Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:35 AM ET, 11/22/2010

The Morning Plum

By Greg Sargent

* More key movement on DADT: The Pentagon's report will be released a day early, on November 30th, and it's expected to find that Don't Ask Don't Tell can be repealed with minimal impact.

This is important: The Pentagon report could remove one of the last pretexts GOP moderates have at their disposal for opposing repeal. Crucially, early release could make it easier for Senate Dems to hold the extended debate those moderates say they need to climb aboard. And as Joe Sudbay says, every day matters now. More on this later.

* Hillary plays "bad cop" on New START: With Obama urging passage of the treaty but refraining from criticizing Senate Republicans directly, his Secretary of State is directly calling on them to stop playing politics and demands they put our national security first.

* Do Republicans care about national security? Dana Milbank goes there, saying GOP opposition to New START makes it fair game for Dems to suggest that Republicans have forgotten the lessons of 9/11.

* We know compromise is a non-starter. But what should Obama do? Paul Krugman has a typically good column arguing that it's folly for Obama to keep seeking bipartisan compromise, but at this point, people who make this argument should also detail what specifically Obama should do instead.

* History lesson of the day: On the question of what Obama should do to counter GOP obstructionism, David Greenberg suggests he emulate Harry Truman and stand firm:

Truman bounced back because he embraced bipartisanship -- but of a very specific sort. He didn't fold his cards and meekly cave on civil rights, McCarthyism, or other issues dear to liberal hearts. On those matters, he held firm and dueled the GOP to a standoff.

ICYMI: My quick take on one route ahead Obama has at his disposal.

Sorry, Tea Party chumps: Albert Hunt, on the GOP's health reform repeal pledge: "There is no chance this pledge will be achieved." Got that?

* Bonus Tea Party rube bait: Americans United for Change goes up with a fun radio ad lampooning incoming GOP Rep. Andy Harris, a gung-ho repeal advocate, for lusting after his own government-provided health care.

"If he wants to deny Maryland families quality, affordable health care, tell him to start with his own."

This Harris story may prove to have more staying power and symbolic resonance than people think...

* John Boehner determined to learn from history: Worth watching: It appears Boehner is working very hard to avoid cutting too high a profile as incoming Speaker, probably to ensure that the public doesn't have a focal point to blame the GOP when the inevitable standoffs with the White House start.

* Counter-programming the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The White House is quietly encouraging the creation of an alternative group of business executives in order to prove that the business community doesn't unilaterally believe he's antibusiness and doesn't want to roll back Obama's entire agenda.

* It's time to start thinking about 2012: Ed Kilgore has a useful roadmap to the GOP primaries that are, amazingly, now about to get started in earnest. Pass the popcorn!

* Sarah Palin, 2012! Mike Huckabee, a one-time insurgent himself, says we shouldn't kid ourselves: Sarah Palin could run away with the GOP nomination.

* And who will rescue the republic from President Palin? David Frum on why Huckabee may be just the man for the job.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | November 22, 2010; 8:35 AM ET
Categories:  2012, Foreign policy and national security, Morning Plum, Senate Republicans, gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sunday Open Thread
Next: The next big GOP intra-party war: Ethanol subsidies?

Comments

"And who will rescue the republic from President Palin? David Frum on why Huckabee may be just the man for the job."

Perhaps the only possible Republican nominee that would obligate me to vote for Obama. Frum--though his recent track record, predictively, hasn't been very good--may have a point there.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Obama has created a unique problem for himself.

And it is related to Obama's apparent inability to think ahead, and anticipate the moves of others.

Obama came to office on a platform of Compromise and Bipartisanship. In many respects what Obama said was "this is a difficult task, but I am the person who can bring people together."

It is precisely that presentation which is tripping up Obama right now. The range of excuses offered by the democrats on this issues are completely worthless to the charge that Obama never really tried very hard to accomplish this commitment.

To be clear, Obama stated that he would work on this for years - and he was the special person who could do this. If the demcorats now cite one or two actions by the other side, and then say that somehow Obama is "released" from this commitment, the American People find that a ridiculous position.


Obama promised to work toward this goal for the entire four years. Not "try" for four minutes and then quit.

It is of particular concern that Obama is perceived as pushing his liberal agenda - and not working to get policies in the center.

Obama's unique problem is that this COMMITMENT TO COMPROMISE, AND CENTRIST POLICIES is really Obama's mandate from the American People. Unfortunately I have to clarify and state that was the REASON people voted for Obama. It is not some twisted idea of a mandate.


So, precisely, Obama has TAKEN OFF THE TABLE FOR HIMSELF the strategy of prolonged confrontation with the Republicans.

Prolonged confrontation was not why Obama was elected - and it is DIRECTLY COUNTER to why Obama was elected.

Obama limited himself. Obama limited the liberals in his 2008 campaign commitments.


All the whining coming from the liberals in the past few weeks can not escape this CENTRAL TRUTH.

.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

That's fine, Kevin. Plenty of the 60 million who already voted for her (and others) will make up the difference.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 22, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Bernie, did you see this yesterday.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

"Sarah Palin has dropped another hint of her intention to run for the White House in 2012, dispatching aides to scope out office space in Iowa, the first stop in the presidential race.

The "will she, won't she?" speculation about Palin in 2012 has become a Washington parlour game – as well as generating free publicity for her new book, which goes on sale this week.

In the course of making arrangements for that tour, two aides organising Palin's visit to Des Moines on 27 November told locals they were looking into office space and other logistical needs for the coming year, the Guardian has learned."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/sarah-palin-2012-presidency-iowa

Posted by: lmsinca | November 22, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

The people who appear so concerned with the lack of experience or qualifications of Sarah Palin........


....... are the same people who were more than ready to toss those questions to the side about Obama.


Those people should be more concerned with their horrible decision to support Obama, and all the damage he is doing to the country and the Economy right now.

.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

According to Foreign Affairs Quarterly, 99 of China's largest 100 companies are government owned and operated. Yet American's believe they won the cold war.

The only question, can the American version of two party, pay to play crony capitalism compete with China's one party crony capitalism? Or will, for the first time in history, a successor hegemon simply buy the position of the former?

Posted by: shrink2 | November 22, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Chumps? Isn't that an "ad hominem" attack on your readers ???


Everyone knows that the repeal of the health care bill can not happen until Obama is OUT. And that the Senate has to be in Republican hands.

That is the goal. And it will happen.


Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Benen writes:
"Krugman, Collender, and Yglesias have all argued congressional Republicans may try to keep the economy down on purpose to advance partisan goals. I argued it's worthy of discussion (and you wouldn't believe the hate-mail I received in response)."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026748.php

Yeah, I believe it. And I'd expect that the preponderance of these missives took something like the following form...

"How dare you forward the vile, destructive and traitorous idea that the one political party who understands that America is the greatest country the world has ever known would act in such a manner?! And besides that, you scumbag, these great patriots are sworn to uphold the constitution and so must do whatever is necessary to protect the nation from falling further into the hands of this fraudulently elected so-called President and his liberal (which means COMMUNIST, you jerkoff) party!"

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

Run Sarah, run!

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | November 22, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

@Ims:
Yes, I saw that. It's not definitive, of course, as if she was going to (or has been advised to) continue a charade, she'd have to make such moves at this point. As I tried to lay out yesterday, there are numerous possible advantages to various parties if the charade (assuming it is or might be that) continues.

But as the Guardian piece puts it, there's something of a parlor game in our speculations. I think I'll try to avoid blabbering about this matter until something more substantial comes down the pike to clarify.

But, I'll wager you a cupcake.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Clearly, the changes at the airport screenings are a 4th Amendment violation of civil rights.

Obama should be IMPEACHED for that.

In addition, the purchase of the airport scanners was REJECTED by Congress. Somehow Obama diverted stimulus money to buy these machines which Congress did not want to buy. Clearly, there has to be an investigation as to how this happened.

Clearly a bill which was supposed to be for job creation was twisted into security machines.

Again, this is another count for Impeachment.

If the liberals want to play hardball, hardball can be played.


The Republicans in the House should start the investigations and start to prepare the reports which would form the basis for Impeachment Hearings. There is certainly 10-15 separate counts which could be drawn up for Impeachment of Obama.

Clearly, Obama giving Federal benefits to same-sex workers is another Count for Impeachment. Congress never approved that.

Obama spent that money on his own. That is disgraceful and shameful to our democratic system.

I would imagine there are many instances in which Obama over-stepped his bounds, never thinking that the democrats would lose control of the House - and being concerned that such over-spending would be investigates.

.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

"More key movement on DADT: The Pentagon's report will be released a day early, on November 30th, and it's expected to find that Don't Ask Don't Tell can be repealed with minimal impact."

Well, other than the very certain abrupt constriction in McCain's sphincter.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Okay Bernie, a cupcake it is. We've been on opposite sides of this one tiny issue for a year now. LOL

Posted by: lmsinca | November 22, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

The right wing is in a froth over the DREAM Act because of a memo replete with lies published by Sen Jeff Sessions.

Stay tuned. I'm sure we'll be hearing more on this one.

Greg, Adam,

I hope to see a post on this issue, if possible. I think Reid wants to bring it to the floor in a matter of days, it'd be nice to preempt the madness. And btw, thanks for the good work on START! Nice Hillary link!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 22, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

The right wing is in a froth over the DREAM Act because of a memo replete with lies published by Sen Jeff Sessions.

Stay tuned. I'm sure we'll be hearing more on this one.

Greg, Adam,

I hope to see a post on this issue, if possible. I think Reid wants to bring it to the floor in a matter of days, it'd be nice to preempt the madness. And btw, thanks for the good work on START! Nice Hillary link!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 22, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Anybody else think its a sad commentary on Dem morale when they require milquetoast Dana Milbank's permission to attack the GOP for playing politics with national security? This issue has been begging for a major assault for months and represents a real opportunity to make gains on security, an issue we have all but ceded to Republicans.

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

From Greg's link above:

"In addition, the White House has been working behind the scenes to boost an outside group of corporate executives, known as Business Forward, to help set it up as a kind of rival organization to the Chamber of Commerce. The idea is, according to senior Democratic strategists, that the executives who make up Business Forward can stand up and support the president's agenda -- serving as a counterweight to Chamber opposition in order to show that the business community is not unilaterally anti-Obama.
In fact, Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff at the White House, briefed leaders of Business Forward on Obama's agenda at a meeting in Washington on Monday. The group is made up of executives from several major corporations, including AT&T, Ford, Facebook, Microsoft, Fidelity, Hilton Worldwide, Visa, Wal-Mart, McDonald's and Time Warner (the parent company of CNN)."

Damned spiffy idea. Another aspect here is that, as more corporations begin to comprehend how the effects of global warming will hurt their bottom line (eg insurance) and as more of them come to the realization that renewable and non-polluting energy systems and tech development are not merely necessary but an opportunity to grow their businesses (quick, before the Chinese and Indians and Dutch whoop our butts!) then such a new alliance could become increasingly influential.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Everyone knows that the repeal of the health care bill can not happen until Obama is OUT. And that the Senate has to be in Republican hands.
----------------------------------------

Tell that to the countless Republican Attorneys General and Governors who are spending taxpayer money to have the health care bill repealed. Why aren't you fiscal conservatives upset about wasting money on something you admit won't happen?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 22, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

@Ims
Nate has a very interesting piece up on what'shername

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/the-800-pound-mama-grizzly-problem/

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

@claw: "That's fine, Kevin. Plenty of the 60 million who already voted for her (and others) will make up the difference."

Perhaps I was unclear, or you know something about Mike Huckabee that I don't. I was saying that Mike Huckabee is the only candidate likely to make me vote for Obama.

I like Palin. Not as much as I did before she quit the governorship, but I still like her. Would I vote for her over Obama? Or, for that matter, Huckabee? You bet.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/21/AR2010112103910_pf.html

I never have expected, in the 46 years that I have been a voter, that the two parties would agree on domestic policy. I have always expected a close degree of cooperation on FP.

Continuing to be without eyes on the ground in Russia is potentially very dangerous for us. Sen. Lugar has made this crystal clear.

Most voters are not attuned to this, I know. They are more likely to be thinking about jobs, as KW said earlier, than these other issues. But sometimes the national interest begs our attention, even when the connection to bread and butter is not direct and obvious. I do not care how this plays out politically; only that it plays out with American inspectors at Russian nuke sites again.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 22, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Kevin-"Would I vote for her over Obama? Or, for that matter, Huckabee? You bet."

1) I believe it's: you betcha.

2) Be prepared for a bunch of "I just lost respect for you" comments.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 22, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

@ashot: "I believe it's: you betcha."

I thought about the similarity between my random choice of phrase and the Sarah Palin Official Mamma Grizzly™ catch phrase after posting the comment. My bad.

"Be prepared for a bunch of 'I just lost respect for you' comments."

Heh. Most people here, with perhaps the exception of Chuck and Clawrence, are probably aware of my position visa vi Sarah Palin. So it shouldn't be anything new. I think my first comment here was prefaced with my Palin support.

I doubt she's such a shoe-in to win the primary, however, and if she does, I doubt she'd win a national election, especially against a still relatively popular incumbent. Although I'd still argue a block of wood would have a good chance of beating Obama, if he faces a primary challenger or 3rd party from the left. Which is more actuarial than ideological.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

"That's fine, Kevin. Plenty of the 60 million who already voted for her (and others) will make up the difference.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 22, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse"

Put down the crack pipe. Step away from the crack pipe.

Posted by: Observer691 | November 22, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

From Berstein at TNR on a Republican drive to shut down government (Norquist loves the idea and counts on FOX to do the propaganda)...

"Granted, while a government shutdown, especially an early confrontation over the debt limit, would likely be a disaster for House Republicans, it stands to be a big winner for Fox News, conservative talk radio hosts, and anyone who makes money from getting grass roots Republicans angry enough to buy books, visit web sites, and give money to conservative causes."

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/79313/grover-norquist-finds-the-worst-way-possible-shut-down-the-government

But the reason I bring this up is related to she-who-shall-not-be-mentioned and is directed at Ims and Shrink (how quickly I violate my own rules). This set of factors is precisely what gives FOX and Palin and Repub strategists reason to keep her in the game for as long as possible. OK, that might be the last.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham at 9:04 AM

A most curious and unAmerican charge from you.

Whenever I see Obama attack an opponent, it is sometimes the case that Obama is actually guilty of the same offense, and Obama is trying to deflect criticism from himself.

This is a pattern with Obama. Obama tries this tactic "Look, he is worse than I am."

Well, that is childish but I suppose Obama has made that work.


Well, "there he goes again," Obama is doing the same thing. In this case, Obama is purposely keeping the economy down for his own ends.


The democrats may claim this is not the case, however the charge is out there that Obama is attempting to force ANOTHER AND WORSE budget crisis in order to effect his TRANSFORMATIVE IDEAS.


The thinking is this: the health care bill was just the beginning. If Obama can force a massive health care deficit, the "solutions" can be framed in a way that the nation has no other choice than to adopt a much more socialist plan with many more "income redistribution" aspects.


Already, Obama's plan involves transfers of wealth based on income. Obama has teams of IRS agents already planning how they will take people's money and give it to others to pay for all or part of their health insurance.


For instance, through the IRS, Obama has figured out how to pay half, or 70% or 80% of one's health insurance.

Through the IRS. If you do not agree to this, you go to jail. That is Obama's liberal way.


Obama sees another Economic Crisis as a means to FORCE people to accept even more changes in the system.


Anyway, once in office, the logic is certainly out there that Obama needs the economy to improve in order to have better chances at re-election. However, that has not been Obama's strategy.

Obama can not be trusted.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

ps...h/t on both of my last links to Andrew Sullivan

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

"I was saying that Mike Huckabee is the only candidate likely to make me vote for Obama."

Just out of curiosity, Kevin, why is that?

Before the whole parole scandal, Huckabee was one of the few possible Repub presidential contenders that worried me: even though I hardly agree with him on anything, I think he comes across as extremely affable and likeable - the type of traits that are really appealing to voters.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 22, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Kevin-"I doubt she's such a shoe-in to win the primary, however, and if she does, I doubt she'd win a national election, especially against a still relatively popular incumbent."

I forgive you for your failure to include the requisite Palin Colloquialism.

I go back and forth on Palin's electibility. I think more and more republicans who would not have voted for her previously will do anything to not give Obama 4 more years. However, that can obviously change considerably over the next 2 years. It doesn't hurt that she gets to constantly humanize herself on TLC. That whole show is basically a political ad that TLC pays (probably) her for.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 22, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

"This set of factors is precisely what gives FOX and Palin and Repub strategists reason to keep her in the game for as long as possible."

Oh yeah, first they have to get Steele over the side, then the remnants of the TP, whatever that was. She has to be emeritus before the convention in Tampa, that is the key.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 22, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

There was a very interesting observation about Palin (Sarah, not Bristol). Her picks did very well in House races--conservatives winning the primary and then competing in friendly territory. Senate picks were coin tosses. She plays very well in red land, but not so well statewide. That suggests a very good chance of winning the nomination, but a lousy chance of winning the general election.

Palin - Jindal 2012

Regarding DWTS, some nuttie blogger is claiming credit for it. Given some of the Idol winners out there, it's hardly the first time that talent wasn't the only factor in picking a winner.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 22, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

I was a strong McC supporter and donor, who was shaken to half hearted defensiveness by his move from Baker-Scowcroft to Kristol-Cheney on FP during his campaign, and finally shaken loose, irredeemably, after I watched Couric interview SHP. From what I had read of her previously she had been a popular and successful governor capable of reaching across the aisle, but I thought she was revealed in that softball interview to have no depth and an irritating [to me] demeanor. I did not permanently write her off, but the risk of non-persuasion shifted for me then.

I am interested in what KW sees there that I do not.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 22, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

new sockpuppet alert!!!!

which of these things are like the other?

savetherainforest
orangeforces
redtearevolution

and the new entry: reddogs

The constant impeach Obama (oh please, please, please) diatribes are a dead giveaway. Are you ashamed of your previous poorly reasoned, unsupported, and basically nonsensical posts on previous threads?

Posted by: srw3 | November 22, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin | November 22, 2010 9:42 AM

Close cooperation on Foreign Policy


Yes, that was the case, but it came crashing down with the Iraqi anti-war people - who attempted to make Iraq a domestic issue - motivated primarily with the overnight poll numbers


Yes, the motivation for the anti-war movement was more to drag down Bush - and for the domestic election prospects of the democrats - than really for the anti-war stuff


____________________


So, now you are making the point that when the democrats are in the White House, they deserve a certain amount of domestic bipartisan support in foreign policy???


Right back at you


You are basically saying that the democrats have been out-of-bounds concerning their opposition to the Iraq War

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee scares the crap out of me, frankly.

If the economy is still this bad, his far-to-the-right positions on social issues won't matter as much. And while he certainly has his share of vulnerabilities, he's also an incredible skilled political athlete. If anyone can thread the needle, it's him.

Plus, he has the "compassionate conservativism" thing going for him (he'd repackage it after securing the nomination). His (sometimes) softer stance on immigration -- if it can be rejuvenated after the primary -- keeps the Cactus Corner from being a blowout and may keep Arizona from wandering into the blue column.

Huck also plays well in the "New South" (Virigina, North Carolina, and Florida) and clearly would be the best GOPer for the typically blue Midwest states.

On the other hand, there's a good chance Huck's (in my view repulsive) social conservativism would bring out Millennials, single women, and other parts of the progressive coalition in droves. And IF real progress is made on economic security, I don't see anyone getting to 270 against Obama-Biden. But that's one huge if, and as of now policymakers aren't stepping up.

The one ticket I don't want to see is Huckabee-Rubio. And they have history (Rubio backed Huck in 08'). I fear that if Huck gets the nomination, that's the ticket Dems will be up against.

Posted by: michael_conrad | November 22, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

(repost)

re: Dana Milbank: "They [Republicans] are objecting loudly to new airport security measures designed to detect bombs hidden under clothing"

Oh, come on. This is a Republican issue? Do Democrats (at leat according to Dana Milban?) really want to be on the side that says forcing a retired special ed teacher and bladder cancer survivor to disconnect his urostomy bag and get on the plain crying and soaked in his own urine is somehow protecting national security? That children need to having clothing removed and private parts "patted down" as a part of national security? Or that the "make you naked" scanners represent a significant increase in actual security, as opposed to "security theater"?

There are arguments to be made for the START treaty and against Republicans who are objecting, possibly for political goals rather than a real belief that it would somehow hamper our national security. But to suggest that what is now routinely happening with the TSA in regards to pat down, groping, and harassment (while suggesting the only exception may possibly be Muslim women, an exception CAIR is working diligently to carve out) but little boys and grandmas all get groped . . . Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, may not all fall next to each other on the issue, but I think some of this transcends strict ideology . . . or certainly will. And I've heard plenty of liberals characterize this nonsense as "security theater", not just right wingers.

"A CBS News poll found that 81 percent of Americans favor use of the new imaging machines"

I'm more supportive of that than the pat downs, but I list to a lot of podcasts, many of them technology or issues oriented, but still populated with left-of-center folks, and none of them are thrilled with the new x-ray system, and almost all of them oppose the crazy pat down regimen.

Re, Dana Millbank: "Pistole's response should shame Johanns and his colleagues."

First of all, I have a hard time believing (call it a false equivalency if you will) that Milbank would even begin to accept Pistole's response if everyone involved were Republican. If the increased screening required a little more attention paid to swarthy young men between the ages of 18 and 35, I have no doubt that response would do nothing to mollify Milbank's indignation.

"but Pistole, a career FBI guy, is still interested in the security of the American people"

I'm sorry, being a career FBI guy now makes him inarguably correct? Omnisciently infallible?

Am I off on this? Is this another partisan issue? Is harassing cancer survivors with ostomy bags and amputees (forcing them to undo their prosthetics and, in at least one case, hobble painfully through the x-ray machine unassisted) the price liberals things we have to pay for homeland security? Even if there is no indication that it actually does anything at all to enhance security? And may, in fact, drive more travel to the highway, resulting in more net deaths?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark | November 22, 2010 9:30 AM

I said "repeal" not "ruled unConstitutional"

And I do not admit something can not happen, because it can and will.


You are being silly. Anything can be repealed. The country is working hard to get rid of Obama and take control of the Senate. That willl happen.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Bernie, thanks for the 538 piece. If one looks at politics as a game his comments are hysterically funny, if not, then I have to hope she doesn't run. I've never been one to wish for it, there's already too much divisiveness. Anyway, I agree, we'll just have to wait along with everyone else to see which way the wind blows.

I wanted to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. My daughter flies in this evening from CO and I haven't seen her since August, so I'll be busy this week. There's always something to be thankful for so please enjoy your blessings one and all.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 22, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Regarding START. Apart from the propaganda global network Newscorp and its subsidiaries, everyone is covering this as Republican political obstructionism. At a certain point, the military is going to realize just how anti military Republicans are and how they say they trust them but ultimately don't and turn on them completely.

They snub the military at every turn and not taking care of them; inadequate supplies at the onset of Iraq, stop loss, not wanting to support their families, not trusting their judgment when it comes to the START treaty, not wanting to support veterans in every way possible, voting against GI Bills, underfunding the VA, etc etc etc.

I'm just surprised at how openly they show their disdain for the troops to be honest.

Today's batch of GOP leadership are pro-DOD Contractor, not pro military.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 22, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

@mark_in_austin: "I am interested in what KW sees there that I do not."

You shall know her by her enemies. ;)

I liked her convention speech. I'm a fan of boot strap politics. I like her love of rural and small town America. Also, I don't find her demeanor irritating. That being said, I completely understand some of the criticisms of her, including and especially her abdication of the governorship. That just seemed very Kate Gosselin of her.

But I'm not trying to convince anybody to like her, or find her the best standard bearer for any kind of politics.

Perhaps my favorite movie of all time is 1980's Flash Gordon. It's an acquired taste. Any time I point people to the music a friend and I composed in high school, the most common reaction is: "My ears are bleeding! What were you thinking?"

Some things, even in politics, may not be right for everybody, and I fully understand that. But they're right for me.

That being said, the older I get, the wider my latitude for tolerance seems to be. I actually like Obama, and, as I mentioned, would vote for him over Huckabee (for perhaps prejudicial reasons). I was not enamored with McCain, but I voted for him--or, I voted for Palin, and the old guy she was running with.

But it's all just chit-chat, anyway. I doubt Palin will run. If she does, I doubt she will win the primary. If she does, I sincerely doubt she'll win the presidency. I don't mistake my own personal fondness for the national mood.

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

The liberals are getting suckered into focusing on Sarah Palin.

First, the liberals direct all their hate at her, which only energizes the Republicans.

More importantly, the Republicans are then free to campaign and build support free of the direct scrutiny that they would have without Sarah Palin taking up all the attention.


The Republicans win on both accounts.

And the American People are laughing at the liberals the whole time. Obama had less experience and less qualifications than Sarah Palin - so any democrat making that charge is actually being critical of Obama and his lack of experience. The American People are laughing at how foolish the democrats are.


.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Kevin

I doubt that Tennessee is going to go with Obama - so it doesn't matter who you vote for.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

KW - thanks for your reply.

MikefromArlington, it was not that long ago that John Warner, McC, and LG represented a triumvirate of R leaders who placed the health of our military above the wealth of DOD contractors. I have not given up on them, but I take your point. Kyl's insistence that $100B of new nuke spending, much of it in AZ, is a quid pro quo for his support of START is aromatic.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 22, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington

Where did you come up with that little bit of insanity.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

The most interesting thing about the TSA security is just how much lower Obama's prestige is than was Bush's. No one would have dared question any airport security measures Bush took. Now the GOP openly questions security measures, just as it undermines Obama on START. There is quite literally NOTHING the GOP won't attack Obama on. But it is a very dangerous game the GOP is playing. Contrary to Con dogma, our problems are real and won't disappear if we pretend they don't exist. And there will be presidents after Obama is gone, Republican presidents. too. Once the precedents are set that no attack is off-limits that will be the new norm. Bottom line: the country will become increasingly difficult to govern. That might be OK when things are peachy but things aren't peachy. The United States is in decline and unless we dig in and fix things that decline will accelerate. Broken and dysfunctional government cannot meet the challenges we face. But the GOP has decided that destroying Obama is all that matters and, if the country has to suffer, that's tough. But you can be d*mn sure the Rich won't do any suffering; It will be the Middle Class and the Poor who absorb all the pain. That is simply not sustainable. Krugman is correct when he writes: "our nation is in much worse shape, much closer to a political breakdown, than most people realize."

Posted by: wbgonne | November 22, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Mark- "I have not given up on them, but I take your point. Kyl's insistence that $100B of new nuke spending, much of it in AZ, is a quid pro quo for his support of START is aromatic."

Why isn't the "lamestream media" screaming about this and calling it the "Arizona Purchase" or something clever like "Kyl's Kash Kitty"? I thought they were all in the bag for Obama.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 22, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

A ringing Palin for President endorsement: Vote for her because my enemies hate her.

"You shall know her by her enemies. ;) I liked her convention speech. I'm a fan of boot strap politics. I like her love of rural and small town America. Also, I don't find her demeanor irritating."

Please grow up.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 22, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

@KW: "You shall know her by her enemies."

Wow, are you really that shallow that you'd elect an incompetent the leader of the free world just because she knows how to give a sarcastic speech and because she is obnoxious to Democrats (i.e. fellow Americans)?

What about policy?

What about the direction for America?

I guess you just admitted that you simply don't care. Pathetic.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 22, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

KW placed a "smile" after that comment.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 22, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

WOW! In what seems to have been a little noticed post at 2:07AM Sunday morning, Krugman devastates the President:

More and more, it’s becoming clear that progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion. Once you got past the soaring rhetoric you noticed, if you actually paid attention to what he said, that he largely accepted the conservative storyline, a view of the world, including a mythological history, that bears little resemblance to the facts.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/fdr-reagan-and-obama/

The entire (short) post is worth reading but I can only hope (wonder) that he is trying to goad the White House into growing a spine. If he really believes this (and is correct), we are in real trouble with the GOP calling him a socialist/communist/Kenyan usurper and the left calling him a conservative, the President has no support from either side.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 22, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

One of the best ways to provide the nation with the sharp contrast between Conservatives and Obama - is to impeach Obama on mulitiple counts of wrong-doing.

It is pretty simple.

If the liberals do not want to compromise, and Obama's commitment to bipartisanship has been completely abandoned, the Republicans have little to lose.

In addition, Obama deserves it. The way Obama has governed has been completely counter to his campaign promises.


On Afghanistan, the turn-about has been most stark. In Woodward's book, Obama is said to almost immediately upon taking off started to pressure the Pentagon to plan the pull-out. This is directly the Opposite of what Obama promised in the debates, in which Obama insisted he would stay in Afghanistan to win.

NOW, Obama has done something worse: broadcast a pull-out date to the enemy.


The Afghan War is not over. Obama is PURPOSELY sabotaging our war efforts in country - by saying now we wil leave by 2014.

Obama is sabotaging his mini-Surge, even before next summer when the first assessments of progress are supposed to be made.


Never in human history has a leader been so stupid as to make announcements like this. Men are still dying in the field, and Obama is saying things like this.

Obama is foolish.


.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

@sockpuppetcentral (reddogs,strf,etc)
Obama had less experience and less qualifications than Sarah Palin - so any democrat making that charge is actually being critical of Obama and his lack of experience. The American People are laughing at how foolish the democrats are.

Actually people who read your posts are laughing at (not with) you for how foolish you are, when they are not weeping for the fate of the nation with folks like you allowed to vote, but by all means continue to continue the comedy routine. I don't think that I could post such unconsciously inane, false, ironic blather without barfing on my keyboard. I acknowledge your intestinal fortitude (or your unlimited supply of keyboards.)

Palin more qualified than Obama...Go with it!!!...it is in concert with your sage views on other issues of the day...Impeach Obama! Keep getting rightwingnutistan excited about this #1 priority of sockpuppets everywhere...make it so, captain sockpuppet. It really brought down Clinton's favorables, and really helped the congress focus on the terrorist threat in central asia. It was far better for ken star to spend 80 million to study clinton's peccadilloes, than for the congress to use those resources trying to understand the emerging terrorist threat and horrible human and women's rights situation in Afghanistan...Republican priorities, politics before county!!! Got my popcorn ready for the sequel.
Obama: Muslim, Socialist, Nazi, or Indonesian Manchurian Candidate? Why choose, you can have them all for the low low price of supporting the congressional republican leadership.

Posted by: srw3 | November 22, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

srw3 at 10:50 AM

Obviously every time the democrats attack Sarah Palin on experience and qualifications, someone in the country says "Well what about how experienced Obama was/is."


You just don't get it. Obama was inexperienced and had little qualifications.

Sarah Palin was at least Governor of a State, and served on the Oil Commission in an impressive way.


Obama was elected to the US Senate and immediately went on a book tour. Obama's terms in Springfield are marked with little accomplishments. Obama has a thin, thin resume.


You just don't get it. The American People understand how silly the democrats are with Sarah Palin.

But the way the democrats act - highlighting experience - tears down Obama.


I really don't care if you understand this point or not. It is probably too much for you to comprehend.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

KW placed a "smile" after that comment.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 22, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

So what? It's not a joke. That's the point. And it doesn't become acceptable because someone is being cute and cuddly.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 22, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Kevin

Is it not ironic that Obama has a guy out there defending his porn-style body searches at the airports with the name of Johnny Pistole ????


Where did they find a guy like this ??

I don't think I could have written fiction with that kind of name.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

@RedDogs: "I doubt that Tennessee is going to go with Obama - so it doesn't matter who you vote for"

You are correct, sir. Tennessee hasn't gone for the Dem since Clinton, and would not have then, if not for Perot.

@mark: "KW placed a 'smile' after that comment."

They see what they want to see.

@Ethan2010: "I guess you just admitted that you simply don't care. Pathetic."

I'm pretty sure that's not what I said. Your chosen interpretation is interesting, and perhaps not without a flavor of truth, but is hardly the entire meal.

@wbgonne: "Please grow up."

Under no circumstances. Frankly, if growing up means that I must prepare to shoulder burdens with a worried air, I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up, not me.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

srw

You do not understand the subtle point - the American People believe that Palin and Obama are in the same category of lack of experience and qualifications.

Everytime a democrats attacks Sarah Palin, they are tearing down Obama on this issue.


You don't get it - I understand that.


However a book tour is not experience. Obama had four years in the Senate and has little to show for it. Obama displays a lack of understanding of how Capitol Hill operates.


The American People reply: We need someone in there who REALLY HAS EXPERIENCE, and it's not Obama.


You are so caught up in your hatred, you just don't understand.

.

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

@RedDogs: "Is it not ironic that Obama has a guy out there defending his porn-style body searches at the airports with the name of Johnny Pistole?"

Appropos, if you ask me, although Obama is president, not king, and I suspect Pistole and Napolitano didn't run this new regimen past the Whitehouse before going forward (as I don't expect the politics would have escaped them). And it's not a matter of Cinemax After Dark style pat downs, but the clear prejudicial harassment of children, the infirm and the elderly. Either these folks need much, much better training (the guy who had the seal of his ostomy bag separated by TSA agents, and thus had to endure urine soaking his clothing right before boarding his flight, tried to warn them and was ignored, and was originally told their strip search of his urostomy was going to have to be done in public because they didn't have any place private to take him) or this particular charade of security kabuki needs to be dropped. In my ever humble opinion.

@wbgonne: "So what? It's not a joke. That's the point. And it doesn't become acceptable because someone is being cute and cuddly."

It doesn't become acceptable to what . . . ? Have an opinion at odds with yours? Or use criteria that you deem unacceptable when making a decision or forming a preference?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Obama's spokesperson, defending the full body searches is someone who is named JOHNNY PISTOLE.


Now, who in the world is sending this guy to NBC to say anything???


It just goes to show that Obama and his people have no idea what they are doing. They are basically spinning in circles. They spend their days talking about their out-of-touch liberal ideas. Little is getting down. Every once in a while we see just how clueless they are.


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

"It doesn't become acceptable to what . . . ? Have an opinion at odds with yours? Or use criteria that you deem unacceptable when making a decision or forming a preference?"

Some people say the earth is a sphere; others disagree. Some people say the earth is warming due to human activity; others disagree. Some people think Sarah Palin is everything that is wrong with America today. Others love Palin because the first group doesn't like her.

Like I said: grow up.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 22, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

All, the next big intra-GOP war:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 22, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

@KW: "I'm pretty sure that's not what I said. Your chosen interpretation is interesting, and perhaps not without a flavor of truth, but is hardly the entire meal."

Okay Kevin. I guess it's time you play stupid again, I see. This is what you were asked to respond to: "I am interested in what KW sees there that I do not."

You responded with fluff and nothing whatsoever on policy. She can give a speech? Liberals don't like her? So what!!! Why, specifically, do you support this person for the highest office in America? Be specific and tell us all why you support Sarah Palin on policy grounds. Or don't and prove what I said to be true. Go for it.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 22, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan: "Or don't and prove what I said to be true. Go for it."

You know, bullying is no longer approved of in polite company. You might want to change your tactics.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

in response to this:
=============
Tell that to the countless Republican Attorneys General and Governors who are spending taxpayer money to have the health care bill repealed. Why aren't you fiscal conservatives upset about wasting money on something you admit won't happen?
=================

Nothing like a cheap shot first thing in the morning eh? Better than the hair of the dog that bit ya?

You're just wrong. The suits are not seeking to have the bill repealed. They are seeking to have it declared unconstitutional or, at the least, made legally void. That's different from repeal.

And it is not a waste of money. It is long past time that the states re asserted themselves. For too long the liberals in America have taken the cheap way out by claiming any excersize of state's rights to be tantamount to government discrimination. Sorry, that was then.

this is now.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 22, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

@KW: "You know, bullying is no longer approved of in polite company. You might want to change your tactics. "

Oh wah.

Suit yourself. Thanks for proving that you don't care about policy in electing the leader of our country. You are just another Republican who deliberately chooses not to use your brain. Pathetic.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 22, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, KW, pick a topic. I am not bullying you into anything -- what an absurd suggestion.

I am encouraging to explain yourself.

I'd really like to know in which substantive policy areas you agree with her.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 22, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

MUSLIM WOMEN ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM PAT-DOWNS.

Just another lie from Fox News.

Here's the truth:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Posted by: Incalculable | November 22, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

You're just wrong. The suits are not seeking to have the bill repealed. They are seeking to have it declared unconstitutional or, at the least, made legally void. That's different from repeal.

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

We appear to have a misunderstanding of terminology. Either way the bill is gone, right? Callit whatever you want, it's a waste of time and money unless and until Obama is out of office.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 22, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I would like to have a president who would accept normal and logical things from both parties. Now that may be Obama, Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, Perry (TX), but Sarah Palin!!!!! GIMME A BREAK AND LET'S BE REALISTIC.

Posted by: BOBSTERII | November 22, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company