Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:11 PM ET, 01/25/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

UPDATE, 6:18 p.m.: The first batch of advance excerpts of Obama's speech suggest he'll frame needed government investment in our future (a.k.a. spending) as an imperative of national progress and pride, comparing such investment to that which ultimately allowed the U.S. to beat the Soviets to the Moon.

* Obama will propose a five-year non-discretionary spending freeze tonight, perhaps the most specific gesture towards fiscal discipline in a speech that won't call for Social Security cuts and will keep calls for deficit reduction general.

* Jon Cohn suggests that Obama is already negotiating with himself. I think the spending freeze is mostly about carving out space to defend health reform and more government spending on infrastructure, but as Cohn notes, the devil will be in the details (which won't be forthcoming tonight).

* Obama won't mention the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, another indication of how far it's receded into the background now that it's ground to a halt.

* In his GOP response, Paul Ryan will double down hard on cutting spending and the deficit, framing the GOP approach as the only way to bring back the economy.

* But while Americans say they want to downsize government, big majorities also say they don't want to cut any of the biggest government programs.

* NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox all take a pass on airing Michele Bachmann's speech.

* David Kurtz recalls the good old days when CNN aired responses to Bush's State of the Union addresses from leading figures on the Democratic Party's left wing.

* Steve Benen says CNN is treating the Tea Partyers like a distinct national party, when in fact "the so-called Tea Party is another name for `the Republican base.'"

* Bachmann now says her speech isn't really a response to the SOTU, but as Brian Montopoli notes, advance exerpts show that's precisely what it is.

* Glenn Thrush talks to Obama aides and says the President could still address gun control tonight, which would be a pleasant surprise if it happens.

* Jonathan Capehart surveys all the recent polling showing Obama over 50 percent and concludes: "The state of Obama is strong."

* Bipartisanship fetishists clap their hands with glee as Senators begin making plans to extend the love-fest past tonight's mixed seating into bipartisan monthly lunches.

* And I'll be blogging the speech tonight right here.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 25, 2011; 6:11 PM ET
Categories:  House GOPers, budget, deficit, economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Support for repeal is vastly overstated, part 973
Next: State of the Union open thread

Comments

Fools

Only a fool will continue to re-print the same thing over and over - knowing full well that everyone disagrees.

Logically, the pollsters do not tell people the costs of the individual parts of health care - that ends up overstating support for itty bitty pieces, NOT the other way around.

Anyway, Greg, it is clear that your condition is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act.


__________________________

Obama's SPENDING FREEZE


Would only save 5 Billion per year


But with Obama's deficits, the INTEREST IS 4 BILLION A DAY.


The liberals were so DESPERATE TO PUT OBAMA IN - AN UNQUALIFIED AND INEXPERIENCE PERSON - one who has no idea what he is doing.

now Obama is dragging down the Economy - and millions of people are out of work, with Obama more concerned with his liberal agenda than putting people back to work.

Obama's debt is going to hurt this country for years to come. ONLY THE LIBERALS CAN BE BLAMED.

What CAN AMERICA DO ???


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

TPM has a preview of Bachmann's speech:


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/bachmann-previews-her-state-of-the-union-response.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 25, 2011 6:21 PM | Report abuse

What else?

Listen to this stuff and tell me whether it makes sense or not.

http://www.livestream.com/greenpartyus

Posted by: wbgonne | January 25, 2011 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps a specific gesture?
America the disciplined.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 25, 2011 6:24 PM | Report abuse

government investment in our future (a.k.a. spending) EQUALS the MOON ???


OK, WHEN CAN WE SEND OBAMA THERE ???


________________________

Obama blew it by diverting Billions of dollars in the Stimulus to democratic interest groups.

Now no one trusts Obama.


He's going to have to figure out another way.

Besides, economists say that massive spending didnt work in the 1930s.


Obama should get some people to explain economics to him.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 6:26 PM | Report abuse

In 2004, 2006, and 2008, two different Democrats gave the response to each of those GWB State of the Union addresses.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse

NUANCE

The democrats may be happy they held onto the Senate - however the real situation is this: a massives sense of INCOMPLETION around the country about throwing Obama and the democrats out.

In contrast, Bill Clinton benefitted from not having health care on the table after the midterms - it was behind him.

NOW, the situation is different. The cycle of Senate terms means that the American People feel they need to have an additional push to get Obama and the democrats out of office.


Obama has been making serious errors since the election as well.

Instead of giving the nation a sense of victory after the November election, Obama and the democrats spent three months WHINING and resisting the American People and resisting the election results with the lame duck session. Great, but the NATION IS NOW RESOLVED TO THROW OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS OUT.


"Additional Spending" tonight??


Obama might as well just go out and scream in the woods. No one wants "additional spending."


This kind of talk from Obama will only CONFIRM everyone's resolve TO GET RID OF THE DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA.

Does Obama get it?

How tone deaf does Obama have to be??? It's the old "liberal spending agenda" again - this time Obama is going to pretend he actually has an Economic Policy and he cares about jobs.


Obama's Economic Policy IS HEALTH CARE: A DRAG ON HIRING.

It is that simple - the uncertainty on health insurance premiums and the complexity of the taxes on small business EQUALS A DRAG ON HIRING.


It does not equal the Moon.

This is Obama's ego running wild again. No one cares.

No one cares about Obama. I wonder if he will use the word "unprecendented" tonight.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"The first batch of advance excerpts of Obama's speech suggest he'll frame needed government investment in our future (a.k.a. spending) as an imperative of national progress and pride, comparing such investment to that which ultimately allowed the U.S. to beat the Soviets to the Moon."

(a.k.a. spending) is right. The economy is a bit weaker today than in 1960. We'll hear a lot of empty rhetoric and spending (a.k.a. investment) proposals.
-------

"Obama will propose a five-year non-discretionary spending freeze tonight, perhaps the most specific gesture towards fiscal discipline in a speech that won't call for Social Security cuts and will keep calls for deficit reduction general."

"Gesture" is also right. His freeze in discretionary spending coupled with new "investments" will only send the deficit higher.
-------

"Jon Cohn suggests that Obama is already negotiating with himself. I think the spending freeze is mostly about carving out space to defend health reform and more government spending on infrastructure, but as Cohn notes, the devil will be in the details (which won't be forthcoming tonight)."

Of course there won't be any details. He'll leave the heavy lifting to Republicans and then accuse them of hating old people and children.

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 6:57 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many of the Supreme Court Justices have so little self-respect that they'll show up after the way Obama disrespected them at the last State of the Union. Hopefully, those that do show will present themselves face-down arse-up.

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Let's all be honest here. If Nascar fans knew there would be a twenty car pileup at the start of next months Daytona 500 do you suppose they'd tune in? Duh!

If political junkies knew there'd be an equally entertaining car crash in the form of a political speech do you think we'd tune in? Duh!

CNN will score big tonight with Michie's speech. I've got my popcorn and Crystal Light already lined up. Getting older has it's downside...that Crystal light used to be a beer...ahhh but I digress.

Do any of us really want to watch predictable Paul Ryan tell us how privatizing SS is a good thing...even though just two years ago our "private" investments dropped by 40% in value. Even though many who also lost jobs in that crash had to burn through their entire 401K's and are left with zero for retirement. Their fault or the banksters who created the disaster? Banksters get bailed out...a year later earn obscene bonuses...John Q. Public...tough darts you've just lost your retirement. At least you still have SS...ohhh but Ryan will do away with that for you as well.
Yeah Ryan's plan is so full of shiite who really cares but the most delusional liberterian TPer.

But Michie...now there's a speech that might be entertaining...The R's may suck at governing...at least if you care about jobs and the deficit....but they are going to be very, very entertaining right up and through the 2012 Convention.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Read this and weep righties...

or perhaps this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

You have to be truly delusional or not give a rat's arse about facts to support the R's on jobs or the deficit. Please righties feel free to explain your way out of reality.

Again betting on the R's to solve economic problems is WORSE than betting on the Buffalo Bills against the Pittsburgh Steelers!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Fingers crossed for presidential support for high capacity magazine ban. There are a lot of responsible gun owners who have no problem with this, closing the gun show loophole, and making sure people with serious mental health problems (for the record: only a downright tiny percentage of people affected with mental illness turn violent) can't just go out and buy guns.

In fact, a lot of generally gun-friendly people, even those of us in rural parts of the country, strongly support these measures. It's common sense really. There seem to be wildly divergent views about what, if anything, should be included in an assault weapons ban. Some of the previous whats in/whats out rules offended a lot of sensibilities. I'm probably in the minority -- at least where I live -- that as long as it's not ridiculously arbitrary, it's probably better to have some kind of ban than nothing. But generally speaking, the NRA gets a rap for representing the views of gun owners that it doesn't really deserve. They represent the interests of gun manufacturers, not owners. They have no more legitimate claim on that mantle than I do as a vegetarian who doesn't hunt but is used to having a weapon close by (probably a rarity).

As long as Democrats make it clear that they understand the cultural significance of guns in a lot of places -- that in rural American, guns are about a lot more guns, they'll get a fair and likely favorable hearing from people who would ever consider voting for them. I just don't see why supporting the ban on high capacity magazines is so hard for the president.

Posted by: michael_conrad | January 25, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse

"Bachmann now says her speech isn't really a response to the SOTU"

Apparently the ninth commandment has expired.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 25, 2011 7:11 PM | Report abuse

The number one economic problem facing America today continues to be the housing crisis that started it all and now the dreaded double dip is on the way. Over 1m foreclosures in 2010 and 2011 is going to be worse, judging by the still growing number of homes several months in payment arrears and the likely resolution of the foreclosure process issues seen last year. From October to November, prices fell in 19 of the 20 cities tracked by the Case-Shiller index,

Tonight's bipartisan response?

*chirp *chirping* *chirp chirp*

Posted by: shrink2 | January 25, 2011 7:12 PM | Report abuse

"Barack Obama's top ally in the Senate Tuesday brusquely rejected the president's call for a ban on the practice of stuffing home state projects known as earmarks into spending bills. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the president "has enough power already" and that Obama's reported embrace Tuesday night of an earmark ban promoted by Republicans is just a "lot of pretty talk."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/reid-dismisses-obamas-call-ban-earmarks

Posted by: sbj3 | January 25, 2011 7:14 PM | Report abuse

michael_conrad, do you think that Obama's "clinging to guns" remark qualified as "mak[ing] it clear that he understands the cultural significance"?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Are you aware of any program which doesn't limit benefits or has no mechanism to direct beneficiaries towards self-sufficiency? Are you aware of some "liberal" who proposes a never-ending stream of benefits to recipients without such caveats? And if the "overall liberal base" is not that big, it would seem an oddness that Democrats win elections.
=============================
sure, how long does Section 8 support last?

How about Medicaid?

Food stamps?

Time to get out in the 'hood with me and walk da streets. People in America are great at getting theirs and if getting theirs means gaming the safety net, well they've got it down pat.

And why, exactly, do Democrats win elections?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 25, 2011 4:52 PM
========================================

We touched on this the other evening, but here goes again:

As mentioned in today's USA Today editorial, "In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a Labor Department official and later a prominent senator, rang alarm bells when unmarried births in the black community were nearing 24% (the rate among white mothers was about 3% then.) But his paper on the subject ignited a furor, particularly among fellow liberals and civil rights leaders, who charged him with racism and blaming the victim."

Charged with racism for telling the truth? How familiar.

Today the overall out-of-wedlock birth number is 41% (as of 2009); it's 70% in the black community. Pump out a child and a young girl is automatically eligible to sponge off the taxpayer and move into taxpayer-subsidized government housing. Now why would anyone in that group help elect Democrats?

Moynihan was also anti-abortion. 1965 was before Roe v. Wade---I wonder how those numbers compare. You liberals should stand up and take a bow for what your "great society" has done to the country. Well, at least the prison industry is booming. Our educational standing in the world? Not so much.

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 7:19 PM | Report abuse

This is an interesting expansion of the Assange/wikileaks model...

"The New York Times is considering options to create an in-house submission system that could make it easier for would-be leakers to provide large files to the paper.
Executive editor Bill Keller told The Cutline that he couldn't go into details, "especially since nothing is nailed down." But when asked if he could envision a system like Al Jazeera's Transparency Unit, Keller said the paper has been "looking at something along those lines..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110125/ts_yblog_thecutline/ny-times-considers-creating-an-ez-pass-lane-for-leakers

Posted by: bernielatham | January 25, 2011 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Somebody tell Obama to wear a fitted suit, he looks like Algonquin J. Calhoun, or a junkie that was given the institution's last charity suit after finishing rehab.

Posted by: Papagnello | January 25, 2011
=================================

tsk, tsk, tsk.

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Now would be a good time to reprise the remark Jim Geraghty coined way back in 2007:

"All statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date, all of them."

As my brothers and sisters on the left of the left-of-center are well aware.

{{{jobs, jobs, jobs; cf.: focus>laser-like}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 25, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Greg re HCR:
"The totals are also interesting: 47 percent favor either expanding the law or keeping it as is, versus 43 percent who favor either "repeal and replace" or total repeal."
=========================================

roflol -- that truly is the most laughable thing I have ever read. clue: polls are worthless. you can make people say anything you want just by a change of wording. and not knowing the construction/methodology makes it even more worthless. it's calling 'cherry-picking.'
Posted by: fiona5 | January 14, 2011


Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 7:25 PM | Report abuse

"In 2004, 2006, and 2008, two different Democrats gave the response to each of those GWB State of the Union addresses.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse"

Not sure what your point is, claw. Are you referring to Democratic responses in Spanish? Nice try, loser.

Bachmann's response is on behalf of the tea party movement, not the Republican Party. Her response is not in the least coordinated with Ryan's.

Posted by: Observer691 | January 25, 2011 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Surely he is calling for a *discretionary* spending freeze, not a non-discretionary spending freeze, because he cannot freeze non-discretionary spending. It is beyond his discretion.

True conservatives were unhappy with GWB's spending proclivities too, and I suspect Scott and Brigade and QB1 were among them.
There are no true fiscal conservatives in government because the nature of government is the exercise of power.

I tend to think any sign of fiscal responsibility is a plus - but for me, that now includes both spending cuts and revenue increases, just to maintain a rough status quo. Grateful for small favors, I will be glad to see some spending cuts. Then we need some revenue increases.

I hear the Prez wants a line-item veto. All presidents do. It will be unconstitutional to grant him one, I think, but the Supremes have let congressional abdication of power go by the boards before. Look at the border fence authorization for a delegation of a complete congressional power to the executive. The Supremes refused the only challenge to it that made it through the 5th Circuit.

Enough. I am not going to watch it. I have work to do. And a SOTU Address, absent a report on a war, is never very compelling.
IMO.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 25, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, it seems as if Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy are going.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

No Brigade, what's laughable is you teabaggers lumping people who want a STRONGER health care law in with you troglodytes.

Posted by: Observer691 | January 25, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Ah, but what about the debt? I for one stand firmly behind Obama's words when, as a senator, he voted against raising the debt ceiling. The world won't stop revolving on its axis if we don't give the drunken sailors in congress another bump to the credit card limit.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 25, 2011 5:04 PM
========================================

Any liberals here want to chime in and support Obama's position on not wanting to raise the debt ceiling? The debt is much higher today than it was then; Obama and his followers aren't hypocrites or political-posturing gas bags now are they?

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 7:29 PM | Report abuse

How is it that all the democrats stopped using the term teabagger all at once, at few months ago???


They aren't all controlled by some Obama email directives NOOOOOOOOOOO

,.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 7:32 PM | Report abuse

so, Americans are worried about the deficit, do not want to raise taxes and think we can solve the problem by eliminating foreign aid. sigh.
-----------------------------------------------------
Add the very popular other place to cut: WFA. Waste, fraud and abuse. sigh, sigh.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 25, 2011 4:37 PM
========================================

Obama's already solved the problem. He extended the Bush tax cuts and repealed DADT. Happy days are here again! Aren't you happy?

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Observer691, I don't care if it's coordinated. Leftists on today's thread have been complaining about the NUMBER of responses. There were actually 16 people giving the response in 1968.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 wrote,
"Do any of us really want to watch predictable Paul Ryan tell us how privatizing SS is a good thing...even though just two years ago our "private" investments dropped by 40% in value."
====================================

It may be a bad idea, but at least he actually HAS an idea---unlike Obama, who will only propose new spending and a freeze in discretionary spending.

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Again betting on the D's to solve economic problems is like betting on the Buffalo Bills against the Pittsburgh Steelers!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 7:04 PM
=======================================

More like betting on a junior high team against the Steelers.

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 7:38 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:
"The number one economic problem facing America today continues to be the housing crisis that started it all and now the dreaded double dip is on the way."
=========================================

Make up your mind. Yesterday the biggest crisis was rising health care cost.

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Ahhhh as I suspected. The usual suspects here but NOT ONE OF THEM can defend the R's record. Look at the charts bufords. Facts hurt I know but how about a reality check...
The R's have historically, factually sucked at the economy on at least two important metrics...job creation..which is priority #1 right now according to the right-center-left
and the deficit..which is priority #1 for teabaggers and the 2nd most important priority for the left-right-and center.

Do you bufords not even care about reality or facts or history?

Yeah keep on betting on the losers...at least have the temerity to explain why the Dems have historically fared so much better than the R's at job creation and the deficit. Do facts EVER matter to the R's? LMAO!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 7:44 PM | Report abuse

"There were actually 16 people giving the response in 1968."

Clawrence, where are you getting your data?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 25, 2011 7:47 PM | Report abuse

No Brigade, what's laughable is you teabaggers lumping people who want a STRONGER health care law in with you troglodytes.

Posted by: Observer691 | January 25, 2011 7:27 PM
===================================

What an incoherent (not to mention moronic) statement. I'm not a teabagger---and lumping whom with whom?

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"True conservatives were unhappy with GWB's spending proclivities too, and I suspect Scott and Brigade and QB1 were among them"

You are correct, sir. All we could do was remember he had to be better than the alternatives. Of course, he also faced some rather big problems starting early on.

ruk sure loves those charts. Nothing like a good simplistic nonanalysis. ruk, we've been over it all before, but how about if you next chart out party control of each house, fed reserve policy, and major developments in war (hot and cold) and peace. Also factor in technology development, women entering the workforce, and explain how Clinton managed to "create" jobs without restoring taxes to their "historic" levels of before the disastrous Reagan cuts. Oh, also explain the JFK cuts. And how . . .

. . . well, that's probably enough for now. Let us know what you find, please. Then maybe you can move on to correlating the winners of Super Bowls and World Series. : )

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 25, 2011 7:49 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin,
"True conservatives were unhappy with GWB's spending proclivities too, and I suspect Scott and Brigade and QB1 were among them.
There are no true fiscal conservatives in government because the nature of government is the exercise of power."
======================================

I always stand down when anyone expects me to defend GWB's spending. As for the second part of your statement: I can dream can't I?

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 7:49 PM | Report abuse

"It may be a bad idea, but at least he actually HAS an idea---"

Yeah by all means since the R's are officially the party of no...since they fought the stimulus...fought health care and have offered NOTHING until this evening..they now trot out a BAD idea...genius I tells ya! No ideas for two years and when you finally get your heads out of the sand offer up a series of horrible ideas. Priceless right up their with Mastercard. You guys are really really rich...LMAO They fight every idea Obama had..they turned on themselves when they voted against their OWN freaking bill after Obama decided the R's had a good idea with the deficit commission...after Clinton successfully used paygo to balance the budget...something NO R HAS DONE...Obama says it's a good idea and they say...NO

And now you all have the chutzpah to say the very first idea to actually be offered by the R's is a bad idea but better than all those ideas that Obama HAS previously offered...but again not really a surprise...from people who have failed so miserably in the past...AGAIN CHECK THE FREAKING RECORD!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

The excerpts released from Bachmann's speech indicate that she calls on the President to "sign a balanced budget amendment."

Apparently, she is unaware the the U.S. Constitution does not give the President a role in amending the Constitution. A bill to amend the Constitution goes directly to the states once it has passed both houses of Congress by two-thirds majority.

Your Tea Party in action.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | January 25, 2011 7:58 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham, I just checked Wikipedia (I wasn't even alive at the time, and obviously, airtime cost much less back then):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_response_to_the_State_of_the_Union_address

You are not ignoring me anymore?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Do you bufords not even care about reality or facts or history?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 7:44 PM
=========================================

I do! I do! Tell me again what Jimmy Carter did 35 years ago. Maybe Woodrow Wilson's policies would be relevant to the problems at hand. Whatever you do, don't focus on Obama's miserable record. Golden oldies are much more fun, and they distract attention from Obama's failures.

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade (skip)

Well, I'll flat out call skip a racist for using "ebonic-like" language when referring to Black Americans in his rant.

As for you? You are are just blinded by your partisanship. Certainly the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts among many other things had *nothing* to do with why African Americans vote Democratic. We don't have members of our Party talking about the how great the "old South" was.

Seeing as its over 40 years after Moynihan and the '60s and after welfare reform, one might think African Americans would've drifted more to the GOP just out of statistical odds, right? Wonder why they haven't?

Well, ask Brigade, and he'll tell you why: they are only interested in a welfare check. Would that it were so easy to melt down history into simple platitudes like that.

Maybe they remember that the great GOP god, St. Ronnie, opposed civil rights in the '60s. Or, maybe they realized how the same southern Democrats that enforced Jim Crow in prior to the '60s turned into Republicans.

I'd say there are many reasons why A.As vote Democratic.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 25, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Leftists? Plural? Some examples please?

All the "leftists" I read today are THRILLED with the multiple responses..and especially Michelle Bachmann's. What a dumb post. This benefits the Dems not the R's.

But being a Palinista perhaps you are confused as most Palinista's are won't to be...Greg REPORTED...that the R's and some D's were upset with CNN. Greg then posted CNN's response and intimated that CNN was in bed with the TParty...not that he had a problem with multiple responses.

The posters here however were virtually unanimous in their opinion..both left and right and indy that Bachmann deserved to be heard on CNN given the effect of the Tea Party on the last election.

Where does this kind of stuff come from...somewhere out in the ether..a palinista forgot their tinfoil hat and the idea breaks through...

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 8:04 PM | Report abuse

ruk,

Some other issues for you to explain, too, to us "bufords," about your thesis about Presidential party and jobs and deficits:

Can you tell us what exactly unites the policies of both Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, and Ike that is bad for jobs and deficits, and what common policies under all the Dems made them so great at jobs and deficits?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 25, 2011 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been in office for 2 years, do you really think he is going to come up with a real Economic policy now???


Obama's health care plan IS HIS ECONOMIC POLICY, WHICH IS A DRAG ON HIRING.


Case closed.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I'd say there are many reasons why A.As vote Democratic.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 25, 2011 8:01 PM
======================================

I wasn't thinking of African Americans in particular. It's a problem for the whole underclass---black, white, or whatever. It's just that African Americans have fared the worst. The fact that you have generation after generation of people growing up in poverty, totally dependent on government to support them, is bad enough. The number of children growing up in homes with single mothers is actually a threat to the stability of our society. And you can trace it all to the good intentions of the "great society."

Posted by: Brigade | January 25, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

ruk, I will gladly give you names just as soon as you answer my questions to you on the St. Pete police KIA threads.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 8:10 PM | Report abuse

What the liberals have DONE

What the liberals have done, by forcing an unqualified and inexperience person on the country, is give the nation ECONOMIC POLICY DRIFT for the past two years.


AND what are we all sure we are going to get next ???

TWO MORE YEARS OF ECONOMIC POLICY DRIFT.


Obama is completely worthless.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 25, 2011 8:11 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence - How would that have worked, do you think? The sixteen responses, I mean. One after another? How long would that have taken?

About half the cases noted show one responder and the other half show two but it's unclear whether they were consecutive or if they were mutually contributing during the same time slot. I assume the latter (and seem to have a dim recollection of this).

But how do you think that 16 would have worked and how would that be different from tonight?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 25, 2011 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Am I being graded on a curve?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Must must must see this! Matthews just rips into Sal Russo for Bachmann's knowledge of history....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#41261376

Posted by: bernielatham | January 25, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

All, full text of speech, and open thread:

http://wapo.st/ez2LBd

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 25, 2011 8:28 PM | Report abuse

On a curve? You'd better hope so.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 25, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. Hahahahahaha Epic Fail as you like to say. You offer NO REBUTTAL but suggest all the variables that go into the score.

That's really rich Q.B. From Crooked Warren Harding to Silent Cal to Herbert Hoover...
Epic fail of Republican economic ideas that catered to who...ohhh shocker..Wall Street.
From Eisenhower through G.W.Bush a CLEAR TREND which Q.B. can't address but tries the old misdirect by going...waaaaa...look at all the variables.

In Q.B. World... Steelers 24 Jets 19 ohhh but what about the fumbles..those interceptions..the missed tackles..the Steelers didn't really win this game...
Packers 21 Bear 14...ohhh but waaaaaahhh
Cutler was hurt...it was cold...there were so many variables nobody can give credit to the Pack for winning.

In QB world it might be the Jets vs Bears
Scores do not count...waaahhhh what about all those variables.

That is pathetic Q.B. you made zero defense of the fact that this is a CLEARLY DEFINED TREND...you know Q.B...as to not mean just once or twice...but every effing time an R has had office since WWII....check the jobs again...it's a MAJOR TREND...Whine all you want like your patron saint sister sarah but there is no denying the freaking score...the Dems kick the R's arse dramatically and continually since WWII!!!!

Again Q.B. read it and WHIIIIINEEE!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade

"I do! I do! Tell me again what Jimmy Carter did 35 years ago."

Jimmy Carter created 10.3 million jobs then St. Ronnie came in and cut that number in HALF..@5.3 million...great huh Brigade..give St. Ronnie credit however..his second term was the ONLY TIME an R president saw any job creation of note...10.8 million of course the first of the job killing Bushes took office and Pappy cut that figure by 80% dropping job creation to 2.6 million...then guess what Brigade...a Dem Clinton came into office and cleaned up pappy's mess...first term 11.5 million...2nd term 11.2 million...both terms FIVE TIMES HIGHER THAN BUSH I but then that brings us to shrub doesn't it...the first President since WWII to preside over a decade of NO JOB CREATION....1st term 0 yeah Brigade that's ZERO...as in ZERO..the ONLY Pres since WWII with that distinction..2nd Term
1 million and then the disaster he left Obama...who got a stimulus passed..up and running and reversed the Bush trends after 90 days in office.
Aug 2008: -84,000
Sep 2008: -159,000
Oct 2008: -240,000 <---- Market collapse
Nov 2008: -533,000
Dec 2008: -524,000
Jan 2009: -598,000 <---- Obama inaugurated
Feb 2009: -651,000
Mar 2009: -663,000 <---- ARRA (Stimulus) starts
Apr 2009: -539,000
May 2009: -345,000
Jun 2009: -467,000
Jul 2009: -247,000
Aug 2009: -216,000

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Brigade do you EVER deal in facts or simply enjoy throwing snark up against the wall to see what might stick. Make a factual point just once...puhleeze...because you know what they say about opinions and I know you to be a nice guy and not an.....

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 25, 2011 8:46 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham, in case you are around (and not ignoring me again), here's a link to the actual address, so that neither of us have to guess:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB2alk1VTX8

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 8:59 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence12

You're right. That statement was dumb on his part. The idea that people don't have legitimate substantive problems (or skepticism toward) "free" trade deals was also dumb and I was not happy about it at all. As for religion, I'm not a religious person (agnostic), but his statement was simplistic. It was a one-off comment, I'm not sure how much he really meant it (he clearly meant the trade part), but it was dumb.

I'd much rather have him mention the cultural significance and lead on basic gun safety measures rather than ignore it all. It appears he won't touch it tonight either, and that's deeply disappointing.

Posted by: michael_conrad | January 25, 2011 9:14 PM | Report abuse

I wish he'd go after the guns more obviously too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 25, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

To be clear, I don't want him to go after legal gun ownership. Just the high capacity magazines and gun show loop whole.

Posted by: michael_conrad | January 25, 2011 9:48 PM | Report abuse

To be clear, I don't want him to go after legal gun ownership. Just the high capacity magazines and gun show loop hole.

Posted by: michael_conrad | January 25, 2011 10:17 PM | Report abuse

mark:

""True conservatives were unhappy with GWB's spending proclivities too, and I suspect Scott and Brigade and QB1 were among them.""

You are, of course, correct.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 25, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

One of the 16 Republicans who gave official responses to LBJ's 1968 SOTU address:

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/Kuchel-T/Kuchel.pdf

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 26, 2011 5:09 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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company