in the nation. They refused to elect two former corporate CEO's as Governor and Senator. They did not succumb to the millions of corporate money, identified and not identified, that fueled the election ads on one side. Notice how Democrats and Republicans there refused to allow Texas oil companies to gut their revolutionary climate law via Prop. 23: it lost by 61%!

Posted by: dozas | November 3, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

BG,

Dudley is what we would call here a "pro-business moderate." In other words, the only two things he proposed were (1) cut the state's capital gains tax rate; and (2) provide full scholarships at state universities for any student graduating with a 3.5 GPA. For a state with a projected $3.2 billion budget shortfall, he never explained how to pay for either proposal.

If he hadn't played for the Trailblazers, he never would have made it past the primaries. A mediocre NBA player is what passes for "star power" in Oregon politics.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 3, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

dozas: MA too. Solid finish for Dems.

And FL elected a criminal as Guv. What a shockeroo.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 3, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama has lost the mandate which he claimed to have - but never did.

The result is that Obama is a lame duck - until he proves otherwise.

Obama can not get any legislation done until the Republicans in the House agree first. Obama simply just doesn't get it.

Simple.

Obama's Presidency is over - unless Obama can PROVE his relevance by compromising significantly - and by REPRESENTING WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.

And that is NOT Obama's agenda.

Representing the American People means being THEIR Representatives - Serving in Washington to do what the people want.

This agenda stuff is yesterday - it has been completely rejected by the People.

If Obama continues with the attitude he had today - he will be voted out with another lot of democrats in two years.


Obama has NO MANDATE - he is a LAME DUCK

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

holyhandgrenaid:

I disagree with you. Civility, while nice, is vastly overrated. The Republicans don't care how nice Obama is. They are trying to crush him. The Republicrats decided early on that they could roll Obama and they did over and again. I, for one, would be thrilled to see or hear some feeling coming from Democrats like it does non-stop from Republicans. I would love to hear Democrats standing up and defending Liberalism the way the GOP does Conservatism. In fact, those deficiencies explain why the Democrats just got clobbered. Which brings me to the more important point: substance.

If you are counseling a further Rightward move by the Democrats in the name of "compromise," then I vehemently disagree and you can depend on me to say so whenever I am here. As for the utility of looking back to learn why things went wrong for the Dems I'll just say this: those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it. The Republicrats are a cancer on the Democratic Party, at least so long as the party is utterly lacking in discipline. And the Democratic Party is a failure because it both lacks discipline and because it doesn't have a coherent animating philosophy.

All that said, if you don't like my comments just skip them. No harm no foul.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

dozas Re: California


California's budget is a major disaster - and the government is completely disfuntional.

The unions have jammed-packed the State, county and local budgets with expensive contracts.

The State couldn't pay its bills and started sending out IOUS


AND you think it's good that the voters voted for more of the same? It's a hole, and they haven't done anything but vote to go deeper in the same hole.

The democrats are DESTROYING THE PLACE.

.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

"Setting the record straight: Most of the House Dems who voted against health reform also lost."
---------------------------------------------

What's your point? Either they voted against it with their leadership's blessing because they're from districts where it was certain to be a political liability, or they voted against it because like many of the folks back in their home districts, they were personally opposed to the legislation themselves.

Either way, it should come as no surprise to anyone that when you push against a system that big it pushes back or that in a tough year for Democrats, Democrats from the most conservative districts tend to take the brunt of the blast. But if you really feel that strongly that you know more about this stuff than they do (or did), I guess there's really nothing stopping you from moving to the Midwest, running for Congress yourself and showing them all how a real man does it.

And if you're reading the Politico, that's really no one's fault but your own.

Posted by: CalD | November 3, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Progressive Caucus now bigger than the Blue Dog Caucus?

Is this right?

Yummy.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 3, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

"Setting the record straight: Most of the House Dems who voted against health reform also lost."

______________________________


Because they knew they would lose worse, by voting for health care -

And who would - knowing they were facing a tough election - would want to make their path more difficult?

This point makes zero sense. The logic of the far left has become so pathetic it must be considered more delusion than logic.

.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

"Oddly enough, it turns out that the position that pretty much everything the Federal government does is unconstitutional..."

...is a position adopted by virtually no one.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 3, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

MessageMachine: re: California

Out there, when things can't be any worse, when chaos seems to reign, they still believe in People, solutions, and not giving up. Californians and other progressive States will lead the way out of this economic morass.

You gotta believe, baby: just look at the example of those 2010 World Series Champions, the San Francisco Giants. In June, they were 7 1/2 games out of first. They won their division on the last day of the season. They showed the kind of spirt and grit that Californians are known for. I believe in those folks, out there. They will show us "the way."

Posted by: dozas | November 3, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"And the Democratic Party...doesn't have a coherent animating philosophy."

Actually it's quite coherent, just deadlousy at animating.

Posted by: tao9 | November 3, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

shrink:

"Who is more predictable Ross Douthat or Paul Krugman? ....sorry I fell asleep...where am I?"

Getting funnier.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 3, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

BG,

Progressive Caucus was substantially larger than the Blue Dogs even before the election. But now Progressive Caucus is larger than Blue Dogs and New Democrats combined. Only 5% of Dem House seats lost were Progressive, whereas 45% were Blue Dogs.

I don't think that necessarily proves anything about whose agenda is better. IMO it reflects the demographics of the congressional districts. My liberal Democratic congresscritter won with about 72% of the vote, but this is a very liberal district.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 3, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

"Actually it's quite coherent"

Really? What is it?

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

It's been interesting to read some of the post-elections comments.

----------------------
bernie latham wrote,
"This will be my final week as a regular poster here so might as well let it hang."

Does this mean Bernie is a paid liberal shill? The election's over, so he's going to make himself scarce---at least until the next election cycle.
-------

bernielatham also wrote,
"'Voters in Iowa chose to remove three high court justices who helped make Iowa the first Midwestern state to permit same-sex marriage.'
"Because the only proper function of American courts and jurisprudence is to ensure that all fall under and abide by unquestionable Biblical Law."

A total crock, like most of Bernie's screeds. It's not the business of judges to "permit same-sex marriage." This wasn't a matter of civil rights. Civil unions are not the issue; a redefinition of marriage is the issue. Iowa law (Defense of Marriage Act) defined marriage as between a man and a woman. I'm fairly sure that "unquestionable Biblical Law" was not listed as the basis of the Iowa law.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act "was passed by Congress by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House of Representatives and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996."

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments dealt with the abolition of slavery; the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote. Do you know how hard it is to amend the Constitution? You want gay marriage? Sell the public on the idea first.

The Iowa decision came from the same murky rat hole of interpretated law that once produced a federal decision saying the Constitution provides no more rights for a viable unborn child than for a boil on a woman's arse.

The Iowa judges got what they deserved. That's why their names were on the ballot. What is there about phrases such as "we the people" and "consent of the governed" that causes liberals so much trouble.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"dozas: MA too. Solid finish for Dems.

And FL elected a criminal as Guv. What a shockeroo."

Hmm. MA elected a criminal to the Senate for 40 years.

But I'm not aware of Rick Scott's having a criminal record. Not that facts matter more than your opinions.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 3, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

tao:

I have to run but I'll check tomorrow should you care to respond.

Night, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 3, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticstill wrote,
"Is there any chance the House GOP has any plan whatsoever to move the country forward or will they simply move forward with their stated plan to ensure the demise of President Obama?"
--------

Fortunately for the country, these two goals are not mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

qb, that's hilarious.

I love your act.

Was it hard to cut the holes in the paper bag?

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 3, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne wrote,
"the GOP's multi-decade Southern Strategy, which is designed to use wedge social issues to get working Americans to vote against their own economic interest."

pragmaticstill wrote,
"a majority of Americans have come to believe in the motto - "I got mine - eff the rest of you."
-------

Hmmmm. Two liberal minds working overtime and coming to opposite conclusions. No wonder the country's in disarray. Which is it now: Are the majority of Americans selfish and concerned only with their own self interest? Or are they voting against their own economic self interest?

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

Great stuff.

I'm not normally a big fan of electing judges, because I've seen the soft and hard corruption, and the reign of mediocrity and error, to which it normallly leads. But seeing the Iowa usurpers get the voters' veto gives me reason to see its advantages.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 3, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Question:

What the over/under in days before some pol says "Elections have consequences"?

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 3, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

This from wbgonne:
"'The more we educate Americans, the more they know, and the less likely they are to fall under the spell of the conservative corporate agenda.'
"Which is precisely why the GOP hates teachers and higher learning."
-------

A genuine howler. All of those uneducated and under educated folks in the inner city are such a reliable GOP voting bloc that if we educate them and help them become successful they'll surely switch parties. LOL.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

"Ross Douthat reminds euphoric conservatives that Dems got a whole lot done that they really, really hate, and that it isn't getting undone all that easily."
----------------------------------------------

Nice to know that ~someone~ appreciates the accomplishments of the 111th congress -- even if that someone does happen to be a complete douthat.

Posted by: CalD | November 3, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

The only bad news today is the fed trying to import inflation. They think we are going to be Japan, the steadily staggering giant, never what it was, but always trying. Workers sleeping in little coffin motels, rural villages abandoned...

Glad we are all happy and optimistic, we have to turn those fed frowns upside down.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

"qb, that's hilarious.

I love your act.

Was it hard to cut the holes in the paper bag?"

It was kind of humorous how I pointed out the ironic error in your statement. But I wouldn't say hilarious.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 3, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Brigade:

"Which is it now: Are the majority of Americans selfish and concerned only with their own self interest? Or are they voting against their own economic self interest?"

Both! They are only concerned with their own self interest (the greedy bastards!), but they've been jedi-mind tricked (the stupid idiots!) by the secret Rove/Kristol right-wing propaganda conspiracy axis into thinking that their interests are aligned with the Corporate Interests of the Plutocrats and Oligarchs.

Or something.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 3, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

cao091402 wrote,
"I look forward to seeing where the first serious spending cuts are proposed by the House GOP. I should probably get comfortable because they're(sic) won't be any."
-------

I wouldn't bet the farm on that. However, I would bet that when cuts are proposed, Dems will oppose them, screaming to high heaven how mean and heartless Republicans are to propose the cuts. And you'll be right down on your knees singing in tune with them.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Shrink

You are wrong again

The US is at the peak of its power - we won the Cold War and no one is even close to us.

It is the democrats who do not appreciate that - and who are wasting the advantages

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"Really? What is it?"

Well, you were speaking of philosophies, not platforms, or policy...so here goes-- two main categories:

Equality (Which is impossible.)

Progress (An eternal chase for something no one can identify. Like a train without a terminal.)

Now lately, the new black is Change (see Progress, above).

And Hope. (Stealing a base from St. Paul is not progress, it's conservative. And also understood as overtly religious or spiritual, which must confuse the Hell out of a lot of ya'll.)

As for coherent Dem policy: I've lived my entire adult life in MA and NY. As far as I can see, it's take money from me that would vastly improve my and my family's life on the margin, and give it to govt employees, rent seeking bizzes that are friendly (wink), and then with the very little $$$ left aid those in society that may need assistance of some sort, that assistance being rendered, more often than not, cynically and incompetently by the govt employees cited above.

NY, MA and CA all just rejected Progress by RE-electing everyone presently in power or electing Dem clones, thereby assuring a 47-state economic recovery.

Here's the good news: all three states will be bankrupt by mid-decade.

Train's a comin".

Posted by: tao9 | November 3, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

So join the prediction contest. What will the GOP propose in the near future. So far, we seem to have a consensus that extending the tax cuts indefinitely is probably #1. What's #2?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Brigade:

"A genuine howler."

I wonder if the fiction he wrote in his book is any more coherent and believable than the fiction he writes here.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 3, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

"So join the prediction contest."

OK.

Bruins will score three goals on the Buffalosers in the first period.

{{{Jeopardy muzik}}}

OMG! I was right!

Posted by: tao9 | November 3, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

tomtildrum wrote,
"As long as we're talking race-baiting, it seems worth noting that the GOP elected African-American Congressmen in Florida and South Carolina, an Indian-American governor in South Carolina (to go with the one in Louisiana), a Latino senator in Florida, and a Latino governor in New Mexico."
--------

This is a preview of the future horror which awaits the Democratic party. As the years pass and whites become the minority, liberals seem to believe that most of the non-whites will be content to live on government handouts and hate whitey. However, the non-whites are likely to have the same dreams and aspirations as the whites, and as the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world pass on to their just rewards, the country will reject the race-baiting of poverty pimps.

We had one commenter at the Fix who continually railed against Nikki Haley and insisted on calling her by her "real" name. His unwavering belief was that when those South Carolina Republican racists figured out what color she was and her ancestry ... well, they might lynch her, but they certainly wouldn't vote for her.
Times are changing, folks.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Where do you suppose Obama was on election day in 1994 -

He appears that Obama knows nothing of what happened that year - the result of what he had been doing all winter and spring was CLEAR TO EVERYONE -

And yet Obama plunged ahead - seemingly completely unaware of what was going to happen.


We hears all sorts of boasting and insistence that what happened yesterday would not happen.


Can anyone explain the boneheadedness of it all ?

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, as an investor, and one who might want to revisit my asset allocations, I am interested in knowing what you all think the GOP's agenda will be. What kind of cuts will they propose? Will they try to repeal which laws?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Are there any liberals willing to look at reality? Illinois, New York and California have horrible budget problems and disfunctional governments.

Instead of cures, the democrats in those states chose to ignore the problems and vote for more of the same - amazing.


It is amazing - what democrats have any idea what to do about the financial problems in the 3 largest democratic states?

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

@12BB

investment changes with GOP.

less aid to states / local governments. go thru your muni portfolio with a fine tooth comb.

Posted by: sold2u | November 3, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Was it worth it?

Obama treated his majorities in the Congress as if he was going to lose them anyway .... soon.

Obama always treated his majorities as if they were temporary - that they had to be CASHED IN IMMEDIATELY.


One thing is certain about what happened yesterday: Obama chose to take the loss.


Many pols would be saying that the democrats should have acted more carefully to preserve their majorities -

Other courses were available. But it is significant that Obama always felt that the democrats were going to lose their majorities anyway. Maybe people disagree.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

@sold2u,

Very good. I only have equities so I don't think that they would be involved. Well, I'll have to think through each one.

I do have some clean technology stocks, especially clean water. Any thoughts?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

So join the prediction contest. What will the GOP propose in the near future. So far, we seem to have a consensus that extending the tax cuts indefinitely is probably #1. What's #2?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 7:49 PM
---------

I have no idea what number 2 will be. I suspect a repeal of some of the burdensome reporting requirements of HCR will be on the table. Obama has suggested a willingness to cooperate there.

This afternoon you posted, "I'm an investor, so I'm always interested in predicting the broad strokes over the next couple of years."

I'm not much of a prognosticator---I recall predicting a few months ago that Dems would hold the House by a slim margin---but I was going to suggest you try to find Mike Brooks. He had a number of predictions you might find useful. Most of them would lead you to convert to gold and precious gems and hide it somewhere. Also, buy a gun and learn to use it.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

What happened to broadwayjoe? I know he was eating crow all week - but where is that guy?

All his false charges of racism ending up hurting Obama.

Last week, there were eight bloggers who visited the White House - one was this really, really fat guy - I wondered if it was broadwayjoe.


.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

12bb,

You seriously expect people to believe that you are an investor who looks to a comment board for advice about what the GOP will do first? Over the short time you've been here, I've completely stopped taking this stuff from you seriously.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 3, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

@lawyer long nose,

Just ignore me. Please.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

quarterback

If she was really looking for investment ideas, why would she go to a politics board? Why wouldn't she go to a financial website - or a finance board?

12Bar is completely off her rocker.


Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

@12BB

Don't really have much on the cleantech stocks other than I like the secular story.

Posted by: sold2u | November 3, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

MessageMachine wrote,

"What happened to broadwayjoe? I know he was eating crow all week - but where is that guy?"
---------

He's the one who was always ragging on Nikki Haley. I don't think he's ever posted here, but he was one of those who quit the Fix after the format change.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

Mike Brooks? You forget--I know who Mike Brooks is. Maybe I'll look up scrivener while I'm at it, just in case there are opportunities in the cell tower torture industry. Bwahahaha!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat wrote,
"According to a Bloomberg poll, 80% of voters want Dems and Repubs to work together - even if it means compromising some of their principles to get things done."
------

Maybe so. I hope you're not suggesting that 80% of voters want to follow the agenda of the past two years. I don't read the election results that way at all.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

@sold2u,

I've been buying some cleantechs for a while, on long term technical buy signals. So far, so good. They tend to be smallish companies though. Guess I better think through each one of them, looking for the link to government support.

Thanks for your generous response.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are going to do this: Specific tax cuts for job creation - tied directly to creating jobs.

Reagan had his investment tax credits.

That may or may not make sense. First the investment tax credits encouraged borrowing for machinery. That - in the 1980s economy - tended to create jobs.

That dynamic may not be as true in this economy, and the banks might not be as willing to loan.

So perhaps the tax incentives should be tied directly to hiring.


________________________


Look for some massive cuts. An immediate end to the stimulus and the wasting of that money.

Inflation is coming.

__________________________________


sold2u - the big deal of the day is the Fed wants to buy bonds. Those bonds will increase in value.

Inflation is coming. There is a concern the Fed will have difficulty putting a brake on the inflation it does unleash.

_______________________


Stimulus used to work because additional factory orders led to immediate additional hiring. Not in this Free Trade Economy.

So, we need an Economic strategy tied directly to the kind of Economy we have now

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Brigade writes to 12Bar :

---but I was going to suggest you try to find Mike Brooks. He had a number of predictions you might find useful. Most of them would lead you to convert to gold and precious gems and hide it somewhere. Also, buy a gun and learn to use it.


______________________________

But only on herself.

.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

'They say white blue collar voters surged for the GOP. Anyone have any idea what the GOP is going to do for the white blue collar voter?'

I'll take that one. Nothing. No, less than nothing. The GOP uses white blue collar workers as corporate cannon fodder. Destroy the unions so corporations can treat workers however they want. Outsource jobs to China and India so American workers can't work but corporations make bigger profits. Undermine government regulation because that protects the American worker. Shameless is the only word.

Posted by wbgonne | November 3, 2010
-------

I guess that's another way of saying they voted against their own self interest. LOL. Those blasted wedge social issues!
Shameless is definitely the only word for your idiotic post.

I'm wondering about the black blue collar voters. After four years of Democratic control of Congress, what exactly is the unemployment rate for black blue collar workers? I'd say they're the ones voting against their own self interest.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Many of the liberals were basically silly about the election yesterday.


For two years these same liberals have been willfully fooling themselves about the meaning of the 2008 election. At every turn, these liberals would argue and refuse to consider any Conservative who advanced any idea which countered their thinking.

For the past six months, all we heard was that the American People would forget about the health care bill by the election and everything would be fine for the democrats by the election.

The arrogance of False Charges of Racism - the intimidataion tactics have been shameful and a disgrace to this nation.


NOW, it is clear that Obama NEVER had a mandate for a left agenda. It was all a bunch of crap - and anyone who said differently immediately risked being called a racist.

Nice.


The entire episode was ridiculous - the intimidation tactic of False Charge of Racism were basically anti-Free Speech and unAmerican at their core.


NOW Obama has no mandate. All the crap that he and the liberals have been pushing like drug dealers for the past two years has been exposed to be just that - a pile of crap.


.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

MikefromArlington wrote (re the GOP):
"They'll continue to avoid getting pigeonholed into a corner at all costs by not taking on a true cost cutting agenda that would make this country fiscally sound."
-------

Unlike the Dems who have made "true cost cutting" high on their priority list?

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

12 barblues:

It may not work for you, but I would say on any pull back buy commodities, especially the ones favored by the Chinese like copper. You really can't go wrong on oil, but $85 might be a bit high for now. If you are a buy and hold person financials make terrific sense, but don't expect them to move up significantly for at least 6 months.

The Fed has GUARANTEED you inflation, they're trying their darndest to create it. Act accordingly and watch CNBC for at least 30 minutes a day weekdays. Doesn't matter when but Fast Money is usually good.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 3, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

12BB, I predict the GOP passes a robust stimulus plan in 2011. Obviously not at the start, but after the initial furor dies down. I think they realize this is the best way to improve the job situation and their hopes in 2012 and the future lie on being able to take credit for improving the economy.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 3, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1 wrote,
"Rep Issa has said that impeachment is off the table. But count on investigations of ACORN (even though it is bankrupt), the New Black Panthers (both of them, but especially the guy on the left in the photo), and lots of other 'red meat' topics for Beckian Base."
-------

Now there's a novel thought: Actually investigate those who may have done something wrong. As opposed to being put in the dock by Handsome Henry Waxman for suggesting that HCR might cause your business's healthcare costs to rise.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

12bar,

My guess is that some state's bonds are going to have a pretty good return in the near future, though I'm not to sure on their "risk". I'd look to California, New York and Illinois in the next year or so. Short term bonds would probably be advisable though. Why don't you transfer me half of your portfolio so we can "dive" right in?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 3, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

54464447

The clean energy companies benefitted from the stimulus - all that is now over - dump all those stocks.


____________________________________


Take a look at the election map - it is ALL RED -

Take a look at the slivers of blue left - the blue states of Illinois, California and New York are on the verge of financial disaster.


The voters in these states REFUSED to vote to change course and save the credit ratings of their states - the democrats have destroyed the health of these States - and when the EXPLOSION comes, the democrats will take the blame.

That day is coming soon. Where will the democrats be then??? Practically every state they control they have destroyed financially.

The governments in these states barely function - and they delay paying their bills.

WHAT part of JOB PERFORMANCE do the voters in these states not understand???


The democratic party has been destroyed - the remaining large States they are all VIRTUALLY BANKRUPT - the democrats are finished.

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

Obama is up there today - instead of realizing he has no mandate - he says "If the Republicans have any ideas, I'll think about them and maybe include them"


DID anyone tell Obama there was an election and he lost control of things?'

The House is going to write the budget, not Obama.

WHAT A COMPLETE FOOL.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

@numbers,

Actually, I wasn't asking so much for investment ideas, as for the GOP agenda. BTW, I have traded commodities, and did ok financially, but the strain is unbelievable. The only thing worse than losing money fast is making money fast. Or vice versa. I was buying oil at 12 and rode those contracts until I thought my broker and I both would have heart failure.

Do you think the financial instituions have written down their bad debts completely? I'm fairly sure another wave of foreclosures will wash through, but the question is whether the banks are already reserved.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Well, Dingy Harry is safe for another six years. Since there are enough conservative Dems in the Senate to cooperate with Republicans, look for Dingy Harry to protect liberals from having to filibuster---and Obama from having to veto---by carefully keeping Republican sponsored legislation from the floor.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

12BB, I predict the GOP passes a robust stimulus plan in 2011.
-----------------------------
@ddawd,

A thoughtful idea.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

@troll,

Thanks for the ideas. Why don't you invest and I'll go to school on you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Anybody else think that ddawd is right and the GOP will introduce a stimulus bill in 2011?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama is up there today - instead of realizing he has no mandate - he says "If the Republicans have any ideas, I'll think about them and maybe include them"

DID anyone tell Obama there was an election and he lost control of things?'

_________________________________


Is there anyone in the democratic party with the stature to go into Obama and tell him "It is OVER"

After Bush and the Iraqi War, the democrats could have governed for 12 years - and Obama destroyed all that so it has been 2.

Obama is about to destroy what the democrats have left. Who in the democratic party can stop him?

Nancy Pelosi never stopped Obama from health care. Harry Reid is so up to his ... in casino unions that he won't stop Obama from anything.

Who in the democratic party can go into Obama and say "It's OVER - you have to go"


Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

"12BB, I predict the GOP passes a robust stimulus plan in 2011.
-----------------------------
@ddawd,

A thoughtful idea.

Posted by: 12BarBlues"

Just look at how the GOP acts when they are in power. They actually tend to veer towards progressive ideas, not conservative ideas. Bush and the GOP expanded the Federal government every year they were in power.

The problem is that they tend to pursue regressive policies behind the scenes. Examples being weaking regulatory agencies leading to the economic collapse or watchdog agencies leading to the BP oil spill.

This is the exact opposite of how you'd expect a ruling party to act if they felt that the citizenry was truly center-right. They would make the shrink government, make the dismantling front and center, and things like the Iraq War, No-Child LB, Medicare Part D don't stand a chance of making it to the floor.

GOP will pass stimulus. Possibly they will try to do it behind the scenes, but they will do it. This is less a prediction and more a certainty.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 3, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

12Bar,

The GOP stimulus? Tax cuts. They will call that "stimulus."

And as I mentioned earlier today, they will propose legislation to increase American competitiveness:

(1) Declare pi to be 3, which will improve our geometry scores.

(2) Repeal Newton's Laws of Motion; mostly, they are a drag on our economy.

(3) Refudiate heliocentrism; American exceptionalism obviously requires that everything revolve around us.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 3, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

So incidentally, at least as it stands, if Murkowski has 83% of the writeins, she will be tied with Miller (only 78% reported, though)

Anyone think this is plausible?

Posted by: DDAWD | November 3, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama has way too many racial metaphors in his speeches.

It's a real problem

_____________________________


What kind of person would go up in front of a crowd and demand the other party has "ride in the back?"

And says we will "punish our enemies"

I think that Jim Crow damaged Obama dramatically - despite Obama's age and the fact that Jim Crow was over by the time Obama got back from Indonesia.


There is just too much Jim Crow images in Obama's world view.


I don't understand someone who would clearly state that the other party are people who should be treated as second-class citizens - and as people who shouldbe "punished"

This attitude extend to Obama's lack of bipartisanship.

Obama says "Give me your ideas and I will decide if we throw them in" - "if you have any" - the entire attitude is absolutely ridiculous.

It is an overriding sense that Obama acts and talks like the "rules don't apply to him" - To Obama, tradition means nothing. Instead of breaking tradition, Obama acts like an unkept bum off the street who doesn't know any better.


Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

"12Bar,

The GOP stimulus? Tax cuts. They will call that "stimulus." "

Yeah, tax cuts are stimulus. Just terrible stimulus.

I think they will pass meaningful stimulus. Infrastructure projects and such. They are going to need to show some results, and I think even they know that tax cuts alone aren't going to do it. Deficits only matter when Democrats are in charge, so that's not going to be an issue.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 3, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

@ddawd,

Your prediction about a stimulus has the ring of truth to it. I'm going to look at the usual suspects for infrastructure building. Even if the GOP doesn't do it, it doesn't mean the market won't anticipate it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

ALL,

The first thing that has to get done is an extension of unemployment - by December. So there will be a lame duck Congress - and the democrats will try to pass some things just to clean up things.

The democrats will be limited by the election - and the filibuster - but some things can pass.


Boehner comes in in January. We have yet to hear if Pelosi will stay or go.

You can anticipate 10 - 15 democrats leaving the House. Going from the majority to the minority doesn't sit well with many - and they will be looking to be lobbyists or to take advantage of Obama's two years somehow.

_____________________-


Nancy Pelosi never finished the budget - that has to be passed somehow someway.

Aside from that, it doesn't appear that Obama is in the mood for any compromises.


IT'S SCHOOL UNIFORMS FOR OBAMA NOW.


.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama, show some respect. You spent two years offending Americans - and this is your news conference the day after you had your a.. handed to you?

Obama has no idea what a loss of power and the lack of influence the election has brought about.

The Republicans are such under the influence of the Tea Party that the range of their potential compromise is limited.


It is on Obama - he either does what he said he was going to do in 2008, or he is a LAME DUCK and he will be out of office real fast.


It is up to Obama to change that dynamic - not anyone else - Obama has to change to save himself. At this point he is getting voted out the MINUTE the voters can.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

So incidentally, at least as it stands, if Murkowski has 83% of the writeins, she will be tied with Miller (only 78% reported, though)

Anyone think this is plausible?

Posted by: DDAWD | November 3, 2010 9:13 PM
------

Do you really care? Either one of them is going to caucus with the Republicans.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Is Murkowski definitely caucusing with the GOP? I'd assume so, but hadn't heard.

Anyone else hear Rand Paul's statement that "we all work for rich people"? Also, there is no middle class, no poor people, and so on?

Baylor must be so proud.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 3, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

"Do you really care? Either one of them is going to caucus with the Republicans.

Posted by: Brigade"

Not from a policy standpoint, but winning a writein candidacy is pretty impressive.

I kind of want Miller to win just so the press can continue to inflate the Tea Party. When all is said and done, I'd say they had a pretty lousy showing. Among the candidates that actually won, I'd say that only Rubio's win was really all that impressive to take 49% in a three way field. Maybe I'd give Paul some props, but it is Kentucky we're talking about. Given the economic depression of a centrist state like PA, a normal Republican doesn't squeak by 2 points.

But that being said, it would be cool to see a writein victory.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 3, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Brief stop by to note:

Apparently, Harry Reid manned up.

Did she give a concession speech, by the way? I can't imagine how that would have gone. She's a fire-cracker, that Sharron. There was a lady who worked in the circus...oh, never mind that. Not sure why it came to mind.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 3, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

bear, Oregonian calling the race for Kitzhaber.

Good for you all.

My friends at Portland State will be happy, methinks.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 3, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

@bernie,

Here's Mrs. Angle's concession speech, which is said to be unusual.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/harry-reid-beats-sharron-angle-nevada-concession-speech-video-2721921.html

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham, if you can find text of her speech, I'd appreciate a link. Plenty of video out there, though.

One thing that seemed to pop up was the fact that she boasted about how 80% of her $14 million fundraising came from out of Nevada.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 3, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Bernie,

Just wanted to say that I hope you aren't leaving for good; I enjoy your posts and I know I"m not the only one. Hope all is well with you.

Posted by: carolanne528 | November 3, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Kitz seems a good guy. I'd have a beer with him. He wears blue jeans, like George W. Bush did. And like Reagan did, when he was about to ride Trigger into a John Ford sunset. After shooting up a gay marriage and bringing the evil-doers to justice. You just trust a fellow like that. Need someone savory to pilot a school bus full of Norse virgins? You can rest pretty much at ease with these fellows.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 3, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

The only thing that's unusual is that she doesn't actually concede, she just doesn't quite get around to that. Guess that was a hill too high.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Not that I've heard Angle speak much, but this is actually the best speech I've heard her deliver. At least for the first 8 minutes. Then it kind of delves into partisan pandering.

But I think Angle could have made this race a lot closer if she didn't come off as a sociopath.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 3, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer need to keep their powder dry and prepare to play hardball, because it all about the next election cycle for the Republicans: Boehner and Mitch McConnell have said as much, not only prior to the election, but since then. In the next two years, Obama just needs to concentrate in completely clearing out of Iraq and Afghanistan, because nothing of substance, legislative-wise, is going to get done.

Posted by: dozas | November 3, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Out here in the Oregon Territory, we are trying to contain our enthusiasm over the glorious victory. The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees trounced the evil forces of the out of state republican funding machines. Democracy works in strange ways.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

The Tea Party has been around 2 years and it elected 3 Senators and 118 Congressmen


Impressive. totally impressive

Why don't you democrats go bankrupt another State budget?


Obama is about to go to India and run up bills equal to $200 million per day.

Obama rented 500 hotel rooms.


It is a laugh how out-of-touch he is.

IS THERE ANY WAY TO REVOKE OBAMA'S VISA WHEN HE'S IN INDIA - AND NOT LET HIM BACK IN THE COUNTRY ????


There must be some Freedom of Information Act filing request someone can do to see his passport information - we all know he is in the US on a visa, or he doesn't have a visa

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

shrink, tell your neighbors to count faster.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 3, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees????


The taxpayers pay for their health care.

For everyone else, we care about all of OBAMA'S INCREASES in the health insurance premiums.


If the union workers had to pay their own health insurance, and had to pay for Obama's increases out of their own pockets, the story would be different.


I recommend that Congress pass that law - unions pay their own health insurance - tell the unions THEY are getting Obama's bills.

That would cause health care to die INSTANTLY.


.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Where are all the conservatives? I thought they'd do more of a victory dance in the end zone and count coup on each one of us.

Instead, it's all liberals, all the time. Rather disappointing I think. I expected more drama. Ah, well, just when you thought you understood conservatism, well, we don't. Isn't that what Lawyer what's his name is always complaining about?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

This is the New York Times. This is not an editorial.

"The Federal Reserve’s bond-buying plan carries risks, including the possibility of inflation. But as the months go by, the effects of its nonaction have proved to be the problem."

I am shocked. From Fox, we expect fake news. The use of the word "proved" is stunning.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Shrink

The problem is Obama has refused to do anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - that problem is piling up, not diminishing.

In addition, Obama is sidestepping the current foreclosure crisis.


Obama has to go on his 10th vacation of the year - this time with 500 hotel rooms and more staff than he can remember the names of.


Obama doesn't need more than 10 or 15 staff for a trip.

Why is he spending $200 million a day.


The first thing the House Republicans should do is CUT OFF OBAMA'S TRAVEL BUDGET.


IT IS NOW ZERO. OBAMA HAS TO STAY IN THE US AND COMPROMISE.


or resign.


.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD - Thanks. Unpredictable lady, this one. You can imagine the relief of boys with the cigars that she's not going to be on youtube peeing on the sofa in mid-day over the next two years. Gravitas. Not quite enough of that, our Nevadan unbroken tree-nymph.

The Republican narrative is underway as of yesterday and going full-throated today. This election was a rejection of the President. The people don't want him. It's all about him. He's a failure.

Nearly two years ago, I pointed out that there was a logically necessary propaganda trajectory about to unfold:
1) he is failing
2) he has failed

The first had a two year schedule and the second has a consecutive two year schedule.

That's the over-arching marketing plan and if it don't unfold just as I've said, contact me and I'll send a fine item made in the Orient.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 3, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

We are buying our own debt, but the people who are really buying our debt are suffering, for now.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 3, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone have any numbers on the State legislatures?

The Republicans had big gains.

Does anyone have any numbers on the Republican gains on the County level???

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Bernie writes

This election was a rejection of the President. The people don't want him. It's all about him. He's a failure.

_______________________________

Correct. I'm glad you see that clearly now.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne

Sorry for the late response, but you've misread what I was saying by a pretty wide margin, and I am not surprised in the least frankly.

I am not advocating for a rightward move by the democrats; I see no need, we've come plenty far enough. I see rants about Dems running to the right as about as mindless as accusations of them being Marxists etc. We can keep to liberal principles while still negotiating in good faith. However, and perhaps this didn't come out clear before, such negotiating requires ALL parties coming to the table in good faith. You, my friend, appear to have lost your faith in our current politicos to do so. I totally understand why, I really do- but to think that the current state of affairs- political Mexican standoff- is the undeniable, unnavigable, permanent equilibrium for the process is not only cynical, but self-fulfilling.

I disapprove of the Dems coming to the table again and again with a compromise as the first offer- it weakens their position and moves the Overton Window to the right. They should come to the table with what they genuinely think is the best way to do things, and invite the Centrists and Republicans to do the same, and work out the best solution for everyone- assuming everyone negotiates in good faith, the result is most likely to keep the most people happy.

Do I think this is likely? Not in the present climate. But this will pass, and when it does, it is people like myself from every part of the political spectrum that will solve our problems. Ideologues like yourself, Jane Hamsher, Rand Paul, and Jim Demint will never solve a thing, nor will shameless panderers like Lieberman and Nelson.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but that's my opinion, and is exactly what think we should strive for.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | November 3, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

The ironic thing about what the Fed is doing is that if it is successful in its mission to create inflation, it stands to lose a tremendous amount of money in capital losses on the 600B of Treasuries it is buying. The Fed is trying to ensure it is in fact the "greatest fool" in the bond market.

AFAIK, the P/L of the Fed is in fact a line item on the budget, so its profit / loss just gets passed through to the taxpayer. If LT rates back up 100 basis points, the Fed is going to lose about $50B on that trade. Which theoretically means we have to come up with that 50B somewhere.

It is just strange to ponder the idea that if the fed is successful, we will manage to lose money lending to ourselves.

Posted by: sold2u | November 3, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

"Which is precisely why the GOP hates teachers and higher learning."

BTW, I just wanted to say, as someone who works in a largish school system, this is just detached from reality. That's simply not the case. Plus, there's George Mason and Hillsdale--why would there be largely conservative universities if conservatives (the folks who ostensibly make up the GOP) hate higher learning?

I happen to like teachers. And higher learning. And does anyone seriously wish to question William F. Buckley's erudition? ;)

@12Bar: "Where are all the conservatives? I thought they'd do more of a victory dance in the end zone and count coup on each one of us."

I dunno. There weren't that many serious victories. The biggest win for the right was the large number of state legislatures that are now Republican, which affects much redistricting, but that's kind of boring. I'd be doing more of a victory dance if we had handed Reid (preferably with a better candidate) his walking papers and Barney Frank and John Dingle, etc. If we have been able to clean out the old guard, I'd be a little more in the mood for a victory lap.

Or if I had a real expectation the Republicans might serve a more conservative purpose than moving the Democrats to the right, and otherwise standing athwart history, shouting "Stop!" I might be a little more excited. But those are good things, and I'm pleased. It's just not victory lap level.

Of course, I'd like to see Republicans who could compromise themselves into a 80% conservative, 20% liberal bill and not get punished by the base, and that doesn't seem likely. And I'm worried. I don't mind obstruction, but I'd really hate for there to be a bunch of attempts to impeach or over-investigate Obama. Frankly, even though I don't disagree in principle, I'd prefer it if they dropped the Black Panthers thing. It's not the 1960s, after all.

I think it's a net positive, but I don't think it's a New Age. In the end, we're just getting swept on by the tides of history. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

In Connecticut for Governor, the democrat was declared the winner yesterday

However, a review of the numbers today apparently revealed that the numbers were not added up correctly.

The Republican for Governor in Connecticut now appears set to be declared the winner - and he will take office. Turn Connecticut to RED on your maps.


In Illinois, it looks like Pat Quinn will win

He has a 19,000 lead now- ironic because most people believed that Obama's friend Giannoullis had a better chance to win the Senate seat - however the opposite proved true. The Chicago machine came out for Quinn, but not Obama's friend. Apparently that is the case.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Kevin, of all the people I wanted to pique, you weren't even on the list. Besides, as you know, you are the MAN!

Just having a bit of fun here.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

What we need for the Teacher's union now is to tie their pay directly to overall expenses

The lower the costs, the more they get paid - align their interests with the taxpayers.

Pretty simple idea.

.

Posted by: MessageMachine | November 3, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

"Of course, I'd like to see Republicans who could compromise themselves into a 80% conservative, 20% liberal bill and not get punished by the base, and that doesn't seem likely."

You might want to update your troll hunter to include Erik Erickson.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 3, 2010 11:25 PM | Report abuse

@bernie: "The Republican narrative is underway as of yesterday and going full-throated today. This election was a rejection of the President. The people don't want him. It's all about him. He's a failure."

I don't think it's all about him. Most of what I've heard has characterized the election as a wholesale rejection of liberalism (or "socialism") and the policies of Obama, not Barry Obama, professor of constitutional law. The argument is that the liberalism advanced by Obama is inherently flawed, leads to bad things, and thus is being rejected by the masses. Obama is being rejected because he is an implementer of liberal policies.

I think that's more of the message. Except from some under-the-bridge dwelling sorts.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: "But I think Angle could have made this race a lot closer if she didn't come off as a sociopath."

Being sociopathic didn't help her, but I think she really screwed up in the final weeks when she totally cheesed the Hispanics and drove up their participation. Hispanics in NV voted at the same level they did in 2008, and gave 90% of their votes to Reid. I mean, "You look Asian," or like a gangsta were just not winners.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 3, 2010 11:34 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD: " Among the candidates that actually won, I'd say that only Rubio's win was really all that impressive"

Nikki Haley bucked a deeply entrenched and deeply corrupt Republican machine in South Carolina and became governor. Another success of the tea party. The remaining successes of the tea party are mostly in getting good people involved (from the perspective of a conservative) for the future. Sean Beilat comes to mind. And I don't know enough about her to say for sure, but I still have high hopes for Ruth McClung. ;)

On the whole, lots of good things coming out of the Tea Party. But there are always trade-offs, and I think the trade-off is that some politicians who cross the aisle are not necessarily always a bad thing. That sometimes moderates are a positive. That compromise can actually be the best tool to advance an agenda--even a very conservative one. And I'm a fan of rational dialog and civility, and that's kind of out, right now. But . . . you get what you get and you don't pitch a fit.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Kevin

It is time to compromise - time to be bipartisan

The American People have spoken - and they don't want this kind of behavior from you

Posted by: LeavesOfLife | November 3, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

@suekzoo: "Being sociopathic didn't help her, but I think she really screwed up in the final weeks when she totally cheesed the Hispanics and drove up their participation. "

But that was also a sign of her general sloppiness. Refusing to talk to any press being another. Not disavowing the 2nd amendment remedy think unequivocally. Etc. She was not a well-prepared candidate.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 3, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse


In Connecticut for Governor, the democrat was declared the winner yesterday

However, a review of the numbers today apparently revealed that the numbers were not added up correctly.

The Republican for Governor in Connecticut now appears set to be declared the winner - and he will take office. Turn Connecticut to RED on your maps.


In Illinois, it looks like Pat Quinn will win

He has a 19,000 lead now- ironic because most people believed that Obama's friend Giannoullis had a better chance to win the Senate seat - however the opposite proved true. The Chicago machine came out for Quinn, but not Obama's friend. Apparently that is the case.

Posted by: LeavesOfLife | November 3, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse


What we need for the Teacher's union now is to tie their pay directly to overall expenses

The lower the costs, the more they get paid - align their interests with the taxpayers.

Pretty simple idea.

.

Posted by: LeavesOfLife | November 3, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Do you think Obama got the message?

If he didn't, the democrats will probably lose another 60 House seats next time.

Posted by: LeavesOfLife | November 3, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

There was a lot of talk around here today (not everyone of course) about how dumb everyone in CA must be for supporting Dems and choosing to move forward with our clean energy jobs of the future. Here's a little tidbit in the NYTimes regarding the resounding rejection of Prop 23, which I worked very hard to defeat, I'm proud to say.

Here in CA, we've suffered a major revenue shortfall with 12% unemployment and budget woes that would be unimaginable in most states. We were also ground zero for the housing bubble, can you say Countrywide? We've been slowly climbing our way out of the ditch with tons of spending cuts, lots of compromises, a few temp tax increases, some delayed tax incentives, and some borrowing. We're not a bunch of cry babies waiting for someone else to bail us out, we're digging our own way out and everything is on the table. It's mostly been thanks to the Dem legislature and a Republican governor compromising and bending to each others will that will get us there. Any state out there that just passed a 2/3 budget majority, just as a warning, we just reverted back to simple majority for obvious reasons.

One thing we haven't done though is abandon higher education or the advances and job creation we've made in clean energy. We're not China, we're better, and we'll lead the way.

tao, you may know MA and NY but you apparently know a damn thing about CA.

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

"The oil companies and a few allies ran a scare campaign that warned Californians that AB 32 would drive up energy prices and cost jobs — “a loss of two blue-collar jobs for every one green job created,” it claimed.

What the companies had not reckoned on was a fierce pushback from Governor Schwarzenegger, or the deep pockets of the state’s wealthy venture capitalists and hedge fund managers, who believe there is a lot of money to be made — and jobs to be had — in a clean energy economy. The facts, so far, support them. Over the last five years, new green jobs have grown in California 10 times faster than the state average; the clean technology sector has attracted nearly $9 billion in venture capital and created dozens of new businesses."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/opinion/04thu3.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Posted by: lmsinca | November 3, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

My impression of Sharron Angle was that she was WAY out of her league. She was not used to being on the big stage and she handled it the way most of us probably would--hiding, ducking, weaving and generally being uncomfortable.

In the video of her walking through the airport, I thought, if she'd had more experienced she wouldn't be walking through there so available to anyone to talk to her. Either she'd be surrounded by her peeps or she'd take a private route. Or, she'd take the opportunity to hold forth and charm the reporter.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 3, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

kevin: "But that was also a sign of her general sloppiness. Refusing to talk to any press being another. Not disavowing the 2nd amendment remedy think unequivocally. Etc. She was not a well-prepared candidate."

Oh, I don't disagree at all that she was sloppy and unprepared. But, not talking to the press is a common trait among TPers. Rand did it, too, as does Palin. Hell, Joe Miller had the press arrested!

The 2nd Amendment remedies didn't get much traction among the voters in NV, no matter how horrifying it may have sounded to outsiders. The disdain in NV for Reid is so great that I'd bet a lot of people there could look past it while thinking, "She doesn't really mean that." (That is according to my mother who until recently lived in Las Vegas for 20 years.)

The two concrete things, though, in the last few weeks directly targeted the Hispanic community changed things. Angle's ads and commentary about "looking Asian," along with the effort from the right to suppress their vote...that "Don't vote" campaign. Sheer stupidity and incredibly dumb political calculus.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 3, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

apparently know a damn thing=apparently DON'T know a damn thing............sheesh

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

lms, you should be proud of what CA did. It's easy for the peanut gallery to snipe but CA tends to have a real progressive reaction to difficulties rather than to become reactionary.

Times are hard there but it's a step forward not to have taken a step backwards.

Your hard work is appreciated and duly noted.

I wish my state had been more clear-sighted, but alas. Our state party is pretty lousy, so that needs to get corrected too.

Plus, tao has anger issues. We're trying to get him to pee outside, but it's a slow process.....

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 4, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Honestly liberals

do you think Obama got the message???


I've heard some talk here - but an honest assessment of "Did Obama get it?"


Is Obama able to put aside his arrogance?


I don't get it I don't get how he could be so stupid - and then give a press conference like today.

The people in Washington are there to represent the people - their agenda is secondary. When they get that straight, things will be better.

Posted by: LeavesOfLife | November 4, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Any state out there that just passed a 2/3 budget majority, just as a warning, we just reverted back to simple majority for obvious reasons.

One thing we haven't done though is abandon higher education or the advances and job creation we've made in clean energy. We're not China, we're better, and we'll lead the way.
-------------------------------
Hear, hear. Meg made a big mistake when she kept talking about how California should emulate Texas. That really didn't sit well with Northern California high techers. Since when does CA try to be someone else--they try to be CA.

Of course, that's a great rallying cry, but the truth of the matter that neither CA nor TX have been able to stop jobs being outsourced to Asia.

Congratulations on Prop 23. That was a big failure by outside money.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 4, 2010 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Folks

Illinois, New York and California all are near-bankrupt - and the State legislatures are near completely disfunctional?

See a pattern here???

These are the big states which the democrats run - and the budgets are jammed with union contracts, EXPENSIVE union contracts.


Did the voters this year choose to solve these problems in these States?


Or did they choose more of the same? The democratic party will not survive. Their remaining states are falling apart.


.

Posted by: LeavesOfLife | November 4, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Imsinca, nice job on 23! That was indeed a sweet victory.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 4, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Is there any way we can cut Obama's expense budget while he is in India???

With Obama running up the bills at $200 million per day, his credit cards will be run up real fast.


I'm sure they won't let Obama leave India if he hasn't paid his bill - and THAT IS JUST FINE WITH THE REST OF US.

.

Posted by: LeavesOfLife | November 4, 2010 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Sometimes I get very irritated at Californians and the proposition crazy that goes in the state. If someone in Berkeley proposes a take your dog to work day, in a tutu, someone would run a prop and it would probably pass.

But this cycle, some sensible stuff happened, chiefly the change to the budget voting and Prop 23. I liked the state tax levy, but I understand why it didn't pass. I like the state parks and visit them, but that's me.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 4, 2010 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone believe this is the right time for Obama to go on a 10 day vacation?

How many times has Obama gone on vacation this year???

The whole thing is a complete outrage - the American People just voted for budget cuts - AND Obama responds with a $200 million dollar a day Vacation.

Obama is out of his mind.


Is there anyone in the democratic party who has the stature to tell Obama that he is just completely out-of-bounds?

Posted by: LeavesOfLife | November 4, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

grrrrrrrrr, can someone PLEASE open the door for me!

i'm stayin' out all night for that.

Posted by: tao9 | November 4, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Talk about avoiding the press, I think this really takes the cake (from a live Q&A on WaPo today):

Q.Joe Miller's absence of a election night speech.Mr. Miller did not show up at Alaska's election night headquarters to address his supporters. How did that go over at election central?

A.Jeanne Devon writes:
It was awkward. Both Murkowski and McAdams were present with a large number of supporters waving signs as they entered the hall to a flurry of media, and cameras. When a small group with Miller signs came in, everyone flocked over to see Miller, but he wasn't there. We learned that he had refused to talk to the press, ushered his family out, and stated he would not be coming to Election Central. I saw a Miller staffer who was asked, "Where's Joe?" His answer was, "Probably in bed."

It's no real surprise he avoided the media, but it made for awkwardness in the event."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 4, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

How many vacations has Obama gone on this year?

Wasn't it like 10 earlier in the year?

Posted by: LeavesOfLife | November 4, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Pooooooooooooor Joe.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 4, 2010 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca wrote:

"What the companies had not reckoned on was a fierce pushback from Governor Schwarzenegger, or the deep pockets of the state’s wealthy venture capitalists and hedge fund managers, who believe there is a lot of money to be made — and jobs to be had — in a clean energy economy. The facts, so far, support them. Over the last five years, new green jobs have grown in California 10 times faster than the state average; the clean technology sector has attracted nearly $9 billion in venture capital and created dozens of new businesses."


Except that the only way these jobs are being created is by government mandate, not by market demand.

Here's what I mean. I saw a very revealing interview that Maria Bartiromo did with Boone Pickens about a month or two ago. You know that he is all about wind energy, supposedly.(never talk to the man without keeping a hand on your wallet at all times because he is a brilliant businessman!)

The conversation went something like this.

BARTIROMO: So today's natural gas price closed at a new low of $3.72. You've told me in the past that renewables need a nat gas price of $6.00 to make money. How are you going to deal with losing money on this project?

PICKENS: Oh we're not going to lose money Maria. You see we had every megawatt already contracted out before we started building.

TRANSLATION:

Various state and city governments have mandated that x percentage of utilities power output be from renewable sources, usually wind or solar. There are only limited places they can go to get this power. So before he put a shovel in the ground, Pickens signed contracts to provide this power to the utilities as mandated by law. Trouble is, as noted above, nat gas is at an alltime low, and has been falling in price for several years. So the utilities will pay Pickens anywhere from 50-75% more, conservatively speaking, for his power, that they could generate MUCH cheaper by using natural gas themselves. That's where your "green jobs" are coming from!

Oh, and did I mention that all renewable energy uses rare earth minerals, lanthanides mostly, coming from a market that is literally 95% controlled by China and for which we have no current US production? (However we do have a mine scheduled to open the end of 2011, maybe)

If you thought OPEC was cool, you'll LOVE lanthanides!

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Recap

Kirk, Coons and Manchin all get to take office immediately - Probably on November 29

That adds up to a net gain of +1 for the Republicans.


Remember Scott Brown was a win this year for the Tea Party - so the Republicans are +7 on the year in the Senate


The Tea Party will hold 118 House seats - which will give it considerable influence on the House Republican positions.

American People to Obama: Ouch.

.

Posted by: LeavesOfLife | November 4, 2010 12:47 AM | Report abuse

54465446 at 12:37 AM


Excellent point - alternative energy is not yet cost competitive.

Allow me to illustrate the point a step further.


Let's say one gallon of gasoline is substituted for alternative energy at $7 per gallon - fine - everyone thinks they are doing the right thing to save the Earth.


However, over in the Middle East there is suddenly a cheap gallon of gasoline - at the market price of $2.80 or whatever.


China is going to go in there and take that extra gallong for $2.80


So now our economy is HOBBLED with a cost of $7 for that gallon - while China is sitting there at a cost of $2.80 to produce its goods and services.


The alternative energy increases the COST BASIS for US goods - as opposed to other nations like China.

Even if it is all State and local governments doing this, taxes will be higher, and those taxes will filter through as higher costs for businesses and be passed along in the economy.


____________________________

The only logical path is to support more R & D in the field - and get the costs down to competitive levels.

It makes no sense to force the issue with uncompetitively priced energy.

Right now the "clean energy" is just an excuse, or a cover, for some people to give campaign contributions to pols in order to get on the public dole and to direct public funds to economically inefficient projects

Posted by: LeavesOfLife | November 4, 2010 12:58 AM | Report abuse

"Nikki Haley bucked a deeply entrenched and deeply corrupt Republican machine in South Carolina and became governor."

meh, I'm not that impressed by Tea Party members to win Republican primaries. Even Alvin Greene could win if he had filled that kind of niche. If Haley was the only example of this, yeah, I'd be more impressed, but the fact that seemingly every insurgent candidate was able to throw off the Republican establishment. Perhaps the establishment isn't that strong. Even then, I might still be impressed if there was some discernible policy difference between the Tea Party and the GOP orthodoxy. Both of these pay lip-service to deficit reduction while pushing for paradoxical tax reduction all without and substantial ideas for spending reduction. Hell, even any differences on social issues between the mainstream GOP and the Tea Party have long since vanished. In the end, I didn't see much difference between Tea Party members and the GOP. And since GOP primary voters are relatively homogeneous all over the country, it wasn't much of a deal for them to knock off centrists. The real question is whether Tea Party members can win in states besides the ones that would elect a baboon if it had a R next to it. South Carolina fails the "wouldn't elect a Republican baboon" test. Florida and PA, of course, don't fail that test. But PA is one where I would feel that a regular Republican would have done better.

Look, these majorities are fleeting. Dems did themselves a huge service by keeping the moderates in the fold. This allowed them to win more seats which means the Senate stays in their hands and if the wave reverses in 2012 (don't underestimate the downstream effect of Obama) the Democrats are only 27 seats away from retaking the House.

If anything, this election proved that the Tea Party really doesn't have broad appeal. This might change, but it needs to change. People aren't going to be sour with the Democrats forever. You want to bet on the Tea Party then?

Posted by: DDAWD | November 4, 2010 1:22 AM | Report abuse

man, 37th must have really gone to town on this thread. 40 blocks.

Goodnight

Posted by: DDAWD | November 4, 2010 1:48 AM | Report abuse

lms said:

"There was a lot of talk around here today (not everyone of course) about how dumb everyone in CA must be for supporting Dems and choosing to move forward with our clean energy jobs of the future."

Coincidentally, San Fran also just banned the Happy Meal. Thank God for common sense in at least one state. /s

The left can also feel encouraged that Obama stayed right on this script yesterday, too. His idea of fostering growth is still to "create green jobs" through regulation, taxes and spending. He will be a one termer for sure, unless Rs are able to save him from himself.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 4, 2010 6:53 AM | Report abuse

"Where are all the conservatives? I thought they'd do more of a victory dance in the end zone and count coup on each one of us.

Instead, it's all liberals, all the time. Rather disappointing I think. I expected more drama. Ah, well, just when you thought you understood conservatism, well, we don't. Isn't that what Lawyer what's his name is always complaining about?"

Apparently there is a difference between liberals and conservatives on the whole. Many liberals were spending time childishly gloating and dancing on the grave of the GOP and conservatism even long after the 2008 election. Naturally, liberals project all their own faults and expect conservatives to behave just as badly.

But most conservatives don't see this election as cause for gloating and dancing. We realize the country is in serious trouble; we're thankful that Obama's ability to drag us farther in the wrong direction has been neutralized (we hope); and we're thankful the Dems have been issued a strong electoral rebuke.

But we don't do childish gloating. Plus, it's just kind of nauseating to come here and see liberals spouting the same old bs about the GOP, reading the results as proof the Dems we're far enough left, lost because of a failure to communicate or "play hardball" or all the other nonsense to which you folks still blindly cling.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 4, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

"Really? What is it?"

Well, you were speaking of philosophies, not platforms, or policy...so here goes-- two main categories:

Equality (Which is impossible.)

Progress (An eternal chase for something no one can identify. Like a train without a terminal.)

Now lately, the new black is Change (see Progress, above).

And Hope. (Stealing a base from St. Paul is not progress, it's conservative. And also understood as overtly religious or spiritual, which must confuse the Hell out of a lot of ya'll.)

As for coherent Dem policy: I've lived my entire adult life in MA and NY. As far as I can see, it's take money from me that would vastly improve my and my family's life on the margin, and give it to govt employees, rent seeking bizzes that are friendly (wink), and then with the very little $$$ left aid those in society that may need assistance of some sort, that assistance being rendered, more often than not, cynically and incompetently by the govt employees cited above.

NY, MA and CA all just rejected Progress by RE-electing everyone presently in power or electing Dem clones, thereby assuring a 47-state economic recovery.

Here's the good news: all three states will be bankrupt by mid-decade.

Train's a comin".

Posted by: tao9 | November 3, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

That is not a coherent animating philosophy for the Democrats; it is your cartoonish view of what the Democrats are. I am referring to some basic approach to governance that is embraced by the party. Allowing of course for nepotistic exceptions, the GOP hates government, taxes, and regulation and wants private enterprise to be unfettered. Less government. Lower taxes. Fewer regulations. Free enterprise. You could probably shake the dumbest cluck Con out of a coma and he or she could recite those phrases verbatim. The Democrats? Not so much. And that is the problem I am addressing.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 4, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

"Just look at how the GOP acts when they are in power. They actually tend to veer towards progressive ideas, not conservative ideas. Bush and the GOP expanded the Federal government every year they were in power.

The problem is that they tend to pursue regressive policies behind the scenes. Examples being weaking regulatory agencies leading to the economic collapse or watchdog agencies leading to the BP oil spill.

This is the exact opposite of how you'd expect a ruling party to act if they felt that the citizenry was truly center-right. They would make the shrink government, make the dismantling front and center, and things like the Iraq War, No-Child LB, Medicare Part D don't stand a chance of making it to the floor."

Where to begin?

George Bush was never a conservative outside of a few isolated areas like tax rates and judicial appointments. He reportedly scorned conservatives in private.

Your thesis about what Republicans actually "believe" about the public is contradicted by the fact that they always run on smaller government. Always. Just as in this election. As in 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000 . . .. To the extent that there is a disconnect between what they say and what they do, it is that they campaign more to the right than how they behave when elected. Rs like Bush tend to count on the fact that the public won't notice their sins of big government once in office, or they try to package big government as small government -- a la No Child, Medicare.

But it's not just Rs who run to the right. Ds try to do the same thing. Even yesterday BO said the public might have misread his massive expansion of spending and government as "big government" instead of just a necessary response to crisis. (Bush's fault!) Too bad a reporter didn't follow up with a question about the administration's unofficial 2009 motto "Never let a crisis go to waste."

That's why liberals like you try to set up the straw-man dichotomy between Republican destruction of all government with Democratic pragmatism and "right-sized" or "smart" government, instead of bigger versus smaller government. Ever since Bill C declared "The era of big government is over," both parties have run against "big government."

So, your thesis is pretty much 180 degrees incorrect. Both parties overtly behave as though they know that the public is predominantly conservative and small government oriented.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 4, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

This from wbgonne:
"'The more we educate Americans, the more they know, and the less likely they are to fall under the spell of the conservative corporate agenda.'
"Which is precisely why the GOP hates teachers and higher learning."
-------

A genuine howler. All of those uneducated and under educated folks in the inner city are such a reliable GOP voting bloc that if we educate them and help them become successful they'll surely switch parties. LOL.

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

The "inner city poor" you are so delicately referring to are, by and large, racial minorities who are Democrats because the GOP uses them as a political football to agitate the people we ARE talking about: white blue collar workers. Those are the people the GOP does not want to become educated because, once they realize that the Cons have been using them as corporate fodder for years there may be, shall we say, a comeuppance.

But I'm sure you knew that.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 4, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne wrote,
"the GOP's multi-decade Southern Strategy, which is designed to use wedge social issues to get working Americans to vote against their own economic interest."

pragmaticstill wrote,
"a majority of Americans have come to believe in the motto - "I got mine - eff the rest of you."
-------

Hmmmm. Two liberal minds working overtime and coming to opposite conclusions. No wonder the country's in disarray. Which is it now: Are the majority of Americans selfish and concerned only with their own self interest? Or are they voting against their own economic self interest?

Posted by: Brigade | November 3, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing contradictory there (not that I am obliged to coordinate my comments with anyone). The Cons have convinced regular Americans that Greed Is Good. So even the people with little or nothing think it's best to be selfish. Simple as that.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 4, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Brigade:

"A genuine howler."

I wonder if the fiction he wrote in his book is any more coherent and believable than the fiction he writes here.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 3, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse


Buy the book and find out. The Bitter End is available at lulu.com

Posted by: wbgonne | November 4, 2010 7:55 AM | Report abuse

54465446

Last I heard of T Boone here in CA he was hightailing it home after Californians defeated his little Prop 10 scheme in 2008. Do you have links for any of your assertions?

qb

I don't live in SF so can't address their happy meal issues. Same way I can't address Oklahoma's NO to sharia law. When it comes to local issues, I address them locally, and believe me I've got my hands full as I live in a very conservative neighborhood. :)

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

qb:

"Coincidentally, San Fran also just banned the Happy Meal."

Thank God SF has good liberals looking out for all those parents who, obviously, on their own are incapable of resisting the evil of toys sold with hamburgers.

This is a perfect example of the authoritarian impulse that exists on the left, and is precisely why government power should be devolved to the lowest conceivable level...so those who do not want to be subject to such arbitrary control can more readily escape it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

holy:

"I am not advocating for a rightward move by the democrats"

Then what ARE you advocating?

"Do I think this is likely? Not in the present climate."

We live in "the present climate." Like Obama I was hoping the GOP would move Center after 2008 but they made a political calculation to obstruct and the Dems were unable to counter it because they are undermined from within by the Republicrats. That is precisely my point.

"But this will pass, and when it does, it is people like myself from every part of the political spectrum that will solve our problems."

I'll be happy to see it happen. But I won't hold my breath and pretend it is. Meanwhile, our problems reamain unaddressed.

"Ideologues like yourself, Jane Hamsher, Rand Paul, and Jim Demint will never solve a thing"

I am convinced that the GOP's antigovernment approach cannot succeed in resolving our problems and that Liberalism can. Government is how civilized people come together to solve their common problems. I firmly believe that and it is the coherent animating philosophy that the Democrats currently lack. You appear to be equating having a conception of government's role with being an ideologue. I think you are mistaken. First, develop the principles; then advocate for them; then compromise when necessary to achieve your goals. You can't skip the first two steps. Again, that is my point.

"nor will shameless panderers like Lieberman and Nelson"

Aren't they exactly the type of "non-ideological" leaders you want?

Posted by: wbgonne | November 4, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Scott:

Well put. The Happy Meal story, coming on the same day we finally rid ourselves of Speaker San Fran Nan, even while she was of course easily reelected there, is a beautifully coincidental illustration.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 4, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"Buy the book and find out."

I don't wonder that much. BTW, if you weren't so selfish, you'd be giving it away. Such greed.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"Buy the book and find out."

I don't wonder that much. BTW, if you weren't so selfish, you'd be giving it away. Such greed.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Admit it: you've been saving that one.

That aside, I have nothing against commerce or capitalism. It is Plutocratic corporate capitalism that is the problem.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 4, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_124.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 4, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"Government is how civilized people come together to solve their common problems."

A perfect illustration of how liberals are authoritarians. Government is, quite simply, the application of force. Legal coercion is the sole tool that the government possesses to achieve its ends. Civilized people who wish to "come together" to "solve" problems do not need to use force. The simply get together and come up with a solution. They need government for one reason and one reason only...to coerce those who do not wish to join them in their "solutions".

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne

"Aren't they exactly the type of "non-ideological" leaders you want?"

Not hardly. They aren't non-ideological, they are without ideals- and not wanting ideologues and wanting non-ideological individuals are extraordinarily different things. There is difference.

And yes, I am absolutely sure Anti-Government policies are completely unworkable, and this is coming from a former punk rocker and pseudo-anarchist. However, to eliminate out of hand the idea that the other side can't bring anything to the table (I will not address won't, which is the biggest issue of course), is lunacy.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | November 4, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Right vets win big, left vets lose big.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252476/new-victory-caucus-congress-pete-hegseth


VDH's take on BO's unrepentant, passive-aggressive, blame-Bush, blame-the-ungrateful-and-stupid public press conference.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252476/new-victory-caucus-congress-pete-hegseth


Off to work.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 4, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Re Happy Meals - Indeed. If there is a market for a thing, the only social "good" that appends is related to the satisfaction of this market desire. We could take the instance of abortion as an example or the production and delivery of carcinogenic products like tobacco. Or cheaper poultry where oppressive authoritarian (you really ought to look that term up) regulations on salmonella prevention have been removed.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 4, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"Admit it: you've been saving that one."

Nope. Just came to me after your jedi-mind trick post in which you accused the right of "convincing" people to be selfish...as if selfishness was not a fact of human nature.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

"Re Happy Meals - Indeed. If there is a market for a thing, the only social "good" that appends is related to the satisfaction of this market desire. We could take the instance of abortion as an example or the production and delivery of carcinogenic products like tobacco. Or cheaper poultry where oppressive authoritarian (you really ought to look that term up) regulations on salmonella prevention have been removed."

Ah, yes, all things are the same thing, and justice demands that government regulate it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 4, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

"the idea that the other side can't bring anything to the table (I will not address won't, which is the biggest issue of course), is lunacy."

holy:

Here's how I see it. Over the past 40 years the Dems have moved so far Right that they have already incorporated all the real ideas that Modern Conservatism had to offer. That partly explains why the GOP has moved further and further to the Right; they do it in order to distinguish themselves form the Dems who keep chasing them Rightward. I think expecting this current iteration of the GOP Congress to come to the bargaining table in good faith and offer ideas and accept compromises is lunacy. Until the Dems punish the GOP the GOP will continue to be obstructionist. Why? Because it's working.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 4, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

"The[y] simply get together and come up with a solution."

Yeah, and we do it through our government. It is called the social contract. It is called society. And it's all in the Constitution (the real one, not the Cons' Cartoon Constitution). You are a quasi-anarchist who only wants the government to ensure complete domination for Big Money. You despise collective action by citizens because that threaten corporate hegemony. That ain't the America I know.

Dear Dems: Government is how civilized people come together to solve their common problems. Repeat repeat repeat.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 4, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"the only social "good""

By which you mean what, exactly?

"that appends"

Appends to what, exactly?

In any event, you have obviously missed, or are being deliberately obtuse about, the point. Whatever "social goods" Bernie L. thinks "append", others who disagree ought to be able to escape the consequences of Bernie L's bizarre thinking, even if he is able to convince 51% of his fellows that his bizarre thinking is a good idea. Hence the point...government "solutions" should be imposed at the lowest conceivable level possible. Banning Happy Meals within San Fran is fine with me, regardless of how stupid I think it is. The problem is that, inevitably, the authoritarian impulse of liberals like yourself is to impose their "goods" on the largest possible population.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"Yeah, and we do it through our government."

No, "we" don't. Liberals do. And then you impose your "solutions" on those who don't want them, which is the precise and only purpose of using government. Government is quite simply not needed for true cooperation, because true cooperation does not involve the use of force.

Again, the only tool that the government has to achieve any goal is the legal use of coercion. That is it. To champion government as a "problem solver" is to champion the imposition of force on those who disagree with your solutions. You may well believe that imposing your estimation of "the good" on others through the use of force is a fine idea. But you should at least be honest and upfront about it, and not use inane and incoherent platitudes to disguise the fact.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

"Yeah, and we do it through our government."

"No, "we" don't. Liberals do. And then you impose your "solutions" on those who don't want them"

Of the people, by the people, for the people. Ring a bell?

Posted by: wbgonne | November 4, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"Of the people, by the people, for the people. Ring a bell?"

Yes. A platitude.

You are avoiding the point, which is that the use of government necessarily means the imposition of a view under the threat of coercion. Your attempt to hide behind platitudes rather than facing up to and attempting to defend the reality of what you advocate does not speak well of your intellectual honesty.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Another "platitude"?

Law is coercion. It is in fact the coercion we all agree to for the privilege of living in this great country. That is the social contract and an elementary principle of self-governance. Your "coercion" fetish is straight from Glenn Beck University's Cartoon Constitution class.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 4, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

OT

Sorry, but this is too ironic and humorous.

The Denver Post reports:

"Taking the stage as the song "La Bamba" played, [Tom] Tancredo thanked more than 300 supporters gathered at the Stampede Mesquite Grill & Dance Emporium in Aurora.

Read more: Hickenlooper wins easily - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_16506656#ixzz14K920h7y

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 4, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca:

I tried to get a transcript of the interview, but I struck out.

Everything else I wrote about is publicly available all over the net, the government mnadates to buy a percentage of renewable energy, lanthanides, etc.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"Law is coercion."

Excellent. So, when you say that "Government is how civilized people come together to solve their common problems", what you must necessarily mean, then, is that "Government is how some people come together in an attempt to coerce other people into behaving in ways more to their liking."

Note that I am not making a value judgement about this. It can be an act that we both would probably agree is "good" (attempting to stop a person from killing another) or an act that we both would probably agree is "bad" (attmepting to force people to change their underwear 3 times a day, and having them wear it on the outside, so we can check - h/t Woody Allen). I am simply stating that this is, in reality, what is happening when people "come together" by using government.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

54465446

My daughter's a chemist turned geologist so we've discussed some of this rare earth mining conundrum. She's at Colorado School of Mines working on her Master's, not in mining, but she said they're making advances slowly but surely in extraction and cost. We haven't discussed the environmental concerns yet so I'll ask her.

We're problem solvers here and just because someone says "but", doesn't mean we stop what we're doing, we try to figure it out. And sometimes a little government/private partnership is just what the doctor ordered to generate advances in technology. Or I guess we could just let China win the race.

We have 4 out of 7 solar energy plants coming on line next year here in CA, PG&E is sending folks back to school for green tech jobs, and lots of really smart people are trying to figure out our energy concerns for the future. Everything's on the table, but presumably the market will figure out which is the best re cost.

We've subsidized oil for so long now that everyone forgets the price we pay at the pump is nothing but fantasy. And I'm not against oil, I drive still, and own a business etc. My daughter's education is now being funded by Chevron but that doesn't mean the status quo just goes on indefinitely.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"So, when you say that "Government is how civilized people come together to solve their common problems", what you must necessarily mean, then, is that "Government is how some people come together in an attempt to coerce other people into behaving in ways more to their liking.""

Did you sleep through civics class? You appear to have no understanding of what government is. Briefly: we live in a Constitutional representative democracy. We elect political leaders to represent us. Those leaders go to Congress and decide which laws to pass. Once the laws are enacted they are binding on the people in the nation, i.e., us.. That is what the Rule of Law means.

Good grief.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 4, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I thought that "wbgonne" was leaving?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"Good grief."

Indeed. Your explication of the kind of government under which we live, and how it gets populated with "leaders", and what those "leaders" do, and who is bound by what they do, is entirely and wholly besides the point.

You admit that law is coercion. Therefore you must also admit (if you are reasoning properly) that using law to accomplish some end, be it good or bad in your estimation, is necessarily the use of coercion against people who otherwise would not do what you want them to do. This is a simple fact, and it has nothing to do with the form of government under which we live. (The form merely determines who is choosing when and how to coerce others, not the fact of coercion.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

imsinca wrote:

"We have 4 out of 7 solar energy plants coming on line next year here in CA, PG&E is sending folks back to school for green tech jobs, and lots of really smart people are trying to figure out our energy concerns for the future. Everything's on the table, but presumably the market will figure out which is the best re cost.

"We've subsidized oil for so long now that everyone forgets the price we pay at the pump is nothing but fantasy. And I'm not against oil, I drive still, and own a business etc. My daughter's education is now being funded by Chevron but that doesn't mean the status quo just goes on indefinitely."

Thank you for your always courteous reply.

I'm glad you have a resource close at hand to ask. So many people who say we need to cure our dependence on foreign oil never do any kind of research. For instance while those solar plants are fine, they make us totally dependent on the Chinese. While oil is produced worldwide in at least 12 to 15 nations, lanthanide production is completely controlled by China. So most people don't realize that every solar installation subjects us more directly to the Chinese than any barrel of oil bought anywhere. If you think that isn't important read about what happened when the Chinese cut off lanthanide shipments to Japan about a month ago in a dispute over claims on territorial rights.

Yes, we need new generating sources of power, but solar and wind are niche products. They cannot be used for large scale power generation because they are not "always on". There are days when weather conditions prevent either source from generating a single megawatt of power therefore for every renewable energy source utitized by a pulbic utility, they need 100% backup in a fossil fuel generating capactiy. Most Americans believe that you hookup a wind turbine and shut down the coal plant, but it can NEVER happen that way.

Thanks for the conversation.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 12:45 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