Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Nancy Pelosi, unrepentent: She admits that job growth was disappointingly slow, but insists that "it does not diminish what we have accomplished," because "President Obama and this Congress were job creators from Day One."

* With so many commentators asking whether Obama will "pull a Clinton," Sean Wilenz reminds us what this really means: "Day to day political trench warfare," with "no illusions about post-partisanship."

ICYMI: My take on what "pulling a Clinton" means right here.

* Jackie Calmes states the obvious: By failing to act on the Bush tax cuts before the elections, they only succeeded in landing themselves in an even more difficult fix.

* So, so sad: Sharron Angle and her supporters blew more money per vote on her Senate bid than any other Congressional campaign in the country. All down the drain!

* Yes, a new Kaiser poll finds support for repealing health reform, but as always, solid majorities want to keep key provisions of the law in place.

* False-equivalence watch: Senator Mark Warner compares the Tea Party to MoveOn.

* How long until Mitt Romney gives up and issues a tearful mea-culpa for the individual mandate at the heart of Romneycare?

* The Tea Party rubes are in for a rude shock, ctd.: Even Big Insurance knows that trying to repeal health reform is a big waste of time.

* As Obama and Dems get buffeted by advice to move to the "center," maybe they should take a look at the roadmap the GOP followed back from the minority.

* Paul Kane explains the significance of the race for minority whip:

Eliminating Hoyer from the leadership would be portrayed as a move left by the party leadership, at a time when independent and centrist voters have fled the Democrats. Eliminating Clyburn from leadership would risk angering the Congressional Black Caucus just as President Obama begins ramping up for his 2012 reelection needing to reenergize African American voters who turned out in record numbers in 2008.

* Pelosi tries to broker peace, but so far to no avail.

* If you still have any doubts, read this: The Washington Monthly republishes a deeply researched piece from May 2006 detailing Pelosi's skills as -- you guessed it -- the Dems' minority leader.

* Fox News staffers fret that if Dems shun the network, it damages its credibility.

* And a random question for right wingers: If pro-Dem George Soros controls just about everything, the global economy included, then why didn't he employ his secret omnipotence to ensure that the economy would come back in time for the midterm elections?

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | November 9, 2010; 6:01 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, Happy Hour Roundup, House Dems, Senate Dems  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The acrimony and partisanship are just getting started
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

All, Jake banned for OT birther nonsense

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 9, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

"If pro-Dem George Soros controls just about everything, the global economy included, then why didn't he employ his secret omnipotence to ensure that the economy would come back in time for the midterm elections?"

See, that just shows how little you librul media commentators know! This was actually all part of his SECRET PLAN to convince people he DOESN'T control the world economy. Now everyone will be lulled into a FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY, and he can keep scheming to, well, whatever secret things it is he wants to do to control everything! Even though he already does!!

I gotta go polish my weapons now.

Posted by: bleh1 | November 9, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

A new low for Tucker Carlson?

Apparently, emails were sent out last weekend slamming Phil Griffin and MSNBC by "Keith" at keitholbermann.com

Only problem is that Keith Olbermann does not own that domain. It's owned by Tucker Carlson.

Keith has stated he did not send the emails. Tucker has not commented.
--------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/keith-olbermann-hoax-did-_n_781241.html

In one email, "Olbermann" says that Griffin is "not my boss (thank god), nor is he intellectually qualified to be...I'll be anchoring on election night 2012, long after Phil Griffin has moved on to a job for which he's actually qualified, perhaps on QVC."

In another, "Olbermann" writes that "I could have Phil Griffin fired tomorrow if I felt like it, trust me. And if he keeps yapping about me in public, I may. For the moment, however, keeping Phil around is like having a drunk chimp in the office -- more amusing than threatening."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 9, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: re "Sharron Angle and her supporters blew more money per vote on her Senate bid than any other Congressional campaign in the country."

===

"The extra cash, much of it from out of state, didn’t “buy” Angle the seat. Nor did Meg Whitman prevail despite $140M in spending. Linda McMahon’s personal fortune didn’t talk Connecticut voters out of electing the truth-challenged Richard Blumenthal. In fact, out of the top 10 congressional cash-per-vote spenders, only three won.

"So why do the media and politicians obsess so over cash? ... we’ve been bamboozled into thinking that money is more critical than it is. Reporters love to write about it... It beats admitting that your own candidates are less than stellar and that your agenda is toxic.

"... John McCain won the GOP presidential nomination on a shoestring budget. This year, many small spenders won... So when hysterics scream that our democracy is being “hijacked” by corporate money or that a billionaire is “buying” an election, take it with a grain of salt."

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/380678

Posted by: sbj3 | November 9, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"Pelosi tries to broker peace, but so far to no avail."

Well, there's one very easy thing she could do to settle this...

Posted by: sbj3 | November 9, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

What else is happening?

Not sure if you all saw this site yet but it's pretty neat.

http://www.whatthef%$khasobamadonesofar.com/

Swap out %$ with the appropriate letters.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 9, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Enough with the Media Matters links today!

Posted by: sbj3 | November 9, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Special Prosecutor declines to file criminal charges over destruction of CIA torture tapes
http://www.truth-out.org/special-prosecutor-declines-file-criminal-charges-over-destruction-cia-torture-tapes64973

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 9, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

sbj, even if the money is less consequential than we all think, the key issue remains that voters have the right to know who is paying for the ads that are trying to persuade them who to choose to represent them...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 9, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "The key issue remains that voters have the right to know who is paying for the ads."

That's not the tune that Obama and company *used* to be singing (and you know that).

Posted by: sbj3 | November 9, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

The "significance of the race for minority whip"? Significant to the egos involved. But ask 1,000 Americans to name the current minority whip, and I'll be surprised if more than 5 percent can do so. Same for Majority Leader and Majority Whip.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 9, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Re; Jobs and Pelosi:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/04/nancy-pelosi/pelosi-touts-democratic-record-job-creation/

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 9, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"Americans already rethinking George W. Bush; his poll numbers now but one point below Obama's"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/11/george-w-bush-book-obama.html

Posted by: sbj3 | November 9, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Greg wrote: "* The Tea Party rubes are in for a rude shock, ctd.: Even Big Insurance knows that trying to repeal health reform is a big waste of time."

Doesn't that fact make you want to repeal Obamacare? You want to force Americans to enrich evil insurance companies?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 9, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

sbj,

The LA Times article has the wrong title, if you actually look at Gallup poll that is cited. The title should be "Republicans already rethinking George W. Bush."

Republicans now give Dubya an 87% favorable rating. Of course, who wouldn't like him better in retirement than when he was starting a war based on false information or trashing our economy?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 9, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Ooops

"One program which House Republicans have consistently seized upon to bolster their budget-cutting bona fides is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Emergency Contingency Fund, a successful program that has created 250,000 jobs in 37 states via subsidized employment programs for low-income and unemployed workers. And according to National Journal, Republicans are once again railing against the program, selecting it as one of their first programs to cut:

House Republicans have targeted one of the first programs they would like to ax: the $25 billion emergency fund for people who lose their jobs, part of last year’s stimulus bill. Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said the program encourages states to increase their welfare caseloads “without requiring able-bodied individuals to work, get job training, or make other efforts to move off of taxpayer assistance.”

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out, Price’s characterization of the fund is completely inaccurate. The program has also earned the staunch support of many Republican governors, including Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS), who said it provided “much-needed aid during this recession by enabling businesses to hire new workers, thus enhancing the economic engines of our local communities.”

But the crux of the issue is that eliminating the TANF emergency fund will not save any money because the program has already expired. It was funded at $5 billion for two years, and ended on September 30, 2010. There is no money left for Price to save."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/09/gop-tanf-save/

Posted by: lmsinca | November 9, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Fun stuff!

"Big, evil industries funded…which party?"

"Military-industrial complex?
Wall Street?
Hedge funds and exotic investors?
Big health insurers and for-profit hospital corporations?"

If you guessed Democratic party then you're correct!

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/big-evil-industries-fundedwhich-party-106891623.html#ixzz14ph6Qqz3

(via hot air)

Posted by: sbj3 | November 9, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

"All, Jake banned for OT birther nonsense"

All together now:

LOL!!!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 9, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Sean Wilenz's father was the prosecutor in the Lindberg baby trial

Bet you didn't know that.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

blew more money

How about that guy who ran against Meeks in Florida in the democratic primary ?

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Two stories today compete for quite possibly the stupidest stories e-v-e-r.

-Social Conservative Bryan Fischer: Get Rid Of The 'Curse' That Is The Grizzly Bear-

"One human being is worth more than an infinite number of grizzly bears," Fischer writes. "Another way to put it is that there is no number of live grizzlies worth one dead human being. If it's a choice between grizzlies and humans, the grizzlies have to go. And it's time."

He continues: "Of course there is a simple answer: shoot these man-eaters on sight."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/social_conservative_bryan_fischer_its_time_to_get.php

-Tea Partiers: AZ Town's New Trash Plan Reeks Of Socialism-

Currently, Fountain Hills' 25,000 residents can choose between five different collectors. Under the new system, the community has hired a single trash collector to meet the town's garbage hauling needs, collection days will be reduced to once-a-week, and curbside recycling services will be added. ABC15 reports that Town Manager Rick Davis estimated "total savings to reach about $1,000,000 a year," and that officials also hope the changes will cut down on pollution, noise, and traffic.

Tea Party groups have come out strongly against the measure.

[...]

On its website, Arizona Campaign for Liberty warned that "The Fountain Hills Mayor & Town Council is attempting to restrict resident's choice in trash services by forcing residents into a single payer system!" The Fountain Hills Tea Party's website reads, "Once more, government is trying to interfere with free market economics."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/arizona-towns-new-trash-program-comes-under-tea-party-fire.php

Are these people real?

These stories both read like The Onion.

What's your vote for stupidest story of the day?

I go with the AZ Tea Party opposing savings of $1m for the town and preferring having more garbage trucks on their streets. The winner hands down. Oy vey.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 9, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Greg

There you go with the "Rubes" again


"Ad hominem" attacks are not allowed under Washington Post policy.

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

-Bush Interview a Ratings Flop-

According to TV by the Numbers, former President George W. Bush's much-hyped interview on NBC with Matt Lauer finished dead last in the television ratings.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/11/09/bush_interview_a_ratings_flop.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 9, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

ALL

Greg has been cited for his second use of the word "Rubes" in violation of Washinton Post policies.


Greg - you have to ban yourself now.

TWICE.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

According to TV by the Numbers, former President George W. Bush's much-hyped interview on NBC with Matt Lauer finished dead last in the television ratings.

Posted by: Ethan2010
++++++++++

"The Decider" lied to us for eight years. That was more than enough to last me a lifetime.

And I cannot imagine reading his book. May it be "remaindered" post haste.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 9, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Clinton should have done what Gary Condit did last week. None of your g-d business. If you don't like that, go to the House.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 9, 2010
-------

Just what some say Nixon should have done about the Watergate tapes: destroyed them and told everyone to take a hike.

Posted by: Brigade | November 9, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Just what some say Nixon should have done about the Watergate tapes: destroyed them and told everyone to take a hike.


Posted by: Brigade
++++++++++

As indicated by USDOJ's determination not to prosecute anyone for the destruction of the CIA "torture tapes," it is hard to disagree that Nixon (though not necessarily the country) would have been better off with that strategy.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 9, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

By Paul Kane in today's WAPO:

"Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) continued Tuesday to collect high-profile endorsements from his party's liberal wing in his bid to become House minority whip, trying to counter the impression that his candidacy is built around support from moderate-to-conservative Democrats.

"Seven Democratic committee chairmen issued a letter Tuesday endorsing Hoyer's candidacy for the No. 2 post in the House leadership, including a trio of the leading legislative liberals: Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.), Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.)."
--------

"this is about hating a black man in the (minority whip position). This is racism straight up." ---Bimbo Garofalo

Posted by: Brigade | November 9, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

It's quiet...

Too quiet.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 9, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Chuckindenton, thx for the Politifact link. I don't check that site often enough. I should

Posted by: sargegreg | November 9, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

America is in such deep trouble.

Bimbo versus Angle: not funny.

Disaffected Democrats are all jumping ship and they find themselves in the water next to...Republicans with an IQ higher than 80.

Germany is on the same page with China as regards our monetary policy. Germany and China. Well maybe we are right and they are wrong. It is possible.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 9, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

What else is happening--
Today's the anniversary of both Kristallnacht and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Worth remembering and thinking about, especially in light of the way Muslims and Latino immigrants are often villified. A nice essay about it here:

http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Kristallnacht-and-Berlin-Walls-Fall-Remembered-Today.aspx

Posted by: carolanne528 | November 9, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

A quote from Tim Scott's (R, SC)profile on the left side of this page, "This race is about the size of the federal government, eliminating that size and getting us closer to the constitutional mandate of a smaller, less intrusive government."

Where is there a "mandate" in the Constitution for a "smaller, less intrusive government"?

I'm sure this includes cutting vet benefits, the military, SS, Medicare, etc.? Right, Tim? Are you going to keep the pork that your fellow Freshman Rand is cooking up for *his* home state?

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

Does anyone know how much Jeff Greene spent in his primary in Florida against Meeks?


Jeff Greene got 283,370 votes.

It's pretty close to the $97 of Angle and McMahon.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Jeff Greene only spent 23,800,000 - about $84 per vote.

Not sure if these numbers are right

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

There were a couple, well maybe a million, things that bugged me about Dems before the election. One, they put off the Bush tax cuts battle knowing we would be in an even worse position post election and two, no one would really take a real stand to save Social Security. We have to wait to see what the commission comes up with, everything's on the table blah blah blah.

Well, I'm still on SS watch, took a break because of the election and the commission had clammed up after all of Simpson's dumb remarks and emails. Well, we know now which way this is heading. Peter Peterson just spent $20m on an ad that takes an indirect but obvious aim at SS and Bayh and Conrad think it's just swell.

If Dems give a pass to the top 10% re taxes then turn around and screw seniors, I think they'll be done for a generation. The only thing that could save them would be 6%-7% unemployment and I sure don't see that happening any time soon.

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

"In what may be the first major move of the forthcoming Social Security debate, the Peterson Foundation launched on Tuesday a $20 million TV ad campaign to promote the need for a major discussion on debt and deficit reduction.

Titled "OweNo," the campaign, which promotes a mock presidential candidate irreverently named Hugh Jidette (get it? Huge debt), doesn't take on Social Security reform directly. But the connections are fairly obvious and it has the program's defenders deeply wary about being outgunned. The Peterson Foundation, for one, has never shied away from its push to reform the entitlement program. And in introducing the $20 million effort, the organization's founder, former Nixon commerce secretary and fiscal conservative Pete Peterson made it abundantly clear that Social Security is in his sights."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/first-salvo-in-social-sec_n_781151.html

Posted by: lmsinca | November 9, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

"It's quiet...

Too quiet."

LOL,TrollMcWingnut :)

Posted by: carolanne528 | November 9, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Godwin's Law is a problem.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 9, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut at 6:52 PM


I've have said many times that there was not enough discussion on the various options health care versions during the health care debate.

This was primarily because Obama refused to take a stand on most of the issues, and let the Congress take the lead - on the surface. But each time a Congressional committee came out with a version, Obama's people said, don't attack it, it's not the final version.

So nothing ever got discussed except some vague "public option" idea.


_______________________________


TrollMcWingnut you have a very good point - Obama's plan forces everyone to buy expensive private insurance - and it beefs up ALL private insurance policies to more expensive policies with additional benefits.

Clearly, this helps the health insurance companies with additional business - and makes them more money. In this way, Obama threw a concession to a special interest at the expense of the American People - in exchange for them running less tv commercials against Obama's health care plan.

As one Senator I believe suggested, the additional people covered could have been covered instead through additional Medicare part - opened up to people 64 and younger.

However, this was attacked as a potential "public option" which could have been a slipperly slope toward a full government take-over.


However, the alternative - to force everyone to buy private insurance - seems unsavory - from a competitive point of view as well as a Constitutional one.

__________________________


One major revision to Obama's health care plan that has to be made: the incentives to slide into the government subsidy program have to be eliminated. Which means the penalties that businesses pay to not offer health insurace have to INCENTIVIZE them TO GIVING health insurance and not the other way around.


Then the next revision has to be whether the giant subsidy program which Obama came up with should be scrapped altogether in favor of a new Medicare Part which will be open to people 64 and younger.


This would probably save costs as compared to Obama's plan.

It might also be Constitutionally required - because the Courts may strike down the individual mandate. If that individual mandate is transferred to being forced to purchase a policy from the new Medicare Part from a private entity, it might be more likely to pass Constitutionality tests.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

"Just what some say Nixon should have done about the Watergate tapes: destroyed them..."

Yes, but everyone wants to be admired for their crimes. Seriously, they do.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 9, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

To be honest, few people actually know what is in the 2,000 pages of Obama's health care plan -

The outlines of some of the formulas of the Obama plan are practically incomprehensible.

The phase-ins and all are ridiculous - and how they divide up companies by size and revenue - it is difficult to get an idea of the over-all picture.

Even worse, it is difficult to see the incentives in the program - which I am told are going to yield horrible results in the form of companies ending their health insurance programs - in favor of taking the Obama-penalty.


When people complain that they won't be able to stay on their old insurance plans, Obama will be long gone.

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

There are many potential compromises on the health care plan.

Obama would be wise to put it all on the table - and get a compromise going this winter and signed by the spring.

Politically, that would be the best of all possible worlds for Obama and the democrats - a health care plan that passes wih significant Republican votes.


The massive government agencies would have to be eliminated. The massive taxes - would have to go too.


Clearly the "ten years of taxes against seven years of benefits" formula has to go as well. But that is a good thing because it has to be fixed anyway. All the taxes should go.


The health care plan can be fixed if it concentrates on regulating the health insurance companies as if they were utilities.

_________


On the tax brackets, the democrats have really backed themselves into a corner. Especially because the small businesses create jobs and that is seen as an essential economic policy.

Obama can't really raise taxes on that group - it is just bad economic policy in the middle of an economic crisis.

This threat of inflation, which could cause economic distortions in investments, is an additional problem that will affect this group.

It is bad politics for Obama to do anything that looks socialist. What is wrong with him? One has to seriously call into question his judgement if he thinks it is a good to insist on this as an issue.


Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Here's something else I let slide during the campaign season. I read this a few weeks ago and forgot to link it here, don't think anyone else did. I had a discussion on a back thread with Skip today and it reminded me of this New Republic piece.

Below is just part of it but the entire piece is worth the read. It wasn't that long ago that some conservatives in Congress were interested in changing our carbon footprint.

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

"Part of the conservative creed has always been that markets, left to themselves, accomplish most tasks more efficiently than government regulation. That’s true, of course, just as it’s true that markets don’t do everything you want. (That’s why we have cheap deregulated airlines and yet retain the Federal Aviation Administration.) But conservatives have grown more insistent on the deification of markets in recent years; Rand Paul is ever less an outlier. If markets do damage, that’s okay—it’s creative destruction à la Schumpeter.

But even if you accept that process absolutely within the economic sphere (and very few of us do, which is why Rand Paul just might lose), it doesn’t follow that it works outside of it. Destruction of the planet’s fundamental physical systems isn’t creative—it’s just destruction. If Microsoft disappears, innovators will take its place. If Arctic ice disappears, no young John Galt is going to remake it in his garage. The essential question is: Is the environment a subset of the economy, or is it the other way around? Or, more combatively, you really think you can out-argue physics? Hayek’s good, but atmospheric chemistry is a tough opponent.

If conservatives acknowledged the crisis, they could make a powerful contribution to the solution. One option for tackling global warming is for the government to regulate just about everything. Or, we could limit government’s role to simply imposing a price on fossil fuel that reflects the damage it does. This wouldn’t even need to be a traditional tax: One proposal gaining ground is to take every dollar produced by such a levy and rebate it to each citizen, using government as a kind of pass-through. You’d get the signal from your electric bill to start insulating, and the numbers on the gas pump would urge you in the direction of a hybrid car, but most people would come out ahead. It’s a plan designed with real deference to a conservative understanding of human nature."

http://www.tnr.com/print/article/environment-energy/magazine/78208/gop-global-warming-denial-insanity

Posted by: lmsinca | November 9, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a chance to compromise now. He can start negotiations right away - if he was smart.

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Re: W and Ethan the Hater

5) Had no idea he was on, because I have a life.
4) Even if I knew he was on, the thought of Matt Lauer makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
3) Probably buy the book for my Dad, then read it.
2) Whatever you think of him, after all the Whining/Pamperstwisting Pres Obama has put out into the MSM maw, W hasn't batted an eyelash...the mark of an, uh, grownup.

And, most importantly:

1) As per the TV #'s...DUDE, Steelers freakin' Bengals!

Posted by: tao9 | November 9, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca-

Interesting. "If conservatives acknowleged...".

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 9, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Tao

Are you talking about the Bush that does the Entertainment shows ??

Otherwise I have no idea who you are talking about.

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Bush was incredibly whiny. Being called a racist was the lowest point of your Presidency? Really? Not calling him a racist, but if he thinks that was the worst thing that happened to him in those eight years, um, I don't even know how to finish that sentence.

Sorry, George, that your poor response to the devastation of my home opened you up to such attacks. Let me know how many copies of your book I need to buy to make up for my crimes.

Tao, help me out here?

Posted by: DDAWD | November 9, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

"Being called a racist was the lowest point of your Presidency? Really? Not calling him a racist, but if he thinks that was the worst thing that happened to him in those eight years, um, I don't even know how to finish that sentence."

Wait, I thought it was cool now to hate on Kanye, since Barry did too. No?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 9, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Axelrod really shredded most of Greg Sargent's arguments concerning the outside campaign groups.

Shredded is not really the correct word, it's more like destroyed.

First, it is clear that Obama PLAYED THE LIBERALS by creating the impression that the Republicans had far more money.


The motive for this might actually be rational - to motivate the base contributors for the next election cycle.

However, the hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Obama is beginning to lose so much credibility one has to wonder how people will regard him in two years if he continues on this path.


Clearly, Obama and the democrats had MORE money than the Republicans this year.


The idea that Obama does not intend to get "outgunned" again - that is a deception to motivate people. Obama outgunned McCain $700 Million to $84 Million in 2008 and Obama had MORE money this year.


So DON'T LET OBAMA LIE TO YOU.


Politico reports


"Axelrod refused to wave off — and seemed to expect — a similar, well-funded campaign by wealthy Democratic donors and the party's activist allies in labor and the environmental communities in the 2012 campaigns for the White House and Congress. "


So all this stuff about Obama doing things differently is a big joke - all that has been proven to be just that - Obama deceptions and lies.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Trollmcwingnut and ddawd

I don't think you understood what Bush said - he said that the "democrats calling him a racist" was a low point in the administration.


NOT THE low point, but the MORAL LOW POINT FOR THE DEMOCRATS.


Calling a relief operation "racist" is ridiculous.


First of all, Nagan had primary responsibility for the evacuation, and he was incompetent. The Governor was a democrat. The democrats were RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVACUATION.


So, after the democrats failed, the narrative became: why isn't Bush there to save everyone within 72 hours?


________________________


Clearly, the democrats had YEARS to prepare for the evacuation - and to get a plan together.

Nagan refused to use the school buses to get out.

But Bush was expected to do in 72 hours what the democrats FAILED to do in years.


Everyone knew the canals and the levies were there and could fail - everyone should have had a way out of the city.

THEN to turn that all into a charge of RACISM, that was a MORAL LOW POINT FOR THE DEMOCRATS.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Orange/RainForest/Bomber-

"Everyone knew the canals and the levies were there and could fail...".

Which were under control of the...the...Army Corps of Engineers?

New Orleans District

"Since 1803, the men and women of the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have worked with Louisiana's citizens and the surrounding environment. Our combined accomplishments create an intriguing story of man's interaction with nature, the results, and consequences.

This story has become a subject of keen interest to students, academics, and citizens all over the world. We wish to provide a resource that shares the story of the New Orleans District mission -- past and present.

A continued understanding and appreciation of our history is essential if we are to set goals and accomplish future challenges in southern Louisiana."


Col. Alvin B. Lee, New Orleans District Commander


It was a GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY and it was Obama's fault!

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 9, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse


I have posted this already here before You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check http://bit.ly/bandYw .If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and believe me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: hernandezjo10 | November 10, 2010 2:08 AM | Report abuse

Wow. GOP fiscal discipline you can believe in.

"House Republicans Name Program That Already Expired As First Spending Item They Would Cut "

One program which House Republicans have consistently seized upon to bolster their budget-cutting bona fides is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Emergency Contingency Fund, a successful program that has created 250,000 jobs in 37 states via subsidized employment programs for low-income and unemployed workers.

...

But the crux of the issue is that eliminating the TANF emergency fund will not save any money because the program has already expired. It was funded at $5 billion for two years, and ended on September 30, 2010. There is no money left for Price to save.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/09/gop-tanf-save/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 10, 2010 4:32 AM | Report abuse

Question of the rest of the year is:

Will Barack H. Obama do a Clinton to avoid becoming a Carter???

You ask: "What does pulling a Clinton mean?"

A big time, liberal, political commentator/writer (and I forget his name) once said of President Clinton: "He's the best REPUBLICAN president we've ever had".

That says it all.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 10, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "If Dems give a pass to the top 10% re taxes then turn around and screw seniors, I think they'll be done for a generation."

I dunno. I'm not sure there's any such thing as "done for a generation" in our electorate. Indeed, all you have to do as a party to find a way to reverse "40 years in the wilderness" is get a small portion of the 60% of the eligible-to-vote electorate to show up next time around.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 10, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton became famous for stealing ideas from Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America".

He coopted Republican reforms and made them his own. NAFTA, Welfare Reform, etc.

Clinton raised taxes and then the Republicans would not let him spend the money. They shut the place down

Hence, big budget surpluses.

Gridlock can be good.

Obama is not as savvy as Clinton. Clinton is people smart. Obama is tele-prompter smart.

Bye, bye Obama!

Posted by: battleground51 | November 10, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Kevin

Maybe you're right. I know a lot of young people here though and for most of them the only reason they voted this time was because of legalization and prop. 23. My kids won't tell me how they voted on anything else so I'm kind of thinking they probably made protest votes on candidates. Most of their friends didn't even bother to vote.

My oldest daughter was here Sunday and we watched 60 minutes, she wasn't impressed. They all figure the system's rigged. Hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 10, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

@shrink2: "Yes, but everyone wants to be admired for their crimes. Seriously, they do."

Everyone? I'm not a shrink, but in my experience, most people want to justify their crimes (or other inappropriate or asocial behaviors). That is, perhaps it's technically a "crime", but it's morally justified to embezzle because the boss is such a jerk and the company is not a good corporate citizen, yada yada yada. Acceptable to steal from Wal-Mart because it's a big corporate jerk. Acceptable to be abusive to a significant other because they are so disrespectful/ungrateful/disloyal. Acceptable to cheat on a significant other because they aren't giving you what you "need" at home.

Although, I've often thought that often adulterers and embezzlers and the like leave clues as to their sins, not because they want admiration but because the crimes are half (if not all) about punishing someone (more so than they are about sex or money), and the other isn't really punished until they find out just what you did.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 10, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "If conservatives acknowledged the crisis"

That's probably not going to happen until there is overwhelming visceral evidence. And until the many non-scientists who embrace the scientific consensus on global warming stop calling skeptics "deniers" and "insane".

But, as long as it's more important to the climate change crowd to occupy the moral high ground rather than do something, I suppose it's all good.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 10, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_128.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 10, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca,

I hear your frustrations on Dems, but with long campaigns, social media, and demographics favoring Dems I just don't see it. What your point suggests to me, however, is that corporatist 'centrist' Dems may fall out of favor with the base entirely.

Also, I enjoyed your post about a carbon tax. Everyone should look into the scheme you posted, it's called "Cap and Dividend". There is a carbon tax on all fossil fuels but the money collected is distributed amongst consumers. I think it's a great idea for a bunch of reasons.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 10, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca,

I hear your frustrations on Dems, but with long campaigns, social media, and demographics favoring Dems I just don't see it. What your point suggests to me, however, is that corporatist 'centrist' Dems may fall out of favor with the base entirely.

Also, I enjoyed your post about a carbon tax. Everyone should look into the scheme you posted, it's called "Cap and Dividend". There is a carbon tax on all fossil fuels but the money collected is distributed amongst consumers. I think it's a great idea for a bunch of reasons.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 10, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

"as long as it's more important to the climate change crowd to occupy the moral high ground rather than do something"

I suppose having hurt feelings is one way to form an opinion and then govern. Look, I don't waste time calling people names or accusing them of motives I obviously can't know. None of us are mind readers. Whether they're being overly influenced by being called names or taking too much campaign money from the fossil fuel big boys, that's their problem, not mine. It doesn't move the country forward either way. Forget the moral high ground we should all be working together to get something done.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 10, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

"There is a carbon tax on all fossil fuels but the money collected is distributed amongst consumers. I think it's a great idea for a bunch of reasons."

And it used to be the compromise position. We're pretty far away from that now which seems to be the point of the article. This stuff drives me crazy.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 10, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "I suppose having hurt feelings is one way to form an opinion and then govern. "

Look. If you (not you personally, but thosepeople that do) feel that something should just be naturally and intuitively understood, and that anyone who doesn't should be insulted and dismissed, and that that license to call those people "teatards" or "insane" or "anti-science" is more important than making progress on the issue, that's fine.

There is no measurable difference (IMHO) in the justification of "my right to attack you idiots as anti-science because you are anti-science and you are idiots" than the justification that "I'm not going to work with you on this because you're being an a****le."

For the good feeling that comes with being morally superior to the uneducated rabble, you are putting yourself on the same side as the most vehement global warming "denier". Frankly, that's fine with me, I just think it should be a fully informed decision.

"Forget the moral high ground we should all be working together to get something done."

Agreed!

There are ways to get things done, in my opinion. Insisting that global warming "deniers" are on the same level as flat earthers (or that they're all on the take, or that they're all anti-science rubes) is as much in opposition to moving forward on issues such as green energy and energy independence as Glenn Beck or Michael Crichton.

Yet there is obviously some benefit to a green economy and alternative energy that has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. Too bad folks have to repent of their sins and convert to The First Church of Climate Change in order to do any missionary work. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 10, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

"For the good feeling that comes with being morally superior to the uneducated rabble, you are putting yourself on the same side as the most vehement global warming "denier". Frankly, that's fine with me, I just think it should be a fully informed decision."

Except that's not what I'm doing. I've tried to make the argument here and elsewhere, that we have both an environmental and economic responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint. My point in linking the article was that conservatives USED to agree. I could care less if people don't believe in global warming, I'm not trying to change their mind, that's actually beside the point and not relevant to my position.

Whatever sense of morality I have developed over my lifetime is mine and I simply live it, you won't see me trying to force it on others or claim superiority. I will however try to make a logical argument on occasion because I believe in something, isn't that what we're all doing? Whether I persuade anyone or not is an entirely different story.

I agree that lots of people engage in characterizations of their opponents that are both judgmental and detrimental, but it doesn't mean their argument is necessarily wrong, just that they don't know how to communicate effectively.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 10, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

@limsinca: "Except that's not what I'm doing. I've tried to make the argument here and elsewhere, that we have both an environmental and economic responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint."

Sorry, I thought the "(not you personally, but those people that do)" I used with my first use of the word "you" would have made it clear I was engaging in the "royal" you, not "you" specifically.

But I wouldn't even characterize as strictly an issue of "reducing our carbon footprint". More efficient use of energy increase productivity, improves economic output, makes energy more portable, saves individuals money, makes it (in the long run) cheaper to protect the elderly from extremes in cold and heat, creates new markets for products that benefit from cheaper, more abundant, more "portable" energy, etc., etc.

Energy independence. Freeze out the terrorist states. Energy infrastructure--how positive would it be, in so many ways, to make electricity for charging cars and another devices abundantly available everywhere? And so on.

The one thing I will probably remain opposed to is carbon markets. If we're going to tax carbon, just tax it. The last thing we need is a new artificial market that can be gamed and then explode just when retail investors have their 401ks deeply invested in derivatives of it. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 10, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Okay, so we pretty much agree. What is keeping us, as a nation, from doing all of the above? I contend it is the power of money and influence from the fossil fuel industry for the most part.

I had one more thought to throw out there. I think one could make a moral argument, for example universal health care, without assuming or claiming that people who disagree are morally bankrupt or rubes or idiots for that matter. And I also think if someone makes a moral argument for a certain policy or position one shouldn't necessarily assume that someone is claiming moral superiority unless they specifically say they are.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 10, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "And I also think if someone makes a moral argument for a certain policy or position one shouldn't necessarily assume that someone is claiming moral superiority unless they specifically say they are."

I generally agree, although when they (and this is universal, in my opinion, and not partisan) they start attacking the morality or intelligence of their opposition, and explaining away said opposition via their lack of intelligence, their greed, or their immorality, then they are making a de facto claim of moral superiority even if they don't literally say, "and I am morally superior".

I think there are a number of issues regarding making progress, and certainly the money spent by the gas and coal industry is part of it, though many fossil fuel companies at least pay lip service to energy independence and global warming (although I notice none of them have put a billion dollars into Tesla Motors). But a focus on doomsday scenarios (New York under water!) versus advantages, proposing it as a moral imperative (I know it's a valid argument, I'm just saying that, in order to make actual progress, more carrot than stick, more "morning in America" than fire and brimstone).

We shall see. In any case, we are progressing, if slowly. There's a slow roll out of infrastructure to support electric cars, for example. Slow improvements in batteries and electrical transmission. And, of course, much of Europe is passing more enlightened legislation, so they can serve as bellwethers to the success of various types of climate legislation.

May be suboptimal, but the end isn't yet nigh. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 10, 2010 12:09 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