Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:02 PM ET, 11/22/2010

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Political calculus of the day: Marc Ambinder explains why the White House is so nervous about the backlash against pat-downs:

The issue is sensitive because physical space intrusions are just about the last thing an administration cast by Republicans as prone to governmental overreach needs.

* Al Gore concedes he was wrong to back ethanol subsidies and admits it was about presidential ambitions, which could give more impetus to Dems to unite with conservative Republicans in the push for the subsides to expire.

* Steve Benen games out how Dems can exploit the issue, and wonders how the new House GOP majority will handle it, given their pledge to rein in spending.

* Digby, in an interesting post, notes that Dems should accuse Republicans of economic sabotage in order to undermine the GOP's "unearned trust on the economy through years and years of propaganda that portrays liberals as irresponsible, profligate spenders."

* But I just don't know if screaming "sabotage" will accomplish this without Dems being more effective on the economy, and as Atrios notes, it isn't even clear what Dem policies Republicans are sabotaging in the first place.

* Give 'em hell, Barack: The notion that Harry Truman is Obama's best model for dealing with the GOP continues to gain steam.

* Not a moment too soon? David Plouffe is being rushed to the White House earlier than expected to chart out and execute the grand strategy for dealing with the new, emboldened GOP.

* House GOPers duke it out for the new ultra-hot Congressional gig: Public face of the coming health reform repeal push.

* Dave Weigel, on the media's obsession with Alvin Greene: "It's disgusting that such an obviously disturbed person would be egged on by the media to do more self-destructive and embarrassing things." Yup.

* Ruy Teixiera looks very closely at the numbers in order to argue the broader electorate isn't moving to the right.

* Sarah Palin plays her usual phony resentment game as she cuts and runs from Katie Couric.

* And the takedown of the day: Matt Labash on Palin and her on-air love of Alaska (which she abandoned after a half term as governor to make millions as a speechifier and Fox personality).

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | November 22, 2010; 6:02 PM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security, Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House GOPers, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Psst: DADT repeal is still not quite dead
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Motor Trend has a pretty good smackdown on Rush's negativity about the Chevy Volt being named as Car of the Year. As an added bonus, they drag George Will along for the ride.

http://blogs.motortrend.com/rush-judgment-5957.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 22, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

The country is demanding Congressional hearings on the 4th Amendment Violations at every airport in the nation.

There have been various alternative procedures described in the press.

However, Obama is VIOLATING the Consitution by these procedures, they are unreasonable.


Obama should be impeached as soon as possible.


If the liberals do not want to be bipartisan and Compromise, there is no reason that the Republicans should exercise restraint and not impeach Obama. Lack of co-operation can go both ways this time.

It is up to the liberals.

The Republicans won the election. The Republicans have the mandate. If Obama and the liberals don't want to work with them, Impeachment is the way to go.


.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

As I've been saying, push-back against the DREAM Act is growing louder and stronger.

I don't get why Greg is ignoring this issue. There's nothing at Political Wire. Nothing at Think Progress. Nothing on TPM's homepage.

HELLO PROFESSIONAL LEFT! WAKEY WAKEY!

Here is the memo that Sen Jeff Sessions is curciulating:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM170_101122_dreamalert.html

Here is today's Politico article on the topic:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45487.html

I'm telling you all...

We NEED push-back on this topic NOW.

Not later.

NOW.

Please.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 22, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

I really want to like the Harry Truman analogy but one part of the analogy isn't working for me and that is the historical timing of Truman versus that of Obama.

Truman followed Roosevelt who guided our country out of The Great Depression and out of WWII. In terms of the economy, the uncertainty in the world, and our governmental institutions, we are closer to the circumstances of the pre-WWII Roosevelt administration than we are to the post-WWII Truman administration.

Perhaps we've collectively concluded that Obama will not be a modern-day Roosevelt. It's too bad, I really think he could have been had he been more aggressive and populist.

Posted by: matt_ahrens | November 22, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

-New health insurance rule could mean rebates for some consumers-

Millions of Americans might be eligible for rebates starting in 2012 under regulations released Monday, which detail the health care law's requirement that insurers spend at least 80 percent of their revenues on direct medical care.

[...]

If the law were in effect now, however, about 9 million people could be eligible for rebates, either directly, if they buy their own coverage, or through their employers, if they're in job-based coverage.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/22/104150/new-health-insurance-rule-could.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 22, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

-Snowe, Collins cave to extreme right on challenge to health-care law-

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/11/snowe-collins-question-constit.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 22, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Ethan at 6:39

You are just repeating the democratic talking points

This is of concern because you are one of the democrats who attack other posters with whom you do not agree.


Is it an official democratic party policy to attack private citizens who voice opposing viewpoints? Are they paying you to do just that? Are they instructing you to do that??? How high up do these order come from ??? WHAT did Obama know and when did he know it.

.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Serious recommendation here for everyone to read Labash's take-down of Palin in (!) the Weekly Standard that Greg links above. Damned fine piece of writing.

On something else... I'm not a big fan of Motor Trend as exemplar of the automotive magazine genre (which actually has a lot of good writing too) mainly because it has commonly demonstrated a pro-Detroit rah rah bias.

But that pro-Detroit bias is one of the reasons that this piece slamming Limbaugh for his stupid comments on the Chevy Volt is so relevant...

http://blogs.motortrend.com/rush-judgment-5957.html
h/t Benen

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

I looked at that DREAM ACT stuff and saw -- surprise surprise -- that Ben Nelson refuses to even vote for cloture:

"“I’m not going to support any act that I don’t think adds to jobs, or military or to the economy. Consequently I won’t support any motion to proceed or any kind of cloture on the DREAM Act,” Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told POLITICO. “In addition, I think that has to be part of an overall comprehensive solution to immigration once we have the border secured, not until then.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45487.html#ixzz163gjdo3A

now I ask you: Is Ben Nelson EVER not a d*ck? They should have stripped him of his committee posts a LONG time ago.

Later.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 22, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Greg, surprised you didn't include the Pew study out today about the bias of land line polling towards the GOP.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1806/growing-gap-between-landline-and-dual-frame-election-polls

At this blog we've been saying this for months: polls are skewed for many reasons (Rasumssen as a GOP push-poller), but overall polls are not taking into account cell use and the age difference between that demographic and the land line demo.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 22, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Truman had a Pre-Great Society budget.

He didn't have the issue as to whether to expand the Great Society programs - he didn't even have ANY Great Society programs in the Federal budget!


Eisenhower was plunged into a crisis over the first ONE billion dollar deficit. It caused a cabinet-level national controversy.

Obama's deficit is over ONE THOUSAND times that amount - quite eye-popping.


Truman's analogy really does not work.


.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

WB, I saw that... What an ignoramus.

And $5 to anyone who can explain to me what this sentence even means:

"I’m not going to support any act that I don’t think adds to jobs, or military or to the economy."

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 22, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Bginchi

WE just had an election - and the polls were pretty close to what happened in the election

So how can you say the cell phones create a significant variable ???

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

"* Ruy Teixiera looks very closely at the numbers in order to argue the broader electorate isn't moving to the right."

It's about time someone woke up, more people define themselves as conservative yet the public option continually won in every poll. Also, when conservative candidates tell their true policy positions they start dropping in the polls.

You have to peel back the cover and look at those numbers to see that we're not moving more conservative, the conservatives are just better at marketing their ideas by masking the truth in their plan. If American knew they wanted to privatize SS or raise the retirement age they would be put in permanent exile...

Posted by: soapm | November 22, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

wb, Ben Nelson is a dick. Full stop.

He's a perfect example of exactly what's wrong with the Senate.

When is he up for re-election? I can't wait to see that primary.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 22, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Dear Eric Cantor,

You are stupid.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/22/cantor-social-security-reality/


Sincerely,


BG

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 22, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Serious recommendation here for everyone to read Labash's take-down of Palin in (!) the Weekly Standard that Greg links above. Damned fine piece of writing.
----------------------------------------------
Labash might have to go hide in the witness protection program for this piece. Very courageous, and yes, excellent writing.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Civil war cannonading in the distance.

Benen writes a post detailing the right wing's loud plaints about the upcoming GOP presidential debates at the Reagan Library IF conducted by any journalist/personage who ain't a raving fascist...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026757.php

Now, part of what's going on here is "working the refs" - the attempt to pre-emptively bully anyone filling this role to act exactly like some FOX staffer.

But there's another potential here which deserves attention. That's the bifurcation of media into FOX/etc versus everyone else. As I've argued before, this is an emerging arrangement (Palin, Angle, Miller etc etc) that could get so crazy that we might see GOP presidential candidates who simply refuse to place themselves before any editorial board or media inquisitor who might press them with difficult or complex or challenging questions.

That's the direction. How far these jerks can push it, god knows.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Snowe and Collins of Maine just signed onto the health care Court challenge.

So why would they now go with Obama and help him enact parts of the liberal agenda in the lame duck session - after the Republicans won the election???


The logic here ........ well for the liberals there is no logic here.


The democrats need 2 Republicans after the swearing in of Mark Kirk. Joe Manchin doesn't look like he will cast any high-profile liberal agenda votes for Obama.

So, who is left? Ben Nelson and Blanch Lincoln?

There are 14 vulnerable democratic Senators up for re-election - why would any of them want to take a risk now ?

WHY ???


Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, the danger is that they'll then limit themselves to publicity in only the media that broadcast to their constituency: preaching to the choir.

This will keep a base solid, but how can this work at the national level? Maybe with someone very famous and whose character is solid. Otherwise, though, it will be really hard to get Independents and to grow a party that is getting older and less educated all the time.

And having said that, I'll be appalled if they do it, but I hope it drives their party right into the ground.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 22, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI | November 22, 2010 7:02 PM

What exactly do you think that a primary for Ben Nelson might look like in Nebraska???

And if a candidate further to the left actually won, do you think that candidate could win the general????


Nebraska only has one House in its State legislature, don't forget that.

.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

"The issue is sensitive because physical space intrusions are just about the last thing an administration cast by Republicans as prone to governmental overreach needs."

It's just the wrong approach. And overreach plays a part--not just what they are doing now, but if they'll do this, what are they going to be doing next year? Or the year after that? I'm dubious of slippery slope arguments, but it's not at all clear to me where they plan to stop. Eventually, each level of intrusion and violation and harassment is going to become the new normal, someone is going to almost get something on a plane--in some orifice, or perhaps swallowed, or molded as glasses or something--and then nobody can fly with glasses, which will be confiscated after a brief cavity search.

And it's pointless. It does nothing. It also opens them up to further accusations of doing nothing but ratcheting up the security theater, because that's what they are doing.

I refer you again to the Adam Savage story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

To all liberals

If Obama really thought that deals were to be had with the Republicans in the lame duck session, he wouldn't have spent most of this month overseas.

Instead, Obama is "running out the clock" on the liberal agenda - and the Republicans haven't even done anything yet.


All the talk over the past few weeks is all a pile of rubbish - designed to deflect criticism of Obama from the left focusing on why Obama did not move on these issues over the past year - Obama had enough time.


If you think about it, last Fall was really the wasted time. They had 60 votes, and all Obama did was dither.


Obama is a complete failure.

On one important level, it is the democrats' own fault for electing someone who had little experience and little qualifications - Obama is incompetent and it could have been predicted that he would be incompetent in putting through the liberal agenda.

It's all over, except for the burial.

Right now the liberal agenda isn't even in the Emergency Room - it is on the way to cemetary.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

The proponents of the Ground Zero Mosque are asking Obama for $ 5 Million Dollars of Federal taxpayer money in order to pay for their building.


HA !


What a complete joke. What is even more hilarious is that they think Obama is so anti-American that he will give them $5 Million Dollars.

.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Chandra Levy was killed by an illegal alien.

Just wanted to remind everyone of that aspect of the case.


Don't forget that illegal aliens commit crimes -

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

@12bar - Pleased you took the time to read it. I'm going to have to remember to follow Labash more closely (even if, in page 3, he tossed out some obligatory WS stuff).

But of course it was the Weekly Standard and Kristol who first pushed this creature to the fore so seeing the sort of critique he writes here actually published by them is pretty damned interesting. If anyone sees or hears right wing response to the piece, please let me know.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

@BG - There does seem to be a limit on how far they can take this, for the reason you mention. But who would have thought they'd manage to push it as far as they did this last election and still prove, in more than a few cases, to be successful or damn near? A Presidential campaign is a different matter, we presume, but a lot of traditional ideas and presumptions are in the process of being overturned. So I don't know how far they will or can push this.

But whatever the variable there, it's an enormously destructive and dangerous direction that will only further isolate and divide citizens. Maybe it will work to the end of collapsing the extremists but I'd truly like to be more confident about that outcome.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

@reddogs: "Chandra Levy was killed by an illegal alien."

Gary Condit was an illegal alien?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

@bernie: "If anyone sees or hears right wing response to the piece, please let me know."

I don't know what the general response will be, but I thought it was a very good, and very even-handed article, myself. I don't imagine it's going to change minds, or be particularly revelatory, but it was very well written.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin
I've adopted a policy (which I hope all others will as well) of putting on "ignore" anyone who quotes or dialogues with our troll. I don't want you in that category as you've kindly provided the tool itself.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Joseph Otero, Julie Otero, Joseph Otero Jr., Josephine Otero, Kathryn Bright, Shirley Vian, Nancy Fox, Marine Hedge, Vicki Wegerle, and Dolores E. Davis were killed by an American citizen, registered Republican, Lutheran Church Deacon.

Don't forget that American citizen, registered Republican, Lutheran Church Deacons commit crimes.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 22, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin, re Labash on Palin...

We're probably thinking about this in different ways. Few Palinites/tea party types read the Weekly Standard, I'm certain. Different audience from FOX teevee or Limbaugh and crowd. WS and NRO are for the interlecchuls on the right.

But as I've argued, if it is concluded by the establishment on the right (and that includes these boys) deems Palin unelectable, then they'll try to stop her and negative pieces on her will appear at an increasing rate and in more serious modes as time goes on. That's the relevance of this piece.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Two other links on the Palin/Labash thing

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/11/22/the-weekly-standard-turns-on-sarah-palin.html

http://www.frumforum.com/operation-stop-palin-gets-rolling

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

@bernie: "I've adopted a policy (which I hope all others will as well) of putting on 'ignore' anyone who quotes or dialogues with our troll. I don't want you in that category as you've kindly provided the tool itself."

Bernie, ya gotta do what you gotta do. I understand your theory, but I may occasionally feed the troll, even though I know it's frowned upon in polite company.

If this is the last you see of me, then, happy trails! And pleasant dreams. Etc. Aw, heck, I've never been good at saying goodbye. so I'll let Lawrence Welk do it for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMvqPffzDMQ


Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

"Labash might have to go hide in the witness protection program for this piece."

Ha! Labash is not the only conservative willing to criticize other conservatives - don't act so surprised.

Y'all should really read his book: "Fly Fishing with Darth Vader: And Other Adventures with Evangelical Wrestlers, Political Hitmen, and Jewish Cowboys"

Posted by: sbj3 | November 22, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives4Palin lists 10 qualifications for the Presidency that Sarah possesses that other candidates don't. Well, okay, they really only list 5, and apparently, the other 5 are coming soon. One would think that they are ranked in order of importance.

10 Qualifications Sarah Palin Has Over Five Recent Presidents (Part One)

Note #2:

"2. Ten years volunteer work in the Parent-Teacher-Association. "

This is followed by:

3. Two years pro-life advocacy.
4. One year as an oil and gas commissioner.
5. Two and a half years governing the largest state in America.

Oh, and #1 was this gem:

1. Ten years in municipal government.

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/11/10-qualifications-sarah-palin-has-over.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 22, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Ha! Labash is not the only conservative willing to criticize other conservatives - don't act so surprised.
---------------------------------------------
Well, something to look forward to, then. Perhaps, you could point us to all these critical conservatives, just we don't miss anything. Then I will wipe the surprised look off my face.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

@suekzoo,

This web site is great:

Let me quote just a snippet:

"As a mayor and city manager for six years, Sarah Palin presided over an $11 million operating budget in Wasilla, Alaska. Serving as her city's youngest chief executive, Palin supervised city personnel, made hiring and firing decisions, and drafted detailed financial documents. In one such 200-page budget report, Palin described her governing approach as "parsimonious" (i.e frugal)."

------------------------------------
Thank God for the helpful parenthetical definitions.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Another gem from Conservatives4Palin.com, to elevate her above recent presidents:

"Scoff if you like, but just about every president from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama has proclaimed himself to be the “Education President.” Yet none of our erstwhile scholars logged any meaningful minutes in the largest volunteer child advocacy and grassroots educational policy organization in the world. (Bill Clinton did note in his ’92 nominating speech that Hillary attended PTA meetings as Arkansas’ first lady.)"

------------------------------------------
More excellent parentheticals.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I think the website has missed several other character building experience:

Mrs. Palin called bingo at the Elks for 3 Fridays in 1998.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

12BB: "In one such 200-page budget report, Palin described her governing approach as "parsimonious" (i.e frugal)."

I guess that's why she left Wasilla in $20mm in debt, huh? :o)

----

"During her term in office, Palin cut property taxes and other small taxes on business. But as the Anchorage Daily News points out, “She wasn’t doing this by shrinking government.” During her tenure, the budget of Wasilla (population 5,469 in 2000) “apart from capital projects and debt, rose from $3.9 million in fiscal 1996 to $5.8 million.”

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/09/03/wasilla-in-debt/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 22, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

The "Dream Act" is another evil scheme cooked up by the LaRaza fanatics with Obama and his 'crats in full tow.

It is just another way to reward the hordes of outlaw invaders the liberals like to call "immigrants'.

These, border hopping bandidos have broken every American, immigration law in the books and have gotten away with it for years.

In every other case, outlaws are punished for their crimes but since hispanics seem to be one of the favored minorities of the Democrat, plantation keepers, the Obama regime seeks to actually reward the illegals with very valuable gifts.

Full amnesty and free American citizenship.

This is an outrage to every law abiding, American patriot. This nefarious scam must not be allowed to happen.

Call your elected officials and demand action to stop the illegal immigration madness called AMNESTY.

It has been tried and it is a proven failure. More failure cannot be an option.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 22, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

During her tenure, the budget of Wasilla (population 5,469 in 2000) “apart from capital projects and debt, rose from $3.9 million in fiscal 1996 to $5.8 million.”
--------------------------------------------
That must have been when they paved Main Street.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

lol, ALaska is now the largest state in the Union?

And it's kind of strange to see conservatives lose their sh*t over body scanners. These are the same people who insisted that if we don't wiretap all of the phones in the US, we'll have a mushroom cloud.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 22, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

12BB,

The other thing that's really interesting about Conservatives4Palin.com is that it is an officially sanctioned site, run by a woman who is now a part of Sarah's inner circle.

More about that in this past weekend's NYT Magazine profile:

"The Palin Network"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/magazine/21palin-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 22, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

The exact same reasons liberals give to disqualify Sarah Palin from running for president can be applied to Barack Hussein Obama.

It's why almost 50% of the voting public voted for McCain in 2008 and it's why there was a popular uprising in the 2010 mid-terms and it's why Obama will likely be a one term president.

He has no experience and it shows but we are stuck with him for two more years thanks to the flim-flam he pulled off in 2008.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 22, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

"As a mayor and city manager for six years, Sarah Palin presided over an $11 million operating budget in Wasilla, Alaska. Serving as her city's youngest chief executive, Palin supervised city personnel, made hiring and firing decisions, and drafted detailed financial documents. In one such 200-page budget report, Palin described her governing approach as "parsimonious" (i.e frugal)."

lol, I've presided over larger budgets and I'm sure half a dozen other people on here have as well.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 22, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Anybody interested in seeing where all of this municipal experience was garnered, take a look at the Wasilla City Hall.

http://blackandmarriedwithkids.com/2008/09/02/welcome-to-wasilla-alaska-city-hall/
---------------------------------------------
I hear the building used to be a Dairy Queen, but DQ couldn't make a go in Wasilla. Note the drive in window.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

http://blackandmarriedwithkids.com/2008/09/02/welcome-to-wasilla-alaska-city-hall/

---------------------------
Here's the pix.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

ddawd: "ALaska is now the largest state in the Union?"

Well, yeah, it's BIG...and uninhabited...and a big chunk of it is under the pervue of the Fed...but that doesn't mean it's not big. AND it has a few thousand more people than North Dakota!!

lol

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 22, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham at 8:32 PM


You are adopting a "policy" to HARASS other people who comment.

This is on the heels of your promises to leave for good.

I believe that you should just stick to your word - and leave others alone.


You know what they call people who don't live up to their word?

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that conservatives4palin really are. Here's another two snippets:

"Had Palin served out her natural term, and ran for re-election, the chorus of "is she qualified" would have been mollified by her overwhelming accomplishments and an acceptably completed term in office. "

"Unfortunately, she stepped down 16 months shy of a full term. When you look at that as a percentage, however, Palin actually served two-thirds of her term ... the precise percentage Barack Obama served of his term in the senate."
---------------------------------------
And these people are her supporters? Unfortunately?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1

At least Sarah Palin dealt with a government budget - and made cuts.

Compare this to Obama's experience - and his complete lack of accomplishments which basically add up to a book tour.


Emil Jones put Obama's name on bills in Springfield, IL just to make it appear that Obama was doing something.

Obama's resume is more shallow that Sarah Palins.


AND THAT IS THE POINT.


.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Oh, wait, there's more:

"What would she have done in the last 16 months had she remained in office? We can be assured that she wouldn't have been productive."

--------------------------------
And that is two paragraphs after asserting her overwhelming accomplishments had she completed her term, which (unfortunately) she didn't.

Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These people can not be for real.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

lol, I've presided over larger budgets and I'm sure half a dozen other people on here have as well.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 22, 2010 10:33 PM
-------
But prior to his election, Obama never had.
LOL indeed.

Posted by: Brigade | November 22, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

And it's kind of strange to see conservatives lose their sh*t over body scanners. These are the same people who insisted that if we don't wiretap all of the phones in the US, we'll have a mushroom cloud.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 22, 2010 10:27 PM
-----

Wait until they scan and grope some Muslim women and we'll see who's losing their sh*t.

Posted by: Brigade | November 22, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Um...let's see. In 2012:

Mrs. Palin has 10 years serving in Wasilla city government in a reconverted DQ store.

Barack Obama has 4 years serving as the President of the most powerful nation in the world.

Close call.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who would like to make a point about Sarah Palin's resume should look at their vote for Obama in 2008.


Sarah Palin right now has more experience than Obama did in 2008.


The liberals who are attempting to make this argument are complete fools. And what is amazing is they show how stupid they are by appearing as though the same standards they are trying to apply to Sarah Palin should not have applied to Obama.


Please.........


The country has had enough from the liberals. They just are clueless when the nation has told you to knock it off. How much dumber do you want to appear???

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

12BB, don't forget about 10 years volunteering on the PTA. That's more important by rank than a half-term as governor.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 22, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

This entire string of comments tells us more about the people who comment here than anything about Sarah Palin.

Don't you all get how you appear when you talk this way ???

Do you have any self-respect at all???


We get it - you all probably voted for Obama.

But in 2008, you DIDN'T CARE about experience or qualifications, and now the NATION is suffering on account of your lack of judgement.

In addition, your own party is now suffering on account of your own lack of judgement.


You all have no ability to make decisions as to who is qualified for government AT ALL. And yet you feel perfectly comfortable coming on here, and mocking Sarah Palin.


But you voted for Obama.


Can't really help you all if you insist on being so childish with the nation.


AND for the sake of YOUR children and grandchildren, please don't ever vote again. You really are unqualified to even cast a vote again.


.

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

Here's another example of how you get experience by quitting. A snippet from conservatives4palin:

"As a state oil and gas commissioner she blew the whistle on unethical relationships between the Alaskan Republican party and the Big Oil lobby, resigning in protest from her $122,400-a-year-job when her boss and predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski, did not investigate the corruption."

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

12Bar and suekzoo


Don't you both understand how foolish you appear when you write things like that ?


Some feminists. Funny how the women who claim to support women's rights and lesbians' rights are the most CRUEL to Sarah Palin.


What does that tell you ???


.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Oh, wait, there's more. Just two sentences later:

"She would not be inclined to take an all-or-nothing approach to government oversight."
------------------------------------------
First she quits because something is not investigated--but, she's also accomodating and not taking an all-or-nothing approach.

Which is it? One? The other? Both?

------------------------------------------
conservatives4palin seriously need to take their act back into rehearsal. This show is not ready for the road.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

12Bar and suekzoo


They just continue with the rude and obnoxious comments.

Taking glee in tearing apart other women.


Notice it's the women who are doing this.


Unbelievable.


How foolish.


Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

don't forget about 10 years volunteering on the PTA
---------------------------------------------
Probably can't quit in protest when you're a volunteer. Hey, wait a minute, I've been a PTA volunteer for 20 years. Why didn't I use that on my resume for executive positions?

Along with bingo calling at the Elks.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

12BB:

From the NYT article I linked above:

"But it is Rebecca Mansour who especially personifies the amorphous yet fervid network of Palin World. Mansour said to me with undisguised relish, “I majored in English and history and minored in philosophy, but I’ve never been a Beltway person, so that does confuse people.” A graduate of the American Film Institute, Mansour was writing screenplays in L.A. when, following the 2008 election, her disgust over “what I perceived as unfair treatment” of Palin inspired her to start the blog Conservatives4Palin. Mansour’s knowledge of Palin became so encyclopedic that in the summer of 2009, Meghan Stapleton asked her if she would come to Del Mar to help with Palin’s biography. The blogger had never met her subject before. She showed up with binders full of research, and when she was introduced to Palin, “the first thing she did was hug me — I was like, ‘O.K.,’ ” Mansour said with a laugh. “She is the most ordinary person. She’s shorter than I am.” At the same time, Mansour was impressed with Palin’s nimble mind. “I remember sitting with her while she was working on the book; she would be typing furiously, and I’d ask her, ‘Governor, when was the year you did such and such,’ and she’d say, ‘That was the year we did the budget.’ And then she’d be reading the chyron at the bottom of the TV screen while typing and talking to me. And then would read to me what she just wrote, and it was brilliant.”

For her volunteer work on “Going Rogue,” Mansour would soon be rewarded with both a salary and a weighty portfolio. Mansour is Palin’s primary speechwriter, researcher, online communications coordinator and all-purpose adviser. Because Palin often works 20-hour days, so does Mansour, because “the governor reads, checks and approves everything that’s under her name.” Mansour regularly spars with the media on her private Twitter account for perceived inaccuracies about Palin. At the same time, she acknowledged, “I love it when they underestimate her.”

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 22, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Mansour’s knowledge of Palin became so encyclopedic
---------------------------------------
Not a multi volume set.

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

LOL. I turned Greasemonkey off for a moment.

You've got mental issues STRF. Now go cry a river how I personally attacked you ya freak.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 22, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

When the long knives of the GOP establishment finish their bloody work on Mrs. Palin, comments made here will be mild. According to Frum, the column in the Weekly Standard is the beginning of the stop Palin campaign within the GOP.

She has only herself to blame. She has had a couple of years to gussie herself up on policy matters, if not experience (unfortunately). She was advised by her party to do that. But, swishing around with Beck and Hannity, doing $100k speeches about nothing, and starring in reality shows is more important. I do not feel sorry for her.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

12BB: "When the long knives of the GOP establishment finish their bloody work on Mrs. Palin, comments made here will be mild. According to Frum, the column in the Weekly Standard is the beginning of the stop Palin campaign within the GOP."

See, I think that if the establishment goes after her aggressively and really tries to knife her, it will just give her that much more impetus to run. She's that kind of personality. She will not be affronted, and certainly will not be told to sit down and shut up. And she's got the biggest base in the GOP....

Pass the popcorn?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 22, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

@suekzoo,

I read Mrs. Palin just like you do. I think she will run for the nomination, and criticism just juices her. I'll bet she's had a lot of experience with that in her life. She will try to do a Barry Goldwater on the GOP. But, the GOP establishment won't take it lying down.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 22, 2010 11:49 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin

You don't escape my clutches quite so easily. Just don't do it often as it defeats our/your purpose.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

12BB: "the GOP establishment won't take it lying down. "

No, I don't think they will, either. But they don't have a lot of good options. Probably their strongest candidate is currently serving as the Ambassador to China (Jon Hunstman), although he's got the same "Mormon" problem that Romney does. Mitch Daniels could be a strong opponent to Obama, but he'd never make it to the GE because he's already angered the soc-cons.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 23, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

I simply do not see how Mrs. Palin can overcome her biggest limitation. And that is, that she lacks the minimum intelligence to be POTUS. I don't see how she can overcome that impression when she is doing nothing to counteract it, and after four years in the public eye, there will be very few undecideds.

When the public decided that Dan Quayle wasn't smart enough, absolutely nothing shook that. Same with Sarah Palin.

She had a chance, a slim chance, to make good use of her time to change her image. Instead of that, she continues to go rogue.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 23, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

If the dynamic of 2012 is like the dynamic of 2010, we will see Republicans nominate someone like Palin who has no chance of winning. It will just like all the tea party candidates who were nominated in the 2010 elections and largely decimated in their generals.

And none of those candidates were facing a candidate like Barack Obama.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 23, 2010 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Last night I caught Wendell Potter, the ex Cigna exec, talking about the industry's moves to discredit "Sicko" and Moore which he was involved with and which details in his new book. We knew a lot about this already from prior insider information given by him. But tonight he said something new that I found very interesting.

The industry's greatest fear was that Sicko *might stimulate a populist movement* which would lead to the overturning their system and replacement by something like what Canada (or Israel, etc) enjoys. _That's_ what they set out to prevent, using covert front groups and investing many millions in the effort.

When the "tea party" phenomenon began, I wrote here that populist movements in the US have historically moved in two distinct directions, or to put it another way, have directed their anger towards two quite distinct and different targets - either a perceived "intellectual elite" or a perceived "monied elite". High falootin' universities or greedy Wall Street. And I surmised that what the Tea Party (which we could already see was being organized and funded by corporate lobbyists, PR firms and front groups) initiative might really be attempting was a broad effort to hijack the simmering and inchoate populist sentiments in the country and to direct it away from the one traditional target, corporate/financial, and towards the other, intellectual. And let's note that there's nothing new in this. All the efforts over thirty or more years to cast doubts on the science showing tobacco causes cancer, greenhouse gases effecting global climate and the real costs associated, etc etc have relied on PR campaigns, covertly funded and run by front groups which used denigration of the science and scientists making such claims. And the modern conservative base is, as a demographic, the folks who have been successfully propagandized by these prior campaigns (for religious conservatives, a convenient fit where doubts cast on science help them get past the Darwin problem and others).

So, let me toss up again the notion that the Wall Street, the C of C, etc have merely done again what they've been doing successfully for decades. And in this case, they have moved preemptively and strategically to prevent a populist uprising of one sort (which targets them) and redirected it towards the other. I've thought all along that this is a pretty good thesis and Potter's statement lends it a hell of a lot of weight.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 6:35 AM | Report abuse

Sorry...one important point to be made there is that such a strategy would be seen not in relation with healthcare (that's just one small component issue) but as regards the financial meltdown with the certain suffering that citizens would suffer AND in relation to the boggling levels of wealth these people have been and continue to ear even while being responsible for the decline in everyone elses' standards. Since the Reagan period, the disparities in levels of prosperity have grown to levels we haven't seen since pre FDR times. Perhaps a manageable problem if everyone is doing ok but when the rest of us really begin to suffer, then these boys with their piles of gold who are most responsible for the crash are pretty easily seen as proper targets for anger and reorganization.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 6:50 AM | Report abuse

@DDAWD re your last post... that's the hope. And along with it, the hope that Weyrich has it right in predicting a night of the long knives between the two competing camps within the conservative movement.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 7:03 AM | Report abuse

12 bar said:
"I simply do not see how Mrs. Palin can overcome her biggest limitation. And that is, that she lacks the minimum intelligence to be POTUS."

I think that's right. But working in her favor here are two things. First, exceeding the barrel-bottom expectations might be achieved (as one of her key PR guys just voiced it (I'm paraphrasing), "If she does immerse herself in briefings and practice session and performs ok, won't that paint her in a different light?"

The second thing is the increasing isolation of her within a friendly media machine so as to avoid negatives.

I'm pretty certain these won't be enough but best to keep them in mind.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 7:09 AM | Report abuse

"When the "tea party" phenomenon began, I wrote here that populist movements in the US have historically moved in two distinct directions, or to put it another way, have directed their anger towards two quite distinct and different targets - either a perceived "intellectual elite" or a perceived "monied elite". High falootin' universities or greedy Wall Street. And I surmised that what the Tea Party (which we could already see was being organized and funded by corporate lobbyists, PR firms and front groups) initiative might really be attempting was a broad effort to hijack the simmering and inchoate populist sentiments in the country and to direct it away from the one traditional target, corporate/financial, and towards the other, intellectual. And let's note that there's nothing new in this. All the efforts over thirty or more years to cast doubts on the science showing tobacco causes cancer, greenhouse gases effecting global climate and the real costs associated, etc etc have relied on PR campaigns, covertly funded and run by front groups which used denigration of the science and scientists making such claims. And the modern conservative base is, as a demographic, the folks who have been successfully propagandized by these prior campaigns (for religious conservatives, a convenient fit where doubts cast on science help them get past the Darwin problem and others).

So, let me toss up again the notion that the Wall Street, the C of C, etc have merely done again what they've been doing successfully for decades. And in this case, they have moved preemptively and strategically to prevent a populist uprising of one sort (which targets them) and redirected it towards the other. "

I agree. I think that was precisely the point of the Tea Party from the GOP perspective. Unfortunately, Obama played right into their hands by refusing to go for economic populist outrage. Since Obama didn't identity any target, he became the target. The GOP played a terrible hand beautifully. However, it doesn't change the underlying reality, only the immediate political landscape. Reality will still win out. (I hope.)

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

Re: GOP Pres 2012:

Romney has a Mormon problem.
Palin has a moron problem.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

@re: Sarah Palin lacking the minimum intelligence to be president.

Perhaps, but it sounds very self-congratulatory to me, rather than a substantive criticism. And there's no indication to me that she lacks the intelligence to be president, nor would this criticism go away if she was more pedigreed. Bush, who attended Harvard and Yale and frequently got better grades than either Kerry or Gore was nevertheless dismissed as stupid.

Anyhoo, unless there's an actual IQ test to qualify someone for president, I don't think anybody can be too stupid to be president. Perhaps too stupid to be a good president but, even then, given the things very smart people do once their in office, I'm not sure a high degree of intelligence necessarily correlates with good decisions.

Still, when it comes down to it, I'm betting (and I could be wrong, but I'm still betting) that this is a lot of handwringing over nothing. Either she's not going to run (still likely, in my opinion) and, if she does, she doesn't get the nomination. Especially given the structure of the presidential primaries . . . I just don't think she'd carry north-eastern and left-coast Republicans.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 23, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

@wb - Yeah. As Taibbi and others argue, convincingly, the circle of finance people around the administration had some influence on his "go easy" stance. And as Levin (I think it was) said, "These people own the place (government)". But hope has a few feathers left.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin
I could argue that you let her off far too easily. But that's not really the important thing you get wrong here.

What you are really doing is denigrating the office of the Presidency by suggesting that most anyone is capable of holding it.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

"I don't think anybody can be too stupid to be president."

Imbeciles of the World, Unite!

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, Ha'aretz has had almost nothing to say about either Ailes ("NPR are nazis") or Glenn Beck. There's a cursory piece on Ailes that merely notes Foxman's empty protest...

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/fox-news-chief-apologizes-for-calling-npr-execs-nazis-1.325936

Flipping through a recent copy of the NYRB last night, I saw an ad for Foxman's latest book which put the Beck/Ailes/Murdoch/ADL relationship in a particularly head-banging perspective.

Beck's recent three night attack on Soros contained classic anti-Semitic ideas and imagery, stuff that normally and properly gains the attention and full-on assault from the ADL. One of the key ideas in this tradition of slandering Jews has been that they slyly gain power in the world of finance and then slyly use that power to manipulate nations and the world. All of which was precisely what Beck did two weeks ago.

Here's the title of Foxman's latest book which the NYRB ran an ad for... "Jews and Money: The Story of a Stereotype"

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_137.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 23, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "I agree. I think that was precisely the point of the Tea Party from the GOP perspective."

I think the point of the Tea Party from the GOP perspective was (a) these hicks and rubes need to go away! How dare they mess with the GOP machine! and (b) hey, maybe we can use these guys to get back to power.

The only moneyed elite they were thinking of protecting was themselves.

"Unfortunately, Obama played right into their hands by refusing to go for economic populist outrage."

Against who? Hard to go against a whole class of bankers, or Wall Street, and certainly not trial lawyers, as a lot of those folks donated a lot of money to Obama specifically, and donate a lot of money to Democrats (and Republicans), generally. Whose really going to grab the mantle of economic populism when both parties, and most individuals in both parties, are deeply indebted to at least some bankers, some Wall Street Fat Cats, some hedge fund managers, some Titans of Industry, etc. And even if they are deeply indebted right now, there's always the implication that (a) you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, when you need it and (b) oppose me and I'll break you, and you see what kind of money I have. You really want to do this?

Don't expect a lot of substantial or lasting economic populism from anyone in the political class, period.

For example, Wall Street turned out for Obama in 2008, and donated a lot of money to Democrats. Obama arguably made some effort to hold Wall Street accountable, both in speeches and in legislation, and Wall Street did not turn out for Democrats in 2010. Now, Obama seems to be distancing himself from economic populism or attacking the fat cats. Lesson learned, I'd say.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 23, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "What you are really doing is denigrating the office of the Presidency by suggesting that most anyone is capable of holding it."

You are incorrect, both in your interpretation and in the facts. I do not suggest that anybody is capable of holding it. This is wrong. What I do suggest is that there is no intelligence test for the office. This is true and, in my opinion, historically evident. Although I would argue that what most refer to intelligence is about 50% the person's demonstrable competence and knowledge, and 50% how much they agree with me and reflect my values. But, I digress.

But not anybody can be president. To quote: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." Additionally: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

No mention of a 4 year degree in political science. Or a specific IQ number. Or even maintaining over a C average, or having attended college at all.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 23, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, thank you for your clarification yesterday.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 23, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

A year is a political eternity. She could still win the New Hampshire primary.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 23, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin
"Capable" was the word I used. There's no IQ test required, nor in theory, any membership in a proper social class or religion (thought the reality is quite different, particularly in that last) and the graph of legal qualifications was unnecessary.

The question at hand is about whether any individual is intellectually up to the task and you really dodge this one. In doing so, you denigrate the task itself, that is, the Presidency. I expect you wouldn't have Palin as the brain surgeon for your child's operation in this or any imaginable universe because she has not displayed anything like the curiosity or the work-ethic needed to study enough to learn enough to be competent in that task. And if you assume that the Presidency requires less intellectual width and depth than that of a surgeon, you have an odd and denigrated notion of the task. I would never dream of puttying myself up for the job of running even a much smaller and far less challenging political role in some other minor nation and I'm a hell of a lot smarter, more curious, more educated and more intellectually responsible than she is. What I lack, compared to her, is the naivety that comes from being poorly educated, incurious and arrogant.

A tragic side-effect from the ceaseless slandering of government and politicians which marks the modern conservative movement is the sort of notion you seem to advance. And it is reflected in the number of fools you guys have put into office.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, take a look at what The Morning Fix says about Palin and/or Huckabee running.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 23, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

"Don't expect a lot of substantial or lasting economic populism from anyone in the political class, period. For example, Wall Street turned out for Obama in 2008, and donated a lot of money to Democrats. Obama arguably made some effort to hold Wall Street accountable, both in speeches and in legislation, and Wall Street did not turn out for Democrats in 2010. Now, Obama seems to be distancing himself from economic populism or attacking the fat cats. Lesson learned, I'd say."

Kevin: I agree that we are quite far from economic populism in either major party today. But that can change on a dime (so to speak). Will it? Well, not if Obama learned the lesson you think he did from 2010: that he was too anti-Big Business and Wall Street. Of course, that is precisely the WRONG lesson. That is NOT why the Dems lost. Just the opposite is true. But to be honest, Obama's political instincts are, um, slightly less developed than, say, Bill Clinton's. So who knows whether Obama gets it. At this point I really don't know what's going on in Obama's head. One of the reasons he should be holding weekly press conferences is that Obama appears to have lost touch with the American people. While the MSM is generally clueless, Obama could still use the WH press corps to get his messages out. In any case, Obama must get out of the bunker and open his eyes. Wall Street won't save him or the Dems; the American people will (if given the chance).

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Iowa and South Carolina are her best bets (especially if Huckabee doesn't run):

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/first-look-at-palins-primary-math.html

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 23, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "Kevin, take a look at what The Morning Fix says about Palin and/or Huckabee running."

Interesting. I still don't expect she'll run, and it always seems to take forever for Republican primaries to get to Tennessee, but if I had to choose between Palin and Huckabee I'd definitely vote Palin.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 23, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Me too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 23, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis, would you be okay with Palin promising Huckabee a Cabinet-level position if he endorses her for President (and she wins of course)?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 23, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

I love the chevy volt but just came across this article explaining the danger that is capable of happening. I definitely think it's a stylish car but if there are flaws so early on with Chevrolet's green vehicles, I am skeptical to invest any of my money. Very interesting to see R&D upgrades that are beneficial but aren't perfect just yet..
http://www.greenautozone.net/2011-chevrolet-volt.html

Posted by: 223201 | November 25, 2010 5:17 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