Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:21 PM ET, 11/17/2010

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Good read: With the news that Nancy Pelosi won election as minority leader today, Jonathan Allen and John Harris offer five reasons why this makes perfect sense for Dems.

Key nugget: Pelosi will represent a strong check on any temptations Obama has to "triangulate" or to do whatever else centrists insist he must do save himself.

* Also: John Boehner and Eric Cantor were elected unanimously to the top two House GOP slots, which contrasts sharply with the 43 Dems who defected from Pelosi.

* Breaking: Another Senate Dem calls for a vote just on extending the middle class tax cuts while allowing the high end ones to expire. From Dianne Feinstein:

"I don't see the logic in delaying tax cuts for middle class Americans as part of an effort to make sure that the rich get richer. I would caution my Republican colleagues against holding middle-class tax cuts hostage for the benefit of the two percent of Americans who have the privilege to be wealthy."

With Jeff Merkley yesterday that makes a grand total of two Senate Dems...

* Not sure how this squares with right wing claims of a Soros-Obama-Muslim plot to weaken America: Sam Stein reports that Soros is urging Dem donors to turn away from Obama.

* Good: The White House is now actively lobbying dozens of Senators on both sides of the aisle to get DADT repeal done.

* And: Nine Senators will up the pressure on the Dem leadership tomorrow to get this done.

* Health insurers gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over $80 million that was used to fight health reform. Surely all that cash had no impact whatsoever and had no role in keeping reform unpopular.

* A new CNN poll finds the public doesn't agree with the GOP on two major lame duck session issues: Only a third want all the Bush tax cuts to be extended, while less than a third oppose repealing DADT.

* Also: Support for repealing DADT cuts across party and demographic lines, with a majority of Republicans backing it, too. Dems: No need to pay attention to any of these numbers, obviously.

* The White House cranks up the pressure on Senate Repubs for a vote on the START treaty.

* Headline of the day, from the National Journal, on Lisa Murkowski's victory in Alaska: "REFUDIATE THIS."

* Fox News chair Roger Ailes claims Obama is a socialist and has "a different belief system than most Americans," which just goes to prove that Fox News's socialism smear comes straight from the top.

* And hey, at least he's consistent: One incoming House Republican, Bobby Schilling of Illinois, tells ABC News's Top Line that his opposition to government-run health care will lead him to forego the government-run health care he gets as a Congressman.

He also seemed to call on his GOP (and Dem) colleagues to do the same: "Congress shouldn't have anything better than the American people."

What else is happening?

UPDATE, 6:54 p.m.: More movement on DADT: Harry Reid told gay advocates today that he's committed to bringing it to the floor, which is good, but Joe Sudbay explains why folks shouldn't get too excited yet.

By Greg Sargent  | November 17, 2010; 6:21 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Foreign policy and national security, Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House Dems, House GOPers, Senate Dems, gay rights, taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Yes, DADT repeal could still pass, Senate staffers say
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

It makes little sense for the House Republicans, and the Senate Republicans to push through any of the liberal agenda now.


Clearly, they lost the election, and it is a clear mistake to go against the voters in such a way so soon after the election.


In addition, it hurts prospects for bipartisanship. If any House democrats who have been defeated are looking to regroup, or go for another office, the House democrats should not count on their votes at this time. The whole thing is precarious. Nancy Pelosi would not look good trying to push through close votes at this time.


Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

The Judge in the Murfreesboro, TN mosque nontroversary has denied the plaintiffs request for a restraining order to stop construction.

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

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 17, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

It would be a bad idea to have the House Democrats press through any close votes at this time.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the long quote but Sarah Palin is truly priceless:

Palin became testy when I asked her about the books I heard she had been reading. “I’ve been reading since I was a little girl,” she snapped. “And my mom is standing 15 feet away from me, and I should put her on the phone with you right now so she can tell you. That’s what happens when you grow up in a house full of teachers — you read; and I always have. Just because — and,” she continued, though in a less blistering tone, “I don’t want to come across sounding caustic or annoyed by this issue: because of one roll-of-the-eye answer to a question I gave, I’m still dealing with this,” she said, referring to her interview with Katie Couric.
After taking this moment to (shall we hint?) gather her thoughts, Palin continues:

“There’s nothing different today than there was in the last 43 years of my life since I first started reading. I continue to read all that I can get my hands on — and reading biographies of, yes, Thatcher for instance, and of course Reagan and the John Adams letters, and I’m just thinking of a couple that are on my bedside, I go back to C.S. Lewis for inspiration, there’s such a variety, because books have always been important in my life.” She went on: “I’m reading [the conservative radio host] Mark Levin’s book; I’ll get ahold of Glenn Beck’s new book — and now because I’m opening up,” she finished warily, “I’m afraid I’m going to get reporters saying, Oh, she only reads books by Glenn Beck.”

Does anyone find this remotely believeable? For starters, this is the perfect political answer. She admits to reading a book by a conservative talk show host, a collection of letters from a Founding Father, the work of a religious novelist/writer, and a biography of a conservative female icon (the conservative female icon). And the Reagan bit is priceless--"of course" she is reading about Reagan! How dare anyone suggest that there is ever a moment when she would not have a book by or about our fortieth president.

The larger question is why anti-intellectual Republicans feel the need to sound like they read more books than they really do. Was anybody's estimation of Bush's intelligence altered by Rove's claim? Sure, the Couric interview hurt Palin, but answers like the one above are not going to change anyone's opinion. This is the usual case of trying too hard, and as a result sounding silly. Even in elite liberal circles people occasionally admit to going a decent interval without a book.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/79239/sarah-palin-reader

Hey Katie Couric, .... awwww ... nevermind.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

More on the John Kyl New START fiasco:

-Nuclear Treaty Blow Has Political Fallout, Too-

(For Obama, Kyl's opposition couldn't come at a worse time, but there are risks for Republicans.)

[...]

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, supports it, as do Republican former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice. There are risks for Republicans who follow Kyl and find themselves on the opposite side of the military and diplomatic community on ratification of the treaty.

[...]

...part of the reason he failed to secure a trade deal with South Korea on his recent trip was Seoul’s concern about ratification prospects in the Senate. This kind of blow can only heighten those concerns in South Korea and in other nations that have treaties pending with the U.S.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/nuclear-treaty-blow-comes-has-political-fallout-too-20101116

Yes, ya know that South Korea Free Trade agreement that the right wanted so badly (i.e. Donohue, Tom who had traveled to Korea in anticipation of an agreement)?

It was killed because of the GOP Senators and their filibuster.

Heckuva job GOP. Heckuva job.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

DeMint better forego his government run health care too.

Posted by: maritza1 | November 17, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Blue Dogs

Why would a Blue Dog - or any other person who lost their election this year - want to vote in a lame duck session for any item in the liberal agenda???

The liberal agenda over-reach just caused them to lose their elections - and their entire staffs are out looking for jobs.


There are boxes everywhere - and everyone has to pack up.

So, what is left? Another vote on a tough issue???


Who would want to do that??? If I was a Blue Dog, I would be looking around for another race and seeing if I could run again for Congress, or another position.

In that situation, I certainly would not be wanting to make high-profile votes in favor of the liberal agenda.


Especially when the prospects for getting through the Senate are a "big maybe." I would only vote on something that went through the Senate already, and was through the filibuster closture vote.

Just a few thoughts on how difficult votes might be for the democrats in this Lame Duck session - and how with little time, it will be difficult to get anything through

In addition, the Republicans just might be inclined to dig in their heals come January.

Obama is not one to "think ahead." However, the chances of getting anything done next year probably rest on the attitude of the democrats right now.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

@benen:

In the last Congress, the House approved the Paycheck Fairness Act, only to see it die in the face of a Republican filibuster. This year, it's happened again.

"""But today, all three Republican senators voted against a motion to proceed on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that "would further strengthen current laws against gender-based wage discrimination.""""

President Obama issued a statement, noting, "I am deeply disappointed that a minority of Senators have prevented the Paycheck Fairness Act from finally being brought up for a debate and receiving a vote. This bill passed in the House almost two years ago; today, it had 58 votes to move forward, the support of the majority of Senate, and the support of the majority of Americans. As we emerge from one of the worst recessions in history, this bill would ensure that American women and their families aren't bringing home smaller paychecks because of discrimination. It also helps businesses that pay equal wages as they struggle to compete against discriminatory competition. But a partisan minority of Senators blocked this commonsense law. Despite today's vote, my Administration will continue to fight for a woman's right to equal pay for equal work."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026685.php

Paycheck fairness for women... Noooo... Can't have that... More UNFAIRNESS please.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Prag,

Do you believe Palin can read?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 17, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Last one then I'm out... re-post from previous thread... see ya!

-Senate finally moves to vote on food-safety bill-

...consumer advocates and food-safety activists have also joined forces behind the bill. Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser — two bestselling authors on food issues — called the measure "the most important food-safety legislation in a generation" in a joint statement.

The bill was passed by the House of Representatives a year and half ago but has languished in the Senate ever since.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101117/bs_yblog_thelookout/senate-finally-moves-to-vote-on-food-safety-bill

Thank you Nancy Pelosi for the work you did EIGHTEEN MONTHS AGO on food safety.

"Thank you" Senate Republican "Moderates" for finally breaking the filibuster.

18 FRIGGIN MONTHS.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1 | November 17, 2010 6:28 PM


Liberals cheer as another Terrorist Recruiting Center is pushed through


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


_________________________


This nation can not allow Terrorists to recruit in the United States.


The country can not afford to ignore the FACT that the Terrorists use Islam to recruit people - AND to motivate their followers.


Yes, all muslims are not Terrorists.


However, the Terrorists are hiding behind their religion.


AND we must respond to that challenge - and win
.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Diane Feinstein, Jeff Merkley, Governor Moonbeam, Peter DeFazio...the west coast may save you liberal east coast weaklings yet (don't, I love Schumer and lots of other eastern fighters).

Smash Republicans in the mouth. The American public despises weakness and it does not like Democrats and it does not like Republicans. That is ok, that is a matter of fact.

America hates weakness, does not like either political party, it has contempt for Congress...America likes positivity, it wants action it likes winners, it likes a line of march...and Democrats better get some.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

@tmwn: Do you believe Palin can read?

She must read or all those notes on her hand were for nothing!
She does a mean teleprompter. Heck she was a TV announcer (can't call them newscasters anymore) at one time, yes?

Now, does she understand what she reads?

That is a tougher one...

Posted by: srw3 | November 17, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

"Lugar rebukes own party for avoiding New START debate, wants to force vote now"

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/17/lugar_rebukes_own_party_for_avoiding_new_start_debate_wants_to_force_vote_now

Posted by: Brishon | November 17, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 at 6:46 PM


Translation: the West Coast liberals are even more out-of-touch with reality than the other far-left liberals.


DeFazio came out against Pelosi, so not sure of your real point

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 at 6:46 PM


Translation: the West Coast liberals are even more out-of-touch with reality than the other far-left liberals.


DeFazio came out against Pelosi, so not sure of your real point

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote,
"Worthless Democrats . . . Democrats are feckless and ultimately, afraid."
-------

You forgot stupid and incompetent.

"NEW YORK, Nov 17 (Reuters) - The first suspect transferred from the Guantanamo military prison to face a U.S. civilian court was found not guilty of terrorism charges on Wednesday by a federal jury in New York.

"Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, 36, a Tanzanian from Zanzibar, had been accused of conspiring in the 1998 al Qaeda car bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people. The jury found him guilty of one relatively minor charge of conspiracy to damage or destroy U.S. property by means of an explosive device.

"Ghailani was cleared of 276 murder and attempted murder counts, along with five other conspiracy charges. (Reporting by Basil Katz; Editing by Eric Walsh)"

Posted by: Brigade | November 17, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

@rtr:It would be a bad idea to have the House Democrats press through any close votes at this time.

But it was a great time to do a second round of tax cuts when Darth Cheney was needed to break the tie in the senate...Nothing divisive there.

But is was a great time to go ahead with the Clinton impeachment during the lame duck session, even though repubs had massive losses...nothing divisive there...

The selective outrage over lame duck sessions is just precious...

In fact, the lame duck session is the perfect time for the dems to use their majority to do the things they were too chicken sh*t to do before, like EFCA, killing the bush tax cuts for the >250k crowd, and climate change, but the dems continue to be chicken sh*t when it comes to playing hardball... Its the one thing dems could learn from repubs, how to smite the opposition when you have the power...

Posted by: srw3 | November 17, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

"A new CNN poll finds the public doesn't agree with the GOP on two major lame duck session issues: Only a third want all the Bush tax cuts to be extended, while less than a third oppose repealing DADT. "

Pretty much guaranteeing that the Dems will fold like cheap suits on both issues at the first opportunity.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 17, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham wrote,
"Clinton and Obama are two of the brightest and most talented leaders your country has had in a long while."
-----

I'll give you Clinton. But anyone who feels this way about Obama is definitely on the lunatic fringe. I think this gives us some context in which to regard bernie's frequent bloviations and his oft-provided links to the ravings of lowbrow hate mongers who call themselves journalists.

Posted by: Brigade | November 17, 2010 7:20 PM | 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 will act accordingly.

Posted by:wbgonne|November 17,2010
-------

I suppose that's why she's President and he's ... oh, wait...

Posted by: Brigade | November 17, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, we are trying to make progress here. Do I have to spoon feed you every day? Both parties are stupid and incompetent, silly goose *rubs Brigade's pointy fuzzy little head and coos* The Democrats are feckless and afraid. The Republicans are many terrible things, but it is past your bedtime, now open wide while I shove this lesson down your throat. It is good for you. Some day you'll grow up to be strong, like your Daddy.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 at 6:46 PM


Translation: the West Coast liberals are even more out-of-touch with reality than the other far-left liberals.


DeFazio came out against Pelosi, so not sure of your real point

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote,
"Democrats have to drop gas cans around Palin, they have to set mines in the political territory surrounding the Republican convention."
-------

That's what they usually do.
Libs aren't much good at governing, but they really know how to riot and smash things.

"At least 250 people were arrested outside the Republican Convention last night as police used tear gas and pepper spray to disperse rioters attacking property and blocking roads ...
These protesters, some clad in black, wreaked havoc by damaging property and starting at least one fire.

"The Minnesota National Guard sent 150 soldiers to help police tackle the riots, which flared as delegates were assembling in St. Paul for the four-day meeting.
Members of the Connecticut delegation said they were attacked by protesters when they got off their bus near the convention centre, KMSP-TV reported. Rob Simmons, a delegate, told the station that a group of protesters came toward his delegation and tried to rip the credentials off their necks before spraying them with a toxic substance that burned their eyes and stained their clothes.

"One 80-year-old member of the delegation had to be treated for injuries, and several other delegates had to rinse their eyes and clothing.

"Terry Butts, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice who is a convention delegate, was on a bus taking delegates to the arena when a brick thrown through a window sprayed glass on him and two others." (timesonline)

These are the same sort of scumsuckers who whined about the potential for violence from the tea-party. LOL.

Posted by: Brigade | November 17, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Uh oh, someone needs a nappy.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote,
"Democrats have to drop gas cans around Palin, they have to set mines in the political territory surrounding the Republican convention."
-------

That's what they usually do.

"These protesters, some clad in black, wreaked havoc by damaging property and starting at least one fire.

"The Minnesota National Guard sent 150 soldiers to help police tackle the riots, which flared as delegates were assembling in St. Paul for the four-day meeting.

"Members of the Connecticut delegation said they were attacked by protesters when they got off their bus near the convention centre, KMSP-TV reported. Rob Simmons, a delegate, told the station that a group of protesters came toward his delegation and tried to rip the credentials off their necks before spraying them with a toxic substance that burned their eyes and stained their clothes.

"One 80-year-old member of the delegation had to be treated for injuries, and several other delegates had to rinse their eyes and clothing.

Terry Butts, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice who is a convention delegate, was on a bus taking delegates to the arena when a brick thrown through a window sprayed glass on him and two others.

“It just left us a little shaken,” he said. “It was sort of a frightening moment because it could have been a bomb or a Molotov cocktail."

Five people were arrested for lighting a rubbish bin on fire and pushing it into a police car, St. Paul police spokesman Tom Walsh said. Of those arrested, 119 faced possible felony charges."

Good at rioting and smashing things. Not much for governing.

Posted by: Brigade | November 17, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Lots of bugs in the site tonight.

Posted by: Brigade | November 17, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Rahm Emanuel is facing SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN CHICAGO


First, the Chicago Tribune has reported that Rahm Emanuel was taken off of Chicago's voter rolls twice, each time becoming inactive.

So, each time Rahm filed statements with the Board of Elections representing that he lived in Chicago, at TWO separate addresses.

Problematic - this could be VOTER FRAUD.

But because Rahm was not using his old registration, the old representation for his old address was not used for him to vote the last TWO times.

_______________________________


RAHM'S STATE INCOME TAXES


Rahm could have an additional problem. Where did Rahm file his STATE income taxes?

If Rahm filed in Illinois, OK, however then the District of Columbia might want to audit him for failure to file DISTRICT INCOME TAXES.


In addition, if Rahm now says he lived in Illinois, he should have filed those State income taxes.


It is one way or the other - AND WHICH WAY IS IT - IT APPEARS EITHER WAY RAHM HAS A PROBLEM.

If Rahm filed in DC, he can't claim he lived in Illinois.

If Rahm filed in Illinois, he may be guilty of tax evasion in Washington DC.


Also, Rahm's investment income might fall under a Non-Resident State income tax.


Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

@rtr: The liberal agenda over-reach just caused them to lose their elections - and their entire staffs are out looking for jobs.

How wrong you are.

Dems lost because their turnout was weak among casual and young voters (vote in pres years but not off years). The repubs didn't really pick up that much support, but young and casual voters were not energized to come out because the agenda was not liberal enough. HCR, while worthwhile to pass was far short of what liberals wanted. The 2 year long, 100 million +++ dollar, non-stop lying and demonization of the bill by the repubs, chamber of commerce, radio rightwingnutistan didn't encourage people come out and vote for proponents of the plan. There was no action toward holding the bushies accountable for torture and lying us into a disastrous invasion and occupation, costing a trillion+++ dollars. In fact, the administration was obliged to (although not required to) defend several extremely unpopular laws and rules that the bushies left obama which didn't endear him to adherents to the bill of rights, civil liberties crowd. No cap and trade vote. No efca vote, no immigration vote. These are the issues that would have fired up casual voters.

If you look at the demographics of this election, 65
2008 18% 15%
2010 11% 23%

This pretty much explains the "republican resergence". The "get of my lawn" crowd always votes. Young people don't always vote, especially when they feel their party sometimes sold out to the corporatists and got out propogandized by the opposition...

Obama did lots of good stuff, but they weren't the high profile, liberal issues that would have motivated casual or youth voters. Like reforming the student loan system--great policy, putting more money toward grants and less to administrative costs, but not that motivating. Like the 1/3 of the stimulus that was tax cuts. Great policy, but because Obama didn't send out letters saying that a tax cut authored by Obama is coming and then a big lump sum check is delivered (see Bush, George) he got no credit. Of course, the small amounts over a long period is better stimulus policy than a lump sum that might be saved and not spent, but it doesn't get people's attention.

The MSM plays right along. According to repubs, the stimulus that was 1/3 tax cuts didn't create a single job, but some how extending tax cuts will create jobs. pernicious nonsense never challenged by "reporters."

Posted by: srw3 | November 17, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Of course, while the older Senators managed to avoid military service during the cold war, the younger Senators also managed to avoid any military service in our conflicts with terrorists in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with few exceptions such as Senator Brown from Massachusetts.

Posted by:ThoseWhoServe| November 17,2010
------

Sort of like Obama and Clinton, two of our "Commander in Chiefs". Of course, I'm sure a principled fellow like you voted for Bush41, Dole, and McCain. None of those shirkers for us, right?

Posted by: Brigade | November 17, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

Big Brother is trying to screen you out - the world is collapsing

you have to realize that the liberals are willing to sacrifice YOUR civil liberties for the sake of their agenda

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain wrote,
"Kids learn what their parents teach them. For the right, there is no responsibility for anything..."
-------

Who's responsible for all those gangbangers in the 'hood where Skip lives? Righties I suppose.

Posted by: Brigade | November 17, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

srw3

Turnout went back to where it was in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006


Turnout was never going to stay like it was in 2008.


Obama offended the Senior with his expensive health care plan - they are not coming back

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't Senator Di-Fi (as we call her in California) one of the main Senators arguing AGAINST voting on extending the middle class tax cuts before the election? I think she might have been concerned about the impact a vote would have on Barbara Boxer's reelection campaign. Anyway, i'm glad to see her on board now; better late than never. Get that done, Senate Dems!

Regarding Roger Ailes, can we all agree that HIS value system is different than most Americans?

Posted by: matt_ahrens | November 17, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

HansSolo demonstrates his ignorance once again:
"Be honest, what they are really saying is, 'We don't want Obama to make us look like idiots again'...they are worried that their caucus will come away, again, looking like rubes with nonsensical talking points madquerading as ideas."
-------

That may be how it looked in Pinko World. Fortunately, the voters didn't see it quite that way, now did they?

Posted by: Brigade | November 17, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

My sense is that the Democrats will extend all of the tax cuts temporarily. Why? Because everyone has zero confidence the economy will be materially better in 2 years and the Democrats don't want to give the Republicans a club to beat them with if the economy hasn't recovered by 2012.

Posted by: sold2u | November 17, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

correction:
If you look at the demographics, the table shows the % of voters over the last 2 elections.
65
2008 18% 15%
2010 11% 23%

If young voters had come out in the numbers they did in 2008 (and hopefully will in 2012), the losses in the house and senate would have been much smaller. The off year election favoring the opposition would still have meant some losses for dems...

Posted by: srw3 | November 17, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

filmnoia wrote,
"If Obama and the Dems can't stand up on this issue before that extension date expires then I see no reason why I should ever bother voting for him in 2012."
-------

LOL. I'm betting you'll find a reason.

Posted by: Brigade | November 17, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Yikes, that Ghaliani verdicts a little startling. Wonder what Holder's gonna do now. Only managed to convict on one charge, and acquitted on the rest.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 17, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

"My sense is that the Democrats will extend all of the tax cuts temporarily. Why? Because everyone has zero confidence the economy will be materially better in 2 years and the Democrats don't want to give the Republicans a club to beat them with if the economy hasn't recovered by 2012."

You are correct and that is exactly what is wrong with the Democrats. If they don't honestly inspire confidence, they are parasites, they live in fear of defending corrupt bargains, they are criminals, they are Republicans.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

@RedTeaRevolution: Obama offended the Senior with his expensive health care plan - they are not coming back

Yeah, all those republican seniors what the govt to keeps its hands off their medicare (socialist health care)...Irony is lost on repubs...

Funny how repubs did exactly zero to insure more people or to lower health care costs during their last two times in the white house. In fact, during the bush years, the number of uninsured and health care costs all went up much faster rate than inflation. Another Bush accomplishment. As a side note, If there were no HCR, prices would be even higher, fewer people would be insured, more people would be rescinded for unrelated mistakes on their insurance forms, children over 21 would be kicked off their parents' plans, and insurers could deny coverage to children with preexisting conditions. I guess that is what repubs want...

Posted by: srw3 | November 17, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

@rtr:Turnout went back to where it was in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006

wrong again, as usual. It must be hard to be outed as a no nothing constantly. There has been a steady and upwards trend of more voting during presidential elections starting in 1996 through 2008.
1996--49.1%
2008--56.8%
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

If trends continue, even more people will vote in 2012...

Posted by: srw3 | November 17, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

@TrollMcWingnut : Don't you trust the American system of justice?

Isn't it possible that the trial was fair and he was not proven guilty?

What about the wisdom of the founding fathers, the constitution, and all that stuff you barf up when the 2nd amendment is the issue, but trial by jury is somehow unamerican?

Posted by: srw3 | November 17, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

The jury found him guilty of one relatively minor charge of conspiracy to damage or destroy U.S. property by means of an explosive device.


Posted by: Brigade | November 17, 2010 7:10 PM |

And he faces a sentence of 20 years to life for that relatively minor charge.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

srw3,

I believe the military tribunal system is perfectly adequate, and the illegal combatants should be tried there. Trying these terrorists in civilian courts raises all sorts of issues, among them, what if judges decide to allow in evidence that was obtained through enhanced interrogation, would that mean the police would then be allowed to use enhanced interrogation with American criminal defendants?

Also, Holder and Barry have already said that if these terrorists are acquitted, they'd be held anyway. What does that establish for American citizens in criminal trials? Will indefinite detention post acquittal in a civillian trial become a precedent?

Military tribunals, as configured before Barry suspended them, seemed to satisfy not only the Republican and Democrats in Congress, but also the Federal courts. Seemed nonsensical to end them for some sort of "show" trial where Holder assured us that regardless of the verdict, the terrorists were going to remain incarcerated. Roosevelt used military tribunals, what's wrong with them?

I am curious by your comment "and all that stuff you barf up when the 2nd amendment is the issue," Why did you write that? I never brought up the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 17, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

"MADISON, Wis. -- A rural Wisconsin man apparently enraged by Bristol Palin's "Dancing with the Stars" routine blasted his television with a shotgun, leading to an all-night standoff with a SWAT team, investigators said."

Could this be Liam-still?

Posted by: Brigade | November 17, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

"repubs did exactly zero to insure more people or to lower health care costs"

Taking care of America's future is not what they are about, obviously. But the funny thing is how afraid they are of terrorists. We're Terrified, that should be a Republican slogan.

A triple bacon pizza (not kidding, I watched sports and the seller went on and on about how much bacon you could get), well that is freedom. What makes Americans suffer? What kills Americans? Fat, tobacco, alcohol...too boring, we are all too complicit to contemplate the enemy.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Criminal investigations on bank executives for the recession... I can't wait. I hope they nail a bunch of em on criminal charges.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Criminal investigations on bank executives for the recession... I can't wait. I hope they nail a bunch of em on criminal charges.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

"Trying these terrorists in civilian courts raises all sorts of issues, among them, what if judges decide to allow in evidence that was obtained through enhanced interrogation, would that mean the police would then be allowed to use enhanced interrogation with American criminal defendants?"

So if that occurred you would blame the Obama administration rather than you know the administration that decided it was Constitutional to waterboard people?

Besides it's not torture so why should we care if our own countrymen go through it.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Troll ... wasn't it you that were talking about the targeted killing of Americans in foreign countries as some sort of violation of the rule of law? But holding fair trials ... no rule of law issue there? And what about all the trials conducted by the Bush Administration ... were you complaining about those?

Tell us the truth troll, Troll, isn't it just that whatever this President supports, you are against?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

I trust the American system of justice.

I absolutely wouldn't trust Eric Holder to prosecute a speeding ticket...unless the speeder's car failed an exhaust emissions test--then the full and awesome weight of the Federal Justice system would come down on the sorry SOB's head.

Murder 224 people? Not so much.

Posted by: tao9 | November 17, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

srw3 writes

young and casual voters were not energized to come out because the agenda was not liberal enough.


_______________________


You misinterpreted these people voting the first time.

AND NOW you are misinterpreting why they didn't come to vote.

Keep going - we can have the same discussion in 2012 when Obama is out - and you can mumble all you want about someone not being liberal enough

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

srw3

YOU started out by talking about the demographics of the elections in 2008 and 2010

And I responded by saying that those demographics in 2010 simply went back to they want they were in 2000, 2004, and 2006


NO ONE is going to be fooled again like Obama and the democrats fooled people in 2008.


You can dream all you want.

IN 2008, you set out to fool the American People and all you did is end up fooling yourself.

.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

The fact that it even has to come to this is ridiculous:

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

Why IS John Kyl holding this treaty hostage?

I think that really is the big question with this START nonsense.

I've been thinking about this treaty and why the Republicans are trying to stop it, aside from John Kyl's personal favors. On policy grounds it really is a win for Obama. Not just a handed-to-him win, but an EARNED win. His Russia strategy was a central piece of his foreign policy, when he campaigned for President. Getting this through will be fruition of a successful, proactive foreign policy and John 'Military Industrial Complex' Kyl and the rest of the say-anything Teapublicans know it.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

The fact that it even has to come to this is ridiculous:

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

Why IS John Kyl holding this treaty hostage?

I think that really is the big question with this START nonsense.

I've been thinking about this treaty and why the Republicans are trying to stop it, aside from John Kyl's personal favors. On policy grounds it really is a win for Obama. Not just a handed-to-him win, but an EARNED win. His Russia strategy was a central piece of his foreign policy, when he campaigned for President. Getting this through will be fruition of a successful, proactive foreign policy and John 'Military Industrial Complex' Kyl and the rest of the say-anything Teapublicans know it.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Why is that tao? What has you convinced that Eric Holder is incompetent? Can you share with us some of the facts on which you base your mistrust?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

srw3 at 8:18 PM

You are completely confused about Obama's health care plan.

It is too expensive.

Someone has to pay for all those extra benefits. It is going to hit somewhere.

You have no regard for the Economic Crisis - or the fact that the American People are FIRM that they don't want to pay for another expensive government program.


Obama LIED about the costs of the health care program. He LIED about insurance premiums going up - 20% in some cases just this year.

And that is just the beginning.

THAT is why Obama lost the election.

THAT and the fact that Obama chose to ignore the Economy, and do "big things" instead of actually doing his job - which is take care of the Economy.

The arrogance of Obama - he even said so much in a speech in front of Congress


Sad - Obama doesn't want to do what the job requires.

Obama should just resign if he doesn't want to do the job.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

And you are aware, I'm sure, tao, that the Attorney General, whether he be Eric Holder or that most competent Alberto Gonzales or even that noted crooner John Ashcroft, doesn't actually try the cases himself, right? You did know that, right tao?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark at 9:06 PM

Exactly, you are correct that Obama should be blamed.

The military tribunals were set with rules that would protect intelligence sources and methods.


That is the main issue - one witness in the trial did not testify.

We can not allow a situation to develop in which we are exposing our intelligence resources - during a trial.


It is that simple - and Obama does NOT understand that.

Obama is NOT qualified to be President. He does not understand the job.

Obama should resign - because this trial did not give the result that Obama and Holder told us.

We have no confidence in Obama anymore - not to make ANY decisions at all.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark,

I don't have a problem waterboarding illegal combatants. I don't think we should try illegal combatants in civilian courts. I thought I had made that clear, sorry if my straightforward answer confused you. I brought up one of the problems vis a vis evidence, interrogation and the American civilian judicial system. I also think that foreign nationals are not necessarily entitled to the same rights as American citizens, but that's me.

I do blame Barry for stopping the military tribunals. The reason I blame him is because it was he and his administration that did it. Why would I blame anyone else? Doesn't make sense.

And actually, certain of our countrymen do go through waterboarding, in certain military training programs. Holder, under oath, testified in front of Congress that waterboarding is torture, except when it's not:

"[Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them –

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

Holder: Intent is a huge part.

Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?

Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at… ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/181884/holder-waterboarding-proving-its-not-torture-while-insisting-it/andy-mccarthy#

The link in to National Review so try not to soil yourself.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 17, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

I think I know what it is tao, you don't like Eric Holder because Ronald Reagan appointed him a Judge in 1988. That must be it, right tao?

Why do you hate Ronald Reagan and his appointees, tao?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

"...casual voters were not energized..."

{{{snortguffawgle}}}

Dude score me sum hopium & I'll flyG6 2 like ya know uhh like yo! vote.

Posted by: tao9 | November 17, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

srw3

You have picked out several of my comments - and tried to oppose each one.

In one case you even said "wrong again."

In fact, I have outlined above how wrong you are - on every count.


Please - the democrats are TOO liberal - the country can not stand the liberal agenda.

Tolerance is important - but the liberals have pushed people way beyond the limit.

Tolerance is NOT support for your liberal opinions. It is just that - tolerance.

Your efforts to fool the centrists into voting, and then pulling the "bait and switch" have been exposed.


The American People want none of it anymore. In 2012, another third of the Senate and Obama will have to stand for re-election - and the loses are coming.


The American People are throwing them all out.

The Republicans might even get to 60 votes - now how would you like that??


,

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

So, troll, if waterboarding is not torture, why can't the police use it on American citizens? Or on illegals to locate the rest of their gang of illegals living in Phoenix and beheading people in the desert?

And why are you worried if it is ruled to be admissible in a fair trial?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

prag,

I did not bring up the awesome Predator attacks that Barry has supported and by all appearances, increased. Kudus! I say to Barry, Salud my good man!

I'm just a supported of trying illegal combatants in a military tribunal.

But congratularions prag, I think it's been an hour or two since you've obsessed on the Palins.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 17, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

No prags.

It's because he picked a venue in order to showboat.

And lost the case.

KSM is laughing hysterically and praising allah at the same time.

Don't overthink it bro.

Posted by: tao9 | November 17, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

"...casual voters were not energized..."

Is that what ACORN calls them ???


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

What case did he lose? The one where the guy will be sentenced to 20 years to life?

Hey tao, any chance the guy might have only been gulity of what the jury convicted him or isn't that important to you? What do you know about the evidence?

It's not that I am overthinking anything ... I'd just once like to think you folks on the right do any of your own thinking.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

And hey Troll ... didja see that sexy new look Palin had going in her latest interview? Darn she'd make a HOT President, huh? We all ought to be takin that chick real serious and listen to all her real smart twitterin and facebookin.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Josh Marshall asks the conundrum of the day:

"In a race like Murkowski v. Miller, how does Fox News decide who to be biased for?"

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 17, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Almost every one of Obama's policies has failed.


Obama is soft on terrorism, hoping they will stop - there are only more bombs found here in the US, the Detroit plane, Chicago, the Fort Hood shooter, the UPS planes and the Times Square bomb.


Obama thinks he knows a better way to have trials. Complete failure.


Obama thinks he has a better Fin Reg bill - complete bank foreclosure crisis


Obama thinks he has a better stimulus program - few jobs created -


Obama thinks his health care plan is going to lower costs - Health Care premiums go up 10-20% JUST this year.


Obama thinks he has a good health care plan - it is going to get repealed.


Obama has been a complete failure -


The democrats have WASTED the past two years with Obama - two years in which this nation could have been governed properly, and jobs could have been created.


Obama is weighing down the Economy with his health care plan, dragging down hiring and making the Economy worse.

.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Prag,

I want to continue this but bernielatham seemed pretty upset with you this morning because of our discussion about Sarah Palin (or just because you were conversing with me, I'm not sure). I can wait if you want to get an OK from him, and it's also OK if you want to stop because of bernie's sensitivities.

That warning in place, you wrote: "if waterboarding is not torture, why can't the police use it on American citizens?" I mentioned enhanced interrogation on illegal enemy combatants, not American citizen criminals. We already have rather elaborate "do's and don'ts" for American citizens, no? I do not believe that enhanced interrogation is allowed. Hence my concern that a Federal judge may allow in testimony and/or evidence derived from enhanced interrogation, from one of Barry and Holder's Show Trials, and establish a precedent for it on American citizens.

You also wrote: "Or on illegals to locate the rest of their gang of illegals living in Phoenix and beheading people in the desert?" That's an interesting question, but I believe the delineation is it was allowable for illegal enemy combatants and Navy Seals. Now, in Barry's administration, it's only allowed for Navy Seals.

Finally, you wrote: "And why are you worried if it is ruled to be admissible in a fair trial?" Again, I believe it should be allowed for illegal enemy combatants and Navy Seals, if a civilian Federal judge rules it admissible, it might set a precedent that would allowed enhanced interrogation techniques to be used on American citizen criminals. I'm not in favor of that.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 17, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

It is clear that Obama was wrong on the civilian trials - the military tribunals have to be used.


I suppose today's trial could be said to be pre-9/11, and therefore not actually a wartime trial.

However, all the other terrorist trials should go forward - and these terrorists should be shot.


_________________________________


It is certainly ironic that Obama is going with the Pretator attacks - and yet insisting on civilian trials.

The liberal agenda appears to be conflicting on those two decisions.


The other thing : Obama is bombing another country just like Nixon bombed Laos.

Did Nixon bomb Cambodia too???


The similarities between Obama and Nixon are growing

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I also find it interesting that the DOJ was "Pleased" with one convition out of over 200 charges. I wonder what they would have said if he's been convicted on all the charges? Or none?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 17, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

All,

Bush did bring up suspected terrorists in civilian Courts

But most of these people were suspected of having terrorist ties in the US - and could have been sleeper agents in the US.


Then Bush set up the military tribunals for use for the Gitmo detainees - most who have been caught overseas.

If the terrorists are caught here, for the most part, they have gotten civilian trials.

_______________________________

I would actually support a tougher policy that Bush had. But I'm not making the rules.

I would have had Gitmo shut down a long time ago.


Because all of the Gitmo detainees would have already had trials - and gotten the death penalty.


THAT is the best way to close Gitmo.


Take that liberals.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

"...any chance the guy might have only been gulity of what the jury convicted him..."

He was convicted him conspiracy to destroy government property.

The above-referenced property was blown up with massive loss of life.

The evidence (allowed by Judge Kaplan and not disputed by defense) stated he fled to Pakistan the next day with several co-conspirators.

Just a coincidence. Corellation isn't causality...angels/pinheads etc..

Who exactly do you reckon is doing my cogitatin' for me?

BTW: you ain't exactly unique here in your, uh, POV or TPMstenography. Not much FreshPrag that I've read. Ever.

Posted by: tao9 | November 17, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

I may have been hasty.

You're not quite as binary, and have a 1/2tad more nuance and sense-o-humor than Ethan.

Congrats.

Posted by: tao9 | November 17, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

The detainee show trials are a costly, ridiculous dalliance. This is American pretense. This is decadent. But we have to clean up the legal mess Bush/Cheney made.

Drones. The drones are einsatzgruppe.

Why do we kill people that way? We can. The Russians want us to do it, the Europeans want us to, the Chinese want us to, there is no domestic opposition.

Drones are funny, they have no lawyers' careers organized around them, so they just do what they. do.


Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

shrink2--"America likes positivity, it wants action it likes winners, it likes a line of march..."

What the heck is a "line of march?"

Posted by: carolanne528 | November 17, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

"He was convicted him conspiracy to destroy government property."

_________________________


Wow this wasn't throwing a rock through a window.


What an understatement - two embassys were leveled.

Over 200 people were killed

12 Americans were killed


And that is ALL the jury could do???


There are evidence problems with these civilian trials - it is the WRONG way to go.

Obama's judgement has been proven flawed again. That is the point. Obama simply does not know what he is doing. He has little experience, and really doesn't seem to UNDERSTAND the real world.


Obama's qualifications are suspect - and the area Obama is supposed know something about - the law, the Harvard law review level kind of law - just IS NOT THERE.

Obama does NOT have it.

Obama should resign.

No confidence in Obama.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut

Waterboarding aside - foreign or domestic, enemy combatents

The issue with waterboarding is this: Is there a present danger of another terrorist attack in which innocent Americans can die? In that case, that information must be had to save lives.

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


Apparently the liberals have a big issue with that.

But sexual assaults on Americans trying to get on a plane apparently is OK with Obama and Janet Napolitano.

Seriously, they didn't want to do this before the election???


THAT was another deception by Obama - start the sexual assaults at the airports AFTER the election.

The timing is political.


It is a fair question at this point: Is Obama violating "unreasonable search and seizure"


Is simply wanting to get on a plane a sufficient reason for a sexual assault ???


AGAIN, another reason to call Obama's judgement into question - he simply has no idea what he is doing.


The sexual assaults appear almost designed to get people to agree to get SLAMMED WITH RADIATION FROM THEIR MACHINES.


It's either the radiation or the sexual assault.


This Napolitano chick has to be kidding - seems like she is SO DESPERATE TO GET TOUCHED BY ANYBODY that she has no sensitivity which other people have to sexual assaults.

And Obama is just sitting there, doing nothing.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

carolanne528 at 10:52 PM


In a parade, the various groups are listed in a "line of march" - and before the parade they have to line up in that order in order to be set off on the parade route in that order.

Some parades include several different streets on which the groups have to line up and wait to be set off onto the route.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

@pragmatic: "And hey Troll ... didja see that sexy new look Palin had going in her latest interview? Darn she'd make a HOT President, huh? We all ought to be takin that chick real serious and listen to all her real smart twitterin and facebookin"

Finally, you're talking smart. I thought that you might eventually come around.

Welcome to paradise, my friend. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 17, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Bristol has finally found a national election a Palin can win.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

@pragmatic: "So, troll, if waterboarding is not torture, why can't the police use it on American citizens? Or on illegals to locate the rest of their gang of illegals living in Phoenix and beheading people in the desert?"

Why can't they use Tomahawk missiles on 'em? Why can't they roll the tanks down mainstreet? Why can't the American military take care of high crime areas with daisy cutters?

Context is important.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 17, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Why can't the American military take care of high crime areas with daisy cutters?

GREAT QUESTION

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

@shrink2: "Drones. The drones are einsatzgruppe."

And the psychiatrist goes Godwin.

Are you saying there's not much appreciable difference in Obama's use of drones to take out high-value terrorist targets (with, no doubt, collateral damage) and the Nazi's use of death squads to perform ethnic cleansing. When the Obama admin ramped of the drone strikes, it was the same thing as the Nazis sending out death squads to perform mass murder, mostly based on racial purity?

I don't think it's exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 17, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

"He was convicted him conspiracy to destroy government property."

__________________________________


Can William Ayers be re-tried on this charge???

Seriously, Ayers was let off on a technicality, so why can't the government re-file the charges with "new" evidence?


It's the same thing.

Ayers was charged with bombing the Pentagon and the Capitol building - just to remind people that 9/11 was not the first time the Penatagon was hit.


Obama's friend Bill Ayers did it too.


Can't the government use Ayers' statements against him now??? I believe he has made several statement saying that he did it.


The Kennedy's don't like Ayers - which is ironic considering he is a such a good friend of Obama.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

The 4th Amendment


Unreasonable Search and Seizure

Looks like Obama might lose this Court case.

Obama is going to need a judge to say that sexual assault is "REASONABLE" to get on a plane


Not really sure about that one.

Not a bad question for the Supreme Court


I love when Obama loses in Court - he is so smug, Obama should have to be there in Court everytime to see his insane legal theories get tossed in the trash.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

RedTeaRevolution, it's a longshot, but Joe Miller could still win in Alaska. There's been some shenanigans by officials biased to the Murkowski family. Keep an eye out for this too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 18, 2010 12:40 AM | Report abuse

"RedTeaRevolution, it's a longshot, but Joe Miller could still win in Alaska. There's been some shenanigans by officials biased to the Murkowski family. Keep an eye out for this too. "

lol, give it up. Start pretending that you didn't care who won as long as it was a Republican or something like that.

Then talk about how Democrats have controlled Congress for the last three thousand years.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 18, 2010 12:47 AM | Report abuse

@Greg.

I pointed out yesterday in detail how highly biased those CNN polls are with their robocoll methodology. These robocolls are just junk, and they are highly misleading and inaccurate. No decent journalist should be linking to them.

The New York Times' standards prohibit the use of these robopolls in their news coverage. It isn't surprising that the Washington Post doesn't have these kinds of reasonable standards, which is why I went to lengths to point out, with references, how flawed CNN's polls are.

It isn't okay to direct your readers to misleading information for the sake of filling up your daily roundup, or for any other reason. Plum Line has been the last link I have to the Washington Post. That's about to end.

Posted by: TomBlue | November 18, 2010 5:01 AM | Report abuse

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://ow.ly/3akSX .If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: claudiahoe | November 18, 2010 5:50 AM | Report abuse

"At a summit in Lisbon this weekend, Obama and other NATO leaders will endorse a plan to gradually turn combat responsibility over to the Afghan army and police by 2014, a timetable that will keep tens of thousands of U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan well beyond the end of Obama's first term."

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/17/world/la-fg-us-afghan-20101118

This could be the backbreaker for Obama with Liberals. Ironically, Obama may get challenged by an anti-war candidate (or undermined by the antiwar movement), just as he secured the Dem nomination for his opposition to the Iraq War. In any case, I don't see how this goes well for Obama's presidency. Very sad for him, but far worse for the nation.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 18, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

Here are the four opinion column titles (and authors) from Ha'aretz this morning. Imagine (I can't but it's worth the exercise) four such in any major US paper (or Canadian, actually)...

"Ari Shavit
Settlements are destroying Zionism

Israel Harel
Even 1,000 U.S. warplanes won't save Netanyahu

Haaretz Editorial
Racism under cover of the Torah

Amos Harel
Here's why Israel must not attack Iran now"

If the Post, for example, ran such content as this in one issue, the attacks from the neoconservative camp, ADL, etc would be swift and concerted.

On the other hand, Beck's recent three-part screed on Soros, while filled with traditional anti-Semitic memes and symbology (much based on the work of serious anti-Semites) received only the a milquetoast critique from Abe Foxman who, I suppose we ought to note, recently gave an award to Murdoch for his support of Israel and Jews.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 18, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

"[British Bishop Richard ]Williamson, of the ultra-orthodox Catholic Society of St Pius X (SSPX), denied in a television interview last year that the Nazis had systematically murdered millions of Jews."

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/holocaust-denying-bishop-s-lawyer-pulls-out-of-case-ahead-of-trial-1.325231

Our Bishop/historian had previously been excommunicated but the present Pope thought him a fine fellow, over-turned the excommunication, and within weeks the Pope and church were rewarded for their perspicacity.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 18, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

There are housing allowances and there are housing allowances...

"U.S. trustee, creditors object to six-figure housing allowance for megachurch's chief financial officer"
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-crystal-cathedral-20101118,0,3121678.story

The church had been (surprise) secretive about its finances but declared bankruptcy recently. If you go to the link, you'll see the mega-luxo housing enjoyed by this servant of jesus.

About thirty years ago, Time or Life magazine did an aerial photo survey of the residences of the main evangelical pastors of that time. The level of personal wealth attained and the ostentatious display of it (powdered wig level) worked serious damage on the credibility of those persons and their endeavors. That didn't last long, America being America, but it was something.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 18, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12 at 12:40 AM

I don't know any of the details.

Joe Miller made a serious mistake by not engaging the media after the primary.

Sharon Angle did the same thing.


The problem is this: in situations like these, the media thinks it is going to MAKE the news.

The media MAKES a story out of the candidates' reluctance to say things which might be twisted by the media.


NOW this is a situation which is CREATED by the media - the media does twist things around, some reporters are better on this than others.

But candidates are correct to be cautious.

First, a candidate can't get any press - the press will not print anything unless they think you have enough money, or are high enough in the polls.


Then all of a sudden, 10 to 20 or even 30 people want to write stories on a candidate, and the candidate doesn't know any of them. At least of few have bad intentions, intent on finding something to twist around to make someone look bad.


This is no way to evaluate a candidates' platform or qualifications to make decisions in governing.

So suddenly, a few really bad apples in the press ruin it for all in the press, because the mistrust is there, and candidates are wise to be cautious.


So, again the press is MAKING the news - and it is all about their self-interest.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 18, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

TomBlue at 5:01 AM

There were some democrats on here in October claiming out "biased" the polls were. And there were all sorts of arguments advanced based on the cross tabs.

So, the democratic talking points were made to attempt to create the impression that the polls were wrong.


However, when Election Day came, the polls were right, and the democratic talking points turned out to be the pile of crap.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 18, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham at 7:57 AM

Funny how you cite a pictorial from thirty years ago as your reason to hate.

But it's worse than that: you are actually trying to smear all Christians, and all Republicans by the sins of a few.


Yes, I think everyone can agree that houses you speak of are excessive.


However, your point is that somehow the religion itself is somehow illegitimate. You are trying to make the point that religious people are somehow acting stupid to give their money - INTENDED for religious purposes.


And I'm sure you extend this out - you believe that the religious right is part of the Republican party and all this just proves how bad the Republicans are as a whole.


AND you even have a pictorial from a magazine from thirty years ago to PROVE it all !

.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 18, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Gov. Chris Chris is the true embodiment of today's GOP. He is utterly selfish and resolutely myopic. Chris Chris for President 2012 illustrates what is accelerating America's decline. The ship is sinking so steal what you can, jump in the lifeboat, and let the suckers fend for themselves. Great American Patriots, one an all.

"Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey is the darling of the Republican right for bleeding his state budget and rebuffing billions of dollars in federal funds. Back home, however, the picture is very different ... While Mr. Christie was busy hacking away at public education in his state so he could preserve lower tax rates for multimillionaires, his administration also bungled its application for education money through the Race to the Top program and lost $400 million. He also lost federal matching funds for family planning by vetoing the state’s share. Perhaps some sage from one of the big universities — Princeton or Rutgers? — could help the state spend almost $60 million from the federal government to weatherize New Jersey homes. After all, Mr. Christie is busy making news and charming the right by downsizing his state, so it falls on others to think about the future."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/opinion/18thu3.html?ref=opinion

Posted by: wbgonne | November 18, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_134.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 18, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Troll-

You probably won't see this, but regarding your torture comments, you seem to be taken rather inconsistent positions. You say there are different standards for US citizens, but then say that if a judge holds it to be admissible citizens could be tortured. I don't see how an admissibility ruling can change our jurisprudence on lawful interrogations. If water boarding opens the door to citizens being waterboarded then that door was opened by Bush not Obama and Holder.

Also, you're missing a rather important point in your Navy SEALS example. The Navy SEALS consent to participate in waterboarding.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 18, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Ashotinthedark,

I believe American citizens should be treated differently. It would be Barry's fault if, in the course of one of his civilian show trials, a precedent gets set that alters the rules for how American citizens, or non-illegal enemy combatants, are treated. Bush did not use civilian courts for illegal enemy combatants.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 18, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Palin-Christie 2012!

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 18, 2010 10:12 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