Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:10 PM ET, 12/17/2010

Will GOP spending cuts kill Obama's reelection chances?

By Adam Serwer

Yesterday, Republicans defeated a massive omnibus spending bill to fund the federal government, arguing that the earmarks stuffed into the bill, among other things, constituted too much spending. At first glance, given the tiny percentage of the bill that's devoted to earmarks, all the drama might seem silly.

But this fight is extremely important, and could have long term implications for the GOP. It's the first clear sign that the GOP base's seemingly absurd obsession with earmarks is going to have a direct impact on how the Republican Party will approach future political fights over government spending, which are expected to be central to the next two years.

It's easy to dismiss the GOP base's earmark obsession, as I did the other day. But yesterday's defeat of the spending bill signals clearly that the GOP base may have some success in holding the Republican Party to its pledge to bring down spending -- which could ultimately hamper the recovery.

The $8 billion in earmarks were less than 1 percent of the $1.1 trillion omnibus bill. But as Dave Weigel writes, the more open process for earmarks lead to pressure on Republican senators to vote against a bill full of earmarks they had requested.

It's extremely important that earmarking has become a more transparent process, and that it's now easy to call out members for their requests before bills are voted on. Look at the context, though. Earmarks are only the easiest way to nail members for doing what has never really been controversial -- appropriating. Republican voters, and a considerable number of independents, don't want their representatives to shuffle around money anymore. The aggressive centralized government of 2009, pumping money into states and districts, is gone, and there's no political will to recreate it.

Pressure from the base led to Republicans killing the omnibus bill, even though the size and content had already been decided through bipartisan negotiations months ago. You could criticize Republicans for breaking their promises, but I find it hard to argue that senators should be more worried about their interpersonal relationships with one another than the desires of their constituents.

The result is that a temporary funding bill will have to be passed, and the next fight over spending will occur sooner and -- thanks to Republican gains -- on more favorable terrain for the GOP. Republicans are going to have a much easier time cutting programs they don't like.

Sure, the obsession with earmarks seems silly in proportion to how much federal money is actually spent on them. But now, it looks like that disproportionate focus may force a substantial reduction in federal spending for people who need the most help from the federal government, which which is ultimately what the Republican base is looking for.

And this could even impact the 2012 Presidential race. Conservatives like Charles Krauthammer are already panicked by the possibility that the increased spending from the tax cut deal could help Obama get reelected. But as David Dayen points out, the bigger picture -- made clear by the earmark fight -- is that the GOP may end up reducing spending after all, possibly hampering the recovery, and with it, Obama's chances at a second term.

By Adam Serwer  | December 17, 2010; 12:10 PM ET
Categories:  2012, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Scott Brown will vote Yes on DADT repeal
Next: The most effective and diabolical lie of the year

Comments

This is ridiculous. This is a column written by someone who learned nothing from the November elections. Obama did not buy his way into office, he was not elected to do Democratic politics as usual.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Viewers of Fox News Are Gravely Misinformed Per New Study

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6128064/viewers_of_fox_news_are_gravely_misinformed.html

"A study recently found that the more Fox news that was watched, the higher the errors in answering factual questions about the United States and world issues. Most people don't
need a study to understand that statement. However, a 2010 study from the University of Maryland has now shown that Fox news misinforms viewers to the point where they cannot correctly answer questions about major issues.

The University of Maryland study, "Misinformation and the 2010 Election," analyzed the level of misinformation among viewers of TV news broadcasts and other media, notes Talking Points Memo. People who watch Fox News do not get real facts about world issues. This study shows that their inability to answer questions correctly shows that they are getting too much spin and not enough true facts."

...............................

Very soon now, Fox News is expected to start telling their viewers about The University Of Maryland study, and how it proved that Fox TV viewers are the most accurately informed people in the nation.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

It all depends on how Obama plays the spending cuts game.

If the Republicans in control of the House, start passing bills that will slash entitlement programs for retirees and poor children, while continuing to expand the military idustrial complex; then Obama will have a choice; to either go along with the Republicans, or start to wield his veto pen.

If he stands resolute in defense of Social Security benifits, he might have a chance to win back some of the retirees to his side.

Of course; it remains to be seen, if Obama has got it in him, to stand his ground against The Republicans on anything major. We will soon find out.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Nobody watches Fox because they want to learn facts. As with all television programs, they watch Fox because it causes them to feel good, to feel entertained and yes, pandered to.

They are made to feel they are a part of the process, as if they are right on top of the situation, the missing blonde, the persecution of white people, you name it. The sheer genius behind FoxNews, its big idea, was born of an analysis of programs like the 700 club, televangelism for short.

There was a massive audience of aging, white, credulous, ignorant reactionaries who have no desire to turn off the TV, they have nothing else to do. In their homes, the TV is always on, always.

They were ignored by the MSM, they were angry about that and they existed in large numbers. FoxNews had a ready made audience and it competes directly for that audience with wing nut talk radio. They compete by trying to be more outrageous than the other, Beck v Limbaugh for example, of directly, as with Michael Savage v Fox in general.


Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I guess the essay above is an attempt at honesty. Mr Sargent doesn't bother to conceal the contempt he has for those who disagree with his particular political philosophy. Finally he's being clear about how he feels. Liberals everywhere, who are no doubt in touch with their own feelings constantly, must be rejoicing.

What is simply amazing is the disregard for federal spending. Mr Sargent's basic position, as I understand it, is that the earmarks are such a small portion of Federal spending that the public should tolerate this kind of waste, mismanagement and political favor buying at taxpayer expense.

Here's the diagnostic statement in support of my interpretation of Mr Sargent's view:
"Sure, the obsession with earmarks seems silly in proportion to how much federal money is actually spent on them". Shrink2 has it exactly right, Mr Sargent learned nothing from the 2010 mid term election.

But wait, it gets better. Let's look at this quote from Mr Sargent:
" But now, it looks like that disproportionate focus may force a substantial reduction in federal spending for people who need the most help from the federal government, which which is ultimately what the Republican base is looking for."

I am reminded of something Jonah Goldberg once shared: "Conservatives think that Liberals are wrong. Liberals think conservatives are evil."

Sooooo, Mr Sargent contends that failure to pass earmarks will somehow hurt Americans. I have not doubt that millions of us will have an enormous boost to our fortunes by virtue of things such as:
East Coast Herring Sampling and Stock Assessment
OR
Dakota Rising Rural Entrepreneur Fellowship Program, South Dakota Rural Enterprise,SiouxFalls,SD

OR

Hmong Disadvantaged Farmer program, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,Trade,and Consumer Protection, Madison,WI


The list, from Senator Coburn, goes on and on and on. But Mr Sargent thinks that the public is wrong to concern themselves with the money being taken from us and funnelled to these pork barrell projects. What's a few billion among friends, right?

This perfectly illustrates the liberal mindset. The American taxpayers MUST give the government more and not concern themselves at all with how the money is spent.

that's not a democracy, that a dictatorship. The descent to serfdom seems to have slowed for just a moment, despite Mr Sargent's best efforts.


Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 17, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"...if Obama has got it in him, to stand his ground against The Republicans on anything major."

If he does, he will have played out the Rs plenty of rope to hang themselves with, that is for sure. He will become know (again) as a political genius as he skates backwards across the 2012 finish line, waving and smiling...a man whose career will be studied and emulated for centuries. If he doesn't, well then he will have been the only Presidential candidate in my lifetime that ever really and truly disappointed me.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama got $313 billion worth of stimulus out of the tax cut bill.

I doubt that the Republicans are going to be able to cut $313 billion out of next year's budget.

The most that the Republicans said that they will try to cut is $100 billion so Obama will still have $213 billion more worth of stimulus.

The reality is that there is a Republican House and a Democratic Senate and the Senate will budget bills only needs 50 votes so it could be a purely Democratic bill coming from the Senate. The House bill and the Senate bill will have to be put together.

Obama may have to veto bills and take it directly to the American people. We shall see what happens.

Posted by: maritza1 | December 17, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

David Dayen's pretty much nails it. Things like DADT and the Dream Act are "table scraps" the GOP is willing to hand to the Dems. They got what they wanted in this short session - continued tax breaks to their corporate donors and defeating an omnibus spending bill.
Their plan is simple. It started with Reagan. Destroy the middle class and dismantle the social safety nets that have been developed by the federal government over the last 80 years, and have constant war. Obama will stand his ground to a degree, but he will ultimately capitulate. The past is prologue.
I was naive to believe in 2008 to think he was going to be the second coming of FDR.
Obama is a smart guy - smart enough to realize that if he really tried to rock the boat that the powerful forces in this country would literally make mince meat of him and his family. We have the examples of the Kennedys and MLK to show us that you don't screw around with these people.

Posted by: filmnoia | December 17, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

skippy: "Mr Sargent doesn't bother to "

And skippy doesn't bother to read the by-line.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

As usual, skip misses the point and, per the GOP manual, contorts the post into the disciplined talking point established by Frank Luntz and detailed in a Fox memo.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | December 17, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I am sure that the White House is looking at this.

I am absolutely sure that Obama is going to be vetoing A LOT of bills in 2011 and 2012.

Posted by: maritza1 | December 17, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

OH,Was this Mr Serwer and not Mr Sargent? I must apologize to Mr Sargent. Mr Serwer's contempt for those with the temerity to disagree with him was obvious from his first post here.

And it is funny that suzie can't argue against the merits of my point. All she's got is a technical detail that I readily admit to getting wrong. On substance, she has nothing.

Neither has the pragmatic one. Simply put he'd rather insult me than offer a counter argument. It is, IMHO, therefore safe to conclude that he doesn't actually have a counter argument.

I know that this was a tough week for rapacious liberals across the length and breadth of this great land. They missed their chance to show America their insatiable desire to confiscate our money and waste it on whatever they want. How sad for them.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 17, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

You lost me at David Dayen.

Posted by: fbacon2 | December 17, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Amazing: Pavlov's dog apologizes for salivating at the sound of the bell.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

All, my take on why "government takeover of health care" was such an amazingly clever and effective lie:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/why_government_takeover_of_hea.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 17, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Waaaaahhhhh. What a primordial scream of frustration from Mr. Serwer. Earmarks are just a symptom of the unaccountable spending addiction Congress has had for generations. The rejection of the omnibus should be inspriring to every American that cares about the future of this country. This is the first step in finally reigning in spending. Now THAT's that some hope and change.

Posted by: Baltesq | December 17, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

No skippy, I didn't read your drivel.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"No skippy, I didn't read your drivel."

Yet you knew he'd addressed it to the wrong author. Hunh? It's a stumped.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 17, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

On the other side of the argument:
The GOP got nearly everything they wanted on tax issues, which they have promised will generate growth and jobs. I have little doubt that the White House will be highlighting any failures in the GOP policies we just enacted to achieve growth.

The President is in a pretty good place. If we get recovery, he rightfully deserves some credit; if we don't, he has vindication that tax cuts were not enough.

Either way, 2012 is going to hinge on whether conservatives can keep 55% of voters at home like in 2010, or liberals can get those same folks out to the polls, like in 2008. My money's on 2008, since it is a Presidential election year.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | December 17, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

OldUncle, look at this. Someone says what I've been saying all along, but this guy is qualified, he knows something about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606083.html

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"But yesterday's defeat of the spending bill signals clearly that the GOP base may have some success in holding the Republican Party to its pledge to bring down spending -- which could ultimately hamper the recovery."

Two points:

1. If Obama and the Congressional Republicans successfully cut spending and put the Federal budget on a path to reducing the deficit, I predict it will help, not hinder his reelection efforts, especially with independents. This will be a replay of Clinton in 1996 and will showcase the virtues of divided government. It will also make the return of a one party government with the Democrats in control of Congress and the executive much less likely.

2. At this point, what we are experiencing is the recovery, or if you prefer, "the new normal". The idea that more government spending on top of what has already been spent will return us to a pre-2008 housing bubble level of economic activity is absurd. People have reset their expectations of what they can consume, given the economy and their debt levels and until consumers finish deleveraging, there won't be strong economic growth. All the government stimulus in the world won't change that. The money would be better spent on safety net items, such making sure the the PBGC has enough money, the FDIC and lastly finally addressing the liabilities of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae which seem to have been conveniently forgotten recently.

In addition, given the fact that the latest round of Federal Reserve quantitative easing has actually lead to an increase rather than a decrease of the 30 year mortgage rates and that China and other large buyers of U.S. debt have signaled that they are starting to diversify means that the rest of the world's appetite for U.S. Government debt is not unlimited.

Posted by: jnc4p | December 17, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"On the other side of the argument:
The GOP got nearly everything they wanted on tax issues, which they have promised will generate growth and jobs. I have little doubt that the White House will be highlighting any failures in the GOP policies we just enacted to achieve growth."

Um, nope. The GOP said that raising taxes now would jeopardize any recovery, should one occur. Barry said it would lead to a double-dip because he thinks we've moved out of the recession. The only ones calling it a "stimulus" are Democrats and the media (BIRM) so far as I've been able to determine.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 17, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

jnc4p, I agree. Good points. The Democratic party machine still can't figure out how Obama got elected.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

It's so comforting to see that the Republicans will continue to sacrifice the welfare and security of our nation for their political gain.

That's simply more treason from the Republican Party that has done so much to destroy America.

Posted by: dl49 | December 17, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama lies. He is a narcissist and a left wing Liberal. So when he talks about transparency he is speaking like a true Liberal. "I did not have sex with that woman!"

Posted by: 2012frank | December 17, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

The way the Extremist Republican party took the entire congressional agenda hostage for an EXTRA TAX CUT for their Billionaire Overlords proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Teabagger arseclowns (the middle-class Republican base nuts) are some of the dumbest fracking people on the face of the earth.


These Teabag morons are so damn illiterate that they don't have a clue as to how they are nothing more than tools for the corporate oligarchy. I'm willing to bet that everytime one of these rich greedhead Wall Steet types sees one of these middle-class Teabagger dumarses yapping about how gov't jobs, unions, etc are supposedly causing all of this countries financial problems they probably sit back, light up a cigar and laugh their fracking arses off.


And I can't say that I blame them. They probably can't believe their good fortune of actually having these Teabagger inbreeds running around in the streets doing all of their dirty work for them.


.

Posted by: DrainYou | December 17, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: OldUncleTom | December 17, 2010 1:41 PM
“Either way, 2012 is going to hinge on whether conservatives can keep 55% of voters at home like in 2010, or liberals can get those same folks out to the polls, like in 2008. My money's on 2008, since it is a Presidential election year.”

"But yesterday's defeat of the spending bill signals clearly that the GOP base may have some success in holding the Republican Party to its pledge to bring down spending -- which could ultimately hamper the recovery."

"On the other side of the argument:
The GOP got nearly everything they wanted on tax issues, which they have promised will generate growth and jobs. I have little doubt that the White House will be highlighting any failures in the GOP policies we just enacted to achieve growth."


Tom,
2012 will be the test to see if republicans still have a base beyond 2%’ers. Republicans are leaderless, waiting for backbench snipers to push Palin out of the limelight so the party machine pick can start making headway.
By 2012 the disgruntled voters who supported congressional republicans in 2010 will realize they were played. They will realize republicans lied when they promised that 2%’ers would create jobs. As more voters continue to lose health care they will start looking closer at Romney/Obama care.
If republicans continue their attempt to bailout banks by privatizing Social Security or bailout insurance companies by voucher-izing Medicare their base of elderly voters will vaporize.
Will republicans try to reduce spending by more cuts to Medicaid, forcing more poor Americans into stressed emergency rooms for basic care which in turn drives up health care costs for everyone?
For four years Voters have heard nothing from republicans except Reid/Pelosi agenda … well now it’s Boehner/McConnell agenda and America is tired of politics of Hell No!

Posted by: knjincvc | December 17, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS AGAIN TILL THEY SHOW ME THAT THEY CAN KEEP A PROMISE!!!

CUT THE DEFICIT LESS SPENDING

THEN THE REPUBLICANS GIVE AWAY MILLIONS

THE FIRST THING IS ADD TO THE DEFICIT.
BY GIVING TAX BREAKS TO THE FEW WHO NEED IT LESS THAN ANYONE.

ESTATE TAX BREAKS???? WHILE THE WORKING CLASS ARE LOSING HOMES?
SOCIALIST IS GIVING
REPUBLICANS IT IS COLLECTING THE WEALTH.

Posted by: theoldmansays | December 17, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS AGAIN TILL THEY SHOW ME THAT THEY CAN KEEP A PROMISE!!!

CUT THE DEFICIT LESS SPENDING

THEN THE REPUBLICANS GIVE AWAY MILLIONS

THE FIRST THING IS ADD TO THE DEFICIT.
BY GIVING TAX BREAKS TO THE FEW WHO NEED IT LESS THAN ANYONE.

ESTATE TAX BREAKS???? WHILE THE WORKING CLASS ARE LOSING HOMES?
SOCIALIST IS GIVING
REPUBLICANS IT IS COLLECTING THE WEALTH.

Posted by: theoldmansays | December 17, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

PLEASE! Hasn't it already started? Congress just passed a law to start the defunding of Social Security, didn't it?

Posted by: scottilla | December 17, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

POST - can we please stop being SO OBAMA CONSCIOUS, and start asking, "What is GOOD for America?", NOT, what is good for Obama ? !!!

Posted by: genefitzhugh | December 17, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I am absolutely astonished that anyone in his right mind would think Obama has a chance in 2012! The Republicans will be fielding some very attractive candidates - and I'm not talking about Sarah Palin! Obama has lost his liberal base. (Hey! Barbra Streisand has withdrawn her support!) Young people are no longer enthusiastic about someone who can't deliver. And blacks, well, if there are any blacks in this country who think they're better off since Obama's election, then maybe all five of them will vote. Obama is a joke around the world. I do not want to live in a country whose president is laughed at - AND I'M NOT MOVING!!

Posted by: georges2 | December 17, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Wow!!! Why doesnt Sargent mention that the earmarks were not requested to be added to this bill by their proponents, the chairman added them without asking them. In addition, the spending bill
was a continuation on the level of spending that including stimilus spending and other one time spending. This whole attempt at forcing thru new legislation by a congress that has dramatically been altered by Nov elections reflect the depths to which this democratic congress is going to in trying to make it difficult for their opponents. And they have the audacity to say their opponents have blocked legislation in the past, when they controlled both houses by substantial margins. PLEASE!!!!

Posted by: tony4u | December 17, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"?...bring down spending -- which could ultimately hamper the recovery." Keynesizan economics was debunked two centuries ago, yet liberals keep pulling out this old canard. Cut 20% of the budget and federal employees and balance the budget in 2 years.

Posted by: IQ168 | December 17, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still ... UM in the middle of libdem world... LOL

Let's check into the political beliefs of the persons who drafted the questions and took the responses.

Why should anyone believe the reported results - as you describe - without complete knowledge of the people doing the study?

It surely sounds bogus since the ABC, NBC, CBS, MNBC and CNN are mostly representing the Liberal version of the news and facts.

The premise of the study seems absurd.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | December 17, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Wow!!! Why doesnt Sargent mention that the earmarks were not requested to be added to this bill by their proponents, but instead the chairman added them without asking them. In addition, the spending bill was a continuation on]f the level of spending that included stimilus spending and other one time spending. This whole attempt at forcing thru new legislation by a congress that has dramatically been altered by Nov elections, reflects the depths to which this democratic congress is going to in trying to make it difficult for their opponents. And they have the audacity to say their opponents have blocked legislation in the past, when they controlled both houses by substantial margins. PLEASE!!!!

Posted by: tony4u | December 17, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

you're kidding right? the re-thuglicans have already done eveyrhting they can to defeat Obama and America with it. their goal is to inflict as much pain as possible on the Amrican people so that they abandon the Dems and vote re-thug in 2012. its disgracefull. to willfully want America to fail just to bring down Dems, and return America to the time when business ran the country is despicable. re-thuglicans motto: of the busineeses, by the busineeses, for the busineeses. period! if we don't show them to think of the commom people first we will fall. and China is just waitng to pick up the pieces. everytime a re-thuglican votes for busineeses and aginst the intetes of the people, ITS A VOTE FOR CHINA.

Posted by: submarinerssn774 | December 17, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

When the GOP is successful bringing down spending it will not hamper the recovery as suggested in this article.
Actually, the opposite could occur, if we consider the radical liberal elite logic that people collecting unemployment checks put $1.60 into the economy for every $1.00 paid out.
Just think how many Federal bureaucrats will be out of work collecting unemployment. This will be great for the economy and recovery.

Posted by: rteske | December 17, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 ...
"Nobody watches Fox because they want to learn facts."

y ou are probably as absurd as your ccmment. Apparently you simply swallow study results which support your predetermined beliefs.

Study is bogus and shrink2 is not far behind.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | December 17, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Will GOP spending cuts kill Obama's reelection chances? By Adam Serwer


No need ... Obama's own policies are going to doom him with voters who see beyond the facade. He was lucky to get one term and his agenda has proven to be NOT what America needs or wants. He might want to emigrate to Venezuela and be Chavez' lackey!

Posted by: Hazmat77 | December 17, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still ... UM in the middle of libdem world... LOL

Let's check into the political beliefs of the persons who drafted the questions and took the responses.

Why should anyone believe the reported results - as you describe - without complete knowledge of the people doing the study?

It surely sounds bogus since the ABC, NBC, CBS, MNBC and CNN are mostly representing the Liberal version of the news and facts.

The premise of the study seems absurd.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | December 17, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama has nobody to blame but himself; he has done an incredibly poor job in defining who he is through personalizing the issues to a larger audience...besides what can be seen slightly beyond the TelePrompTer. He simply comes across as someone who is committed to an issue, because of the words placed on a screen.

Posted by: richardcoreno | December 17, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama has nobody to blame but himself; he has done an incredibly poor job in defining who he is through personalizing the issues to a larger audience...besides what can be seen slightly beyond the TelePrompTer. He simply comes across as someone who is committed to an issue, because of the words placed on a screen.

Posted by: richardcoreno | December 17, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

ALL OBAMA NEEDS IS THE LOOT OF HIS CORP PAYMASTERS, AND THE VOTES OF ILLEGALS!

HE SERVES BOTH WELL!

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2010
I’m pleased to announce the release of Judicial Watch’s 2010 list of Washington's “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The purpose of the list, which is widely distributed in the press, is to put the spotlight on the year’s most egregious incidents of secrecy, corruption and abuse of power. This list is a powerful tool to educate Americans about the bipartisan problem of corruption in Washington, so please share it far and wide.
For technical reasons beyond our control, our email system will not allow us to send you the list directly you to you this week. In this case, it seems the spam filters can’t handle the descriptions of corrupt politicians like Barney Frank, Barack Obama, and John Ensign. So, to bypass the problem, we’ve posted our special Update detailing our 2010 List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” on our Internet site at www.JudicialWatch.org.
Please click through and get the word out!
Until next week…

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

Posted by: STOPAMNESTY | December 17, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

In our system the incumbent always has an enormous advantage — even an incumbent as incompetent and ridiculous as Professor Oboobma. As Jefferson said, we're inclined to suffer evils. Nevertheless, the tremendous success of the tea party movement does offer a slender glimmer of hope that freedom is on the march, and we finally can turn back the tide of socialist slavery and big gummint once and for all — finally rid our great land of this vile menace.

Posted by: thebump | December 17, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

If Obama doesn't put a last minute halt on Reid's scheme to try slipping the Dream Act amnesty past the overwhelming majority of voters opposed to illegal aliens, BO can kiss his chances goodbye for 2012.

Anyone who puts the interests of FOREIGN NATIONALS HERE ILLEGALLY ahead of our own doesn't deserve to be president.
Our country's economy is gasping for breath, and the TRAITORS want to attract even more illegals here by giving them amnesty and everything else. Even a Dream Act to go to college for Chrissakes!

There's no Dream Act for immigrants, only for illegal aliens. Not even for our own citizens' kids. This is insane!

Posted by: knightoneday | December 17, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"...the bigger picture -- made clear by the earmark fight -- is that the GOP may end up reducing spending after all, possibly hampering the recovery, and with it, Obama's chances at a second term."
*************************

Well, possibly; but what a misleading headline. You suck folks into what sounds like an interesting bit with a provocative headline--"GOP May Kill Obama"--and the only discussion about that is a speculative last line, borrowed from another writer. I know it's tough working during the holidays, but geez!

To the point, the GOP undoubtedly will try this approach and PR. We already know, from the Sean Hannity Show, that that's all they have between now and 2012 ("On to Phase Two: Make Obama a One Term Pre-si-dent!").

But, the difference is the GOP has control of the House next year. If the House proposes and the Senate "disposes," as you suggest, then all Obama has to say is, "Look, they're working overtime to dismantle what I tried to do in the first two years to help the American people."

Most Americans recognize that as the truth. Most Obama supporters did not turn out for the mid-terms, so it's highly likely that the GOP is mis-reading the the supposed strength of their hand coming out of the 2010 election cycle.

Posted by: abqcleve | December 17, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Since out-of-control federal spending did not produce the recovery, controlling that spending will not stifle the recovery.

Controlling spending may provide enough confidence to the bond markets that interest rates might stay low, which would certainly benefit the economy.

If Mr Obama wants to be reelected, he ought to get in front of the government-shrinking parade. He needs to start by cracking down on some agencies which have been very busy creating a mountain of regulatory burdens. EPA and other agencies are creating huge disincentives for job creation in the US. The Departments of Energy and Labor are also destroying US jobs.


Posted by: JBaustian | December 17, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

A Message To All Qualified USA Professionals:

Australia will take your medical professionals (all services).

Too, engineering folk.

Mining skilled labour and teachers (both) elementary and secondary school.

University lecturers most courses.

The only stipulation is that you are "moderates"!

Please don't apply, those of that extreme fringe of the "right" we have had enough of the "unrealistic approach to economics and religion"!

Have faith, no problem, between you and our maker. Grace and blessings!

Posted by: porpie9254 | December 17, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Quit the political wrangling and the progressive whining;; We the people have sent the entire federal government a message;"STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE"!

Posted by: Nobama11 | December 17, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Never listen to Univ of Maryland. They are not smart people.

Posted by: annnort | December 17, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

abqcleve, the Obama base in 2008 consisted of the black vote (about 12% of the country is black) and the independent vote. Liberals make up only 20% of the voters.

The independents believed Obama. It took only a few months for them to realize he lied and for them to activate a grass roots effort against Obama and the progressive/liberal/marxists in congress. It does not matter what Obama does in the next 2 years. He has lost the independents and he will lose in 2012. Obama is one and done.

Posted by: annnort | December 17, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

I think it's premature to say what will happen, and I think Charles Krauthammer and his ilk should hope for the country's success instead of his/their own self-serving interest. He and his fellow Rs have no problem spending money, either, it's just money that we don't have. In their last turn "at bat": three unfunded tax cuts, mainly benefiting the rich like himself, two unfunded and off-budget wars, an unfunded drug prescription program to get seniors' votes (which worked), and unfunded no child left behind. If their tax-cutting was so great, why was the economy in the tank when the Rs left the presidency? Answer: because it just doesn't trickle down, folks! Why is the gap between top exec and worker has ballooned to something like 260:1? Why have their earnings gone up 10% a year for the past decade while it's been more like 0.#% for the rest of us? Really, folks, how much more money do the rich have to have to be "happy"? What's amazing to me is how many who aren't rich buy into these policies that are making the rich richer! They also seem to think that the Rs care about them. In fact, the Rs are the folks who, just this month: blocked seniors from getting a $250 payment, as they're getting no COLA on their Social Security benefits; blocked unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed (who have had their benefits extended several times already and are still unemployed); and blocked health aid to 9/11 workers. They're certainly conservative, but are not compassionate!

Posted by: abcs86 | December 17, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Pres. Obama has demonstrated that he is willing to have a give-and-take relationship with the GOP to a point. While the GOP may think they will now be able to take over and get everything their way, they had better not forget that he still maintains veto power. He also has power to take it to the people if he thinks he needs to (and is not afraid to use it). And, since he is president, he is able to have whole speeches heard throughout the country on TV while the Repubs/Dems can only get news bits (which will be altered by the press as their politics lay). Dems should realize this and stop crying because they didn't get the credit on the tax break bill. If he is as smart as I think he is, he will use the threat of a veto to get what he wants and keep Repubs in check, combined with TV to explain why he's right in doing it (stressing the good in what he wants and showing Republicans/Democrats as only out for their special interest groups and not for America in general). Maybe that's why leaders of his own party turned against him, because they could see he wasn't going to be their puppet. Neither party should mistake the wisdom to compromise at times and to choose your battles with weakness.

Posted by: Indy60 | December 18, 2010 3:25 AM | Report abuse

With 6,600 earmarks in the omnibus bill, it seems ludicrous to suggest it is now easier to call out members of the Senate and the House on their earmarks. Who can read 6,600 earmarks if they have a real job? Oh, their staff can read them????Those bloated staffs are half the problem.

Posted by: buggerianpaisley1 | December 18, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Let's not be hypocritical about earmarks. They happen because we want them. I live in Missouri. One Senator, Bond, is an earmark king. I've watched him go through the state before he is up for election throwing earmark money here and there. One time I asked an official in the small town I lived in, "Why did we take that money to restore our old trolley? It will just add to the deficit." And she replied, "Somebody will get the money. It may as well be us."

I much more respect our other Senator Claire McCaskill who is often criticized because she won't use earmarks.

I recently read where earmark critic Sarah Palin's state of Alaska gets $1.50 in federal subsidy for each one dollar of its own money it spends on itself.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | December 18, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Knightone- you should engage your brain before engaging your mouth. The dream act doesn't send anyone to college. College along with Military service are ways that these folks can become citizens. Something you got for the hard work of falling out of your mother most likely. It doesn't make them eligible for any aid, it simply gives them a path to go from upstanding individual to upstanding citizen. It is designed for people who were brought here as kids, and many of whom know no other home or country.

Annnort - Obama won with voters we'd never seen before. And this next congress was elected by the same tired old hacks that didn't vote for him anyway. 40% of the electorate stayed home and even if that crowd was "only" 2:1 Obama. It would have changed nearly every race had they shown up. Too, most of the Dems that went down in the house - were blue dogs.

Oh and Tinyjab - Alaskans don't spend any of their own money on themselves government wise. To mirror the language of tbaggers - they steal the money to run their state from oil companies. They pay no sales or state income tax at all. Then they get back something between 150 and 200% of what they pay in federal income taxes. In addition to all that, they send a nice big check to everyone who lives in Alaska as a "share" of the oil royalties. Since the US bought Alaska, one might argue that those dollars don't belong exclusively to Alaskans.

Posted by: TisforTwit | December 18, 2010 6:01 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