Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:32 AM ET, 11/23/2010

The Morning Plum

By Greg Sargent

* Rank-and-file Republicans want gridlock: That's what a new ABC News poll finds: GOPers are the only group that wants governmental gridlock, with 43 percent saying it's a good thing, versus 42 percent who say the opposite. By contrast, independents and Dems overwhelmingly see gridlock as bad.

Couple this with that recent Pew poll finding that Republicans want their leaders to be less compromising with Obama -- even as Dems want Obama to compromise more -- and it's clear how strong the pull will be on the GOP not to give any ground in the coming standoffs with the president.

* Left will raise undisclosed donor cash for 2012, too: David Brock, who has been working behind the scenes to build a new spending infrastructure to take on the right, concedes that some of that money will come from undisclosed donors.

The bottom line is that voters have a right to know who's bankrolling political ads, whether they are coming from left or right. Non-disclosure is bad for democracy -- period. But Brock's decision is a signal that some on the left are giving up on this critique and instead are calculating that the only hope of matching the right is to imitate its tactics.

* No mandate for repeal: A majority of Americans wants to keep the current health law or change it to do more, a new McClatchy poll finds.

* No mandate for continuing Bush tax cuts for rich: The above poll also finds that 51 percent want to extend the tax cuts only for those under $250,000, the Dem position, while 45 percent want to extend them for everyone.

* Obama getting pilloried for being too mindful of national security? Anne Kornblut and Perry Bacon note that the right, which is in an uproar over the pat-downs at airports, were pillorying Obama only a month ago for not understanding the nature of the terror threat.

* GOP Congressman versus Drudge on the pat-downs: Also in the above link: GOP Rep Pete King, a frequent critic of Obama on national security, says the administration is doing the right thing by emphasizing security, and adds that the story has gotten out of control.

* Reality-check of the day: Jonathan Capehart on why the uproar over the pat-downs is nothing but rank hysteria.

* Simple solutions hiding in plain sight: Speaking of hysteria, Right wing media figures and members of congress are seizing on the pat-down furor to renew their calls for racial profiling at airports.

* Will the new Congress ban civilian trials for terror suspects? In the wake of the Ghailani verdict, such an effort could gain some momentum. Worth watching: How skittish Congressional Democrats handle the issue.

* No GOP defenders for the individual mandate: HuffPo runs down the nine GOP senators who have yet to sign on with the lawsuit to overturn Obamacare. What's striking is that none of them is willing to come right out and say they don't agree the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

* White House condemns North Korea: The White House statement on North Korea's attack:

Earlier today North Korea conducted an artillery attack against the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong. We are in close and continuing contact with our Korean allies.The United States strongly condemns this attack and calls on North Korea to halt its belligerent action and to fully abide by the terms of the Armistice Agreement.The United States is firmly committed to the defense of our ally, the Republic of Korea, and to the maintenance of regional peace and stability.

* And the counterintuitive take of the day: Stephanie Taylor tries to make the case that we live in a "center-left country."

What else is happening?

UPDATE, 8:43 a.m.: First item edited slightly for precision...

By Greg Sargent  | November 23, 2010; 8:32 AM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security, Health reform, Morning Plum, taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Thiessen recycles false talking points on military commissions

Comments

NRO sees a fresh and exciting possible savior for the GOP...

{{"Pence for President?

No one has gone straight from the House to the White House since James Garfield. Mike Pence might be the one.

He hasn’t held executive office. He isn’t a paid Fox News contributor. He hasn’t written a best-seller or starred in a reality show.

So is there any reason Rep. Mike Pence (R., Ind.) should be considered a viable 2012 presidential contender?}}

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253741/pence-president-katrina-trinko

I'll let someone else answer that rhetorical question.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Bernie- Thanks for posting that Motor Trend article yesterday. While I may be a more pro-Detroit than you would like (I live right outside the city and worked there until 2 months ago, meaning I paid city taxes) that article had nothing to do with Detroit and everything to do with confronting lies with facts.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 23, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

I'd like to see some reporting on the DREAM Act. Greg, have you read Jeff Sessions' "DREAM Alert" yet? It is so disingenuous...

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

"Democrats got the lowest share of the white vote in this midterm election than in any congressional election since World War II, losing key races in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michigan, and every contested election in Ohio, which spells trouble for President Obama’s reelection. No Democrat can win the White House without these Midwestern swing states, and they are all decimated by job losses that Obama has offered no road map to recover".

From Elinor Clift in Newsweek

This helps confirm my theory that the Democrat party is becoming a collection of aggrieved, minority groups headed by ideologue, white elites who live in the cosmopolitan areas of America, mainly the two, left coasts.

The Democrat party is slowly losing touch with the vast, American majority and that majority is feeling it.

The Obama-Pelosi debacle of 2008-2010 has put this process on steroids. 2012 will see further erosion of the Democratic power base. The only Democrats that will survive will be the far leftists wackos in safe, democrat districts.

Even as the Democrat ship is sinking, the band is playing on with last ditch attempts to inject radical homosexual activism into America's military and to grant amnesty to millions of outlaw immigrants. It is almost comical.

Republicans will never have to compromise with the Obamacrats when the 'crats are wrong on almost every issue. The Democrats will have to move right or begone.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 23, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

ashot,

That was me with the MT article. I live in SW Michigan now, but grew up in the Detroit suburbs. My dad worked for Ford for 5 years, and then GM for 32. My BIL is currently an executive assistant to Alan Mulally and the VP's, and the majority of my extended family has been connected to the auto industry in one way or another.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 23, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

-- ...some on the left are giving up on this critique and instead are calculating that the only hope of matching the right is to imitate its tactics. ---

some on the left are giving up on this critique and instead are calculating that the only hope of matching the right is to stop bringing a limp fish to a gun fight.

There fixed for you.

Now if only the Democrats actual policies didn't suck so much...

Posted by: unymark | November 23, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

@ashot - I guess sue and I both linked to it.

It's not uncommon for magazines such as auto mags to be friendly with the industry they cover. Ski magazines and computer magazines are two other examples. If anyone ever plunked a MT down in front of me, I'd read it and be happy to. But would have preferred Car and Driver, Road and Track or Automobile. Just a personal/family thing as brothers and I were kind of stuck on Brit and European sports cars and sedans. But take all this with a grain of salt - I once owned a Lada.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

suekzoo- Sorry for misdirecting the thanks. I went to school at K College and love going back there. Anyway, my family isn't very connected to the auto industry other than by virtue of living in SE Michigan. I'm honestly thinking about subscribing to MT just because of that article.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 23, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

and ps... the US is now making some excellent cars

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

-- * Reality-check of the day: Jonathan Capehart on why the uproar over the pat-downs is nothing but rank hysteria. --

And no doubt when the first terrorist gets caught with PETN in his butt Capehart will have no problem with the full cavity screenings -

Capehart trumpets the fact that there are relatively few of the gate porn scanners out there. Uh, yeah, SO FAR. And for some reason he doesn't trumpet the exact dosage of X-Rays travelers are subjected to. And I have to wonder if Capehart has personally been subjected to TSA fondling yet. Just wondering.

As for me, I'll take him up on his suggestion to "find alternate modes of transportation"

...

Posted by: unymark | November 23, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

"Even as the Democrat ship is sinking, the band is playing on with last ditch attempts to inject radical homosexual activism into America's military"

Marines have nice bums. And we gay people are gonna get us some of that buff buttock. Just you wait. You think maybe a General in a pink flouncy skirt would be less of a killer? You don't know us gay people very well. We're going to go after those evil disgusting muslims with our fingernails and our disco music and we're going to win freedom and liberty for the world.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

I think there's an interesting correspondence between the Gulf oil spill and the TSA uproar. In Louisiana, people had two opposing concerns-- that they would lose their livelihoods and way of life with the destruction of the marine habitat and wetlands, and that they would lose jobs crucial to their economy with a deep water drilling ban. This new controversy pits the desire of people to be free of intrusive searches and monitoring against equally strong desires to be safe from terrorist threats directed against aviation.

In an ideal world, these sorts of conflicts are the area where politics
and its practioners do their best work, finding the middle ground and trying to smooth the edges to reach the most workable solution. But in
today's environment, such conflicts are simply fresh ground for
journalistic hype and political demagoguery. Somehow, we seem to
have stopped being about problem solving, which has always been one of our great national strengths.

Posted by: AllButCertain | November 23, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

The "Dream Act" is a cute name for outlaw immigrant AMNESTY. It is a Democrat scheme to manufacture more Democrat voters at taxpayer expense. This is more of the same putrid, political hackery that the Obamacrats have become infamous for.

America has stated it's case and the Obamanation is ignoring it, again. We need to put all lame ducks out of their misery so they can do no more harm.

This is an excellent case for total and complete obstructionism by Republicans. Gridlock must be achieved if the Obamanation is to be stopped.

Reversal can begin in 2011.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 23, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

bernie- "and ps... the US is now making some excellent cars"

Which just happens to correspond to the improved economic viability of Ford and GM, not so sure how Chyrsler is going to fare. This suggests that maybe all those comments blaming the union legacy costs for making US cars too expensive were just a bit off. People bought foreign cars because they thought they were a better value (note this does not just mean cheaper). If the US was building cars of similar value, they would have been fine.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 23, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Supreme IRONY department......

This is rich! The left is going to imitate the right in it's money raising tactics in 2012.

Where do you suppose the right got it's ideas in the first place??

From the leftist money changers!!

It's come full circle.

The right took cues from the left on campaigning tricks many years ago in efforts to fight fire with fire.

It seems to have worked.

Better than anyone thought.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 23, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

I haven't made up my mind yet about the new security screenings, but I have little sympathy for those who shrug off torture as necessary to our national security and then shriek at the top of their lungs about someone running their hand up their pant leg.

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

ABC said: "Somehow, we seem to
have stopped being about problem solving, which has always been one of our great national strengths."

Ain't it so.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Even as the Democrat ship is sinking, the band is playing on with last ditch attempts to inject radical homosexual activism into America's military and to grant amnesty to millions of outlaw immigrants. It is almost comical.

Posted by: battleground51

---

Funny how something that meets approval of 70% of actively serving military is radical.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 23, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

shrod said: "I have little sympathy for those who shrug off torture as necessary to our national security and then shriek at the top of their lungs about someone running their hand up their pant leg."

That's really the kicker here. And we could add that it is perhaps just a bit warped to see those people enthused not merely with torture but with dropping bombs on cities full of civilians not making a peep about human or civil rights and bad government but if someone Xrays them before a flight, that's naziism.

This is so insane and so immoral that it most often escapes many peoples' attention and thoughts. It's maybe like finding out that your dear grandmother eats raw human babies.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat - "I haven't made up my mind yet about the new security screenings, but I have little sympathy for those who shrug off torture as necessary to our national security and then shriek at the top of their lungs about someone running their hand up their pant leg."

While obviously not comparable circumstances, I think that's a pretty interesting rhetorical point. It would be interesting for a reporter to interview someone and ask them if they support torture then if they support the pat downs.

Although discussion seems to be largely driven by very rare, but very horrible stories, I don't like the pat downs or the scanners. While ultimately I would defer to security experts on the matter, I just can't imagine the benefit is particularly large, particularly with pat downs. There has to be a better system.

That said, the government is screwed here. Get attacked and the right will quickly paint them as not taking the threat seriously, take the threat to seriously and suddenly you're Big Brother.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 23, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Greg:

I don't think you've been following the story of Mary Landrieu's attempt to blackmail the Obama Administration into letting Big Oil resume business-as-usual in the Gulf. Landrieu placed a hold for months on Jack Lew, Obama's budget nominee. Last week she relented, saying on the Senate floor that she didn't realize her hold of her own president's nominee was "unprecedented." As compensation, Landrieu demanded that Ken Salazar come to LA to speak to Big Oil. Salazar did so yesterday but Big Oil didn't get what it wanted. This is what Landrieu said after Salazar's speech:

"What's Senator Mary Landrieu's next move? Louisiana's senior senator ended her hold on an Obama administration nominee after thinking she had the assurance of the interior department that coastal drilling would resume soon, then left a meeting with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar Monday saying she was "extremely disappointed" that the administration didn't offer a clear path for speeding up the process of issuing permits. Landrieu said she has other tools at her disposal to get the administration's attention on the stalled permitting process for offshore drilling:
""There are other nominees coming forward," said Landrieu. "There are many other opportunities for me to continue to cause trouble, and I will do so, because this policy is harmful not just to Louisiana, it's harmful to the Gulf coast." Landrieu said she would use whatever options she has available "to continue to press this administration to get this industry back to work.""

http://www.wwl.com/Landrieu----There-are-many---opportunities-for-me-/8634643

This is a fascinating story in terms of Democratic intra-party dynamics. I'm surprised you haven't covered it at all.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

American companies just posted their most profitable quarter ever, ever? yes, e-v-e-r.

Borrowing free money is good for the bottom line evidently.

Job creation? Why? What has that got to do with it?
Corporate profitability and domestic job creation have been de-coupled, though the reverse is not true.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 23, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Foolish Republican voters still think corporate profitability is somehow going to turn into prosperity for the hard working, middle class family. It is as if by their vote, they could turn back the global clock, back to America's salad days.

Meanwhile in re, the Democrats are bad for business narrative...numbers don't lie. Both parties are supply siders now, both parties are as good for business as business is for them.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 23, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Why did the Democrats get clobbered? This McClatchey headline says it all:

"The 2010 electorate: Old, white, rich and Republican"

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/22/104144/the-2010-electorate-old-white.html#ixzz167PLRsUZ

Here's a tip for the Dems. Don't worry about the Rich Old White folks. They ain't gonna vote for you no matter what. Economic populism holds the Dems salvation, should they care to be saved. The economic calamity that has befallen western capitalism is just getting started. Look at Ireland and the EU. Political turmoil is certain and the smart pols will get on the side of the average people because they will prevail (and because it's right, but that's another story). The bottom line is that, beginning in the early 70s the economic pie began to shrink and, apart from speculative bubbles, the U.S. economy has been collapsing ever since. The U.S. simply no longer has the wealth to do anything it wants. We must make choices and decisions. But as we've been living in a fantasy for 40 years we probably won't snap out of it until hard times really hit. That is coming soon. Then there will be turmoil. Krugman is correct: America is on the precipice of political collapse.

Happy Thanksgiving, All!

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

WB, to your point:

-Gridlock May Turn Off Independent Voters-

A new ABC News/Yahoo! News poll finds Republican voters are evenly divided about whether legislative gridlock is a good or bad thing, 42% to 43%.

"The split underscores many Republicans' skepticism of active government. But it may make it difficult for GOP leaders to push their own legislative agenda. And it raises questions about the durability of the party's appeal to independent registered voters, who favored Republicans by a record margin Nov. 2, but who see gridlock as a negative by a 2-1 margin, 57% to 28%."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/11/23/gridlock_may_turn_off_independent_voters.html

The right may have won the last election, but this is a center-left country. If the Democratic Party pushed harder for the election reforms that Indies salivate over, the Dems could be in power for a generation.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

There are so many polls out there with smorgasbord-like results that anyone can pick and choose the results they prefer and get their fill.

Yesterday, most polls claimed that a clear majority of Americans took a dim view of the homosexual agenda and the normalization of homosexuality in American life it seeks to force on us.

Now, liberals are saying everyone loves homosexuality and wants a homosexual in every family. What gives??

Five minutes ago, polls showed that 60% of Americans were unhappy with ObamaCare and wanted a full repeal of it.

Now, liberals are claiming most Americans are clamoring for more ObamaCare and are in love with it.

It's the battle of the polls now. Pick your numbers and fill your agenda with them.

I know which polls this blog will cling to. The most liberal friendly numbers it can get.

I'm waiting for more input.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 23, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

@firstread:

According to the AP, the U.S. economy grew at 2.5% pace in the 3rd quarter, up from the 2% estimate last month. “More brisk spending by American consumers, especially on autos and other big-ticket goods, and stronger sales of U.S. exports to foreign customers were the main reasons for the upgrade.”

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

-Health insurers face new federal rules on medical spending-

For the first time, health plans will have to disclose many details about how they allot their money, calculate the portion of their spending that promotes good health, and - if they devote too much income to the wrong purposes - give customers refunds.

[...]

For the large groups of employees that make up most of the U.S. insurance market, at least 85 percent must go to coverage. For policies sold to individuals and small groups, the figure is at least 80 percent.

[...]

Within hours of HHS's announcement, most advocacy groups for patients and leading congressional Democrats praised the agency's work. Republicans were noticeably silent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112202177.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Ethan2010-

Part of the reason the 2010 elections were a mixed blessing for the GOP is that they will now be correctly seen as being a principal source of gridlock in Congress. If all they do is filibuster or refuse to hold votes on things that Obama asks for, indies will get turned off very quickly. We'll see what happens with the START Treaty. If that's the foot Republicans are putting forward, it's going to be a long two years.

Posted by: klautsack | November 23, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Ethan- "According to the AP, the U.S. economy grew at 2.5% pace in the 3rd quarter, up from the 2% estimate last month. “More brisk spending by American consumers, especially on autos and other big-ticket goods, and stronger sales of U.S. exports to foreign customers were the main reasons for the upgrade.”

Yes, but if we don't keep things exactly the way they are by extending the Bush Tax Cuts then there won't be any job creation.
Wait, the Bush rates are in existence now and there isn't much job creation?

Wait, corporatiosn are experiencing big profits and there are no jobs?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 23, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

klautsack, I agree. START really is their first shot across the bow, along with the tax cuts issue. DREAM Act is not far behind...

-Dozens more in Texas to join DREAM Act hunger strike-

"There's 2.1 million of us out there, it's not like just five or 10 people who decide to go on a hunger strike just to do it. Some people tell you to blame your parents for getting you in that situation. But I can't blame my mother, because she brought me here for a better life. You do it for survival. You have to eat, you can't have your kids starving. Naturally they're going to want a better life for you," Martinez said.

Martinez says she has friends who graduated with college and even advanced degrees and ended up working in the United States picking up trash or waiting tables because they could not apply to professional jobs as illegal immigrants. [...]

"A lot of us will be pushed into the economy of waitressing and cleaning hotels or dish-washing," she said.

Martinez, a Mexican-American studies and women's studies major, says America is her home and she wants to be able to work here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101122/ts_yblog_thelookout/dozens-more-in-texas-to-join-immigration-hunger-strike

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

ashot, yes, tax cuts for the rich right now make no sense. Actually, they don't even "make no sense" but to continue them would actively hurt our economy by continuing to stuff money into the wealthy investors' off-shore accounts and tax havens as opposed to job-creating programs or tax breaks for businesses who hire.

Here's more on the state of the economy in Q3:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-23/economy-in-u-s-grew-2-5-in-third-quarter-revised-from-2-.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Lowest ever: Obama job approval sinks to 39%, as even Democrats' support melts away.
President Obama has passed the Big 4-0 -- going the wrong way.

Turns out voters were not simply satisfied to spank the Democrat and his party in the Nov. 2 midterm elections with historic losses in the House of Representatives.

Obama's job approval rating as calculated by the Zogby Poll has now sunk to 39%, a new low for his 22-month presidency that began with so much hope and excitement and poll numbers up around 70. As recently as Sept. 20, his job approval was 49%.

A whopping 60% now disapprove of his job, up from 51% disapproval Sept. 20.

Los Angeles Times November 23, 2010

Posted by: illogicbuster | November 23, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Bitter clingers!

Clinging to the fantasy that America is a "center-left" country. This is almost sad. I feel kinda sorry for them.

"It’s the failure to understand that a majority
of independents aren’t really “independent” that sustains the illusion that indies are primarily
swing voters who are now swinging hard to the Right and to the GOP".

From Teixeira

This means that many "independents" are not really independent at all. They lean Republican in most circumstances and normally will fall that way unless they are in a mood to punish Republicans as seems to have happened in 2008.

2008: Conservatives had lost their enthusiasm for Bush and the Republican status quo.

2008: Republicans nominated a used up RINO.

2008: Independents were intrigued by Barack Hussein Obama and in a mood to punish Republicans.

2008: Minorities and young people were fired up for Obama and actually voted in significant numbers.

2008: Democrats raised lots more money.

Result: Obama wins in a perfect storm of enthusiasm and discontent.

It may be the only time he wins.

Time will tell.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 23, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"Stephanie Taylor tries to make the case that we live in a "center-left country.""

This is absolutely true. Just forget for a moment about labels and focus on policy questions. The American people do not subscribe to the GOP's antigovernment, capitalists-take-all doctrine. Now if only we had a masterful rhetorician in the bully pulpit to articulate these realities ... Ahem.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

All, nice post by Serwer skewering Marc Thiessen:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 23, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"Actually, they don't even "make no sense" but to continue them would actively hurt our economy..."

But on Fox last night I saw some rich guy saying rich people will just leave America in droves if they can get richer somewhere else. I was like, who cares? Fewer dog walking jobs?

Job creating Investment in this country does not require the presence or absence of rich people, it requires safe, money-making opportunities.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 23, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Greg: You are wrong about Brock and other leftish groups using undisclosed donor money. As long as such spending remains legal, the best -- maybe the ONLY -- way to get a law requiring full disclosure of third-party donations passed is for the left to outdo the right in raising and spending undisclosed donor money. We didn't start the fire... but the best way to fight it now is with more fire.

Posted by: tbetz | November 23, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"But on Fox last night I saw some rich guy saying rich people will just leave America in droves if they can get richer somewhere else. I was like, who cares?"

Seriously.

Let em go. That would be GREAT.

Maybe then we can develop more smart sustainable businesses here which actually care about being good corporate citizens.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

"But on Fox last night I saw some rich guy saying rich people will just leave America in droves if they can get richer somewhere else. I was like, who cares?"

Seriously.

Let em go. That would be GREAT.

Maybe then we can develop more smart sustainable businesses here which actually care about being good corporate citizens.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

JOBS JOBS JOBS

AP:

-41 states see job gains in Oct., most in 5 months-

The federal government says companies added jobs in 41 states in October, the best showing in five months.

[...]

The job gains are improvement from September, when only 16 states reported gains and 34 reported drops. Still, the net job creation wasn't enough to broadly push down unemployment rates.

One bright spot: The nation's worst-hit states all showed signs of improvement last month.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Think Progress goes after Ben Nelson over DREAM Act:

"""It is simply false to say that the DREAM Act would not “add” to the military. The bill is specifically written to incentivize undocumented immigrants to join the military and serve our country in exchange for being offered a path to citizenship. As retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Military Police Corps Margaret Stock said during a conference call in support of the legislation in September, “Passage of the DREAM Act would directly benefit American national defense by enlarging the pool of highly qualified, US-educated ‘green card’ recruits for the US Armed Forces.”"""

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/23/nelson-dream-military-economy/

More at the link, check it out.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

All, Chuck Grassley has taken a shot at Coburn and DeMint over our story reporting that they want ethanol subsidies to expire:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 23, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Question: Why do outlaw "immigrants" choose to try to gain legitimacy, by legislative fiat, through their Democrat enablers, rather than just obeying American law, in the first place??

The answers are very simple:

1. They are too lazy and/or ignorant to initiate the process.

2. They are too impatient to wait out the process.

3. They do not respect American law.

4. There are just too many of them. They have flooded America. American law forbids, by it's very being, the massive, chaotic invasion that liberals laughingly insist on calling "immigration".

There you have it. The truth of the matter.

We must not let the immigration nihilists rule the day on immigration or anything else, for that matter.

Down the Obamanation!

Posted by: battleground51 | November 23, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Ethan: What happens if Landrieu, Lieberman and Nelson all switch to the GOP (not unlikely, really, all things considered)? That will make the Senate 50 GOP, 40 Dem plus Bernie Sanders. What happens to the Senate then? I know Biden can break 50-50 ties for the Dems. But who controls the Senate majority and committees, etc, in that scenario?

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Correction: It would be 50 GOP, 49 Dem plus Bernie. What happens then?

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"But who controls the Senate majority and committees, etc, in that scenario?"

That's a good question. My guess is that the Majority Leader would be the Dems' choice because the VP is the President of the Senate.

Looks like that is the case...

http://www.newser.com/article/d9j7hv1o1/senate-split-50-50-vice-president-gives-dems-the-majority-unless-centrists-switch-parties.html

I don't see it happening, however. For one, Landrieu would be a back-bencher as a GOPer and no-doubt would be primaried hard. Conservacrats don't fare so well in GOP primaries, not these days at least.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"I don't see it happening, however. For one, Landrieu would be a back-bencher as a GOPer and no-doubt would be primaried hard. Conservacrats don't fare so well in GOP primaries, not these days at least."

I agree it's unlikely. The GOP would definitely have to sweeten the pot to make it happen. I think Nelson and Lieberman are toast one way or the other. Landrieu? I suspect the GOP will go hard after her seat. She could head that off with a party switch. But you're right: she isn't nearly crazy enough for today's GOP in the South. But can she win as a Dem next time? I don't know. She may be a goner too.

I looked at the piece on the 2000 50-50 tie in the Senate. The Dems and GOP worked out a complicated power-sharing arrangement but I find that hard to envision in today's political climate. Interesting times.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I agree on Nelson and Lieberman, and good riddance. I can't wait for Lieberman to get demolished. But I think Landrieu's seat is safe. She has "THE" name in Louisiana and I imagine she is pretty popular, so if she stays Dem I think she's safe, for better or worse. If she switches to the GOP she would be nowhere near conservative enough, not to mention a party-switcher, so my guess is that she would probably lose a fairly close primary.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Greg, taking a hard line with your use of the word precision. Precision and accuracy are not the same. /vocab wonk

Posted by: ERMFU | November 23, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "The Dems and GOP worked out a complicated power-sharing arrangement but I find that hard to envision in today's political climate. Interesting times."

The base and the conservative punditry didn't like it at the time, actually. They considered it the same-old, same-old, business as usual collegiality of inside the beltway pols. And many of them heard an earful. It's unlikely the Republicans would be as conciliatory this time around.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 23, 2010 1:12 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