Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* The Blue Dog snarls: Dem Rep. Heath Shuler boasts that he called Nancy Pelosi a loser to her face.

* Charlie Rangel is found guilty of 11 ethics violations, and Jonathan Capehart explains why Rangel deserves censure, not expulsion.

* David Kurtz says that aside from the violations themselves, the fact that Rangel continues to thumb his nose at the whole process is itself grounds for punishment.

* Chris Cillizza reports that Gentry Collins, a former top RNC aide who penned a scathing letter about Michael Steele's tenure, is now weighing a run for RNC chair.

Not sure what kind of message it sends for the GOP's chief political operative to be named "Gentry," but whatever...

* Are earmarks the new individual mandate for the Mittster? Romney is now styling himself as an anti-earmarks hero, but he sure seemed to love earmarks as Governor of Massachusetts.

* Not exactly a compromising bunch: GOP senators John Thune and Susan Collins say no dice to Chuck Schumer's suggested compromise of ending the tax cuts only on millionaires.

* Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner predicts a compromise on the Bush tax cuts, though he reiterated that Obama wants a permanent extension of the middle class ones, so it's unclear what the basis for the "compromise" would be.

* Indeed, a top House Republican is reiterating that extending both categories of cuts for different durations is a total nonstarter.

* It's a non-starter, of course, because it could require Republicans to push later for just an extension of the cuts for the top two percent of Americans, which isn't exactly great politics.

* Jed Lewison defines the choice facing Dems on the Bush tax cuts: "Fight or flight? What will it be?"

* Dems across the country are pretty much evenly divided over the prospect of minority leader Nancy Pelosi, 45-47.

* Sam Stein on a new non-partisan report that finds health reform will help reduce the deficit if it is fully implemented.

As Sam wryly points out, the report might give "a bit of pause for those eager to overturn or de-fund the legislation." Or maybe not?

* As it happens, Americans think health care is a more important problem than the deficit. They think jobs and the economy are much more important problems than the deficit.

* Tolerance on parade: Byron Tau reports that some conservatives are boycotting the Conservative Political Action Conference because one gay Republican group is participating.

* Dick Cheney says "history is starting to come around" on George W. Bush. Maybe Cheney's referring to that Rasmussen poll finding a majority thinks Bush was neither the best nor the worst president ever?

* And Kevin Huffman calls on Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell to voluntarily agree to stop writing opinion pieces -- for the good of the nation.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | November 16, 2010; 5:51 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House Dems, Senate Republicans, deficit, taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bush totally vindicated by history -- in two years
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Via Benen:

"Everything you need to know about Gov.-elect Rick Scott's (R-Fla.) judgment: "Scott has announced that his team of economic advisers will include former Reagan advisor Art Laffer.""

Wow.

Probably G. Gordon Liddy for Communications.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 16, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"Heath Shuler boasts that he called Nancy Pelosi a loser to her face."

Did Pelosi remind Heath Shuler about the game in which he threw five -- yes, five -- interceptions? I wonder how many Redskins fans have managed to forget about that?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 16, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to re-post this from the last thread because it is such a glaring example of teh stupid:

OT - Today she is on a roll

BACHMANN: As far as a compromise goes, I want to get the current tax policy as far into the future as we can, if we can only get it extended for two years, that’s great. But I don’t think the American people should have to pay for that to have some new massive spending tied to it. If that’s the case, I don’t think you’re going to see the Republicans go along with it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But why is it OK for the wealthiest Americans earning over $250,000 a year — remember the President has called for extending all tax cuts for those under $250,000 — for them to get tax cuts extended but for people out of a job and needing unemployment benefits not to have their benefits extended?

BACHMANN: Well remember again what this is. It’s a massive tax increase and its on the people who are job creators. And people want to think that these are millionaires sitting in leather chairs lighting their cigars with $100 bills, that’s not what we’re talking about. These are people who are carpet layers who may be employed two or three other guys, or a plumber, maybe himself and his brother, and it’s $250,000 in gross sales for their business. Their the ones looking at massive tax increases. …That’s going to hurt more people than anything if we can’t have job creation. And this is a job killer if we raise taxes on the job creators.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/16/bachmann-wealthy-no-unemployed/

Might I just point out to Bachman that income tax is NOT levied on sales, but on net income. When she says, "...it’s $250,000 in gross sales for their business," She is either stupid or lying, you pick.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 16, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

@hansolo - isn't that spamming?

Posted by: sbj3 | November 16, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Hans-

Why either/or? I pick "both".

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 16, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Revisiting new Rep Andy Harris's complaint that his healtcare doesn't kick in on Day One, TPM posted a summary of a study done by the Kaiser Family Foundation this year that finds:

"Seventy-four percent of covered workers face a waiting period before coverage is available. Covered workers in the Northeast are less likely (64%) than workers in other regions to face a waiting period." the report reads. "The average waiting period among covered workers who face a waiting period is 2.2 months.... Thirty-one percent of covered workers face a waiting period of 3 months or more."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/study-most-workers-have-to-wait-for-health-insurance.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 16, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Hans, not to mention that you'd GET a break on the first 250K of income!

She's stupid and a liar.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 16, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

This round-up is a total failure because you left out John Kyl's holding New START hostage.

There is not a single mention on TPM homepage. #professionalleftfail

@pwire has something:

"A new CNN/Opinion Research survey finds 73% of Americans say lawmakers should ratify a nuclear treaty with Russia that's stalled in the U.S. Senate, while just 23% think it should not be ratified."

Here is some more reading about how Republicans are holding the treaty hostage for no reason:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/15/AR2010111506994.html

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_RUSSIA_NUCLEAR

Just imagine if a Democratic Senator held up President Reagan's START treaty because he wanted more SPENDING. Just imagine what the GOPeebaggers would say. Just imagine what the media would say.

The first START treaty, negotiated under Reagan and the first Bush, was approved by the Senate on a 93-6 vote in 1992. The follow-up was approved in 2003 on a 95-0 vote.

93-6

95-0

But we can't get 67 votes for Obama's treaty that is approved by EVERYONE except the far right. Can we please get some more reporting on this issue, Greg? People need to know that the Republican Right is damaging national security because they don't want to hand President Obama a political victory. These Republicans are DISGUSTING.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 16, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain - Skip has proven he doesn't have a clue about taxes.

You can engage him if you'd like, but you'd be better served by ignoring him.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 16, 2010 5:57 PM
-------

You'd be better served by ignoring anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Most of your posts are just the typical left-wing drivel and talking points.

Posted by: Brigade | November 16, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, I'll hit that in the AM. promise.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 16, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, Benen had a piece on it. It's a perfect example of how far away from sensible bi-partisanship we've gotten.

There is ONLY one rule: if Obama wants it, the GOP is against it.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 16, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Caddell and Schoen

Stop writing opinion pieces


.........for the good of Obama, not the nation.

Obama should resign - and just let Biden get a fresh start. If he cared about this nation, he would do that this week.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Opposing this START treaty is ridiculous.

Kyl is a complete idiot.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 16, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

That CNN poll is pure junk. This polling outfit has serious problems with its methodology.

Take a look, in the full pdf version, at the crosstabs on page 10. They didn't get enough respondents in the 18-34 age group to even report. They got a very large group in the over 65 range. From the margins of error, you can calculate the sample size for each group. They didn't get more than 90 18-34 yos. In fact, their sample consists of 35% people under 50 to 65% of people over 50. The population distribution is just the opposite -- 59% to 41%. So the poll is heavily skewed towards older people.

It is also heavily skewed towards the rural population. They have only 17% urban respondents, while 30% of Americans reside in urban area. I could go on with the problems with this poll, but it basically consists of people who were sitting home between 6 and 9 pm, answered a landline, and consented to an interview. They are called the "easy to reach" and their opinion is in no way representative of the general population.

They obviously didn't use good methodology, and didn't call cell phones. Here is a link on the problems with this kind of poll:
http://www.pollingreport.com/md1011.htm

In short, it's a junk poll and you shouldn't be touting it, Greg.

Posted by: TomBlue | November 16, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

hans Solo


What you did is against the rules -

Greg - you should ban Hans because he broke your rule on repeating himself himself.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Greg.

This issue is really pissing me off.

The sh*t that's tucked into these media pieces makes me so angry. Like ya know the $4B that Kyl is asking for? That is ON TOP OF the $10B that Obama already appropriated for upgrades to the nuke system. It's not like Kyl is asking for $4B to upgrade nukes. No. Kyl is asking for $14B to upgrade nukes.

Every way you look at this issue it is so clearly counter-productive for American foreign policy. These idiot Republicans are driving me up a friggin wall.

"COUNTRY FIRST" except when it means damaging the President on a bipartisan issue. Fk that.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 16, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

TomBlue, thanks for that.

Polls need much more scrutiny. They drive headlines all too readily and support a story that isn't.

Short attention spans make it worse....

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 16, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Here's more news on the mortgage/foreclosure/fraud. The oversight panel issued it's report and there were hearing today as well. I followed David Dayens live blogging scenario and it was really interesting. Even Shelby had a few choice words, something along the lines of "so MERS was set up to skirt state laws?" I have no idea where this is all going to lead, it's anyone's guess.

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

"The Congressional Oversight Panel, the TARP watchdog program formerly chaired by Elizabeth Warren and now helmed by former Senator Ted Kaufman, has released a report detailing the failures in the mortgage servicing industry, and the threats to the overall housing market, financial sector and greater economy. The report is chilling; while it rightly says that we don’t yet know the extent of the fraud involved (they call it “irregularities”), even a small chunk of the mortgage-backed securities market going sour would have major implications for all of us. As Ted Kaufman notes, the private-label MBS market totals $7.6 trillion dollars. You don’t have to see much of that break down before you get to the total market capitalization of the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street.

The report (PDF) tries to get at the enormity of this problem, and tries to wake up regulators who are not seeing the serious systemic risk that mortgage companies have created. The panel clearly doesn’t buy the argument from the banks that this is merely about robo-signers, and once the documents get scrutinized better and put in order, the problem will go away. In fact, they give credence to the theory that the document fraud was and is an attempt to cover up a much larger fraud."

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/11/16/congressional-oversight-panel-report-highlights-systemic-risk-of-foreclosure-fraud/

Posted by: lmsinca | November 16, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

You can have fun estimating the number of respondents from the margin of error here. http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html

Then taking the total sample size, in this case 1014, you can figure out the distribution of the sample. You can compare that distribution to census data, or to a legitimate poll that uses solid methodology like Pew. I've found the exact same problems with every one of CNN's polls recently. They do it to generate buzz -- the mosque poll this past summer for example, is where I first noticed their seriously flawed methodology. Their polls are pure junk.

And do you seriously think that all but 3% of Americans actually have an opinion on whether Pelosi should be minority leader? Please. Most people I know in the real world couldn't care less, in fact, most people don't even know who she is, and I live in California. Only Fox watchers and political junkies care.

Posted by: TomBlue | November 16, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

More de-bunking on New START:

"""Keith Payne and Tom Scheber attempt to raise some concerns about New START, but most of their arguments carry little weight.

The central point, on the timing, has the most direct rebuttal: the civilian and uniform leadership of the U.S. military wants this treaty, and they want it now. Would the authors have the administration ignore that desire?

The verification questions are equally easily rebutted. On nuclear cruise missiles, they write Russia is "apparently" moving forward? What does that mean? We do know they are moving forward with the RS-24 road mobile missile. Would the authors rather not have the information this treaty will provide on the warhead loadings on that new missile?

In that regard, this treaty has unprecedented verification on warhead loadings, something the authors conveniently ignore.

On rail-mobile missiles, neither country deploys them. If the Russians do, the treaty will require them to be counted.

On flight performance data, that information is not needed when our intelligence community can actually see the warhead loadings directly.

Every living head of U.S. Strategic Command, including the eight former generals charged with this critical task, support New START. Would they put American security at risk?

Stephen Young
Senior Analyst
Union of Concerned Scientists"""

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253245/threat-new-start-keith-b-payne#comment-16969

"""During a recent appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described some of the specific verification provisions.

"For the first time to be able to look into and see the number of weapons that are on top of any particular missile, where we haven't been able to do that before," said Admiral Mullen. "We will be able to count weapons on bombers which we haven't been able to do before. We will be able to, in fact, confirm [military] facility elimination - there are very robust national technical means provisions in this treaty and a specific provision which does not permit interference with that. The unique identifier which will be on every single weapon is a brand new provision for verification.""""

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/news-analysis/Verification-Key-Component-of-New-START-Treaty--95636044.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 16, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"Now that he's confessed to war crimes, when is the UN going to frog-march this clown to the gallows?"

Right on! He can say he was only following orders. Does anyone doubt that Cheney,at Bush Sr's urging, was the grown up who really ran this circus for 8 years?

Posted by: filmnoia | November 16, 2010 4:45 PM
-------

I wonder whose orders Barry is following---Cheney's? Not much has changed since Barry took over from Bush---lots of hot air and gut wind to appease morons like you but little in the way of real policy change. That's why the neo-cons praise Barry's policy in the Middle East. Pull your head out of his arse and you might learn enough so as not to appear such a fool. Maybe you'll volunteer to march Barry to the gallows.

What do you think of his policy on assassinations?

------

Obama Lawyers Defend ‘Kill Lists’
by William Fisher, November 10, 2010

"Lawyers for the Barack Obama administration told a federal judge Monday that the U.S. government has authority to kill U.S. citizens whom the executive branch has unilaterally determined pose a threat to national security.

That claim came in federal court in Washington, D.C., in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). The two human rights legal advocacy organizations contend that the administration’s so-called “targeted killing authority” violates the constitution and international law.

“The full contours of the government’s position would allow the executive unreviewable authority to target and kill any U.S. citizen it deems a suspect of terrorism anywhere,” CCR attorney Pardiss Kebriae told IPS."

Okay libs---Let's hear it for Barry!

Posted by: Brigade | November 16, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent wrote,
"The Blue Dog snarls: Dem Rep. Heath Shuler boasts that he called Nancy Pelosi a loser to her face."
-------

She's stupid and a liar.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 16, 2010 6:12 PM
------

That's probably why he called her out.

Posted by: Brigade | November 16, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

There is ONLY one rule: if Obama wants it, the GOP is against it.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 16, 2010 6:24 PM |
------

Just like the voters.

Posted by: Brigade | November 16, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

Why does Obama sound more and more like Nixon everyday ???

Bombing third countries - Nixon and Obama

Massive social programs - without any idea how they will be paid for - Nixon and Obama

Economic Policies which will lead to inflation a few years down the road - Nixon and Obama


Enemies Lists - Nixon and Obama


Obama is looking more and more like Nixon every day........

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

The AAPOR recently published their comprehensive research on the cell phone only population. Here: http://aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Cell_Phone_Task_Force&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2740

You don't have to read the whole thing, but one finding was the difference in demographics between cell phone-only households and landline households:

"Equally important to researchers are the demographic attributes of these cell phone only households. As of 2009, the U.S. cell phone only population is more likely to be younger: 38 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds, 49 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds, and 37 percent of 30- to 35-year-olds live in wireless-only households (Blumberg and Luke, 2010). The cell phone only population also includes more renters, a higher proportion of non-whites (e.g., 30 percent of Hispanics), and has a lower income as compared to the entire U.S. landline population."

So with this junk CNN poll, you are getting a sample highly biased towards older whites, rural and suburban, higher income homeowners.

That's fine, there is nothing wrong with that, but when reporting the poll you should say "In a poll of mainly older white, rural and suburban-dwelling people in the South and Midwest, 66% of them think the Democrats should pick someone other than Pelosi as minority leader. Of course, that wouldn't be interesting at all, would it. The whole point of these junk polls are to pretend that they are representative of all Americans. They are not.

Posted by: TomBlue | November 16, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

The position of the Obama Administration on "targeted killing" is completely wrong. Taken to its logical conclusion, any President can order the assassination of any U.S. citizen, and then can refuse -- on the grounds of protection of "state secrects" -- to divulge the evidence that supported the decision to kill that person (after all, hey, divulging the evidence would compromise our intelligence sources!). That is not authority I want any U.S. President to have.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 16, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama is looking more and more like Nixon every day........

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 6:49 PM
-------

But Nixon won a second term in a landslide. Barry is looking more like Carter.

Posted by: Brigade | November 16, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

So, Brigade, the guy that told me:

You'd be better served by ignoring anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Most of your posts are just the typical left-wing drivel and talking points.


Posted by: Brigade | November 16, 2010 6:14 PM

Has now taken a post from BG where he was acurately described Michelle Bachman as follows:

She's stupid and a liar.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 16, 2010 6:12 PM

And misrepresented it to be a reference to Nancy Pelosi.

Typical dishonesty from a typical Republican.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Ethan

If you are in favor of reducing the number of nuclear weapons we have, the best way to do that is to use them in the Middle East.


Solves two problems at once, huh ???

.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Please tell us Brigade, do you agree with Michelle Bachmann's characterization of taxable business income as computed on all revenues without deduction for expenses?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Please tell us Brigade, do you agree with Michelle Bachmann's characterization of taxable business income as computed on all revenues without deduction for expenses?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 7:01 PM
-----

No. And actually, I was referring to Hans Solo, not you. But if the shoe fits ...

Posted by: Brigade | November 16, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Who owns the debt?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/who-owns-the-debt.html

Posted by: bernielatham | November 16, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

So then you agree, Brigade, that Michelle Bachmann is stupid and/or a liar?

And what about your misrepresentation of BG's post?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

The position of the Obama Administration on "targeted killing" is completely wrong. Taken to its logical conclusion, any President can order the assassination of any U.S. citizen, and then can refuse -- on the grounds of protection of "state secrects" -- to divulge the evidence that supported the decision to kill that person (after all, hey, divulging the evidence would compromise our intelligence sources!). That is not authority I want any U.S. President to have.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 16, 2010 6:53 PM
-------

Thanks for being consistent. Obama's position just goes to show how things change when one holds the levers of power. Even without passing judgment on the issues, it seems like quite a journey from waterboarding is bad to unreviewable targeted assassination of U.S. citizens is A-OK.

Posted by: Brigade | November 16, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

So then you agree, Brigade, that Michelle Bachmann is stupid and/or a liar?

And what about your misrepresentation of BG's post?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 7:10 PM
-----

I agree that she and Pelosi are both stupid. Thus the (mis?)representation.

Posted by: Brigade | November 16, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"Senate Republicans on Tuesday night showed a united front and called on Democrats to join them in opposing the long-standing practice.

"During a closed-door caucus meeting, Republicans passed by voice vote a two-year moratorium on earmarks, identical to one approved by the House GOP earlier this year. They also approved a resolution sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky challenging their Democratic colleagues to enact an earmark ban of their own."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45240.html#ixzz15UhnD7EW

Posted by: sbj3 | November 16, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

You don't think using someone else's post to make it appear he said something that he didn't say is a MISREPRESENTATION?

The GOP -- people of integrity.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, did Sullivan, in his "article," mention whose womb Trig Palin emerged from?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 16, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

So, Obama is praised by neocons and his HCR ideas were floated by moderate GOP senators years before. Sure is consistent with all the extremist/socialist/far left-wing crap we've heard from some of the righties on this board for the last year.

So, who's going to *be consistent* and agree with me that Obama governs and campaigned as a moderate?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 16, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, did Sullivan, in his "article," mention whose womb Trig Palin emerged from?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut
++++++++++++

He reportedly could see Russia when he was born, so it likely was a womb with a view.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 16, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw, why did Tina Fey say anything about Sullivan's "interest"' in the womb of Sara Palin (or Bristol [or Willow]{or Piper})?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 16, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

prag, thanks for getting my back.

I'm not responding to the idiots on the right who don't make arguments and don't know what they're talking about.

Ethan, good work on Kyl. The more facts out there on that issue the worse he looks. And that he'd pull that shite with nuclear disarmament....classy.

lms, thanks for that info on the mortgage stuff and the Dayen link. Some really good work there. We'll miss Ted Kaufman.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 16, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Troll,

Is Andrew Sullivan still writing about Sarah Palin's womb, or is it just Sarah's fan club that can't let the issue go?

As for Tina Fey, I'll let her speak for herself:

"Politics aside, the success of Sarah Palin and women like her is good for all women — except, of course, those who will end up paying for their own rape kit and stuff. But for everybody else, it's a win-win. Unless you're a gay woman who wants to marry your partner of 20 years. Whatever. But for most women, the success of conservative women is good for all of us. Unless you believe in evolution. You know — actually, I take it back. The whole thing's a disaster."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 16, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

BGinChi

thanks for attempting that fake to the high road, and then going for the name-calling.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1, I don't read Sullivan, so I have to rely on those that do. I was hoping bernie would let us know if Sullivan, a writer he seems to read regularly and trust, who believes (Dr.Sullivan does) in a "birth conspiracy" involving the womb(s) of Bristol, Willow, Piper and Sarah Palin, has mentioned whether or not he (our resident obstetrician, Sullivan)has solved his exceedingly bizarre obsession yet.

I did not know that the media followed Tina Fey, or quoted her at length. Interesting.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 16, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

I did not know that the media followed Tina Fey, or quoted her at length. Interesting.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut
++++++++++

Tina Fey just received the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. That quote was from her acceptance speech.

Oh, and you should know that Andrew Sullivan does not say that there was a conspiracy. He just notes how difficult it is to get any answers:

"I do not know the truth and have never claimed that Palin is lying. I have always stated that bringing a baby with Down Syndrome into the world is a noble and beautiful thing. I have simply asked, given the implausible, if possible, circumstances, that a person running for vice-president provide some basic evidence for a very strange and unclear story."

You might try reading the people you criticize. Your secondhand sources are not necessarily reliable.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 16, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

"That is not authority I want any U.S. President to have."

Bearclaw, I'm with you on this one, and complained about it for quite awhile here and elsewhere. I'm also not real happy with our strategy in Af/Pak or the numerous drone strikes and probably still secret prisons. I know a lot of people on the right think this is just dandy, but count me as a skeptic. I think we've traveled down a dangerous path over the last 10 years and I don't see much difference between either administration. And now we're setting up in Yemen.

Also, for the record I'm not particularly encouraged by the TSA's invasion of privacy either, although I'm sure it's made someone quite rich. I hear it's Michael Chertoff.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 16, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

On the latest disgrace for both parties...hours ago I clicked...

"President Obama’s hopes of ratifying a new arms control treaty with Russia this year appeared to unravel on Tuesday as a Senate Republican leader moved to block a vote in what could be a devastating blow to the president’s most tangible foreign policy achievement." NYT

More of the same. Obama has to outflank the Republicans or he will be a lame duck too.

Right now they wouldn't let him pass a resolution declaring water is wet. How to outflank them? My fingers hurt thinking of all the paragraphs of good advice I wasted posting to message boards on this topic over the last two years^, but it would not have been difficult. It isn't as if Republicans are organized, well led, or have an honest, positive/inspirational agenda.

^all of it sheer genius, of course. Not self-promotion, it is just manifest destiny!

Next we will hear from Greg about how Obama can take the high ground. Then I will declare, Obama will not get re-elected on that basis. It is just my cross to bear.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 16, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw, the only person who thinks Palin's birthing of Trig is "very strange and unclear" is Dr. Andrew Sullivan OB/GYN. Come on, do you really want to die on this hill?

Fine, a guy who thinks there is a conspiracy afoot about which Palin birthed Trig is credible to you. Own it.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 16, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

I have a lot of respect for the cultural and intellectual achievements of the Jewish community in America. This respect is only increased when I look at their overall refusal to be suckered by the likes of Gary Bauer and Bill Kristol...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-05/jewish-voters-stand-by-democrats-the-rights-scare-tactics-backfire/?cid=hp:mainpromo7%20backfire/?cid=hp:mainpromo7%20

Posted by: bernielatham | November 16, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Nice of Sam Stein to mention a report on the ACA reducing the deficit, but the debate on this is akin to the debate on evolution, global warming, and tax cuts increasing the deficits. One of those things that Republicans pretend there is a debate about and the mainstream press goes along with them.

There's no debate that the ACA reduces the deficit if implemented.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 16, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Cmon Troll. For a guy that pals around with the socialism/communism/Kenyan usurper crowd. The death panels, tax cuts pay for themselves, cure the deficit with more tax cuts gang, you sure are judgmental. Is there anyone out there that you agree with every position they take, every argument they make? I would think Sullivan would be more subject to attack for his position on his acceptance of the Deficit Commission recommendations than his doubts about Palin's truthfulness.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

@troll: "Bernie, did Sullivan, in his 'article,' mention whose womb Trig Palin emerged from?"

Now, that's some news you can use. Apparently, Sullivan has also unearthed evidence that not only was Trig Palin not really born an American citizen, he will also turn out to be an anti-colonialist Kenyan. Who discovers that 9/11 was an inside job. Who knew?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 16, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for reminding me DDAWD. How about that too Troll, the global warming denying, evolution doubting, earth is 6000 years old, man walked with dinosaurs crowd.

You keep defending that paragon of virtue, Sarah Palin, along with all those other preachers of truth from the right.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

@Troll: I read most of Sullivan's creepy obsession with Palin, the Trig Trutherism, and the equally creepy "I just want answers/Just want to see the Birth certificat/No, the long form birth certificate" cop out.

I concur with your assessment. You want to get depressed, go back and read the stuff Sullivan was writing 10 years ago. The guy was a brilliant conservative. And perhaps still is, but is now engaged in weird pop-political performance art.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 16, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain at 7:22 PM

So, Obama's comment yesterday - about McConnnell "joining him" in the fight against earmarks -

That wasn't a MISREPRESENTATION ???


Is it possible that you could at least make the effort to have us take you seriously?

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Kevin

You are only helping the Obama people by siding with them.

They have convinced you that they are interested in "discussions"

They are not - they are only interested in pushing their partisan ideas like drug dealers. They have used you, and you drank the kool-aid.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

prag,

There are argument's that can be made about whether HCR"s medical research and advisory committee's will result in Death Panels ala the UK's version, NICE. I've never quoted or linked to a birther (of the non Sullivan strain) nor do I think a discussion of the legitimacy or lack there of the Laffer curve invalidates the advocate (on either side). However, rational people are going to draw the line at things like 9/11 truth, birtherism (again, the non Sullivan strain), Diebold/Ohio machinations (see what I did there) and Sullivan's breathtaking strain of birtherism. If Dr.Sullivan's freakish "questions" don't cross the line into 9/11 truther conspiracies for you, so be it.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 16, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Yep, Louie Gohmert, another one the Republicans of Integrity.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/how_rep_louie_terror_babies_gohmert_got_a_college.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

The Economic situation in Europe is headed for another crisis.

Apparently Germany is taking the heat right now - for not doing enough for the other countries.

However, Germany just spent 20 years bailing out East Germany, and the public is weary of such projects.

The Irish, the Portugese and the Spanish are also of concern.

I can't imagine supporting the US going to help out European countries at this point - too much of our stimulus dollars have ended up helping Asian nations.


It time to DUMP all these export-led economies


The US should demand an IMMEDIATE TRADE BALANCE - we buy as much as they buy. We stop trade at the end of every month - on the 27th or 28th and waiting for the trade to balance out for the month.

That is the ONLY WAY TO SAVE THIS ECONOMY.


BITE THE BULLET AND DO IT


Who cares about taxing the rich


YOU WANT OUT OF THIS ECONOMIC CRISIS, FIX THE TRADE DEALS.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

prag,

As far as I know, Palin is not a birther, a doubter of evolution, a believer that the earth is 6000 years old or that man walked with dinosaurs. I believe that she may doubt man-made global warming (as do I). Why do you think Palin believes all those things you mentioned (except Mother Gaia's AGW)?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 16, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Joe Walsh has been declared the winner in Illinois 8th

Another win for the Tea Party


Another rising star for the democrats dims because of the boneheaded moves by Obama.


You all wanted to vote for Obama, blame yourselves.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin declared on Thursday that the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate is "rightfully" an issue with the American public, and that it is "fair game" for politicians to question Obama's citizenship.

The comments came during an interview with conservative radio host Rusty Humphries, who asked Palin whether she planned to "make the birth certificate an issue" if she runs for president in 2012.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin suggests in her memoir, "Going Rogue" that she doesn't believe in evolution.

The New York Times reports in its review:

Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she "didn't believe in the theory that human beings -- thinking, loving beings -- originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees."

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

The LA Times reports:

Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Andon global warming, she ran with John McCain on a platform that included a cap and trade proposal very similare to that suggested by President Obama. That she is now denying or "doubting" global warming is simply further evidence of her intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

All you Obama people appear to have decided to have a discussion entitled "Why we hate the other side"

And you have reviewed all your reasons to hate

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Let's take a vote


WHICH democrats here are in favor of raising taxes $700 Billion in the middle of a recession???

.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Greg

Politico has turned back your point on Grassley tonight:

Obama’s last-minute decision to address the House GOP retreat – and the one-sided televised presidential lecture many Republicans decried as a political ambush – has left a lingering distrust of Obama invitations and a wariness about accommodating every scheduling request emanating from the West Wing, aides tell POLITICO.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45257.html#ixzz15VeYt4yn

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

prag,

Nice try. Did Palin assert that Barry was not an American citizen?

Also, why would you accept as factual a NYT book review where their reviewer leaves out crucial text: "Palin writes: "But your dad's a science teacher," Schmidt objected. "Yes." "Then you know that science proves evolution," added Schmidt. "Parts of evolution," I said. "But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt." Schmidt winced and raised his eyebrows. In the dim light, his sunglasses shifted atop his head. I had just dared to mention the C-word: creationism. But I felt I was on solid factual ground."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503544_162-503544.html?keyword=Shushannah+Walshe#ixzz15VcxqCPe

That is a view of held by many "mainstream" people, nor is it a rejection of evolution. I tend to call it "evolution plus" as in, "what got the ball rolling." To wit: ""I'm the daughter of a science teacher. My father showed me fossils. I know about evolution, and I accept evolution," Palin said, we report in our book. "That doesn't mean that God didn't set everything in motion."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503544_162-503544.html?keyword=Shushannah+Walshe#ixzz15VdnJf9a

Finally, a music teacher in Wasilla? I do not believe that person. If you want to, be my guest. Sounds a little, what... to good to be true? In a world where Sullivan, a believer in a conspiracy over who gave birth to Trig Palin, is considered a legitimate source for you, than I guess Wasilla's venerable music teacher is an unimpeachable source. Tell me more about Diebold cheating in Ohio in 2004?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 16, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

On the politico article above

The issue of bipartisanship has become fundamental


Obama has treated "bipartisanship" like it is a weapon to be used against the Republicans.


THAT ACTION by Obama has actually DESTROYED realistic attempts to get to together - because Obama has destroyed the trust.

It is certainly ironic.


But this is the situation which was the FORESEEABLE result of Obama's own actions.


Either Obama has been unable to think ahead (which is possible) or Obama has deliberately sabotaged the potential for bipartisan cooperation.


Obama is NOT going to be the hero of bipartisanship - because the very nature of bipartisanship REQUIRES that credit be spread around.

Obama fails to do that every time - he is a deceptive liar -


A deceptive liar is someone that you should have your guard up against - again EXACTLY the conditions that PREVENT bipartisan agreements.

ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC - that I have to tell the democrats what their own campaign commitments actually mean.

When you have to go that far, it means the other side is so rotten, it makes no sense to try to engage them.


And that is Obama - rotten to the core.


IT IS NOT THE COLOR OF ONE'S SKIN, BUT THE CONTENT OF ONE'S CHARACTER.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

@Troll: Demonstrating your skill with the old comment-fu tonight, huh?

"'I accept evolution,' Palin said, we report in our book. 'That doesn't mean that God didn't set everything in motion.'"

Which is the position I take. I believe in God (and I didn't, until I was 33) and intelligent design, but also accept the preponderance of evidence re: evolution, the age of the earth, etc. Which it turns out is a variation on a very common belief. One not acceptable to orthodox atheists, admittedly, but one that I share with many people, nevertheless. While I call myself a Christian, I am not a inerrant Biblical literalist. Again, I'm not alone there.

However, I think we should focus on the most important thing going on right now. That is, they just posted a trailer for the Green Lantern movie at

http://trailers.apple.com

You're welcome.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 16, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

@RedTea: "They are not - they are only interested in pushing their partisan ideas like drug dealers. They have used you, and you drank the kool-aid"

Thanks. You've really opened my eyes. I will swear off Kool-Aid from this point forward.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 16, 2010 11:25 PM | Report abuse

This is the ridiculous and silly logic of the democrats


Let's hate other people because of evolution - and birtherism - and therefore the democrats should get the votes to RAISE TAXES $700 BILLION IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION.

It's called a non-sequitor

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

As far as McCain and his endorsement of the economy/job destroying Cap and Tax cr*pola, I've forgiven her. OMG, she is willing to supress her disagreement for the sake of the position? Why, that disqualifies her from even existing!!!!111!!1!! AMBITION!!!11!!1!!! FOR SHAME!!11!!!!! Do you think Einstein, er, Plugs, agrees with Barry on everything? Wait, don't answer that, I'm guessing you do.

I think, over time, she could have convinced McCain about the stupidity of his beliefs. His idiotic endorsement of that boondogle is one of the reasons he lost.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 16, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Ironically, Obama has proven himself so untrustworthy, that Obama has made bipartisanship extremely difficult.


I don't remember ONCE in which Reagan and Tip O'Neil having to be concerned about being smearing the press about the lack of cooperation.


The conduct of Obama on this subject has been SHAMEFUL AND DISGRACEFUL


And next to that, I have to place Greg Sargent, for his SHAMEFUL attempt today to twist the Grassley exchange along the same lines.


Why should Grassley go against his party in order to help Obama? NO REASON.


Obama has to negotiate with the PARTY LEADERS.


Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

I tend to agree with you vis a vis intelligent design.

As far as the old comments, I'm always willing to flog a dead horse ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 16, 2010 11:34 PM | Report abuse

You touch my junk and I will have you arrested

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

"However, I think we should focus on the most important thing going on right now. That is, they just posted a trailer for the Green Lantern movie at

http://trailers.apple.com

You're welcome."

About time they finished that movie. It was getting pretty irritating for those guys to block off all our streets and I didn't get a single glimpse at Ryan Reynolds' wife.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 17, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Schoen & Caddell have their fingers on the pulse of the nation. They see what I see and I respect them for it. Barack Hussein Obama is another Jimmy Carter in waiting. 2012 will be another embarrassing setback for Democrats if B.O. insists on running for a second term. He will certainly be challenged just as Ted Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980. It will be a power struggle that can only benefit the GOP.

Obama must stand down just as his ghostly mentor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, foreswore a second term in 1968. It may be hopeless for Democrats but it would save face for Obama and would be a pretty sweet deal for him., as well.

1. He goes out as not a loser.

2. He retires at a relatively young age to the most exclusive club on Earth, the ex-presidents club.

3. Best pension on Earth and golf every day.

4. Becomes a world statesman with huge speaking fees and book deals.

It's win-win for Obama. It's the only logical, minimal damage choice he has.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 17, 2010 6:46 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin. Creationism. Climate change denial. Flat earthers. What's next? A deconstruction of the Scopes Trial?

Posted by: wbgonne | November 17, 2010 7:05 AM | Report abuse

Again, the GOP just changes the facts to fit their story:

The Politico has a story up tonight about how and why the bipartisan, everybody-get-along summit between President Obama and congressional Republicans ended up getting postponed. And a key part of it, according to Hill Republicans, is the GOP's distrust of Obama after he "crashed" their caucus retreat last January. You'll remember, this is when President Obama went and spoke at the House GOP retreat in Maryland and actually took pretty free-ranging questions from House Republicans -- somewhat akin to 'Question Time' in the UK parliament. (See video of the event here.)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/11/thats_the_story_galacticfail_edition.php#more?ref=fpblg

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 7:11 AM | Report abuse

On a political note, the GOP is once again cleaning the Dems' clock. Whatever the merits of banning earmarks it sends a coherent political message. Now the GOP is going after the Fed's monetary power and will, no doubt, message that attractively as well. My guess is the GOP's favorability will rise. ANd that will be Exhibit 9 Trillion that the American people respond positively when a party appears to fight for what it claims to believe.

Now back to the Scopes Trial ...

Posted by: wbgonne | November 17, 2010 7:16 AM | Report abuse

That's a truly sorry performance up above guys.

I linked to a Sullivan column (that quotes James Fallows on who is responsible for the debt but which has a larger-sized graphic - which is why I linked to Sullivan rather than Fallows) and you allow Troll to run an ad hominem on you. It's predictable he wouldn't address the actual content but that you guys leave what is important aside and get suckered by Troll's game is inexcusable.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 17, 2010 7:18 AM | Report abuse

"Mission Accomplished" banner in storage. Not part of spiffy Bush new Bush library. They haven't, the folks in charge say, decided if it will be part of the library's visible content.

Sure they have.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-11-17-banner17_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Over the next two years, you will see an organized and sophisticated project to rehabilitate Bush's image. The book and library, the fawning performances by Limbaugh and Hannity etc are the beginning. Expect Fleischer to arrive on your TV screen with increasing regularity. This is how propaganda gets done.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 17, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

How Rep. Louie 'Terror Babies' Gohmert Got A College Art Director Fired

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/how_rep_louie_terror_babies_gohmert_got_a_college.php?ref=fpa

Can you even imagine the outrage if a Liberals Congressperson got a college teacher fired for political criticism? Heads would be exploding all over Fox and Rush would run a radio-thon on the persecuted professor's behalf. But when it happens to a Liberal? Nobody stands up. No wonder only 20% of Americans self-identify as Liberal; it is vert nearly a Scarlet Letter in today's America. Until the Democrats change that -- or at least attempt to -- they will lose every battle.

Schedule a vote on the Middle Class Tax Cuts only. Or else kiss 2012 goodbye, Democrats.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 17, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Well, I guess the GOP did pretty well without that hispanic vote that Obama denied them, again. The Democrats continue to try to patch together a majority out of many, assorted, disparate, minorities. It works, once in a while, when they manage to slice off a big enough piece of the true majority to get over the top.

But, the Democrat party relies more and more on disparate minorities to gain power. That may work in 50 years when America is all minority but not today.

The true majority rose up and smited the Obama smarties in 2010. It will do so again in 2012 just to make sure they get the message.

Lesson to be learned is that the American majority must be pleased or it will turn on a dime and give the party in power the bums rush.

Republicans have been given a BIG reprieve, thanks to Obama and the Pelosites. Will they try to be worthy??

I hope so.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 17, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

"Over the next two years, you will see an organized and sophisticated project to rehabilitate Bush's image. The book and library, the fawning performances by Limbaugh and Hannity etc are the beginning. Expect Fleischer to arrive on your TV screen with increasing regularity. This is how propaganda gets done."

Well isn't that a convenient if dull use of "propaganda"? Given that bernie has defined propaganda as PR intended to persuade the public of that which is not true, how exactly is it that image rehabilitation can be judged propaganda?

Are we to believe that the public's image of Bush is "true" and therefore that any effort to improve it is untruthful? At which point in time is or was this image true? And what are we to say about the 8 years' and counting campaign of the Bushphobic Democrats to destroy his public image?

The only premise that would seem to be consistent with this argument of bernie's is that Bush is the personification of all that is bad, and any effort to conform his public image to that "truth" is honest discourse, while any effort to differentiate his public image from that "truth" is "propaganda."

IOW, Bush = The Devil. That is the "truth" around which we are to judge what is and isn't "propaganda."

So glad there is always bernie to provide this kind of model of intellectual rigor and integrity.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 17, 2010 7:55 AM | Report abuse

"Or else kiss 2012 goodbye"

Reminder. There is a very specific reason that the Republicans have taken on a strategy of thwarting everything and anything this administration might do to better conditions for citizens - they can only win elections IF those who voted for Obama become dispirited. That is the singular reason they are proceeding as they are. They do not care - they truly do not care - about the suffering of citizens that is the necessary consequence.

So if you are going to get pissed, get pissed at the correct target.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 17, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Heath Shuler is a hero for speaking truth to power. If the Democrats had another thousand like Shuler, the Democrat party would not be in shambles today.

Rush Limbaugh says he would love to trade RINO Murkowski for Heath Shuler. A very good deal!

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are two of the most craven losers to ever darken the halls of Congress. It's incredible that they will be back. They are the gifts that will keep on giving to the Republican party.

It's almost as if the Democrat puppetmasters were hardcore Republicans, undercover, as fifth columnists, out to totally destroy the Democrat party.

That's an intriguing, conspiracy theory.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 17, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

My nomination for inclusion in the Bush library. Actually, a large version immediately above the entryway...

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/db/2005/db050710.gif

Posted by: bernielatham | November 17, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

And I would include as well, a quiet and peaceful garden path just past that entryway which would carry visitors through the progression described below...

"The baby steps that have taken the United States from decrying torture to celebrating it."

http://www.slate.com/id/2274412/

Posted by: bernielatham | November 17, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

"Or else kiss 2012 goodbye"

Reminder. There is a very specific reason that the Republicans have taken on a strategy of thwarting everything and anything this administration might do to better conditions for citizens - they can only win elections IF those who voted for Obama become dispirited. That is the singular reason they are proceeding as they are. They do not care - they truly do not care - about the suffering of citizens that is the necessary consequence.

So if you are going to get pissed, get pissed at the correct target.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 17, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

I'm talking about political reality, Bernie, not right and wrong.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 17, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

"We know that Obama wasn’t vetted through the campaign, and now, you know, some things are coming home to roost, if you will, which is inexperience, his associations, and that ultimately harms our republic when a candidate isn’t — isn’t vetted by the media, that cornerstone of our democracy," - Sarah Palin, who then tweeted the quote.

Unbelievable

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

The #1 propagators of George Bush's rehabilitation are the Obamaniacs. Think about it!

The Obamatons, by their very presence, are making Bush look better and better, day by day.

I was suffering from Bush fatigue around 2007-2008 but I got cured, real fast....

.....by Dr Obama and nurse Pelosi.

It was shock treatment and it worked.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 17, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

@wb
The "political reality" is that if Obama is successfully taken out in the next election, then you will be destined for rule by an extremist corporatism of a sort we haven't seen in the West before and for an indeterminate period into the future.

Poverty will increase and health of citizens decline, not to mention their hopefulness and sanity.

If one imagines these circumstances will not result in growing civic discord and violence, one is a fool. If one further imagines that this discord and violence will not be met with police-state type controls, now facilitated by numerous modern technologies, one is even foolerer.

I understand your point. But it contains a focus which can either be constructive or destructive. It will be destructive if it casts blame in precisely the direction that this insanely cynical Republican strategy desires.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 17, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

"and that ultimately harms our republic when a candidate isn’t — isn’t vetted by the media, that cornerstone of our democracy," - Sarah Palin, who then tweeted the quote."

If it's Wednesday, it must be opposite day. Up is down and down is up. And wbgonne, I'm 99.9% sure we're getting a two year extension of the Bush Tax Cuts and no NEW Obama tax cut for the middle class, and to add insult to injury it will NOT be linked to the extension of unemployment benefits.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 17, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_133.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 17, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Some of you may have bumped into the AIPAC story getting some attention in some places. The two former AIPAC staff who were charged with spying for Israel and who got dumped by AIPAC are now in an ugly fight with that organization. ..

"AIPAC dirty laundry aired as former staffer sues for defamation"

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/aipac-dirty-laundry-aired-as-former-staffer-sues-for-defamation-1.325176

Two places where there is NO mention to be found of this on-going story - two places where issues related to Israel take center stage on a regular basis - are the Weekly Standard and the National Review. Wrong narrative. Wrong propaganda vector.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 17, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

"I understand your point. But it contains a focus which can either be constructive or destructive. It will be destructive if it casts blame in precisely the direction that this insanely cynical Republican strategy desires."

No, you don't understand my point. I am perfectly clear on what the Modern GOP is all about. I am not the issue. The American public is the issue. The Democrats are failing with the American people because they are politically feckless and philosophically craven. Until those problems are addressed the Cons will continue to win by default. And is will only be in the wake of epic collapses like Nixon and Bush that the Dems will ride a reactionary wave into power. But since the Dems have no coherent animating philosophy they are merely keeping the seats warm for the GOP. Until the Dems announce, defend and implement Liberalism they will be in the wilderness. You can mock the Cons but they aren't going to change just because Liberals mock them. In my view, efforts are better directed at the Dems who MIGHT ACTUALLY CHANGE (if only in their own self-interest).

Posted by: wbgonne | November 17, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

If it's Wednesday, it must be opposite day. Up is down and down is up. And wbgonne, I'm 99.9% sure we're getting a two year extension of the Bush Tax Cuts and no NEW Obama tax cut for the middle class, and to add insult to injury it will NOT be linked to the extension of unemployment benefits.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 17, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Like I said: kiss 2012 goodbye, Dems.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 17, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

@WB
There's no intent in what I wrote above to "mock". The goal and intent is to understand what the modern party has become and to describe that. On the new thread, I posted a quote from Eisenhower that shows the immense distance this party has traveled towards something that is truly ugly.

Of course you are right to be angry (or whatever verb works best) at the Obama team for not fully realizing what they are up against and for not taking adequate steps to counter it. I am too. But it needs to be fully understood that any possible Dem administration and any possible Dem president would be up against it strictly and exactly because of the nature of the opposition. Clinton and Obama are two of the brightest and most talented leaders your country has had in a long while. Both got and are getting smeared by these folks. Would Hillary have done better? No way of knowing but I doubt it.

And it simply IS the case that, to the degree those on the left in the US fall to negative apprehensions of this administration, to that degree they are, whether avoidably or not, in the position that the opposition desires.

It's a dilemma. You and I and others are angry in two directions. But there's absolutely no resolution of a happy sort if Obama is taken out next term.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 17, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

"But there's absolutely no resolution of a happy sort if Obama is taken out next term."

I think we misunderstand one another. I am most definitely NOT advocating for Obama's defeat in 2012. I am merely predicting that it is increasingly likely since Obama is seen as weak and the American people simply will not stand for a weak president. More probable is that Obama wins but the Dems lose the Senate and the GOP controls Congress completely. In all events, our capacity to solve our urgent national problems will be nil.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 17, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Would Hillary have done better?

Yes. Simply because she's meaner and tougher than Obama and -- unlike him -- Hillary knows a knife fight when she sees one and can and will act accordingly.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 17, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Upon further reflection, Bernie, I agree that it is laudable and even essential for observers like us to "negative" the Right's attacks. My issue is the dubious effectiveness of those efforts in the face of Democratic Party fecklessness and presidential diffidence. It's a matter of priorities, I'd say.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 17, 2010 9:24 AM | 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