Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:08 PM ET, 11/24/2010

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

Because it's never too early for happy hour on the day before Thanksgiving, the best day of the year:

* Steve Benen does a nice job answering my question below about what Obama should do to handle the new, emboldened GOP.

Steve's case is basically that Obama should forge ahead where he can on his own, adopt a negotiating posture that's built squarely on the assumption that the GOP is operating in bad faith, and run explicitly against a "do-nothing Congress," Harry Truman style.

* Matthew Yglesias also offers an interesting answer, suggesting that Obama should disengage from Congress and essentially let Congress consume itself:

[D]eeply engaging with Congress is politically toxic. With John Boehner as Speaker of the House, no "ambitious legislative agenda" is ever going to pass so the White House should simply check out. Tell reporters to ask members of congress the questions about congress. Keep busy doing other stuff. Give wannabe congressional dealmakers space to make deals. Let congressional jerks go be jerks. If something terrible passes, veto it. Don't negotiate.

* Hilarous quote from Dem strategist Robert Zimmerman on CNN, commenting on the right's obsession with Nazi and Hitler comparisons:

"Eva Braun wasn't this into Hitler. I mean, let's face it. They're going to change the Republican mascot from the elephant to the German Shepherd."

* Sam Stein games out the final act in the long-running drama over the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. It. Still. Could. Happen.

* Ed Kilgore explains how "the ethanol wedge," i.e., joining with conservative GOPers to repeal ethanol subsidies, can work for Dems:

With the obvious, yawning gap between the deficit-reduction and corporate-lobby impulses of the GOP, it's equally obvious that progressives benefit from promoting deficit-reducing measures that are progressive but that threaten corporate interests.

* Nancy Pelosi's new role: To prevent Obama from being too accomodating or compromising toward Republicans.

* Also in the above link: Post-election anger lingers among House Dems, who "believe Obama and his team muddled the party's message and didn't act soon enough to provide cover for incumbents who cast tough votes for his marquee initiatives."

* Jed Lewison says Dems could have saved themselves some shellacking if they'd just acknowledged early on they'd only gotten half a loaf on the stimulus.

* Ruh, roh. The Tea Party is not going to be happy with Jon Kyl's apparent breaking of the Senate GOP's new anti-earmarks pledge.

* And as Dave Weigel notes in the above link, Michele Bachmann also committed a variation of this Tea Party/earmark faux pas. This could become a bit of a problem...

* Yes, it's time to start thinking about 2012, and Aaron Blake offers up a useful guide to the top vulnerabilities of all the leading GOP contenders.

* Rahm-mentum? Taegan Goddard flags a new poll finding Rahm way out front in the Chicago mayoral race, despite the push from national progressives to undercut his candidacy.

* Wow: Forty-five percent of Dems and Dem-leaning independents want Obama to face a primary challenge, while a virtually identical 46 percent don't.

* In keeping with the holiday spirit, the RNC joins the War on Christmas.

And have a great Thanksgiving, everyone! What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | November 24, 2010; 3:08 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, 2012, Happy Hour Roundup, House Dems, Senate Republicans, Tea Party, gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Yes, anti-Muslim bias is real
Next: Michael Gerson protests too much

Comments

Well Happy Thanksgiving everyone


Remember, it's all Obama's fault, we should get rid of him as soon as possible, and it wouldn't be so bad if he resigned or was impeached.


Thank you all, enjoy your holiday.


Posted by: RedNation | November 24, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Something to be thankful for:

Fall in Jobless Claims Lifts Wall Street

Searching for hints of an upside to the economy, analysts focused Wednesday on the decline in unemployment filings last week as an early sign of a pickup in the job market.

[...]

The Labor Department said Wednesday that filings for first-time unemployment benefits declined to 407,000 in the week ended Nov. 20, down from a revised 441,000 the previous week and well below analysts’ forecasts of 435,000.

More important, economists said, an average calculated over four weeks of the data has declined to 436,000, the lowest reading since July 2008 and during the recovery, economists said.

[...]

Ryan Wang, the United States economist for HSBC, said the trend lower in claims has been “long enough and significant enough to really pay attention to.”

“So it may be a sign that we are going to start to see some stronger job growth in the months ahead,” Mr. Wang said. “If we continue to see claims trend lower, it is a sign that we can finally see some positive progress.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/25/business/global/25markets.html

Dow is +145 at the moment fwiw...

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 24, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

-Unemployment claims drop sharply to 407K-

Weekly unemployment claims drop sharply to lowest level in more than 2 years

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/11/unemployment_claims_drop_sharply_to_407k_1.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 24, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

-Media Matters obliterates Faux Noise lies about DREAM Act-

http://mediamatters.org/research/201011240023

Thanks as usual Greg and Adam, great stuff.

Happy Turkey (or Tofurkey or Turducken) Day, everyone! Enjoy and safe travels!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 24, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't be too giddy about Rahm's poll numbers. Given that he so well known(compared to everyone else) and only polls 39% isn't a good sign. I would have loved to see a poll that pit Rahmbo against Cook County Sheriff Dart(Yes, I know Dart isn't running but I wonder how he would poll).

Posted by: Calvin_Jones_and_the_13th_Apostle | November 24, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Ok, two more links on the economy then I'm out:

-Data hints recovery is becoming self-sustaining-

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AN3VM20101124

-Online holiday sales growth seen up again: comScore-

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AN07K20101124

Cheers!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 24, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Calvin

I like the tenant to place, and then win the run-off.


Posted by: RedNation | November 24, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Snicker...

CO-HOST: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea? [...]

PALIN: But obviously, we’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies. We’re bound to by treaty –

CO-HOST: South Korean.

PALIN: Eh, Yeah. And we’re also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes.

Question...

Does she think we have treaties with both? (Note the word "also" when she mentions SK...or is that her "also" verbal tic kicking in?

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/24/palin-north-korea/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 24, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

sue-

You win the interwebs!

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 24, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Greg, you didn't make Salon War Room's "Hack Top 30"!

Congrats.

It's a real rogue's gallery.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 24, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Palin on Laura Ingram's show today, on Michelle Obama's childhood nutrition and obesity campaign:

"Take her anti-obesity thing that she is on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And I know I'm going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 24, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"Wow. Forty-five percent of Dems and Dem-leaning independents want Obama to face a primary challenge, while a virtually identical 46 percent don't."

Wow? The only surprise? Barak Obama fans are surprised.

As for people forgetting to forget about HItler, I am happy about that. Just as The Left is preoccupied with Hitler, so is The Right. The Center better hold.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 24, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Gotta love Palin. I really don't think the press will catch on that the Tea Party is toxic for mainstream Americans. At least not before 2012. The Tea Party candidates got annihilated this year and people still credit them for the Republican resurgence.

And if the economy continues to sustain itself and people start going back to work, it will be hard for Republicans. They needed to maximize this election cycle and the tea party fetish ended up netting them about the minimum gain.

And these Ingram type interviews will kill Palin. She will surround herself with people who will tell her she is spot on in repeating right wing talking points and no one will challenge her. It probably wouldn't be the worst thing for Palin if someone were to tell her that attacking Michelle Obama for combating childhood obesity isn't the best political move.

But now we will get 20 comments from Palinophiles as to how she is so right and how I'm being self-congratulatory or something.

Works for me.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 24, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Remember, it's all Bush's fault, we should have gotten rid of him in 2004, and it wouldn't be so bad if he was drawn and quartered at sunrise in the city square or got hit by a train.

/fixed

Posted by: cao091402 | November 24, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

So why is "the day before Thanksgiving, the best day of the year"?

I think the day of Thanksgiving is better.

Republicans sure have a lot to be thankful for, this year.

Obama

Pelosi

Reid


and all the little Obamacrats that gave up their careers for their master Obama and their mistress Pelosi.

Thank you!

Posted by: battleground51 | November 24, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Calvin, you sure about Dart? I didn't know he'd bowed out....

Thanks for those, sue. How dare a prominent person tell anyone that they ought to be healthy and not risk their lives! It's unprecedented!

God gave us the right to eat trans fats! It's right there in the book of Kissmyass.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 24, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I kid. But seriously. His fault.

Posted by: cao091402 | November 24, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Sarah Palin can tell us why so many children are obese if it's not their dietary and exercise habits? I guess what she is really saying is that it is better to actually -have- a nation-wide obesity epidemic than to have an active government? It's better for the American people to be sick and overweight and spend gobs of money on health care than to have a First Lady advocate for healthy children? I mean, that is what she's saying, right?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 24, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

@ethan: Considering Media Matters hypocrisy regarding undisclosed donors I think we all agree that they lack any credibility and should not be quoted or linked to here ever again.

Posted by: sbj3 | November 24, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

I happen to agree with the person who is obsessed with Sarah Palin. Suekzoo1 is trying to warn conservatives not to make the same mistake in 2012 that the Obamaphile liberals made in 2008. That is good advice and Republicans should take heed. This is why:

Obama had very little experience in 2008. He was not qualified to be nominated for president. They did it anyway. Sarah needs more administrative experience, herself.

Obama is an inflexible ideologue who is not open to compromise. Much like Sarah.

Obama is book smart but not people smart. Sarah is more people smart, less book smart. Maybe we need both.

Obama cannot speak well without his tele-prompter. Maybe Sarah should get one.

Let's not make the same error in judgement the Obamatons did in 2008.

Let's nominate an experienced, educated, principled leader in 2012 to knock Obama off his pretenders perch.

We'll be glad we did.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 24, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"I want to challenge every restaurant to offer healthy menu options and then provide them up front so that parents don't have to hunt around and read the small print to find an appropriately sized portion that doesn't contain high levels of fat, salt and sugar. These choices have to be easy to make and they have to give parents the confidence to know that they can go into any restaurant in this country and choose a genuinely healthy meal for their kids." – Michelle Obama at National Restaurant Association Fall Board Meeting, 9/13/2010

"We want to do everything we can to help our kids stay active and healthy—and to keep them learning—all throughout the summer. We're going to need people to volunteer to build and renovate playgrounds, and clear walking trails, and create community gardens, and organize book drives, and to take the time to serve as tutors and as mentors and to read to children of all ages."
– Michelle Obama at Congressional Service Event, 6/8/2010

Helping parents find healthy choices for their kids; encouraging exercise, and volunteers, and community gardens, mentors and tutors . . . all very subversive.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 24, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Just as everyone in the Muslim world sees Israel as America Jr., we see North Korea as China Jr.

We are correct.

Parents roll their eyes and scold; parents are not responsible for all of their kids' actions, but, they are the power. The kids do know what will happen if someone decides to hit them in the face.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 24, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Until sbj discloses his/her donors I think we can agree to ignore all posts.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 24, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw, thanks for posting those terrifying, authoritarian demands of our First Lady.

Menu obfuscators of the world, unite!

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 24, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Menu obfuscators of the world, unite!

Posted by: BGinCHI
+++++++

You have nothing to lose but your Chicken Nuggets/Tenders/Fingers!

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 24, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

YOU all REALIZE that Obama is a Republican plant.


it is the only explanation.

Posted by: RedNation | November 24, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Greg wrote: "* Jed Lewison says Dems could have saved themselves some shellacking if they'd just acknowledged early on they'd only gotten half a loaf on the stimulus."

Would Barry ever acknowledge that? He's never even said he's been dissatisfied with the results. Until then, it's an anchor around the Democrats neck.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 24, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Chicken NuggetTenderFingers...sounds like something one might see on an airport screening display.

LOL

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 24, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is book smart but not people smart."

Posted by: battleground51
+++++++++

Yes, because all it takes for a black man in America to excel, to be a success in Ivy League universities, to become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, to be a community organizer, to get elected to state legislative office, the U.S. Senate and the Presidency, is "book smarts."

Get. A. Clue.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 24, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Sue,

Whatever they are, they can hardly be called food.

"According to McDonald’s, a four-piece serving of McNuggets contains 190 calories, 100 of which come from trans fat. They also contain 400 milligrams of sodium, and along with modified food starch, dextrose and citric acid."

Read more: How Chicken Nuggets Are Made http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/10/chicken-nuggets-made-from-pink-goo/#ixzz16F3WcQKV

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 24, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Juan Cole on Afghanistan:

http://www.juancole.com/2010/11/pashtuns-lose-parliament-violence-up-70-in-afghanistan.html

http://www.juancole.com/2010/11/scammed-in-afghanistan.html

I wonder if this all comes under the heading, "we deal with the government we've got, not the governemtn we want"? Rummy would be proud.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 24, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

"Nancy Pelosi's new role: To prevent Obama from being too accomodating or compromising toward Republicans."

I've seen this reasoning all over now, but what is Barry's incentive for compromising/accommodating? Seems like a little post hoc rationalizing to justify electing Pelosi, no? If the Republican effort is in repealing Obamacare and slashing government that Barry believes can (or currently is) help(ing) people, would he really step that far out 'o character?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 24, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw

What it takes is affirmative action programs - and absolutely no one willing to properly evaluate any abilities.


.

Posted by: RedNation | November 24, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Tom DeLay convicted!!!
Happy Turkey Day, Tommy Boy, you piece of scum. Poster boy of the modern GOP.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 24, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Tom Delay convicted.

Hope they can get him into a nice cell by Xmas.

Congrats Tom, you deserve it.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 24, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I hope they stick little Tommy in a cell with a couple of guys called Rudy and Shane who are covered with tattoos, so he can be their boy toy.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 24, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Dancing Behind Bars?

Will Tom's Turkey Get Stuffed?

Unlikely, folks. It is Texas, after all -- a wholely-owned subsidiary of the GOP (thanks in part to DeLay). My bet is DeLay gets probation.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 24, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Rudy and Shane?
Isn't that kind of racist?
Why not Ibrahim? Paco? Gusaf? Vitaly? Djaafara? Chin? Choi? Wong?

You are profiling Italian and Irish Americans as prison rapists.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 24, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

filmoia

that kind of language is not necessary

it just shows your hate.

Posted by: RedNation | November 24, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

"My bet is DeLay gets probation."

Yeah, and then hired as a political commentator for FOX. If he were to go behind bars, within 24 hours after dropping a bar of soap in the shower, he would come out for same sex marriage.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 24, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Dang it.

"Mistakes Still Prevalent in Hospital Care, Study Finds".

And we thought hospitals were the last place mistakes could still be prevalent.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 24, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

RedNation -

You've proven your irrelevancy under different monikers, so go tell your story walkin. Your "performance art" as a Right Wing tool only goes so far.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 24, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

shrink, well there is this:

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/txp_media/html/just/features/0504_01/slide1.html

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 24, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

filmoia

your comments today are completely ridiculous

Why don't you go complain about Spitzer

Posted by: RedNation | November 24, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

The yellow dogs are different from the blue dogs

Clearly, the Post got that wrong today

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 24, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Rob Halpin for Mayor


Rahm's residency problems are massive, including the fact that his tenant who won't leave his house - is running against him for Mayor.


Send this guy a contribution - he is great!

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 24, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Can those of goodwill practice always saying and writing "Fox NotNews"? It will become a counter-meme if we just stick with it. I implore.

Posted by: wendyf | November 24, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Bgin, I can't get that link to work.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 24, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Any bets on how long it takes Rick Perry to pardon Tom Delay and commute any punishment that comes his way?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 24, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

So, Salon came up with a list of the top 30 hacks.

http://www.salon.com/news/war_room_hack_thirty/index.html

Of course, Halperin made the list. Baloon Juice highlighted a clip of him that Salon should have used to put his hackery on display. Halperin is the ultimate tool.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/11/24/halperins-2/

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 24, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Sue,

I hadn't thought about a pardon. You are right -- DeLay is white, wealthy and committed a crime that helped get more Republicans elected.

My guess is Rick Perry will wait to see if the conviction is overturned on appeal. If it isn't, he'll quickly pardon DeLay. Probably give him an award as well . . .

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 24, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

And someone in the Baloon Juice comments highlighted today's two complete hackery articles.

First one by Froomkin someone commented on:

Today’s headline:

“Turkey spared—but Obama’s Compassion for Humans comes up short”

Because Obama didn’t pardon a bunch of criminals in the first 22 months of his Presidency…

What is it with these people?

Another mentioned the Politico hackery article:

I don’t know. This story, about Michelle Obama’s Camelot fail, takes hackery to fantastic new heights I think."

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 24, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm interested how liberals here feel about these pat downs. It seems obvious to me that there is some serious hypocrisy on this. If Bush started doing this in 2007 liberals would be screaming to high heaven, right? But when it's your party in the WH all I hear is crickets other than from the ACLU. Where does Feingold come down on this? He is one liberal who I would bet is not a big fan of this. Seems like other Dems are big pat down proponents and national security hawks all of a sudden. Thoughts?

Posted by: Truthteller12 | November 24, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw

I find your comment about DeLay being "White" offensive.

What exactly did you mean by that?


You are showing your hatred, and your bigoted nature

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 24, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

What is happening at the airports right now are violations of the 4th Amendment.

Obama should be impeached for these transgressions of the Constitution.

Who gave Obama unilateral power to sexually assault people?

It is a complete disgrace.

Then there is the matter that Congress refused to buy the scanners. And yet, Obama went ahead and diverted stimulus money to buy the scanners. Another impeachable offense. For a guy who is supposed to be such a smart lawyer, it seems like Obama is violating the Constitution.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 24, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Fun top 30 hacks. I don't agree with Ignatius' inclusion on the list. Milbanks either. The former just isn't that bad and the latter isn't really someone who writes a serious column. He's a mediocre humorist, not a hack columnist.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 24, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

What else is happening? A warm planet is not as deadly as a cool one:

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N46/B1.php

Posted by: actuator | November 24, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

shrink, that link works fine for me. Try again and if not let me know.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 24, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Hah, Caddell also made it on the list. The guy who argues that Obama's running for reelection is dividing the country.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 24, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

DeLay.

We give thanks.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

The Hammer.

The Exterminator.

The Felon.

Future Fox commentator and MTP guest.

USA! USA!

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 25, 2010 12:48 AM | Report abuse

Bearclaw

You still have not answered the question about what does being "white" have to do with DeLay's situation?


Are you just showing your hostility toward white people?

Is that what this is all about???


So, can we now see everything you say - is not really partisan - but be seen in the light that you hate white people, and you manifest that by hating the Republicans and the Tea Party ???


I just seem to see that there are a good number of people who mask their hostility toward whites in some partisan fashion - lashing out at Republicans and the Tea Party


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


Ddawd, of course that goes for you too. You are contantly lashing out your racial tensions at Republicans -

And you constantly call every person in the Tea Party a racist.

Tonight it is Caddell who you don't like.


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


The American People can see through these attitudes - don't think for one minute that because the democrats won a few elections, that your attitude is somehow "correct" or even "acceptable" in America.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

It is unbelievable that Obama and the democrats called out for a "discussion about race."

However, whenever that "discussion about race" went into the hatred blacks have toward whites, or the false charges of racism, then the "discussion" feel silent.


I don't see Obama or any democrat talking about race - outside of inflammatory statements aimed at gaining some political advantage.


Obama has turned his "discussions about race" into nothing more than false charges of racism - shameful and disgraceful conduct.


The American People are sick of this hypocritical behavior. Obama has dragged this nation down in terms of its racial dialogue.


DID OBAMA SUPPORT THE NAACP RESOLUTION???


It seems that Obama was actually behind the NAACP resolution - Obama NEVER denounced it.

The whole thing backfired on Obama this summer. Then the NAACP release some report in October, which got a little bit of press - but the source of the group hired for the report was suspect.

However, the press was reluctant to give the NAACP report much attention in October, a telling sign that the country is sick of this kind of baseless narrative.


Again, we NEVER heard Obama denounce this kind of politics - so we must see that as an endorsement by Obama.


This is the kind of politics which is going to drive Obama out of office.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 1:29 AM | Report abuse

It is unbelievable that Obama and the democrats called out for a "discussion about race."

However, whenever that "discussion about race" went into the hatred blacks have toward whites, or the false charges of racism, then the "discussion" feel silent.


I don't see Obama or any democrat talking about race - outside of inflammatory statements aimed at gaining some political advantage.


Obama has turned his "discussions about race" into nothing more than false charges of racism - shameful and disgraceful conduct.


The American People are sick of this hypocritical behavior. Obama has dragged this nation down in terms of its racial dialogue.


DID OBAMA SUPPORT THE NAACP RESOLUTION???


It seems that Obama was actually behind the NAACP resolution - Obama NEVER denounced it.

The whole thing backfired on Obama this summer. Then the NAACP release some report in October, which got a little bit of press - but the source of the group hired for the report was suspect.

However, the press was reluctant to give the NAACP report much attention in October, a telling sign that the country is sick of this kind of baseless narrative.


Again, we NEVER heard Obama denounce this kind of politics - so we must see that as an endorsement by Obama.


This is the kind of politics which is going to drive Obama out of office.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 1:31 AM | Report abuse

@DDAWD: "The Tea Party candidates got annihilated this year and people still credit them for the Republican resurgence."

Not me, and I'm a people. I think the Tea Party deserves some credit for South Carolina. And a little bit of getting out the vote. The rest of the Republican "wave" can be attributed to the economy and the Democrats.

"It probably wouldn't be the worst thing for Palin if someone were to tell her that attacking Michelle Obama for combating childhood obesity isn't the best political move."

Well, if Palin does plan a presidential run, then her entire pre-candidacy has been one extended hail-mary pass. So, it's consistent with the strategy. For good or for ill, if she runs, she's not going to go the tried-and-true routes. Now, as Fred Thompson and Rudy Gulliani found out, thinking you're going to outsmart traditional wisdom usually ends it resounding failure in the primaries.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 25, 2010 1:47 AM | Report abuse

"Well, if Palin does plan a presidential run, then her entire pre-candidacy has been one extended hail-mary pass. So, it's consistent with the strategy. For good or for ill, if she runs, she's not going to go the tried-and-true routes. Now, as Fred Thompson and Rudy Gulliani found out, thinking you're going to outsmart traditional wisdom usually ends it resounding failure in the primaries."

Well, as long as no one tells her to perhaps try and run the ball with fifty minutes left in the game, it's fine with me.

I've heard of living in a bubble, but this is ridiculous. She has an appeal, but is wasting it with her nonsense.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 25, 2010 2:35 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone else watch this segment last night from the O'Donnell show last? Obama gets savaged.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40363218#40363218

These are bright guys, all four of them, making valid criticisms and there's little mercy demonstrated. Anyone who has watched the MSNBC night shows over the last year will know that serious criticisms of the President and his team are nothing new but this is as strong and sustained as anything I've seen.

But the attending observation is that there is no precedent example of FOX ever doing something like it. They play a different game. We knew that, of course, What's unclear is just how much destruction Murdoch is going to wreak on America.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Ola & Pie!

Happy Thanksgiving to BGinChi, lms-sie, Bernie, RU, DDawg, MikeInArl, Ethan, TMcWing, s-cat, KWillis, Liam, Scott, 12Bar, qb, Jen, STfreakin'R,
anyone i forgot, & all PL'ers plus Greg.

& oneLove 2 tena.

Shippin' up to Boston...whoa, oh, oh...

Posted by: tao9 | November 25, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

The Mocking of Sarah Palin

All that has gotten silly and ridiculous

If Sarah Palin was a democrat, the feminists would be screaming sexism - and this has EXPOSED them as nothing more than partisan hacks.


The people who have reacted to Sarah Palin with anger and disrespect have done more to destroy the woman's movement than anyone.

Do you realize how you look ???


___________________________

Obama has destroyed any legitimate claims to racism - by making false claims of racism and clearly attempting to gain politically with false charges of racism.

No one wants to hear it anymore.


Do any of the liberals realize the damage to blacks nationally - which Obama has done? The only thing "transparent" about Obama has been his false charges of racsim.


__________________________

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse


The Dream Act - the public policy is this: in order to avoid having a vast population of under-educated and uneducated children of illegal aliens, Americans decided to extend FREE EDUCATION to children of illegal aliens.

This was done in part to avoid investigating the immigration status of children who go to school.

The lack of investigations provided illegal aliens some comfort when they go to work - that their children would be somewhere safe - instead of getting into trouble and hiding from authorities.


NOW, in exchange for that, the illegal aliens are DEMANDING that we give them MORE benefits, that they are somehow entitled to be in this country legally, that we owe them something, and we are doing something wrong.


The truth is that United States does not have the money to extend benefits to MILLIONS of people who break the law.


A nation needs control over its immigration laws. Congress sets the number of people who are allowed to immigrate to the US every year.

These people - by themselves - independently - have decided that they will DISRESPECT THE CONSTITUTION and go around the numbers set by Congress. We now have a situation in which the number of immigrants every years is NOT set by Congress - but by the immigrants who decide for themselves whether they are coming or not.


____________


At this point, the clause in the CONSTITUTION should be re-writen - the power over immigration should be TAKEN AWAY from Congress - and given TO THE IMMIGRANTS.


The democrats are acting as though they want a Constitutional Amendment which states:

"Congress shall NOT have the power to regulate immigration.

Each Citizen of Every Nation of Earth shall decide if they want to come to the United States and apply for benefits. Such persons shall not be discriminated against on the basis of nationality for the purpose of drawing benefits from the Federal government, from any State, from any County, from any local government and from any School district in the nation."

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

RedLeafNation, the Democrats are hoping they will vote for them.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

OH I forgot another clause of the new Constitutional Amendment

"The Federal government shall NOT enforce any Immigration law passed by Congress.

Persons in the United States shall NOT be asked to provide proof of their immigration status, or be bothered in any way.

No person convicted of any crime, including murder, shall be deported if their immigration status is discovered as a part of the investigation into that crime.

Children of Persons in the US illegally shall be given FREE college educations, and the Federal government shall pay for the graduation parties as well."


.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"But the attending observation is that there is no precedent example of FOX ever doing something like it."

You are probably correct...FOX has almost certainly never gotten a panel of exclusively left-wingers to criticize the president for not being left enough. The country is in peril!!!

But wait...has MSNBC ever gotten a panel of exclusively right-wingers to criticize the president for not being far enough to the right? Ah, the "destructive" powers of GE....

I have to admit that I don't think I have ever met a person as seemingly well educated as you who is yet so utterly and partisanly unable to see the world upon which he thinks he is so sagely observing.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 25, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12 at 9:07 AM


It's like when people move to the country - they don't want everyone following them. They want to shut the door behind them.

Many immigrants want the US to stay the way it is, they don't want to see it overrun by millions more people.


I don't see the children of illegal aliens voting for the democrats in droves. If anything, they want to restrict immigration and keep taxes low.

Once a person buys a house, and gets a property tax bill, the amount of the taxes becomes an issue.


.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

By the way, cao091402, threatening to kill, kidnap or inflict bodily harm on a former President of the United States is still a federal crime. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, a fine of $250,000 or both.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

RedLeafNation, I'm not talking about the U.S. born children of illegal aliens. The Democrats want to grant amnesty to the ILLEGAL ALIENS in order to turn them into citizens and get those votes.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

HAMMERED!

Finally a little bit of justice for the most overtly corrupt politician of my lifetime - and I was born when Eisenhower was in the White House. The very idea of watching a disgusting little pol like Tom Delay being marched off to prison in one of those orange jumpsuits is a dream come true. Oh, thank you, fate!

He smiled when he had his mug shot taken because, as he told reporters, "I wanted people to see Christ in my face". I won't tell you who I saw - but it definitely wasn't Jesus Christ.

Tom Delay sent off to the BIG HOUSE. Isn't life wonderful? Happy Thanksgiving indeed!

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan

Posted by: tomdeganfrontiernetnet | November 25, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Dukin' it out in the world of ideas
or
The Palin Problem is growing razor blades

The Republican establishment don't want Palin to be their candidate (thus Rove, thus Barbara Bush, thus Labash, etc). Electability is the key issue. But that's not all there is to it. They also don't want her to run because of the dynamics that would evolve in such a run. That is, Tea Party versus Establishment because of the disaster that would befall the present conservative coalition of activists/voters. How do you carry forward the pretense that the Republican Party is now the representative of "populist, anti-DC-establishment conservativism" when the party establishment in DC "kneecaps" the individual most identified with "populism" and the Tea Party only to choose an establishment figure? It's a very big problem.

But there's another crocodile-infested moat to get past. How does Palin quit - again - without looking like a complete flake, thus dispiriting all those who loaned her their brains (at discount pricing)? How can her loyal followers be kept in a state of high agitation and worshipfulness (absolutely necessary for any chance in 2012) if she is diminished by any acknowledgement that she's not really up to the task? Short of some tragic hunting accident, perhaps with the former Vice President, how is the escape managed?

And if all that weren't enough to keep party strategists and their helpful corporate PR agencies up through the night, how do you manage any coherent messaging from the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Becks and Ingrahams who think that God communicates through screaming and behave accordingly?

Here's Palin interviewed by Hannity who (if you listen carefully) begs her to exit stage left...

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/23/stupid-palin-tells-gop-establishment-how-to-keep-her-from-running-in-2012/

And then, here's Ingraham doing something else...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1110/Palin_dismisses_blueblood_Bush_criticism.html?showall

Lots to attend to but my favorite Palin quote is on the Ingraham interview (paraphrasing the question, Why don't they allow you to be a candidate, Sarah?). Here's the response.

"Why don't we just embrace this idea of competitive primaries where healthy debate and dukin' it out in a world of ideas will allow that ideal candidate to surface?"

Hard to argue with that.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

LIBERAL AGENDA


Is there any part of the liberal agenda that helps the inner cities ???


Because to be honest, that is the only thing I care about.


I hate to see children caught in the cycle of poverty - growing up in horrible schools and being recruited by gangs starting when they turn 10 years old.


ARE THE DEMOCRATS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE INNER CITIES ???


I don't see any of that.

What I see is Obama being afraid of being seen "as black" so he doesn't do anything about the inner cities.

On the contrary, Obama's race seems to have only manifested itself in his supporters expressing constant and unrelenting hostility toward "old white men" and the Tea Party, who they regard as too "white"


The Tea Party has also been criticized as being "chumps" and "rubes" - people lacking in intelligence and barely deserving the right to vote.


IN CONTRAST, the democrats seek to treat illegal aliens better than they treat Americans who are part of the Tea Party.


The democrats still hate, they still mock - the democrats have just changed who they hate and mock.


.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Tom:

You think that Tom was more corrupt than Nixon (resigned) or Clinton (impeached)?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Lame duck sessions are supposed to be called for housekeeping and emergencies. Inconvenient deadlines like budget matters and debt ceilings sometimes occur in December when the Congress has not done its work timely. A war declaration might have to occur on December 8, 1941, regardless of holiday planning.

Thus a civics argument can be made for dealing in some way with the Bush tax cuts, for extending unemployment comp, for raising the debt ceiling and for acting on START in a lame duck. I cannot think of why DADT [more accurately, repeal of the statutory DQ of homosexuals serving in the military] should be on the agenda of a lame duck, at least not until the deadline and alleged emergency items have been disposed of.

I do think it is important for the military to be prepared for this change, which will come, sooner or later. In an orderly world, the military would know what to do shortly and Congress would act accordingly. The fear of the homosexual community and we who agree with them on this issue that a conservative HoR will oppose repeal of the DQ, even after strong testimony from the JCs for repeal, is not irrational. Does that justify opening the lame duck to ordinary interest legislation?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 25, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12 at 9:32 AM

I understood your point, and you are correct.

I'm trying to say that those people are not necessarily going to vote that way - the Republicans, once they clearly tell those people (in spanish, of course) that they will pay less taxes under the Republicans, they will vote Republican.

.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

@tao - as a Canadian, I reject the sanctity of American Turkey Day. The turkey is an inferior bird, overweight, un-nimble and with neither beauty nor grace. It is the Edsel of fowl.

But I will save your wishes for the Queen's birthday and use them at that magical time.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

RedLeafNation, I don't think that the Democrats want to do anything about the inner cities. They just want those votes.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

On Tom DeLay: He is eligible for probation as a first offender, and I think he fit all of the criteria in TX for probation. As a matter of penal policy, prisons are for violent offenders and likely repeat offenders. DeLay's next felony would result in prison time but I think this one will not. Five years probation concurrent with two on the conspiracy charge, max fine of $10K on each. Second corruption conviction from Rosemary's office in a month. The other was a D. She gets her spurs and she does not even have to push for prison time, although there may be some pressure on her to do so.

DeLay chose judicial, not jury, sentencing. That was his attorney's choice and he as the best defense counsel around, maybe anywhere.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 25, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

RedLeafNation, I don't think that the Democrats want to do anything about the inner cities. They just want those votes.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - I think you want to be checkin' your cranberries for possible fermentation. Yer analogies aren't walking a straight line.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

HAPPY THANKSGIVING ALL


Remember the Pilgrims were illegal aliens.

.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

RedLeafNation, my apologies for the glitch. I think we agree. Hispanics are actual much more conservative than liberal. My mom, for instance, really wanted to vote for Obama, but I convinced her to vote for McCain based on abortion.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

ps to Scott... I was thinking of giving you a Christmas gift. There's a new book out that gives an account of the insurance industry's (and allied groups) activities throughout the healthcare debate (and prior to that). It's written by one of the senior Cigna executives who was involved in developing and implementing strategies. Would this be something you'd consider worth reading?

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"How does Palin quit...how is the escape managed?"

Don't worry Bernie. The political investment management firm of Rove, Barbour & Gillespie don't get the big bucks for nothing. These guys are experts. At the convention, she will be the prom queen. She'll be credited with saving the party, credited with an IQ over 80, anything she wants, except a nomination.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 25, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

clawrence

That's what the liberals don't realize - they love to be hostile toward the Catholic Church, but then they don't realize how offensive that is to hispanics.


Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "But the attending observation is that there is no precedent example of FOX ever doing something like"

Sure there is. I've seen round tables savaging Obama on Fox at least a few times. ;)

"The turkey is an inferior bird, overweight, un-nimble and with neither beauty nor grace. It is the Edsel of fowl."

We don't ride them or keep them as pets, we eat them. As a source of tasty avian meat, they are most noble creatures.

@ScottC3: "I have to admit that I don't think I have ever met a person as seemingly well educated as you who is yet so utterly and partisanly unable to see the world upon which he thinks he is so sagely observing."

Bernie reminds me of STRF with an Advanced Doctorate in Thinkology. And a little more restraint, re: repetitive posting of self-developed talking points.

Happy Turkey Day!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 25, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "But the attending observation is that there is no precedent example of FOX ever doing something like"

Sure there is. I've seen round tables savaging Obama on Fox at least a few times. ;)

"The turkey is an inferior bird, overweight, un-nimble and with neither beauty nor grace. It is the Edsel of fowl."

We don't ride them or keep them as pets, we eat them. As a source of tasty avian meat, they are most noble creatures.

@ScottC3: "I have to admit that I don't think I have ever met a person as seemingly well educated as you who is yet so utterly and partisanly unable to see the world upon which he thinks he is so sagely observing."

Bernie reminds me of STRF with an Advanced Doctorate in Thinkology. And a little more restraint, re: repetitive posting of self-developed talking points.

Happy Turkey Day, Everybody!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 25, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

The discussion yesterday was revealing

The people who complain about an anti-Muslim bias in the US, are actually displaying an anti-American bias.


Those are the people who believe that somehow the US provoked the terrorist attacks.

Those are the people that believe that our foreign policy somehow justified the terrorists killing Americans.


Those are the people who want to "Hate America First"


Well, count me in with the people who LOVE AMERICA FIRST.


.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Yer analogies aren't walking a straight line."

Typically, you ignore both the question and the point.

"Would this be something you'd consider worth reading?"

What's the title? I'll get it on my Kindle.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 25, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, Obama fooled lots of Catholics (and America as a whole). Catholics, who accounted for about a quarter of the electorate, supported Obama, at 54 percent, over McCain, at 45 percent. Four years earlier, even though John Kerry is supposedly Catholic, he won only 47 percent of Catholic voters, while Bush drew 52 percent. That had represented a marked reversal from 2000 when Gore won 50 percent of Catholics and Bush won 47 percent.

Let's pray that they won't be fooled again. What was that saying Bush quoted: "Fool me once, shame on me ..."?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

RedLeafNation, great post!

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

The American Indians came here from Asia - but they never had a developed economy and society.


In contrast, in Europe and China, societies and economies developed.


The question is: The American Indians had all the resources in the Americas, but they never developed from there.


In contrast, the Europeans came to America, and immediately were able to take advantage of the resources here and build a great nation.


Two peoples - each had access to the same resources and each had different outcomes.


I realize that there have been various morality discussions on the interaction between Europeans and the American Indians, and I'm sure that all of us would have prefered a different history.


However, when millions of people are landing on the shores, conflict was pretty much going to happen, and it is difficult to see how vulnerable settlers on the frontier would not have been attacked once they were regarded as invaders.

From that point, wars were inevitable.


So, aside from keeping everyone in Europe, there was probably no way to avoid the situation with the American Indians as it developed.

I don't know how moral standards would apply there - but to start to blame a holiday in which those who advocated peace between the Europeans and the Indians doesn't make much sense.

.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I think there is another aspect to all this

Thanksgiving was originally a "liberal" holiday - emphasizing the peaceful co-existence of the Europeand and the American Indians.


AT some point, the liberals turn on their own holiday - complaining somehow that the pacifist approach to Thanksgiving and the American Indians was just wrong.

Instead, angry militancy toward the treatment of Native Americans had to be the order of the day, and celebrating any peaceful meals between the two sides just hid the true nature of the situation.


At this point, most of America just wants the liberals to make up their minds - who do they hate, and get their reasoning straight.


.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I drew an analogy the other day that I wanted to speak to again. Orwell famously noted (in "Politics and the English Language") that cliches act as substitutes for thinking. The user believes that work is getting done but it is really being avoided. Another (can't recall who it was) made a similar observation, that cliches "terminate thought" (eg, God works in mysterious ways). Whether this arises from a lack of education on the issue to hand or some personal discomfort with complexity or some other emotional or cognitive features, it's a phenomenon that's sadly common in us.

My analogy was that this sort of mental mechanism can also be seen in a person like Palin or Bush Jr where they cordon themselves off with a small group of loyal advisors upon whom they depend for direction (Bush's first Trea Sec, O'Neill details how Bush operated in such a manner). By readily accepting such loyalists advice, the work of actually weighing complex and conflicting propositions or strategies etc is avoided. I said that Bush's claim to be "the decider" was a compensatory mental stance that probably made him feel ok about the manner in which he was forced to proceed while overwhelmed by tasks he was not equipped to handle. Of course, I was also making the argument that Palin would likely be far far more inclined to procede in such a manner (thereby making her an even more convenient figurehead leader for others who could easily manipulate her).

This morning, Josh quotes a passage from Packers review of Bush's book which heads in the same general direction...

"The structure of "Decision Points" ... reveals the essential qualities of the Decider. There are hardly any decision points at all. The path to each decision is so short and irresistible, more like an electric pulse than like a weighing of options, that the reader is hard-pressed to explain what happened. Suddenly, it's over, and there's no looking back. ...
In Bush's telling, the non-decision decision is a constant feature of his Presidential policymaking. ...
Here is another feature of the non-decision: once his own belief became known to him, Bush immediately caricatured opposing views and impugned the motives of those who held them. If there was an honest and legitimate argument on the other side, then the President would have to defend his non-decision, taking it out of the redoubt of personal belief and into the messy empirical realm of contingency and uncertainty."

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, Kevin. Hope you enjoy Turkey Day too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Happy Thansgiving to everyone! Hope all of you have a wonderful and safe holiday!

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 25, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

"Typically, you ignore both the question and the point."

Because you refuse to draw out the appropriate analogy. Which would be...

a panel of of serious and seriously critical rightwingers appearing on a FOX show and savaging a Republican president in such a manner in his second year in office.

Of course, if you can find such an instance, I'll acknowledge it. Good luck.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Decisions, decisions...they chose to cover the Guernica tapestry at the UN in order to better display their bogus casus beli.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 25, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Tom DeLay: GUILTY!

Another GOP crook prosecuted.

Happy Thanksgiving to all you law-abiding folks out there!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 25, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Tom DeLay: GUILTY!

Another GOP crook prosecuted.

Happy Thanksgiving to all you law-abiding folks out there!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 25, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

@shrink - no question, these people have serious marketing/propaganda expertise (and the dissemination system to forward whatever they try) but as I tried to argue, this is no easy problem. One standard methodology they will use is a barrage of noise and attacks to fill the media space to minimize attention on the sparks that will fly internally on the right over this.

If the stakes weren't so acutely serious, it would be fun to watch their maneuvers.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I love how the primary Obama talk never consider the effect of such a challenge on Obama's MOST loyal base: AfAm. I know deems like to dismiss them ' cause they tend to vote in not as large numbers, but what the 2008 cycle proved is that they do vote in larger numbers when Obama's on the ballot! I've spoken to enough people to see a scenario where AfrAm pissed off by the treatment of Obama including a primary challenge (real or alleged) would still GOTV for Obama for Pres, and be enclined to leave the rest of the ballot alone to show their frustrations. I've already heard from a lot of people who are already saying Obama should just take his fam go back to chi-town & just tell Dems F' it.

God forbid GOP tries to game the system and somehow the primary challenger wins, mark my works, if u thought GOP had a Latino problem, just imagine the problems the Dems will have with AfrAm.

I'm just saying people are throwing out this primarying Obama stuff as if it would just happen in a bubble.

Posted by: lynell33 | November 25, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - it's here...

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=wendell+potter&x=0&y=0

Educational, do you imagine?

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure everyone caught Norm Coleman's advice to Joe Miller that it's "time to move on".

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Oh and Happy Thansgiving everyone!

Posted by: lynell33 | November 25, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

lynell33, I don't see Obama losing his primaries, nor do I see him declining to run again. What do you think would happen if Obama and Biden face the first female AND Hispanic to be nominated by a major party?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

@lynell33 - Hell of a good point.

Here's a typically sane post from Yglesias...

"Reality Check
Something I find incredibly puzzling is the strange determination many progressive have to diagnose what the “problem” is with Democrats that makes them so “bad” at electoral politics. They actually seem to me to be fine. Look at the 30 year span from 1980 to 2010. The Democratic candidate won the popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2008 (4 times) whereas the Republican candidate won in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2004. It’s true that in the real world the poor ballot design in Palm Beach County, the Supreme Court, and the Electoral College put George W Bush in the White House but none of that is the fault of Democratic Party messaging tactics.

Democrats controlled the House for 18 out of those 30 years, and controlled the Senate for 14 out of 30 years. In the new year, they’ll control two out of the three branches of government. None of that sounds to me like a political party that’s having trouble persuading people to vote for it.

What’s more, you need some kind of baseline against which to judge this. Over the 60 year lifespan of the Federal Republic of Germany, Social Democrats have run the government for 20 years. Over the 50 year life of the 5th Republic in France, the Socialist Party has held the presidency for 14 years. The basic idea of a center-right party is that it represents a coalition of the business establishment with the socio-cultural mainstream. That tends to give you a dominant position in politics."

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/reality-check/

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

That didn't take long.

Papers that endorsed Kasich for his rhetoric on transparency already turning on him for doing precisely the opposite.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/24/kasich-disclose-resumes/

As a species, we're probably to damned stupid to deserve to survive. Perhaps somewhere, somehow, a contraceptive sponge will become pregnant.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Palin-Rubio 2012

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

One last before I go try to impregnate a sponge...

The Nation (we can agree that it is liberal) carries a piece which Greenwald (we can agree that Glenn is a liberal) attacks. The attack isn't for reasons of insufficient liberalness or some such but for doing really crappy smear journalism (on a non-liberal). Further, Scahill (definitely a liberal as even his mother would confess) who works for The Nation also attacks his own magazine for the same reason. As do a whole crowd of other liberals.

Not for ideological impurity, we note again, but for shoddy and unprofessional journalistic ethics.

The people on FOX, of course, do the same thing all the time. Limbaugh too. They're known for this.

My sincere wish is that almost none of you will choke on a turkey bone today.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 25, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Happy Thanksgiving to all! Be safe, have fun, eat much!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 25, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

You don't hate me, it's IRONY AND HYPERBOLE which you hate.


.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

"Cliches act as substitutes for thinking"


_______________________

OK well then what do you call the liberal agenda ???

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse


"Cliches act as substitutes for thinking"


_______________________

That's what the liberal agenda is supposed to be.


.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

Not sure if the sponge you are talking about is your wife or an actual sponge.

.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Happy T'giving Plumliners!

Hope you are all warm and safe and full of the appropriate food and beverages.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 25, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

From Today's New York Times:


One complicating factor (for Rahm Emanuel) : While he was away, Mr. Emanuel rented his home to a businessman who has, in recent days, launched his own unexpected campaign for mayor from Mr. Emanuel’s house.


______________________________

This guy's name is Rob Halpin - and it is hilarious - send him a contribution.


Rob Halpin for Mayor -

.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

@bernie

"If the stakes weren't so acutely serious, it would be fun to watch their maneuvers."

Naw, it will be lots of fun even though it is serious. Watching the health care "reform" machinations, now that was no fun at all.

I believe Palin will be baited into destroying herself. That way, no one will have her blood on their hands. She knows nothing of the power of silence; she will be easily drawn into a series of gaffes and increasingly blunt attacks on other Republicans until it will be ok for the right wing gas bags and show men like Beck and Limbaugh to turn, not against her, but away from her.

I still can't believe she attacked the Bush family. Neither can the rest of the world (where it is already tomorrow - I'm glad I'm not over there, I would have completely missed T-giving with family and would be back at work).

http://www.smh.com.au/world/palin-laments-party-blue-bloods-barbs-20101125-18972.html

Posted by: shrink2 | November 25, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

SHE attacked Barbara Bush?! Did you even read what Babs said first?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Happy Thanksgiving


Remember the Pilgrims were illegal aliens

The point is that once you start to let the illegal aliens make the rules, you never know what will happen.


No one is against immigration, but within the numbers set by Congress.

Congress has also established procedures for people who wish to be included under those allowed numbers. Illegal aliens go around those numbers, and they "cut in line" in front of those people who are on waiting lists at US embassys around the world.

Yes, there are waiting lists for LEGAL aliens

We need to have a rational immigration policy - not one partisan group assisting people in breaking the law for their own partisan gain. We also need a rational plan on how we will employ these people long-term, and employ their children. If there are not enough jobs here for their children a decade or two down the road, we really should not be allowing these people in the country now.

The democrats are not thinking about that. The illegal alien policy of the democratic party could cause half the democrats to end up unemployed in 25 years - as the children of illegal aliens enter the job market. Does that make any sense ???

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Happy Thanksgiving to (paraphrase Bernie's magnanimity) almost everyone.

Shrink, I couldn't find any conservatives bothered by Palin's response to the elder Bush matriarch's innocent and non-political comment. I'm often wrong however.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 25, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"I couldn't find any conservatives bothered by Palin's response to the elder Bush matriarch's innocent and non-political comment."

Before his wife's remark about hoping Palin stays in AK, the patriarch said Mitt Romney would make a very good POTUS, making Barbara's follow on a very political comment.

The Bush family is for Romney and against Palin, and the game hasn't even started yet. This is going to be an epic smackdown and she, Sarah, is going to get nasty as she realizes what is happening to her and how organized the effort will be.

She does not play victim well, she will counter attack and will be seen as belligerent, no matter who started it. I don't think she understands how much money is involved, what all those zeros behind the numbers mean. She was useful for the relentlessly idiotic attacks on Obama, but she isn't useful any more.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 25, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

shrink,

My description of Babs comment as "non-political" was sarcastic. I apologize for the confusion. My comment was, in response to your assertion: "Neither can the rest of the world (where it is already tomorrow - I'm glad I'm not over there, I would have completely missed T-giving with family and would be back at work)." I could not find any conservatives complaining about Palin's response. It seemed measured and smart.

I think a lot of conservatives don't look on the Bush's as true "small government" conservatives. How could one, considering their track record? That being said, the Bush's are relatively beloved on the right, but understood in context as "users and believers in the power of government". In that context, a Romney, or even Pawlenty endorsement makes sense. Small government conservatives are more aligned to Palin and Demint. Christie is extremely popular on the right currently because, I think, he aggressively confronts Rightie bugaboo's, teacher's unions and perceived government boondogles, a la hideously corrupt government transportation projects. I think he will end up governing in the "big government" vein and not substantially reduce the size and scope of government, that's not his intent. I think it's more to bring it (government) to heel to his whim. I personally prefer the "small government" conservative myself, but hold out little to no hope that the population is willing to do without, for example, the Education department, or even Commerce department. I bet we don't even cut funding for the arts. Pity.

Of course, I'm a "player" in Kristol/Olbermann/NBC/GE/Government conspiracy meta-complex, dig?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 25, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

As a small s socialist, I can not stand public employee unions and I agree Cristie was correct in not taking NJ into the tunnel.

A socialist is about working people being valued for what they do, its about the value of work. Socialists are not about welfare, not for farmers not farming, not for corporate pay to play and not for people who could work getting paid not to.

The upward mobility track has to be preserved or America isn't America anymore, but it is being destroyed. People without great connections and fancy educations need to be able to advance their SES through hard work. After all, workers make everything, work is action, work does what matters.

School work, relentless practice of a musical instrument, work is good. Love and play and all that other wonder, the meaningful side of life isn't at odds with work getting its due. For the greater discourse, it makes no sense to say you are a small government socialist, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Our government is enormous and corrupt. Making it smaller and leaving it corrupt won't help, it will make things worse. The corruption, pay to play electoral politics (Citizens United is an unmitigated disaster) and also the public employee unions...that is the problem with government.

Americans see the corruption elsewhere and we think it isn't so bad here, or, sure it is bad but it is limited to DeLay and Rangel, the bad apples. I think it is unlimited, I think the health care bill is corrupt, though not more deadly than the Haliburton/Xe war.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 25, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

shrink wrote: "Our government is enormous and corrupt. Making it smaller and leaving it corrupt won't help, it will make things worse. The corruption, pay to play electoral politics (Citizens United is an unmitigated disaster) and also the public employee unions...that is the problem with government."

I appreciate what you've written. My question is, what if government is innately corrupt, and the only way to limit the extent of that corruption is to limit the size of government?

"People without great connections and fancy educations need to be able to advance their SES through hard work."

If only there were politicians who fit this profile. Nah, Harvard, Yale, Princeton and occasionaly Columbia. That's where our national politicians should come from. Anywhere else is just to risky, no?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 25, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

"I think a lot of conservatives don't look on the Bush's as true "small government" conservatives. How could one, considering their track record?"

Problem is that it's really hard to be politically successful while being for small government. From 2001-2005, no one was interested in shrinking government. After his reelection, Bush actually had a laundry list of items he wanted to cut. But he just faced way too much opposition from his own party to get anything done. Republicans had their own careers to watch out for and they aren't going to get reelected if they shrink government.

The "Bush wasn't really small government" meme was just hindsight justification of why they lost in a manner that allows them to keep doing what they always did. And right from the 2008 election, Republicans were proposing a platform identical to what Bush did during his first term. Not a thing different.

And how is the shrinking government going? Earmarks are about 1% of Federal expenditures. And they can't even keep themselves disciplined enough to swear off earmarks.

Bush wasn't small government. Republicans weren't small government. Republicans aren't small government. Republicans won't be small government. They will be just as large government as the Democrats. Only exception is that they will explode the deficit while at it.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 25, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

"As a small s socialist, I can not stand public employee unions and I agree Cristie was correct in not taking NJ into the tunnel."

Meh, I have problems with people breaking contracts. Public employees gave up immediate salaries for future pensions. Now they are losing their pensions. You think anyone is going to give them back the salaries they forfeited?

It's easy for people to pick on people who aren't them.

The pensions can be paid for. People will have to shoulder the burden, but the public employees are being asked to shoulder all of it for reasons that aren't their faults. There's something wrong if this is considered morally acceptable.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 25, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Clawrence

Lynell above has a great point on the potential damage do to a primary challenge to Obama. To be honest, the way the democrats have been acting over the past 3 years on racial issues, they deserve it.

Posted by: OrangeDogs | November 25, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"It's easy for people to pick on people who aren't them." I was a unionized public employee for years (~7, I think). But no matter, if no one can criticize anyone who isn't them, then communication about problems is a waste of time.

"Public employees gave up immediate salaries for future pensions."

No, they didn't, that is just a talking point. Public employees don't give up anything. I am saying the unions should not exist, they have no reason to exist. I am saying they are a corrupt bargain with elected officials.

Understand, I believe organized labor in general is very important in many ways and in many industries, the weekend is good, yadda yadda. I am against labor unions that can hire and fire their bosses.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 25, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I said...

"People without great connections and fancy educations need to be able to advance their SES through hard work."

You quipped...

"If only there were politicians who fit this profile."

There are many. You know education is hard work. By fancy, I meant fake, I meant uneducated, people with families who bought degrees for them, like GW Bush. Well educated people who actually got into the schools from which they graduated without family connections...worked very hard, work is good.

But if you are saying why shouldn't lazy morons like Palin and O'Donnell get elected?, I am laughing at that, are you?.

Ronald Reagan was not especially smart nor well educated. He worked hard, he was authentic in a way people could understand...and America worked for him. I never liked him, I don't agree with his political positions, in fact I can't stand Ronald Reagan, but he is what I am talking about. Republicans need more Ronald Reagan, not Angle, not Palin.

You know I am right, Rove knows. It is pretty strange, I am on the same page with Rove, but it is just a technical point.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 25, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

shrink wrote: "But if you are saying why shouldn't lazy morons like Palin and O'Donnell get elected?, I am laughing at that, are you?."

What makes you think Palin is lazy? You even said: "you know education is hard work." Is it or isn't it? Or is it easy (education, that is) if you're "the other?"

You state she (Palin) is a "lazy moron". Okay, you have your opinion. But can you be lazy and get elected? Several times, no? And trust me, I am laughing ;-)

Obviously you're not a fan of Palin's and to not completely denigrate her risks your standing in the club. Not to worry. Consider this a "safe" place.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 25, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Palin is not a lazy moron.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

"But can you be lazy and get elected...Several times?"

Whatever Alaska is, it's human community is tiny, parochial and ultimately, strange on purpose.

The Republican Party in the process of the McCain campaign created Sarah Palin. Sure, you don't agree.

If she gets elected, ever again to any office, I will be stunned, I will have been wrong and I will learn from the mistake.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 25, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

"What makes you think Palin is lazy? You even said: "you know education is hard work." Is it or isn't it? Or is it easy (education, that is) if you're "the other?""

When Palin was running for VEEP, I was willing to give her a pass. She obviously has had no foreign policy experience because that wasn't her job. She had knowledge on Alaska issues (such as energy) And that's fine. She was a new governor at the time and couldn't be expected to be an expert on issues non-germane to her job.

But two years have passed and she clearly has not boned up on any of these issues. She clearly does not understand what is going on in the world, she has no understanding of economics.

If she wants to be a sideshow, then fine. She's right there intellectually with all the other conservapundits. In this case, you're the lazy one for blindly listening to her nonsense.

But if she really wants to run for Prez, she clearly has not studied a damn thing and will get crushed by Romney or even Huckabee on any serious debate. And for her to not be doing her homework is lazy.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 25, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

The democrats clearly have been unable to hold it together and govern properly.

The left wing of the democrats simply does not understand

The split in the party proves they are unfit to govern

Posted by: OrangeDogs | November 25, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Palin is not a lazy moron.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 25, 2010 6:56 PM
...........................


she actually works hard at being one?!

Posted by: Liam-still | November 25, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Shrink,
Obviously you can have any opinion you want. I just think "lazy moron" is wrong. Some may think she is a moron, I don't. I just think that it is amply evident that she is not lazy. What I do sense is a, for lack of a better word, "need" by most lefties, to absolutely deny Palin any sort of credit, no matter how small. I attribute it to peer pressure and a desire to look "normal" to ones peers.

As far as the magnificent 'Cuda goes, getting elected to "any" office again would be difficult indeed. Generally, once you've run for President or VP, win or lose, you don't run for any other office again, unless it's for President. And winning that election, for all that try, is truly a longshot indeed. Ask Adlai Stevenson. So it wouldn't surprise me if she never gets elected to another office again, ceviche?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 25, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote: "But two years have passed and she clearly has not boned up on any of these issues. She clearly does not understand what is going on in the world, she has no understanding of economics."

Again, I don't want you to have to risk being shunned by the club for any sort of credit you may intentionally or inadvertently give her. I wonder if you're confusing what you perceive as Palin's "ignorance" for disagreement?

I get it though, calling it disagreement lends creedence to a perception that your peers might think you believe her to be intelligent.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 25, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

"I wonder if you're confusing what you perceive as Palin's "ignorance" for disagreement? "

I don't really get how people like you constantly confuse facts with opinions. They aren't the same thing. If this is a way to lend credence to beliefs that are factually wrong, then so be it. And if you want to get together with your conservative buddies and talk about how facts are really opinions and Palin's failure to grasp facts is really just a disagreement of opinions, that's fine. But don't do it on here and expect to get taken seriously by those who actually put in a modicum of effort to understand what really goes on in the world.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 25, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

On one of the games today, they showed our troops, but the described them as being in "southwest Asia" - now why was that?


Was it because they don't want to say our troops were in Iraq ???

Was it because they didn't want to say the troops were in Afghanistan ???


Or was it because our troops are in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, and they don't want to say it publicly?


It was very unusual to see them say Southwest Asia - and not refer to any country.


Is Obama trying to say "Asia" as if the public would have more support for having troops there as opposed to having troops in the "Middle East?"


Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Clawrence

Lynell333 has an interesting posting up above - basically gaming out a primary challenge to Obama.


First, he had a variation on the old threats which the Obama people were leveling on the Superdelegates - that the blacks, if it was perceived that the nomination from taken from Obama, by the Superdelegates handing it to Hillary, the blacks would somehow revolt and make life unpleasant for the democrats.


So, the lynell reasoning was a variation on that - if Obama was challenged in the primary and lost - then the blacks would revolt, perhaps not vote for the democratic nominee in the fall.


Lynell also said that if there was a primary challenge, and Obama won, the blacks would retailate by not voting down ticket, and cast votes only for Obama in the fall election.


________________________________

First, this all is coming from the Obama camp.

However, it is important to note that the Obama people are taking to threatening the democrats in their own party - in order to defend Obama's position.

The threats are real. The democrats have been home to the blacks only since the 1960s, and they could easily switch parties again.

In addition, it shows that the blacks are struggling for leverage with the other interest groups within the democratic party - and at some point, the blacks are considering walking if they have to.


The blacks are perhaps the one group within the democratic party most taken for granted - and it is telling that as in the spring of 2008, the talk of walking is front and center.


This may be a historical shift - in the aftermath of Obama losing - how Obama loses appears to be important.

Will Obama go down with the support of the democrats, or during a primary challenge???


There are other groups within the democrats who believe Obama never did enough to push their items in the liberal agenda - and this could play out.


The way the Blue Dogs have been treated are going to influence all of this. The Democrats need their Blue Dog wing more than the Blue dogs need them - but they sure didn't act that way.

Why the democrats would appear so eager to sacrifice their Blue Dog wing (which brought them over the top to majorities) is absolutely unbelievable.


.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote: "I don't really get how people like you constantly confuse facts with opinions. They aren't the same thing."

Okay, give me an issue Palin has demonstrated a clear lack of "bon[ing] up on?"

"But don't do it on here and expect to get taken seriously by those who actually put in a modicum of effort to understand what really goes on in the world."

It's sweet of you to care so much about my self-esteem and desire to be taken "seriously." My most intense desire is to be taken seriously by those that only put in "a modicum of effort to understand what really goes on in the world." Who wouldn't want to be taken seriously by the "only a modicum" crowd, I ask?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 25, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Palin is smart like a drug dealer is smart in raking in illicit money. She offers nothing of any worth to society and is proud of it. Clearly she is politically unconventional, but she fails to back up her 'gee-shucks' personality with real world experience. It is this lack of real-world knowledge that is her greatest downfall, and I do believe that it is almost entirely due to intellectual lazyness and lack of interest in substance. Her book title actually says it all. 'America By Heart'... The double-meaning, I suppose, is that she knows America "by heart" and that she wants to lead America with her figurative heart. But she clearly knows very little history, and by suggesting that she wants to lead with her heart she is devaluing intellectual thought. It's a bad mix, and her whole persona has been poorly thought-out. The latest case in point being her attack on Michelle Obama for having the temerity to advocate for healthy children.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 25, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Palin is smart like a drug dealer is smart in raking in illicit money. She offers nothing of any worth to society and is proud of it. Clearly she is politically unconventional, but she fails to back up her 'gee-shucks' personality with real world experience. It is this lack of real-world knowledge that is her greatest downfall, and I do believe that it is almost entirely due to intellectual lazyness and lack of interest in substance. Her book title actually says it all. 'America By Heart'... The double-meaning, I suppose, is that she knows America "by heart" and that she wants to lead America with her figurative heart. But she clearly knows very little history, and by suggesting that she wants to lead with her heart she is devaluing intellectual thought. It's a bad mix, and her whole persona has been poorly thought-out. The latest case in point being her attack on Michelle Obama for having the temerity to advocate for healthy children.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 25, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Clawrence

Overall, we are beginning to hear the rumblings of the Obama people trying to make it difficult for challengers.

And these are taking the form of "All the blacks will retaliate against the whole democratic party IF"

If Obama is challenged, or if a challenger for the nomination is successful.


So - we have "group" politics within the democratic party - but Obama is eager to avoid being the "black candidate" to the nation as a whole.


What is interesting - is how the democratic party has come about - in 2008, it was Obama v. Hillary for the democratic nomination and the superdelegates - now it is the "professional left" in Washington which is not happy with Obama's job performance on the liberal agenda.


These are two different fields of play at the moment - however any primary challenge would quickly shift the field.

It is important to note that the Blue Dog potential candidates are going to be difficult to sign up - and Obama simply is not going to be able to count on those districts based solely on anti-Bush sentiment.

This situation is quickly becoming one of a battle on the deck of the Titanic - one in which they fight until the place is completely sunk

The democrats have lost their majority in the country - and no matter how Obama thinks he is doing in the polls, he is behind right now.


Even worse for Obama is the "job performance on the economy" numbers are going to govern how people vote -

All the other job approval numbers or likability stuff is pretty much worthless in looking at Obama real election strength.


Also, we just came off an election in whcih - earlier in the winter Obama was claiming that his personal popularity could swoop him into a Blue Dog district and make someone instantly win - to a situation in which few candidates wanted to be seen with Obama.


That is a serious situation for the primaries for Obama - as well as the fall campaign.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 wrote: "... her whole persona has been poorly thought-out."

Obviously I disagree with you on virtually everything you wrote in your comment. However, the above is interesting. Do you think she (or some nefarious "other") consciously chose her personality? Like, be "aw shucks" versus "earnest librarian" or whatever?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 25, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

The point is clear: the battle between Hillary and Obama in 2008 will not play out the same way between a potential primary challenger and Obama

In 2008, the SuperTuesday states played themselves out before the Hillary-Obama match started up.

So the Hillary-Obama battle played itself out in the limited number of states remaining.


In addition, the caucus-states thing will not happen the way it did last time.


The important thing that has changed is that the primaries will take place in "Blue Dog" states which will certainly be against Obama.


Interesting - because the potential challenger to Obama are now thought to come from the left wing of the party - to the left of Obama.


That leaves open the possibility that a potential challenger to Obama will take positions to the right AND to the left of Obama - a mish mash to piece together all democrats willing to go against Obama.


The numbers certainly would be there.

The other thing - all the charges surrounding the Obama campaign last time - would certainly bring about a microscope - if there were any problems with the way the campaign was run.


Overall, this lynell is important - threats of the base black vote leaving the democratic party will only work with party leaders - and Superdelegates - it will not really work with the rank-and-file voters


Overall, this kind of talk could open up a split in the democratic party which will not heal. The Republicans are certainly open to accepting more support -


It's just that most interest groups in the democratic party - after Obama failed to act on their most cherished items - like amnesty or gay rights issues - might just be ready to bolt if they don't get their way in a primary season.


If the blacks are ready to bolt too, what does that tell you? It tells you that the democratic party has devolved into a coalition of special interests who are only interested in working together if they believe their agenda items are going to get attention if elected.

Well, if that doesn't happen, what is the use in continuing to work together???

At the center of all of this is the incompetent Obama - who is just not able to handle it all

And Obama might be more concerned with his own liberal ideas - whatever they might be - that is still a set of open questions.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

If the left-wing groups are saying they are ready to bolt the democratic party

And the blacks are saying they are ready to bolt if someone challenges Obama in a primary -

Then what is holding together the democratic party??? The Blue Dog situation is telling - it shows the democrats are ready to turn on an important wing of their party.

And risk losing their majority.


In 2008, Obama benefitted from an interesting combination of factors which gave him a position to pull-up close to Hillary, and then battle her from there.


Michigan and Florida, two states which would have given important support for Hillary, were kept out of the counts for months.


In addition, Obama was able to hit Hillary in places in which she did not expect - gaining delegates which would not have been his if the contest was well thought out well in advance by the Hillary people

Places like Idaho would have been more firmly contested by Hillary - and the split of delegates would have been closer to 50-50.


Where am I going here? Obama barely got the nomination last time.

Last time, Obama benefitted from a strong anti-Hillary sentiment in the democratic party. There were large numbers of people who did not want the Hillary people running the democratic party for 8 years.


Clearly, Obama is in a different position. He can not count on all the "anti-Hillary" people - just like Obama can not count on an anti-Bush vote anymore.


_____________________

The numbers say everything - if one pulls out the caucus states - and puts Michigan and Florida in like they should have be all along - 2008 would have been Hillary's.

So Obama's hold on the democratic party may not be that strong.

The hispanics are certainly ready to go with another democrat.

The women's groups and the gay rights groups are ready to look at someone else.


Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

In terms of infrastructure of the democratic party - for Obama to work off of in the event of a primary - wow - 60 Congressmen just lost, and how many democratic Governors are gone ????


Obama does not have a strong infrastructure of office-holders which he can count on for the primaries.

There is a set of issues here - Obama is exposed.


Obama rode on a series of fortunate events in the primaries.


At a minimum, if all the Hillary people are looking to go to another candidate, there is obviously a problem for Obama.

However, all the Blue Dog districts are going to be reluctant to go for Obama this time.

The gay groups and the hispanics are clearly not happy


All this talk about the liberal agenda in the lame duck session - the LACK of the liberal agenda on Obama's mind over the last two years is going to hurt Obama in the primaries.


Wow - think about this.


And lynell is right - if Obama is dumped by the democrats in the primaries, the blacks may go somewhere else - or not be too eager to vote in the Fall.


The bottom line is that there is little holding the democratic party together anymore.


The party has made a difficult transition to the "liberal agenda" as a platform and that has turned out to be a failure.

What has been holding the democratic party together is the expectation among a COALITION of groups that all their agenda items would be addressed once they won together.

Clearly that did NOT happen, and the liberal groups have reason to wonder why not - why is Obama so incompetent - why did all their money go to waste, only to have Obama create such a disaster ???


Obama is inexperienced and unqualified - everyone keeps saying that - but somehow the liberals keep expecting him to be competent.

Obama is not competent - he is incompetent.


So why re-elect him? There is no reason.


Obama is hurting the blacks more than helping them.

Obama is hurting the democrats more than helping them

It is a spiral downward which is difficult to pull out of.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Nothing is holding together the democratic party - it is a coalition ready to split.

Obama has treated the Blue Dogs horribly - they are leaving.

The other groups in the democratic party are going to have to choose between a primary challenge to Obama - or see their people slowly drift away.


This is a serious set of issues presenting the democrats right now.


FireDogLake is not happy, and Obama really should start getting some better people in place to deal with this.


Ultimately, it is the collection of people at the White House who let this happen - who were unable to persuade Obama to not take this destructive course.

It is a disaster


Obama needs a whole new set of people - this crew is not going to do anything different, and the results will not be much different.


.

Posted by: RedLeafNation | November 25, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

The democrats clearly have been unable to hold it together and govern effectively

No one doubts the country has been hurt

The democratic party has been hurt

The economy has been hurt


The results are clear

Obama has been a complete disaster, with absolutely nothing coming out of him to indicate that he is willing to try a new direction or that he is even able to do anything to pull out of this Spiral of Arrogance he insists on being in

Posted by: OrangeDogs | November 25, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Most recently, Iran. Most continuously, the economy.

I've had too many drinks to elaborate and is there any hope of making you think that Palin isn't right about everything to make it worth my while to google stuff?

Posted by: DDAWD | November 26, 2010 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Well,

The smart money says, enjoy the buzz. If I think the evidence you provide is compelling, I'd be a fool to not change my mind. Of course, like Bernie, I'm epistemically closed. That's why I'm here.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 26, 2010 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Oops, that should read, UNlike Bernie, I'm epistemically closed.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 26, 2010 2:28 AM | Report abuse

"UNlike Bernie, I'm epistemically closed."

Prune juice.

Adam: "There are so many fruits in the Garden, oh Lord. Why hast thou added this one, which tasteth bitter?" God: "You'll understand when you get older. And enough with the questions already or you'll get into trouble."

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 6:41 AM | Report abuse

And on the subject of Palin or the many others who have somehow managed to get themselves elected for public office through loud and certainty-packed assertions on the true nature of America, its history, its special place in the world and on who among its citizens understand the truth of things and are thus best prepared to lead... here's Todd Akin (R-MO), a classic of the type.

{{AKIN: It might be helpful to think back and say, there’s more to Thanksgiving than the Pilgrims. They were a group of people who were willing to change the system, to think of different ideas. They came here and separated civil and church governments. They came here and created the model of a written constitution, the idea that the government should be the servant of the people. […]* They came here with the idea that after trying socialism that it wasn’t going to work. They realized that it was unbiblical, that it was a form of theft, so they pitched socialism out. They learned that in the early 1620’s.*}}

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/25/todd-akin-pilgrims-socialism/

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

Michael Gerson's column today gets him back to his normal form - deceitful propagandist. Read it as it is exemplary. Here's graph two...

"This [liberalism' is an ideological movement at its most cynical, attempting to throw overboard its once-revered leader to avoid the taint of his problems."

Really? Liberals are so enraged that they are now trying to "overthrow" Obama? That's not truthful. It's a lie. It is not supported in the prior quote nor in any of the other quotes he tosses in. If Gerson actually thinks this is true, then he's thinking that serious criticism of a leader by those in that leader's party constitutes an attempt to overthrow that leader which, of course, is pretty much the way his own party and movement perceive things.

"So Matt Yglesias warns the White House to be prepared for "deliberate economic sabotage" from the GOP - as though Chamber of Commerce SWAT teams, no doubt funded by foreigners, are preparing attacks on the electrical grid."

Cute, that SWAT teams thing. No acknowledgement - zero - from this dishonest man of just what the C of C has been up to (all well documented) and how much they've spent (millions per week, documented and much more we surely do not know about) with the desired end of thwarting Obama's economic and social policies.

"It is difficult to overstate how offensive elected Republicans find the sabotage accusation, which Obama himself has come very close to making. "

Really? DeMint find this "offensive". McConnell? After "Obama's Waterloo" and "job one is to ensure Obama is a one-term President"? They are offended why?

But Gerson can't get honest and address what Republicans have actually said and done and he has to lie about the nature of liberal criticism of Obama because his whole game here is to try and de-legitimize criticisms of his own party/movement by suggestion that any such charge against his party/movement is marked by the paranoia of conspiracy theorists.

He ends off comparing Yglesias, Benen and others as some mirror image of the Bircher treatise "None Dare Call This Conspiracy". I don't know if the jerk has actually read this but I have. And the modern manifestation of these ideas resides in his party in Glenn Beck, the southern conservatives and many of the Tea Party.

Gerson's last column was possibly his best. This one is possibly his worst.

And Fred Hiatt - how the hell do you sleep at night?

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Correction: should be "None Dare Call It Treason"

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Because you refuse to draw out the appropriate analogy. Which would be...a panel of of serious and seriously critical rightwingers appearing on a FOX show and savaging a Republican president in such a manner in his second year in office."

Every single day on Brett Baier's show there is a 20 minute segment with a panel of "serious" people, which always includes at least 2 conservatives (so perhaps not "serious" in your estimation for that very reason). When Bush was in office (it was Brit Humes' show then) the conservatives routinely criticized him...from the right, of course. And I have no doubt at all that O'Relly was critical of Bush on a number of fronts, and would have had on guests who were as well. But I suppose that may have happened in Bush's 3rd year and 6th year rather than his 2nd. One wonders how the country survived Murdoch's nefarious attempt to destroy the country by being so kind to Bush in year 2.

"Educational, do you imagine?"

Could be interesting.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 26, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"...which, of course, is pretty much the way his own party and movement perceive things."

As evidenced by what, exactly?

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 26, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"Bernie reminds me of STRF with an Advanced Doctorate in Thinkology. And a little more restraint, re: repetitive posting of self-developed talking points."

I hadn't really thought of it that way, but that is an interesting observation.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 26, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

McWing:

Good stuff last night, re the Palin obsession here on PL (and on the left in general).

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 26, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Added note: as I said two years ago, the propaganda trajectory from Limbaugh and the right would have to proceed as follows:
- Obama is failing
- Obama has failed

But there's a larger propaganda arc here as well which the C of C and those allied have been pumping into the American consciousness since the early seventies -
- Liberalism is failing
- Liberalism has failed

The healthcare battle demonstrates this dynamic and these propaganda strategies as clearly as anything else we might look at. Health outcomes and reduced costs of government managed systems such as in Canada are NEVER admitted or confronted unless in some totally deceitful manner which implies, "Sure, but look at those tyrannies and the liberty-crushingness of them!". Right. Denmark and Canada, hell-holes of Stalin-style repression.

Any chance Gerson is going to read or write about Wendell Potter's book? The chances are about the same as Hiatt choosing integrity over his bank account balance.


Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

"Public employees don't give up anything. I am saying the unions should not exist, they have no reason to exist. I am saying they are a corrupt bargain with elected officials. Understand, I believe organized labor in general is very important in many ways and in many industries, the weekend is good, yadda yadda. I am against labor unions that can hire and fire their bosses."

In order to protect workers, large-scale labor must be organized, regardless of who the employer is. I see a concerted attack by the Right on government workers, just as they've done for years on private-industry unions. If not for unions, who will defend the government workers as the campaign to demonize them proceeds, which it definitely will? The claim that government workers can "hire and fire their bosses " is quite an exaggeration. Is that because government officials are elected? Fine: then it's true to a meager extent that the workers "control" the bosses.. But that is really stretching things. Moreover, most government workers bosses are bureaucrats just like middle managers in private industry. Government workers, like private workers, have no control over their bosses. And as the bosses get increasing pressure to squeeze government workers, public unions are more necessary then ever.

And why in the world so you think Christie was correct in wrecking the tunnel project? NJ desperately needs the mass transit, it lost a lot of money because of Christie, and now NY may get the fed money and jobs and the tunnel gets built anyhow. Christie just did it for political posturing, same as he is doing by attacking the politically-unpopular teachers' union.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 26, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

- Liberalism is failing
- Liberalism has failed

That's right, Bernie. That was the Con propaganda plan from Day One:

1. Obama is a Liberal (even though it isn't true).
2. Obama is a failure (and we will make sure of it).
3. Liberalism is a failure (so it government so let Big Money rule).

QED.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 26, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - I used to watch a lot of FOX when I had the time to do so, including Baier. There was nothing anywhere near the level of criticism, particularly from all attending, even in the last two years of the administration (of course it would be from the right). You can insist that your analogy holds but there's nothing in what you've just said or in what my experience has shown that you are anywhere close to accuracy here. What would make your case is an actual transcript which would show similarities in number of critical comments, severity of those comments, relative uniformity of those comments from all attending, etc. Even if such a transcript existed in the real world, it would be a serious research job to find it and I don't blame you for not going to that amount of work merely for an online blog argument. But such a transcript will not and does not exist which makes your task rather tougher. So I'll let you assert whatever you wish but I'm clear enough on the many differences and the very few similarities here to grant your assertion no serious value.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Republicans, by and large, are authoritarians. Democrats aren't. Simple as that.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 26, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

"Bernie:
"...which, of course, is pretty much the way his own party and movement perceive things."

As evidenced by what, exactly?"

Oh for gods sake, Scott. Do you want to start with Reagan's "Never speak ill of another conservative" or with everybody kissing Limbaugh's ass after they said the politically incorrect thing or do you want to get to the meat of the matter and refresh your memory on Fliescher's and Rumsfeld's and Cheney's (and every other Republican under the sun's) comments on the traitorousness of criticizing the C in C during a period of war as contrasted with how this is playing out in the present?

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Dear Flatearthers, listen up: Global warming is happening, polar ice is melting, seas are rising, and our coasts are in jeopardy already"

Front-Line City in Virginia Tackles Rise in Sea

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/science/earth/26norfolk.html?_r=1

Now that we're starting to talk about real money, maybe Big Money will stop its anti-science crusade. Naturally, Big Money will first have to figure out how to game it so they make all the money and bear none of the cost. But that shouldn't be hard with all the practice they've had over the past 40 years. C'mon, guys, if you're gonna take all the money anyway try to do the right thing for a change.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 26, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

New Wikileaks leaking...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/26/government-braced-wikileaks-releases

As much fun as this modern media world is, one negative arises from the amount of media available and the fragmentation of audiences into small and relatively isolated spheres. A consequences is that important stories/revelations can get lost in the din and distractions.

The Pentagon Papers and Watergate or the Iran/Contra events landed into a media environment far "quieter" and with a much more uniform or inclusive audience attending. These were important moments of transparency which threw light on covert and malign attempts to deceive citizens and hide illegal acts of those in power. The information Wikileaks has been releasing have, unfortunately, less inherent capability of bringing about institutional correction (and bringing individuals to justice) simply as a consequence of this immensely widened spectrum of information sources. That's a negative.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Later.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 26, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Ha'aretz on the Wikileaks thing, for those interested...

"Israel, U.S. tense as WikiLeaks set to release classified bilateral communiques"

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-u-s-tense-as-wikileaks-set-to-release-classified-bilateral-communiques-1.326905

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

We'll see what Roberts and his team do with this one...

"Reporting from Washington — The fate of the largest job bias lawsuit in the nation's history — a claim that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shortchanged women in pay and promotions for many years — hinges on whether the Supreme Court will let the class-action case go to trial.

The court is likely to announce as soon as Monday whether it will hear the retail giant's appeal asserting that a single lawsuit cannot speak for more than 1.5 million employees.

Business lawyers and civil rights advocates are closely following the Wal-Mart case for its implications for class-action litigation.

"This may sound like just a technical, procedural issue, but because of the economics of it, class-action certification is often the most important issue to be decided," said Washington lawyer Roy T. Englert Jr....

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several large corporations have joined with Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, in urging the high court to hear the appeal and to restrict the use of class-action claims. They argue it is unfair to permit plaintiffs' lawyers to lump together many thousands of employees from stores spread across the country and to rely on statistics to prove illegal discrimination.

But civil rights advocates say the only effective way to challenge systemic discrimination in a large company is to bring a claim on behalf of all of the affected employees."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-walmart-bias-20101126,0,6358247.story

Not my area of expertise but if the politics of this win out (as opposed to legal traditions and actual justice) then the court will head where this court reflexively heads.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure Greg is going to write on the Gerson thing this morning but if you want a heads-up on Benen's reply, it's here (and it's very very good - he's a seriously smart fellow)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026805.php

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"I used to watch a lot of FOX when I had the time to do so, including Baier. There was nothing anywhere near the level of criticism, particularly from all attending, even in the last two years of the administration (of course it would be from the right). "

I'm sure your predilections regarding FOX cause you to believe that is true. Those of us, of course, who ourselves were critical of Bush for not being conservative enough, and who are not so pre-occupied with trying to paint Murdoch as the devil incarnate, no doubt interpret things differently. I'm not inclined to waste time combing through the archives at FOX in order to provide examples of conservative criticism of Bush that you will almost certainly dismiss for one reason or another as irrelevant. Your mind is quite simply closed to evidence counter to your Murdoch/propaganda conspiracy theories.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 26, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"do you want to get to the meat of the matter and refresh your memory on Fliescher's and Rumsfeld's and Cheney's (and every other Republican under the sun's) comments on the traitorousness of criticizing the C in C during a period of war..."

Let's get to this "meat of the matter". Please provide examples of Fleischer or Rumsfeld or Cheney claiming that criticizing the C of C during a period of war was "traitorous"...or anything even remotely like it. I am not aware of any.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 26, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Scott. I'll just wait and see if you are up to reading Potter's book and dealing with it honestly. It'll be a fine measure of whether a discussion with you can be other than a waste of time.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Good points, RedLeafNation.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 26, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Ed Kilgore writes on Labash and Frum and Palin. Here's the last graph...

"The other factor, of course, is how Palin reacts to conservative criticism. Perhaps she'll get off reality TV and do some mildly gravitas-building exercises; it's not like she has a particularly high bar to overcome in raising her game. But ultimately, her fate is closely bound up in the question of how the GOP deals with the contradictory passions it has aroused. If its leaders get serious about taking one path or another out of the incoherent policy agenda they've set for themselves, then some elements of the party base are sure to be disappointed. And if those elements include the vengeful grassroots activists who think their day in the sun has finally come, then Palin or someone much like her will always have a political base that no amount of mockery from the Grownups will be able to tame."

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/11/reining_in_the_rogue.php#comments

I really have not seen such an example of the Frankenstein story made manifest.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3, plenty of us criticized the first bail-out attempt by Bush. I recall people at Fox upset about his steel tariff decision before that too. I will check if "links" to those programs exist. In the real world, of course, we simply ignore the lunatic raving on the street corner.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 26, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Sorry Scott. I'll just wait and see..."

Yada yada. Don't blame me for your inability to substantiate the falsehoods you propagate. The fact is that the whole "criticism of Bush is traitorous" meme is pure left-wing mythology. It has been said over and over and over again, such that certain rubes (like you?) have come to believe it, even though no evidence exists that Cheney or Rumsfeld or Bush ever said anything remotely close to it. To put it in terms that you would use, you are either a part of the machine trying to make people stupider by pushing this lie, or you are a victim of the machine and are stupider because of it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 26, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47458,00.html

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 26, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

One of my favorite humans kicking about these days is Dan Savage. Very smart, very brave, very articulate and often extremely funny. He's consistently a voice for the sort of conception of human rights which, one might presume, would be rather more common in the land of the free. Here he is interviewed on CNN re the SPLC's recent publication on the Perkins crowd as promoters of hate crimes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJXCeTgyvVQ&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Note that March 9, 2002 was indeed in Bush's second year (and less than six months after 9/11). Before 9/11, Bush was criticized on Fox News for several things including his handling of that military spy plane held hostage by China. Some of us do not have short (on purpose?) memories.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 26, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

claw:

"ScottC3, plenty of us criticized the first bail-out attempt by Bush. I recall people at Fox upset about his steel tariff decision before that too."

Of course. There are any number of issues about which Bush would have been criticized from the right on FOX. Anyone even attempting objectivity knows that FOX is not the caricature that Bernie would have us believe. He's got a bee in his bonnet and has, as a result, lost all ability to make objective and reasonable observations about it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 26, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Mornin' still colder than usual out here in the PacNW, a ski day. Let's see here...Jake that 8yo Fox critique of Bush steel tariffs is fascinating. "Free" trade still isn't free, it is still destroying us, but I suppose people have to believe in something.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 26, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

claw:

Good link, and it is even from his second year in office, but no doubt it will not suffice to stop Bernie from making his charge. It is a column, not a transcript from a show, and it is one guy, not a panel. Now, again, you and I know that with enough digging and access to FOX's archives, we could come up with a show that has a couple of conservatives criticizing Bush over this (or even another) transgression against conservative ideology, or even for his political strategy, which was a large part of the criticism on MSNBC that Bernie makes so much of. But even if we took the time to find and present it, Bernie would either ignore it entirely as if it didn't exist, or dismiss it as unlike (in some irrelevant way) the MSNBC show he linked to earlier...the criticism is not quite as "savage", perhaps, or some such.

Bernie's mind is simply not open to the possibility that his demons are not real. He is, in a very real sense, a religious fanatic on this topic.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 26, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Sorry. Benen hasn't had two original thoughts strung together. Ever.

A lovely and stylish practitioner of the prog prose style, but merely another iteration of every lefty "let's leave the facts out of this" faux outrage, and ginned-up empathy for folks he's never spent 7 minutes with.

He's also, as hardly needs to be said, viciously condescending, esp. to people of faith.

Otherwise, Hey!, what's not to dig.

Posted by: tao9 | November 26, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

shrink:

""Free" trade still isn't free, it is still destroying us, but I suppose people have to believe in something. "

You've missed the point, unless you are simply introducing a new one, which is fine I suppose. (Or were you trying to be funny again?)

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 26, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

The latest from our favorite polling organization:

Americans are as likely to want Tea Party-backed Republican members of Congress to have the most influence over federal policies as they are to prefer President Barack Obama, although no more than 28% choose either. They name Republican leaders in Congress next, at 23%, and Democratic leaders last, at 16%.


16% want Democrats to lead and those dreaded TEA PARTY people are even-up with the Obamacrats.

The horror! The horror!

Posted by: battleground51 | November 26, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

shrink2, I am not Jake, and I provided three examples (not just one) of criticism by Fox News of Bush43. Had it existed a decade earlier, there would no doubt have been many more critiques of Bush41. This actually dovetails nicely with a true conservative, Palin, criticizing the Bushes. "Blue blood" Republicans like them, Rockefeller, etc. have the luxury of not being in the trenches day in and day out.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 26, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Ireland's problem is worse than Paul Krugman thinks. He says they shouldn't have taken any austerity measures (cf Cristie in New Jersey) because the bankers were to blame. But then his column just ends. Paul what, exactly, should Ireland have done to keep private losses from becoming public obligations? Because if there is a way to do that, America needs to get on that track right away.

This BBC editorial says Ireland should default (restructuring is the nice way to say it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11842207

I wonder, is that a better way to protect the public from private losses?

Posted by: shrink2 | November 26, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Nate Silver on who in the Republican party like Sarah Palin and who aren't quite so pleased...

"One potential problem for Ms. Palin, however, is that plenty of well-to-do and well-educated voters — those whom we might think of as belonging to the elite — will be participating in the Republican primaries.

Three recent surveys of Republican primary voters suggest significant divides in support for Ms. Palin based on the educational attainment of the voter. A poll released this morning by Marist College show Ms. Palin as the first choice of 17 percent of Republicans who have not graduated from college, giving her a slight lead among that group. But her support is just 7 percent among Republican college graduates, which placed her fifth behind Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingirch and Chris Christie.

A Quinnipiac poll, likewise, finds Ms. Palin with the support of 22 percent of Republicans who have not graduated from college, but of 10 percent of those who have. A CNN poll, meanwhile — using a slightly different criterion that focuses on whether voters attended college, whether or not they graduated from it — finds Ms. Palin drawing 20 percent of Republican voters who haven’t attended college, but only 9 percent of those who have.

The candidate whose numbers move in an opposite direction from Ms. Palin is Mitt Romney..."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/palin-support-limited-among-wealthy-college-educated-republicans/

Is anyone surprised?

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Sorry claw, I got that, what you are arguing with Bernie about; I was introducing a new point. Neither party seems to have any idea how to avoid the debt/confidence/capital flow/trade imbalance trap that has hoisted its most recent victim from the yard arm. Imagine, the Celtic Tiger is on the verge of default. Meanwhile, The Bush and the Obama administrations have and are behaving indistinguishably in this regard.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 26, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

For what it's worth, the eventual Republican nominee in 2008, McCain, was polling way worse than that in November of 2006. The first release of the Rasmussen Reports 2008 Presidential Tracking Poll had Hillary Clinton as the first choice of 29%, while Barack Obama only had 22%. Former Vice President Al Gore was actually number three with 13%, and the 2004 Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards (pre-Riele) was also in double digits at 10%. The Democrats’ 2004 standard bearer, John Kerry, was by then the choice of just 4%.

More interesting is how well Palin is currently polling against OBAMA!

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 26, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

All, my response to Michael Gerson's attack on delusional liberals today:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 26, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Ireland's problem is worse than Paul Krugman thinks. He says they shouldn't have taken any austerity measures (cf Cristie in New Jersey) because the bankers were to blame. But then his column just ends. Paul what, exactly, should Ireland have done to keep private losses from becoming public obligations? Because if there is a way to do that, America needs to get on that track right away.

This BBC editorial says Ireland should default (restructuring is the nice way to say it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11842207

I wonder, is that a better way to protect the public from private losses?
Posted by: shrink2 | November 26, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

They should have done what we should have done. Let the private companies that reaped all the undeserved profits pay for the losses accruing from their reckless gambles. Leave the public and public money out of it. Moral hazard. Capitalism simply doesn't work without it. Or in any event it is no longer capitalism when the profits are privatized and the risks are foisted onto the public. That isn't capitalism; it is plutocracy.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 26, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

wb, well sure, let the banks fail, like Lehman and Bear Stearns right? All those pensions, all of those deposits, poof, gone. But if you guarantee the value of a bank's toxic assets so that does not happen, you have again put the taxpayers on the hook for what private companies have done to the value of their assets.

Many people believe the economic catastrophe we are enduring would not have been nearly as bad if Lehman and Bear Stearns had been rescued. This is because so much of what is at stake is confidence, so much of the wealth of a modern nation is the confidence other nations have in its ability not to default sorry, restructure its debts.

Who is going to invest in a country that has failing banks? It is not a simple problem, invoking the phrase "moral hazard" does not solve the problem.

In fact, here is my point, the only way to protect the public from private misconduct is to prevent private misconduct (socialism! the capitalists will scream). Once bubbles are allowed to form, the public will pay for the consequences, there is no choice.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 26, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

You chaps are an interesting study.

Murdoch gives us Glenn Beck, truly a great educational and political benefit to the citizens of the US.

On the other hand, NPR is run by Nazis.

When this is the starting point of a conversation, there will be no conservation worth anyone's time, either yours or mine.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 26, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Bernie wrote: ""UNlike Bernie, I'm epistemically closed."

Prune juice.

Adam: "There are so many fruits in the Garden, oh Lord. Why hast thou added this one, which tasteth bitter?" God: "You'll understand when you get older. And enough with the questions already or you'll get into trouble."

I know this is some devastating insult, but, due to my obvious colossal ignance, I don't get it. Sorry, I know you put in a modicum of effort, I want you to get your money's worth. Can you explicate further?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 26, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"What I do sense is a, for lack of a better word, "need" by most lefties, to absolutely deny Palin any sort of credit, no matter how small. I attribute it to peer pressure and a desire to look "normal" to ones peers."

Horse piss. I get attacked by the liberals whenever I attack Obama (on a daily basis), whenever I attack the public employee unions, the corruption of Democrats in particular and in general...you can understand I actually do think Sarah Palin is stupid and lazy. I don't care about looking ok to anyone on the tubes of the Internets.

And you know I don't mean lazy in the sense of anergic, she has manic energy. I mean intellectually lazy, which is different from being stupid, though it tends to be a fellow traveler.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 26, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Oh, you just meant "intellectually lazy" so that means I just have one question for you: how many books have YOU written?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 26, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"she has manic energy"

You know what you know, as it were. I should have held fire about the "peer pressure" crack, though I think it applies to many here. However, you can't even comment on her level of energy without it being an insult a la "manic". That's what I find interesting.

And what's with the excreta reference? Horse piss? Dude, a least ALL CAP it.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 26, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"In fact, here is my point, the only way to protect the public from private misconduct is to prevent private misconduct (socialism! the capitalists will scream). Once bubbles are allowed to form, the public will pay for the consequences, there is no choice."

I agree completely. In my view, we would have moved far in that direction had the banks failed. By propping the financial industry up with public money we have actually made crony capitalism even worse. Instead of facing realty we have yet again postponed the reckoning. I think that means it will only be worse when it does come. And it IS coming. The western economy, if not the world economy, is teetering. Maybe it will be the Eurozone. Maybe it will be something China does. O the catastrophic economic losses coming from sea rise and weather instability. Or something we can't even imagine yet. The status quo is unsustainable., both economically and politically, but we struggle mightily NOT to change. We are like Bobby Jindal putting sand-berms in the ocean instead of dealing with the real problems, like fossil fuels fouling the air with carbon and global warming and oil companies recklessly drilling in the Gulf and carving gashes throughout the LA swamps to use as highways, or that controlled flooding and diversion of the Mississippi River is what must happen to save the southern part of the state, including New Orleans. No Jindal jumps up and down all over TV like a spoiled child demanding his sandberms.

We cling to the status quo and false optimism as if they were lifeboats when they are really the anchors pulling us down and drowning us. That GOP religious nut who may take over the House Energy Comm is wrong: god is going to smote us once again with water. And clowns like that guy are going to guarantee it.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 26, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"books" That is a joke. Am I right? To sample Lloyd Benson...I know books, books are friends of mine...

I am glad to be interesting.
Ok fine she is not manic, she has plenty of energy, so I do not agree with Luke or Levi or whatever her one time son in law to be, the home schooling partner for her daughter...said. He talked of her being actually lazy.

Out here, horse piss isn't considered any more or less associated with excreta than prune juice.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 26, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

No, it's not a joke. How many have you written?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 26, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of prune juice, can you help me understand Bernie's insult. It's had no impact so I must be reading it wrong.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 26, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie: "When this is the starting point of a conversation, there will be no conservation worth anyone's time, either yours or mine."

Good thing the Glenn Beck/NPR thing isn't actually the starting point for anyone here.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 26, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

wb, I could have written what you wrote, which is to say, I agree with every word (except for typos like smote instead of smite but that doesn't matter, I was wrong when I called Levi a one time son in law to be, not a two timer). The fact that we are hurting ourselves so badly trying not to change is the price we pay to the conservatives. It won't be worth it.

Troll, I don't know, I can't feel it either. He'll either tell you why you are supposed to be hurt or not.

Claw, I don't consider what she has gotten published to be books. I am sorry, I just don't. If it helps, I don't consider Obama's book a book either.


Posted by: shrink2 | November 26, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

How many have you written, let alone gotten published?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 26, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

So, who was "intellectually lazy" again?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 27, 2010 5:52 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin

Posted by: shrink2 | November 27, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

At least you are answering SOME questions. Nevertheless, I would argue that your failure to answer my previous question is evidence that you are the one who is "intellectually lazy".

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 27, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Maybe this is an easier question: Did Sarah Palin say the following words in Boston, April 14, 2010 "Do you love your freedom?!" and "If you love your freedom, thank a vet"?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 28, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company