Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

President Obama still sitting pretty in advance of 2012

1. Republicans have made up significant electoral ground since President Obama swept into office in November 2008 but the chief executive remains a clear favorite against all of his potential 2012 GOP opponents, according to a new national poll conducted for CNN by the Opinion Research Corporation.

Obama is over 50 percent against all of the most-often-mentioned Republican candidates. His narrowest margin -- eight points -- comes in a matchup with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney while his widest lead of 13 points is in a face off against former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is the leader in the hypothetical 2012 Republican primary matchup with 24 percent followed by Romney at 20 percent, Palin at 15 percent and former House speaker Newt Gingrich(Ga.) at 14 percent.

Any numbers taken more than two years before voters will go to the polls to decide whether to give Obama a second term are rightly taken cum grano salis but they do suggest that for all of the struggles the president has taken since coming into office, he remains a potent political force.

The CNN data also serves as a reminder that the presidential election will be a choice not between Obama and the ideal Republican candidate but rather between the president an a GOPer who brings his (or her) own strengths and weakness to the table.

And none of the potential Republican nominees enjoy particularly strong image ratings at the moment. Huckabee is the best (43 percent favorable/29 percent unfavorable) while Romney (40/34) and Gingrich (38/38) are in less robust shape.

The 2012 Republican field is as wide open as any since perhaps 1996, meaning that there is plenty of time for a dark horse (cough cough "John Thune" cough) to emerge. But, today, Obama is the man to beat.

2. The Colorado Democratic primary between appointed Sen. Michael Bennet and former state House speaker Andrew Romanoff has drawn most of the national headlines to date but the intraparty squabble on the Republican side appears to be just as -- if not more -- competitive.

On Tuesday, former lieutenant governor Jane Norton, the establishment pick in the primary, announced that she would forgo the May 22 party convention -- where she would need 30 percent of 3,500 (or so) activists in attendance to qualify for the August primary ballot -- and instead attempt to gather 1,500 signatures from Republicans in all seven congressional districts.

Norton cast the move as an attempt to immediately broaden her campaign, following in the footsteps of Bennet who announced he would pursue the petition route several weeks ago. (Bennet will also participate in the state convention, however.) "This election for me has always been about focusing on the issues and unseating Michael Bennet," said Norton in a statement announcing the move. "After much careful deliberation, I have decided we cannot afford to give the appointed Senator a two-month head start."

Cynics would note that Norton's decision was also likely influenced by her defeat at the hands of Weld County Prosecutor Ken Buck in last month's caucuses; Buck, a conservative favorite, was probably headed to a win at the convention as well -- a victory that now will be robbed of some of its meaning due to Norton's decision.

That said, Buck doesn't appear likely to disappear as a problem for Norton in advance of the Aug. 10 primary, the latest evidence being ads touting Buck and paid for by Americans for Job Security, a conservative independent group.

The commercial, which is pegged on tomorrow's "tax day" and is costing AJS roughly $400,0000, urges voters to call Buck and "tell him [to] keep fighting for taxpayers who've had it with big government spending and debt."

The last few days have made it clear that Norton has a real fight on her hands for the nomination.

3. House Republicans got their preferred nominee in the central Texas 17th district as wealthy businessman Bill Flores crushed 2008 nominee Rob Curnock in a runoff on Tuesday.

Flores, who edged Curlock by four points in the March 2 primary, won north of 60 percent in the runoff -- putting his fundraising advantage to good use.

Flores moves on to face Rep. Chet Edwards in the fall. Edwards has long been a top target for national Republicans since the seat, by the numbers, should be in GOP hands; Sen. John McCain won 67 percent of the vote there in 2008.

Edwards, however, has been a moving target for Republicans. He has regularly beaten back well financed GOP opponents and, as of mid-February, had more than $1.4 million in the bank for the fall campaign.

If Edwards does manage to win this fall, look for Republicans to do everything they can to redistrict him out of existence in 2011 -- assuming that Gov. Rick Perry (R) is able to beat former Houston mayor Bill White (D).

ALSO READ: Ted Deutch, a Democrat, is the new congressman from Florida's 19th district -- a special election victory touted by the national party as evidence that health care is not a silver bullet issue for Republicans in the fall.

4. Former New York governor George Pataki (R) went public Tuesday night with the news that everyone already knew: he isn't running against appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) in the fall.

Instead Pataki plans to create a national organization aimed at running for president, er, repealing President Obama's health care bill, he told the Wall Street Journal. "When you look at what is happening in Washington, it's just a disaster for our future," said Pataki before dodging a question about whether he wanted to run for president in 2012.

Senate Republican strategists had made clear for months that Pataki was not serious about a candidacy but his official opt-out decision seems to (finally) clear the way for Gillibrand to waltz to election this fall.

The past year has been filled with Democrats (Steve Israel, Carolyn Maloney, Harold Ford Jr.) and Republicans (Rudy Giuliani, Mort Zuckerman, Dan Senor) considering and then deciding not to challenge Gillibrand who was appointed to the office by Gov. David Paterson in early 2009.

Polling suggests that Gillibrand was vulnerable in both the primary and general election but her fundraising strength -- more than $5 million in the bank at the end of 2009 -- and the Democratic tilt of the Empire State kept her potential opponents on the sidelines.

Gillibrand's lack of a serious race this fall should allow her to build momentum in advance of her 2012 race in which she will run for a full six-year term.

5. The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), one of the nation's largest unions is launching ads today against Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D).

The ad, which the union is spending upwards of a half million dollars on and was produced by Chicago-based Democratic media firm Adelstein/Liston, lambastes Lincoln as a tool of lobbyists and special interests in the nation's capital.

"When Blanche Lincoln moved to Washington, D.C. full time she didn't just become part of the place she came part of the problem," says the ad's narrator (who sports a clear southern accent) as movers are shown packing up what Lincoln's Senate office. "Senator Lincoln left Arkansas years ago...maybe it's time to let her go," the narrator says at the end of the ad.

The AFSCME ad is part of pledged multi-million dollar voter contact by national organized labor groups to oust Lincoln in her May 18 primary fight against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.

Liberal Democrats from across the country have rallied to Halter's side, helping him raise $2 million in a short period of time for the primary race. But, Lincoln's campaign remains confident that she will pull off a win and, privately, many Democratic strategists seem to agree.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 14, 2010; 5:14 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: National Republicans hammer on health care in PA-12
Next: Why FL-19 isn't a health care referendum

Comments

Thanks, I just wanted to say, maybe there are some people who think American lives are endangered and materially affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... youfrikin'idiot!

==

yeah there are about 3000 receptionists and janitors who used to work in the World Trade Center who lost their chance to weigh in, and my guess they'd all say it's pretty damned important.

Not used to idiot denials like this coming from Democrats.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 15, 2010 3:32 AM | Report abuse

“I don’t think that anybody believes American lives are endangered or materially affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” said Mr. Wexler.

No wait, wait a sec, I do! I do! I do think American lives are endangered and materially affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Really, I do! Can I vote? Mr. Wexler! Hello? Oh, thanks for caring, Mr. Wexler...

Thanks, I just wanted to say, maybe there are some people who think American lives are endangered and materially affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... youfrikin'idiot!

Posted by: shrink2 | April 15, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Hey, lookee here,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/world/middleeast/15mideast.html?hp

We are so topical!

Maybe Obama gets it. It is never a good idea to pay people to pretend they want peace.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

AIPAC does not control Israeli politics, it lubricates Israeli politics.

Who said anything about a proposal to "fix" anything? I know you didn't.

I said religious zealots can not be bought.
That is one of the things they love about themselves, their lives are not for sale.
The Romans figured that out.

Anyway, the disaster is immutable. Israel can not form a government apart from the right (they tried, they failed), nor can the Palestinians. The power structures on both sides require militant right wing support.

If they are not killing each other (more truthfully, if they are not getting killed by each other), they can not stay in power.

So whether or not American $$ facilitate or ignore or interferes with the "peace process", the locals lost interest a long, long time ago.

Now I know people will cite the US brokered peace with Egypt, Jordan...don't. That is why the tunnel closings today were nothing less than hilarious. Egypt, we pay them to be at peace with Israel, asks "the terrorists", Hamas, to close their supply tunnels from Egypt for a day or so because Israel announced the tunnels might be part of some scheme to snatch Israeli bathers on the Sinai.

Sure, lets stop wasting money on these people. They won't stop the killing, they have no interest in peace. We need to stop pretending we can do something about it.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

"Chris [and Shrink], I do not propose to "fix" the fundies who settle in occupied land. I propose to remind AIPAC, an American organization, what Israel's best interests are in the eyes of the vast majority of American Jews. If AIPAC stops implicitly backing "settlements" then the USA will stop implicitly backing settlements. American Jews care about Israel, but very few think in terms of "ethnic cleansing of God given Samaria" - that is appalling. AIPAC needs to hear that, LOUD and often. In fact, the only groups supporting the Israeli right wing should be the Christian right, with their dreams of Armaggedon and the Second Coming, tied to Jews controlling the Holy Land. AIPAC should disavow all of that.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 14, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

But no. Fundie Jews [a smaller % group in America than fundie Christians or Fundie Moslems] want to absorb the territory and ethnically cleanse it - and AIPAC should disavow that like the plague. AIPAC could legitimately back what I propose because it does not sacrifice Israeli security. And it does not need a peace plan or a summit. They could just do it. If they need outside money to buy off the settlers, they could raise it, I am sure.

==

Two points.

(1) The settlers are a minority but with extremely strong partisan influence in Knesset. The country is scared of them, with good reason. Our tea baggers are models of rationality and sanity next to the settler movement, to whom a dirt clod insufficient reason to shoot Palestinian children in the back because the dirt is from God.

(2) however desirable for peace, Israel cannot absorb the settlers. Most are recent immigrants from countries like us that would have to take them back; their rage at losing their dream of God-approved squatter theft would lead to explosion of violence and no Israeli politician not 100.00% committed to their Lebensraum beliefs would be safe. They are armed to the teeth. And they believe that all of Syria and most of Lebanon is rightfully theirs.

They are as bad as the Nazis. And they are a bignbig problem.

Frankly, Israel would need to summon the courage to jail and deport them all and even look open-eyed at killing a lot of them, making war on fellow Jews who happen to be violent psychotic criminals.

America needs to lead here. One more settlement and ALL aid is cut off. Dismantling to begin within a rigid time frame or Israel is no longer an ally, being too much an impediment to American, and Israeili, security.

Meanwhile, HRC can't gush enough about how much we love that lousy little country.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Mark it for the record today.

The second positive mention of the 44th President of the United States in this space in the last two years.

No bias here. :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 14, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

What's going on now in the polls is meaningless for 2012. It will be for Obama like it was for Bush... How does he do for the economy, our two wars, and any crisis to come, a la 9-11, Katrina -- and of course, jobs, jobs, jobs. So he's got until November 2012 to make his case, and I hope for America's sake, he succeeds at a high level.

Posted by: jcluma | April 14, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

The difference in voting for an American Idol and voting for a politician is that Idol contestants have to show some talent.

Posted by: eldergent | April 14, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

SamanthaAdams

Thank you.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

How can you talk about lies?

Do you mean lies as in: "Iraq has ties to Al-Qaeda"?

or lies as in: "Iraq has WMD"?

or lies as in: "Tax breaks for the richest Americans will shrink the deficit by expanding the revenue base"?

or lies as in: "Invading Iraq was not about greed and oil simply because Bush came from the oil industry as did Cheney (Halliburton) and Rice (Chevron)"?

Which?

Contemplate: over 4,000 dead young Americans. Tens of thousands of maimed and permanently disabled young Vets -- whose lives will never be the same, countless numbers of families destroyed, nearly a trillion dollars of national treasure squandered...

I won't even mention the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi innocents. Sure, after we invaded,Al-Qaeda came in -- but we killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

And also of Critical Importance: the Invasion of Iraq took our main efforts off of Afghanistan. THAT is where the people who perpetrated 911 harkened from.

Now, in addition to the human tragedy, and the hole it blew in the deficit, we are still trying to finish -- what we should have finished years ago -- in Afghanistan.

And don't cry about this being yesterday's news. It is TODAY's News.

That greed-oil-inspired invasion will go down in American History as one of the biggest strategic blunders ever committed by American President. We are dealing with the effects today. And we will be for decades.

Are those the lies to which you refer?

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | April 14, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Your sad, sick obsession with me is a joke among posters here. You are a pathetic laughingstock, lonely guy.

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

More LIES from the Obama people


It seems like the Obama people would prefer to win an election with lies

http://www.nowhampshire.com/2010/04/14/source-state-dems-scrambling-to-deploy-tea-party-%E2%80%98crashers%E2%80%99/


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I was raised as a fundie -- I never underestimate them. They are indeed dangerous fanatics, because they believe more in their mythology than they do reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and drivl continues on her honesty tour. first admitting she was annoying everyone. Now a mea culpa about her tenuous grasp of reality.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

They say:

Buy into Despair, Sell into Euphoria.

The problem is that it's so damn hard to do.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 14, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

Thanks for the laugh, it is so true and so sad and so common. In fact, I thought to myself last year...self I thought, you are going to buy low, look at these prices, don't be a fool, you will never see this again in your life.

Then people around me were like, "You WHAT!!? You are still in the stock market? Haven't you heard? It could be decades before the stock market goes up." Doom gloom, disaster.

Then I heard about oh well so I have the money to lose, but since they don't, they are being safe and so on and on. Well, another way to be safe is to have money.

Meanwhile, this is one more funny thing about today's Patriots, they don't really believe in the Standard economic model, they really don't.

Noa is not kidding, even The Reds, the hated zips, the gooks. Viet Nam gets the model. Hard work, modest investment, take care of the infrastructure, educate disciplined kids and so on. It is a simple model and it is not hard to get.


Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, I just like the fact that the bias of FOX news isn't really in question anymore, not even from Coburn. It's just a given.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 14, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Funny how other polls show Stinky barely winning against background candidates:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41

In truth, Obama is in serious trouble and the very fact the Post and CNN are highlighting the polling shows how scared the Left is in this country. 2012 may be the year where radical liberalim is knocked out for good -- let us hope.

Posted by: DCer1 | April 14, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"Fox News host Bill O'Reilly scolded Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) last night for telling a town hall audience not to believe everything they heard on Fox News.

Coburn told constituents at a recent Oklahoma City town hall that the rumor that people could be jailed for disobeying the health care law was false, even if it "makes for good TV news on Fox."

But, Coburn argued, overstating the case on health care reform did not help the conservative cause."

Funny... rifts showing up all over the right.

Btw, thanks 12B.

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: DDAWD | April 14, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

'America voted for "Obama the Centrist, transparent, balanced budget, no-lobbyist, bipartisan"'

In what alternate universe are you living? You and the Republicans had him labeled as a terrorist during the 2008 campaign while his entire campaign was based on bringing change, specifically runnning on healthcare and after endorsing TARP and a major stimulus package.

Sad watching all these posts. Nevermind that the Dow is up 40% since Obama took office, that the deficit is down 8% last month, that layoffs are down to pre-recession levels and signs are pointing to job growth (jobs are always the last thing to rebound - hiring people is expensive and relies on some basic assurances that you will need those employees for the future so immediate recovery focuses on productivity and technology), that auto and home sales are up, that TARP may actually make the government a profit (it is counted as part of the deficit now, so repaying it may well offset a good chunk o future deficits), inflation is in check, or that INTRADE has Obama's re-election at 58.9; we still must be headed for economic disaster and Obama must be headed towards a crushing defeat because, after all, this is a SOCIALIST NIGHTMARE!

Or not. Newsweek did a pretty good job summarizing this one aready: http://www.newsweek.com/id/236190

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 14, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

shrink wrote 12B, call me a bleeding heart, but I feel bad for all the people who buy and sell low, then stay out, 'just to be safe'.
-----------------------------
It even worse than that. Here's the typical retail investor.

Stocks way down, won't buy.
Stocks go up, won't buy because stock will go back down.
Stocks go up more, won't buy because stocks have ALREADY gone up.
Stocks go WAY up, buys like a banshee and brags to all the neighbors.
Stocks go WAY up even more, won't sell because they'll keep going up.
Stocks go down, won't sell because stock used to be higher.
Stocks go WAY down, sells everything.

Repeat.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 14, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

'Drindl, Mark, don't underestimate the danger of the religious right'

Hey, I was raised as a fundie -- I never underestimate them. They are indeed dangerous fanatics, because they believe more in their mythology than they do reality.

The region IS a tragedy, but Mark is someone who never gives up -- a born mediator. Hey, mark, maybe you should volunteer as envoy to Israel?

Eh, I would hate to wish that misery on you though.

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

12B, call me a bleeding heart, but I feel bad for all the people who buy and sell low, then stay out, 'just to be safe'. Same in the real estate mkts. I know a doc, a really sweet guy, works hard, etc., finally decided to grow up and all of a sudden bought a big fixer upper, an old mansion up in Portland's west hills, in 2007, for $1.2m

It was overpriced then and now? he can't even think about getting out from under it. Buried alive. Being safe requires something that is hard to explain.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, Mark, don't underestimate the danger of the religious right, Jews, Christians, Moslems, Hindus (I don't think the Buddhists have one), they are all extremely dangerous all the time and they can not be bought, they must be fought.

Israel's problem is the structure of its politics. No one can form a government without aligning with one or more ultra right wing parties. The region is a tragedy.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Last note on #3: There is a compromise brewing in the TX HR to redistrict so that the 4 new CDs are 2-2 - the growth is in areas that will naturally fall that way. Edwards got the worst of DeLay's redistricting schemes and is in the most R CD held by a D in America. There is nothing left for Rs to do to Chet. Nothing. If he wins, he is golden.

The four states bordering Mexico have 96/435 seats now and will have over 100/435 seats in 2012.
The border itself, and scarce water, will be the common problems of my region in 2012 and my region, R+D, will be fixated on those issues in Congress. My region will be the most influential in Congress. America will change in ways we have not begun to imagine by then.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 14, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

You sly little flamethrower.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 14, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

David Brooks on Sarah Palin:

"First, let’s all stop paying attention to Sarah Palin for a little while... she is a half-term former governor with a TV show. She is not going to be the leader of any party and doesn’t seem to be inclined in that direction.

The Sarah Palin phenomenon is a media psychodrama and nothing more. It gives people on each side an excuse to vent about personality traits they despise, but it has nothing to do with government.

She is in 2010 what Jerry Falwell was from the mid-1990s until his death — a conservative cartoon inflated by media."

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Mark, your Israel suggestion is really good. i'm sure the money to pay off the settlers could be raised here-- enough people find them an embarrassment, not to mention those who find the occupation morally reprehensible.

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I never cease to be amazed at the asinine sense of timing the Republicans have when it comes to deficit reduction.

They leave their lawn sprinklers running 24-7 for eight years. But when the house catches fire, all of a sudden they are worried about the water bill.

Um, yeah.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 14, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The Nasdaq is melting up on Intel's barnburner earnings, but mostly because Intel's revenue was up due to corporate investment. That's the message the market wanted to hear--that corporations are investing again.

BTW, I guess 37th memo to the market that Obama doesn't GET IT, didn't get there in time for the open of trading.

Nasdaq at 2500, 300 points from its peak in 9/2008.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 14, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

The DO-NOTHING SUMMIT has actually helped Obama in the polls MORE than the health care bill.


Obama has gone up about 3 points in approval and the disapproval has gone down about 4 points - because of the pictures on the Summit.

Yea, that is the way it goes.

There could be some rallying around the flag with the Polish plane crash -


Bringing up thoughts of potential Russian meddling in Eastern Europe could be helping Obama with the seniors - this is an issue that anyone under 35 probably doesn't even understand.

Anyway.

That is how the Summits go - It really is the MOST MORONIC SUMMIT IN AMERICAN HISTORY - but Obama has a chance to put on a tie and get his picture taken with world leaders.

The only other thing which could have helped Obama recently is he gets another Supreme Court pick -

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


Are you kidding? Are you actually asking me why the Federal Government is too big? And how cutting it will help the country ??? If you cut the Federal Government, you can cut taxes and put more money into the economy which will lead to economic growth.

We are not even at that point right now - Obama has the deficit at over a trillion dollars now - and the interest on that debt will be a disaster by 2020 - it has to be cut immediately.

DDAWD - the best way to explain it to you is ECONOMIC GROWTH - what is the best way to create the conditions for economic growth?

If you tax someone and the government spends that money, it does nothing for economic growth - there is no product to sell.

The government has the lowest mulitiplier effect on the economy.

ECONOMIC GROWTH IS WHAT YOU WANT -


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

shrink wrote Remember that $28k I pulled out last week?
Well it went back in this morning.
---------------------------------
Look at it this way. You took money off the table and bought back in to the breakout to the upside. That's a good trading strategy.

My tip to you: look at the gap between this close yesterday and the opening today, and do NOT put a stop inside that gap. The conventional wisdom is that gaps tend to get filled.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 14, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Why AIPAC thinks it has to buy into any Israeli regime that will not give up the bulk of the occupied territory and remove its "settlements" is beyond me. The alternative to military control forever, which is untenable as a human rights issue, is the alternative. In fact, if Israel unilaterally removed the settlements, but retained the Golan and east Jerusalem, and a firefree zone around the Jerusalem airport and then withdrew all its military from the remaining occupied areas, the Arabs would still hate the Jews and anti-semites would still hate the Jews, but Israeli security would be assured and the Palestinians could nation build or not.

But no. Fundie Jews [a smaller % group in America than fundie Christians or Fundie Moslems] want to absorb the territory and ethnically cleanse it - and AIPAC should disavow that like the plague. AIPAC could legitimately back what I propose because it does not sacrifice Israeli security. And it does not need a peace plan or a summit. They could just do it. If they need outside money to buy off the settlers, they could raise it, I am sure.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 14, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Comrade zero seems to have no life except this blog, frantic today. zero is so right -- moonbat, drivel, king of zouk --

google king of zouk, Model mayhem, cache for a good laugh at a guy who has to pay for it.

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

finance whiz would prefer to ignore any writing on the wall.

this is a political blog intended to examine political writing on the wall.

I suppose you prefer to ignore any nuclear development by Iran until you actually see the mushroom cloud.

I must assume you don't mind spending money until the Repo man shows up.

This is what Libs do when they find themselves down. Just whistle.

But no press please. no sense alerting the natives.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I read that same Real Clear Politics poll you site yesterday showing a 2.8% average generic preference for Rs, (2.8% is w/i the margin of error). Curious why you made no reference to the newest CNN poll released on 4-11-10 showing +4 for Ds on generic Congressional ballot? Could it be that that poll doesn't suit your political agenda. Personally I don't care much about any poll taken much further out then 30 days pre election. Once again polling data is fluid from day to day effected by the day's headlines when the poll is taken. Don t get too hung up on them at this point about any election poll, regardless of your party preference.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 14, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Isn't this insane?
I mean, I heart crazy, but this is so absurd, so post post modern it makes post modern look classical...it just has to be performance art.


RAFAH, Gaza Strip (AP) -- Hamas ordered smuggling tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border temporarily closed, cutting a key economic lifeline for 1.5 million Palestinians in the impoverished territory.

A senior Hamas official said the tunnels were cleared at Egypt's request following warnings from Israel that they could be used in a plot to snatch vacationing Israelis.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Even as President Obama hailed the deal as some sort of breakthrough for world relations, Russia maintained that it would not support heavy sanctions against Iran. Russia's position completely undermines Obama's credibility -- it's difficult to claim that arms reduction agreement somehow creates a united front against Iran's nuclear development when Russia refuses to stand up against Iranian nuclear development.

And that still wasn't the worst of it -- the very same week Obama signed the arms reduction deal, Russia backed a coup in Kyrgyzstan. One of Russia's conditions for supporting the coup? The new government's destruction of the American air base in Manas, a crucial U.S. strategic asset used heavily in the Afghanistan war.

Notably, the Obama administration has yet to take a position on the Kyrgyzstan situation, allowing the Russian-backed revolution to continue gaining ground. The Obama administration was not nearly as shy with regard to the fully constitutional change of power in Honduras -- that was an outrage, a coup!

That's no surprise, of course. President Obama only backs policies that hurt the United States and her allies. He seeks self-flagellation of America before the world; absolution for American imperialism can only be found in purposeful self-subversion. Obama feels that America and its allies must be whittled down to its proper size as quickly as possible.

In that spirit, Obama is hosting the Nuclear Security Summit this week. He already opened it by bowing to Chinese President Hu Jintao, hugging socialist Brazilian president Luiz Lula, and pointing his finger angrily at Canadian Prime Minister and pro-Israel advocate Stephen Harper. He has alienated Israel to the point where they wouldn't even show up -- they suspect Obama will sandbag them rather than focusing on Iran. Obama has barred the media from all major meetings -- no doubt he doesn't want Americans to hear what he's telling foreign leaders about us behind closed doors.

-Shapiro

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

a large segment of American Jewish voters explicity reject AIPAC and Netanyahu's agenda. But you knew that zero, right.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 14, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Over at Real Clear Politics, Sean Trende has a typically smart analysis that portends electoral doom for Democrats come November:

A 1994-style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility - not merely a far-fetched scenario - that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn't be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.

Specifically, Trende notes that the key indicator to watch is generic ballot polling:

Consider that Democrats typically lead in the generic ballot, even if they do not gain control of Congress. In 2004, for example, Democrats led Republicans in 63 out of 72 generic ballot tests taken that year. Yet Republicans picked up a handful of seats in 2004 and won the popular vote by three points.

This year, five different polling companies have put Republicans in the lead for the generic ballot in the last two weeks alone - one reason why Michael Barone calls this the worst polling environment for Democrats "during my 50 years of following politics closely." The RCP Average has Republicans leading Democrats by 2.8 points on the generic ballot test. That should equate roughly to a 225-seat Republican majority (Republicans won the national vote by 5 points in 1994), which would almost represent a 50-seat pickup.


-Hemingway

elections have consequences. so does ineptitude.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

37th, two things I don't understand

1) from the point of view of myself and my countrymen, how does that hellp the country?

2) more important to Republicans than helping the country - how does that help them win a Presidential election?

Posted by: DDAWD | April 14, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Dear Reader still can't reply to an honest question that is not pre-loaded into his teleprompter:

From Milbank

World leaders arriving in Washington for President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit must have felt for a moment that they had instead been transported to Soviet-era Moscow

In the middle of it all was Obama -- occupant of an office once informally known as "leader of the free world" -- putting on a clinic for some of the world's greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.

The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama's eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: "I'm going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session."

Finally, away from other leaders, Obama took reporters' questions for 20 minutes. They were tough and skeptical questions that punctured the banal readouts: pointing out that the nonproliferation agreements weren't binding, noting China's equivocation on sanctions against Iran, and pressing Obama on the failure to curb North Korea's weapons. The Post's Scott Wilson asked Obama if he would call on Israel, which skipped the summit, to declare its nuclear weapons.

"I'm not going to comment on their program," Obama said.

Not surprising. But it's still important that the questions are asked.


Is this not the ultimate sign of weakness?

a pointless summit that does not address the real problem and results in no action or result. typical Obama.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

"Plan B is needed STAT."

I love it when you talk medical.

Remember that $28k I pulled out last week?
Well it went back in this morning.
And now, the last analysts are coming around, no more Dr. Dooms are left. The Recovery is on and the money from the traumatized people earning 2% in some safe zone is going to pour in now. Later, a profit taking sequence will precipitate a correction, but people will buy into the dip and at this bottom.

Republicans need to shift their scheme.
How to force anger and fear into the minds of an ever smaller number of people who are still downwardly mobile? Hmmm what to do...

Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the democrats harped on Mark Foley for months - but you hardly hear anything about Eric Massa (D) -


Massa's conduct can be viewed as much, much worse, including with interns.


Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Seems everyone now knows that berry is a complete bumbling disaster:

More than three quarters of the U.S. Senate, including 38 Democrats, have signed on to a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicitly rebuking the Obama Administration for its confrontational stance toward Israel.

The letter, backed by the pro-Israel group AIPAC, now has the signatures of 76 Senators and says in part:

We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process. But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies. We must never forget the depth and breadth of our alliance and always do our utmost to reinforce a relationship that has benefited both nations for more than six decades.

A similar letter garnered 333 signatures in the House, and its support marks almost unified Republican support for Benjamin Netanyahu's government, along with strong, but more divided, public Democratic discomfort with Obama's policies in the region.


How's that bowing and scraping working out Obambi? Liberals in congress have finally realized what the rest of the world figured out last year. it will take berry the rest of his term to figure out where he went wrong.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

"economics is just so perplexing for liberals:

Last Friday, someone going by the name "dermdoc" posted a thread on a message board for Texas A&M students and alumni with this topic: "Laid off my first Obama voting employee today."

"Our reimbursement rates are spiraling downward, taxes are projected to go up with Obamacare, so I did it," the person wrote. He later added: "I made this decision because I can."
"It is kind of interesting watching their face as you explain to them the economic consequences of the policies of the guy they voted for," wrote dermdoc. …
"My office manager and med business guru have calculated that this is just the beginning. Tax rates are going to go through the roof with additional Obamacare taxes AND the expiration of the Bush tax cuts," he added. "And most analysts think reimbursement rates for docs will go down about 20-25% the next 2 years, and that is BEFORE Obamacare really kicks in."
dermdoc wrote that he feels "kind of feel like the Hollywood lib directors who wouldn't give parts to conservative actors."
"The most interesting thing was seeing the reactions of other employees who came to the startling realization that their support of a guy who hurts my business could cost them their job," he wrote.
"And what a lot of you guys and gals don't seem to understand is that as long as I make the money, pay the bills, pay the taxes, pay the salaries, assume all the legal liability, etc., that I can do just about what I want to (as can every other business owner in the US)," he added. "And that is what really, really pisses of Obama and his minions. Unintended consequences are a beeyatch."

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse"

Only a brain-dead, slackjawed, drooling moron would believe such an idiotic post.

Meet Comrade_Zero, AKA zouk/kingofzouk/zouk_is_king/drivl/Ped/Moonbat/Ace McNumbnuts

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 14, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Liberal leadership on display:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters today that Democrats may not be able to pass an actual budget resolution this year because too many members will be skittish about voting for a budget with such a gaping deficit during election season, the Hill reports.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

omaarsblade wrote
"First Read highlights the key takeaway from yesterday's House special election in Florida's 19th congressional district, the first held since the new health care law:

"Yet perhaps the biggest news here has to do with seniors, who heavily populate that Broward/West Palm Beach district. That seniors -- the demographic group Obama has struggled with -- overwhelmingly stuck with the Democrat is pretty significant." "


Thanks. That's an interesting point. Of course, its a Dem district; Cook has it at PVI +15 for Ds. Which is about what Deutch won too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FL-19

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 14, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

pvilso: "I suspect millions of newly-unemployed minorities, shocked Jews, troubled independents, and embarrassed Republicans will either stay home or vote anyone-but-Obama come Nov. 2012.

Posted by: pvilso24 | April 14, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse"

This prediction is so stupid I wouldn't trust this teabagging nutbar to predict whether the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Shocked Jews. LOL idiot.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 14, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

economics is just so perplexing for liberals:

Last Friday, someone going by the name "dermdoc" posted a thread on a message board for Texas A&M students and alumni with this topic: "Laid off my first Obama voting employee today."

"Our reimbursement rates are spiraling downward, taxes are projected to go up with Obamacare, so I did it," the person wrote. He later added: "I made this decision because I can."
"It is kind of interesting watching their face as you explain to them the economic consequences of the policies of the guy they voted for," wrote dermdoc. …
"My office manager and med business guru have calculated that this is just the beginning. Tax rates are going to go through the roof with additional Obamacare taxes AND the expiration of the Bush tax cuts," he added. "And most analysts think reimbursement rates for docs will go down about 20-25% the next 2 years, and that is BEFORE Obamacare really kicks in."
dermdoc wrote that he feels "kind of feel like the Hollywood lib directors who wouldn't give parts to conservative actors."
"The most interesting thing was seeing the reactions of other employees who came to the startling realization that their support of a guy who hurts my business could cost them their job," he wrote.
"And what a lot of you guys and gals don't seem to understand is that as long as I make the money, pay the bills, pay the taxes, pay the salaries, assume all the legal liability, etc., that I can do just about what I want to (as can every other business owner in the US)," he added. "And that is what really, really pisses of Obama and his minions. Unintended consequences are a beeyatch."

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

OK, leichtman1, I'll give you pure partisan conjecture, but a total waste of time? On The Fix? Sacrilege!

I remember that in 2008, a lot of Ron Paul supporters were kvetching about the fact that their man wasn't receiving enough media attention despite his entirely airtight policies and proposals. One of the theories I had for that was that his proposals only seemed so airtight because they hadn't really been subjected to any significant degree of scrutiny, and that folks behind the scenes in the Republican Party who had examined his proposals in depth were afraid that if Paul were elevated to the level of a serious contender, he'd get cut to ribbons. I can't say as I think he'll actually get the nomination in 2012 -- unless, as kreuz_missile suggested, the GOP figures President Obama will crush whoever they nominated no matter who it is, and decide to go the Barry Goldwater route. But if he does, or even if he just gains a lot more momentum than he did in 2008, it'll be interesting to see whether your average, semi-engaged Republican voter has the stomach for the ultra-conservative diet Dr. Paul prescribes, even if he does market it as a cure for Obama.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | April 14, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Rick Perry might be the nominee. That's the way it goes.


At this point, with Obama's poor performance, and cringe-inducing nightmare - the country is going to demand someone with EXPERIENCE.

However, it will be experience outside of Washington.

One can go through the list of Republican Governors again and see if there is someone in there who might run - but that person only has a year or so to emerge.

Rick Perry is running for re-election this year - so you will not hear much from him as Presidential candidate until next year

There are a limited amount of Republican Governors out there right now who are ready to run.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Here's the violence drivl warned us about:

Two Republicans in New Orleans for the Southern Republican Leadership Congress reportedly received severe beatings, quite likely from anarchists outraged that they were wearing Sarah Palin pins.


Allee Bautsch, chief campaign fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and her boyfriend Joe Brown, were savagely beaten Friday night in New Orleans after leaving a Republican party fundraising dinner by a group of thugs who reportedly targeted the couple because they were wearing Sarah Palin pins.

Will Tina Fey, Keith Olbermann, and the Dramacrap Leadership that has deliberately targeted Sarah Palin in their fundraising take responsibility for the violence they have instigated? I mean, progressives have to be aware that the constant attacks and vitriol directed against Sarah Palin (e.g. the wolf-slaughtering, religious hypocrite, quitter with the slvt daughter who took advantage of that sweetheart Levi Johnston) could result in some members of their team engaging in violence?

Right?

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Just three months after Eric Massa was elected to Congress, his young male employees on Capitol Hill began complaining to supervisors that the lawmaker was making aggressive, sexual overtures toward them, according to new interviews and internal documents.
This account, drawn from more than two dozen interviews and internal documents, shows that aides were accusing the 50-year-old married lawmaker of far more egregious behavior than previously known. Beginning in March 2009 and over the next several months, male staffers complained that their boss had touched them in a sexual manner, came up with reasons to have staffers travel alone with him on overnight trips, and expressed a desire to have sex with the men in the office.

And the Catholic-haters will whine, "That's because the scandal isn't just the sexual abuse, it's the way it was covered up by the church hierarchy."


It wasn't until after a year of staff complaints -- when allegations about Massa's behavior threatened to become a public embarrassment -- that supervisors alerted congressional leaders to the problem.


I bet he would love vietnam. all sorts of pervs run free there. it is a known destination for these kind of trips.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Political Wire: Good News for Democrats in Special Election
______________________________

First Read highlights the key takeaway from yesterday's House special election in Florida's 19th congressional district, the first held since the new health care law:

"Yet perhaps the biggest news here has to do with seniors, who heavily populate that Broward/West Palm Beach district. That seniors -- the demographic group Obama has struggled with -- overwhelmingly stuck with the Democrat is pretty significant."

Posted by: omaarsblade | April 14, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD


Cut everything. Everything - get rid of the health care bill.


It is pretty simple.

What part of EVERYTHING do you not understand ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

In the end, reason always prevails. Emotional outbursts such as we see at Tea Party rallies is not sustainable. ......


http://thefiresidepost.com/2010/04/14/tea-party-movement-based-on-emotion-not-political-ideology/

Posted by: glclark4750 | April 14, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

drindl wrote Well, you may be right, 12Bar, but in that case the Rs are in pretty sad shape.

They are running only on hate and fear, and things are getting better.
-------------------------------------
That's my take is that the GOP bet everything on a strategy based on economic decline. The reason conservative commentators are coming out of the woodwork now to warn the GOP, is because they know that the premise is turning out to be wrong. Plan B is needed STAT. The problem is that the GOP is not known to be quick on their feet.

The Repub. candidate pool would be adequate IF the country declines economically and Obama ends up with approvals in the 30s. Then, any R. with equivalent approval ratings could compete.

Who knows, maybe 37th is right. If the economy turns up, maybe the GOP will get behind Ron Paul as a Hail Mary pass, even though this almost seems too un-GOP to contemplate. He's a sacrificial lamb anyway.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 14, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Since leaving the Governorship of Alaska after a constant barrage of attacks on her children and costly nuisance "ethics" complaints --- one of which was because a fat democrat blogger didn't like the parka she wore to a snowmobile race --- Sarah Palin has done pretty well for herself.


Since leaving office at the end of July 2009, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee has brought in at least $12 million -- through television and book deals and a heavy schedule of speaking appearances worth five and six figures.

Great kids, a solid hunk of a husband, and $12 million. I can understand why so many women and gay bloggers are jealous. The money may not compensate for the vitriol, but I can testify that having a family to go home to is a great antidote to progressive attacks.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile, Ped scrapes his pennies together in a third world country and picks a few free bananas. Dribbl admits she is tedious and annoying and wonders if that is the reason for her extended unemployment.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Did Obama really say that?

"Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower."

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

America loves it.

Obama does not.

Another reason why Obama is out-of-touch.

Why aren't the liberals trying to dump Obama ? Or are they leaving that to Hillary ?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

drindl


And the liberals did all that behind closed doors, without telling anyone, right ???

It is amazing how the liberals have decided amongst themselves how they will slip their crazy ideas in administratively.

Well - that is an admission THAT YOU ARE OUT-OF-TOUCH WITH AMERICA - if you can not put your ideas out in the open for a vote.

They you stand there and appear to honestly WONDER WHY EVERYONE DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU.

go ahead - you knew everyone DID NOT agree with you to begin with.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

You Know You're In Trouble When the French Make you Look Like a Wimp


Yesterday, the George Soros Sockpuppet acting as the POTUS read the following from his Teleprompter:


"Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower."

I am guessing in his case the answer is "not."

Could it be any more obvious that Hussein is ashamed and embarrassed by American military power? Is there any other way to interpret that statement?

Meanwhile, French President Nicholas Sarkozy refused to go along with Obama's scheme for unilateral disarmament of the Western World.


France will not give up nuclear weapons because doing so would "jeopardise" its security, President Nicolas Sarkozy said this morning as global leaders gathered for a summit on nuclear security. "I cannot jeopardize the security and safety of my country," Sarkozy said to CBS News.


The American president is a socialist who despises American military power. The French president is a capitalist who believes in Peace Through Strength. What the hell kind of crazy bizarro world is this?

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

37th, if Paul gets the nomination, Obama is absolutely going to slaughter him in the debates. Paul's positions simply cannot stand up to any kind of scrutiny when dealing with the realities of implementation. Yeah, it's cute to say that the IRS should be abolished, but let Paul try to explain what's going to be cut to pay for it. McCain tried his nonsense in freezing discretionary spending and Obama just hammered him on that. Paul's ideas can't stand up to the light of reality and Obama will shine that light really, really brightly.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 14, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

CF,

“Paul will be 75 years old”

And what of all the D in leadership positions in the say category of age or is this a convenient argument you like to make only against R. Should we have our politicians be age limited or is that only if you disagree with a person’s philosophical position. I heard a lot of talk about Storm Thurman and his age back in the day, but I do not hear that same chatter with D in the same age category (i.e., Byrd…funny how we use two different scales to measure someone…of course this goes both ways with both R and D). Should we add another amendment so those feeble 70 year olds (those undesirables) no longer cloud our political arena?

Posted by: sliowa1 | April 14, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Finally something productive for drivl to do with her life:

In New Hampshire, the former chairwoman of the state Democrat Party is recruiting saboteurs to show up at Tea Parties.


Former Democratic State Party Chairman Kathy Sullivan ... has been calling and e-mailing liberal activists trying to get them to attend tea parties in different parts of the state and hold signs denying the authenticity of President Barack Obama's birth certificate and make racially disparaging comments to reporters.

If the Tea Parties really were full of racists and idiots, the Dramacrats wouldn't have to be recruiting people to fake it, would they?

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse


pvilso24 is 100% correct.

America voted for "Obama the Centrist, transparent, balanced budget, no-lobbyist, bipartisan"

ALL that has turned out to be a PACK OF LIES.

So, it's over - Obama had his chance and he blew it.


Obama is going to be OUT.

And all you liberals who think it was OK to have such a FRAUD on the American people - go mumble to yourselves because you have LOST ALL CREDIBILITY WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

It's over - stop complaining - and stop pretending otherwise.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

We have now officially made the conversion.

The Fix is now Ped's personal Facebook page.

but do tell Ped, what are you doing RIGHT NOW?

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 14, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

'make sure all the grade school kids accept gays.'

too late, 37. they already do. time has passed you buy. Ellen DeGeneres, for instance, is one of the most popular figures in America. The most popular [and scholastic achiever] in my daughter's high school class was a gay guy. try to move on and stop hating, huh?

and do run Ron Paul, ok? I will be thrilled to see how his idea of shutting down our military bases all over the world and bringing all our troops home resounds with your base.

Rs are just too fractured, my friend -- you don't have a candidate you can all agree on.

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/can_we_control_costs_without_c.html

Mark, do you know anything about IPAB? It's supposed to be one of the strongest measures in the Affordable Care law to control the cost of Medicare.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 14, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_as_reagan_contd.php

Interestingly, Obama's approval rating track most closely parallels St. Ronnnie, who actually sa a steeper decline from his peak to a lower point at the same time in his presidency...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 14, 2010 11:26 AM
----------------------------------
Don't you just love graphs? Shows again, that the reactions of human beings to economic declines doesn't change from the 1980's to the 2010's.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 14, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"shocked Jews" -- what odd wording. My Jewish family is quite happy with Obama, thanks. Judaism is strong invested in helping the poor and disadvantaged, and HCR will do just that.

Also, republicans' embrace of the Confederacy and continued slander of Latino immigrants is not going to get them any votes from those quarters, either.

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is incredibly popular - and he has the youth - the liberatarian ideas are gaining a great deal of strength.

If you think about it, the opposition to the health care who want a smaller federal government will be logically drawn to Ron Paul's ideas.

Hey, this is where the electorate is going - the democrats do not get it - I realize that - all the democrats want to do is make the federal government bigger and make sure all the grade school kids accept gays.

Fine - but the rest of American want smaller government and family values.

Thank you.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Obama won decisively in 2008 with overwhelming support from black, Hispanic, and Jewish voters, strong support from Independents, and even significant support from moderate Republicans.

Since than the economy has lost 5 million jobs, a million homes have been lost, American allies have been dissed or abandoned... an unsustainable unpopular healthcare monstrosity complete with trillion dollar deficits have been passed.

Obama the Centrist, transparent, balanced budget, no-lobbyist, bipartisan Washington outsider has abandoned the Center and moved sharply Left... abandoning all Hope and Changing for the Worst.

I suspect millions of newly-unemployed minorities, shocked Jews, troubled independents, and embarrassed Republicans will either stay home or vote anyone-but-Obama come Nov. 2012.

Posted by: pvilso24 | April 14, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Well, you may be right, 12Bar, but in that case the Rs are in pretty sad shape.

They are running only on hate and fear, and things are getting better.


'WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sales at U.S. retailers rose more strongly than expected in March as consumer stepped up purchases of vehicles and wide range of goods, government data showed on Wednesday, suggesting a broadening of the manufacturing-led economic recovery.

The Commerce Department said total retail sales jumped 1.6 percent, the largest increase since November, from an upwardly revised 0.5 percent rise in February. Sales in February were previously reported to have gained 0.3 percent.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast retail sales increasing 1.2 percent last month. Compared to February last year, sales were 7.6 percent higher. Growing confidence in the recovery, particularly brightening job market prospects, is encouraging households purchase goods, including luxury items.'

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama won decisively in 2008 with overwhelming support from black, Hispanic, and Jewish voters, strong support from Independents, and even significant support from moderate Republicans.

Since than the economy has lost 5 million jobs, a million homes have been lost, American allies have been dissed or abandoned... an unsustainable unpopular healthcare monstrosity complete with trillion dollar deficits have been passed.

Obama the Centrist, transparent, balanced budget, no-lobbyist, bipartisan Washington outsider has abandoned the Center and moved sharply Left... abandoning all Hope and Changing for the Worst.

I suspect millions of newly-unemployed minorities, shocked Jews, troubled independents, and embarrassed Republicans will either stay home or vote anyone-but-Obama come Nov. 2012.

Posted by: pvilso24 | April 14, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Romney is the strongest candidate, but the charges of "flip-flop Mitt" will be out in full force once campaign season begins again (not to mention that I stil can't see the Christian Right allowing a Mormon to take the nomination). I think the hard right might look at a repeat of 1964- nominate a hard right candidate who shares their values even if they will likely lose because it will rejuvinate the movement long term (even though the situation is completely different) and will go with whichever branch of the conservative movement emrges dominant in the coming year - if it's the Libertarians, a Paulite (though I doubt Ron, but someone from that crowd), if it's the Christian Right, either Huckabee or Palin (Palin may try to position herself as the compromise between the two). Any of the three would lose in a walk; Romney could make it interesting, but again I see so many problems for him in the nominating fight - he only gets the nod if Republicans see their prospects as he's the ONLY candidate with a shot, and they care so much about the down-ticket races that they need to fight for the Presidency and can't take a shot on a wild-card.

Moonbat, lots of factually questionable statements there, but my personal favorite is on his approval rating. Maybe you should check this out:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_as_reagan_contd.php

Interestingly, Obama's approval rating track most closely parallels St. Ronnnie, who actually sa a steeper decline from his peak to a lower point at the same time in his presidency...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 14, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

CF8, I really believe that McConnell has used up almost all of his obstructionism capital. Scott Brown isn't the only Republican who has a predilection for switching over. Remember Snowe and Collins are still there. McConnell used one bullet on HCR and I think he's got one for Cap and Trade. I really doubt he can keep the coalition intact for anything relating to jobs or finreg and those are going to be the two items on the Dems plate. For better or worse, I really doubt they are touching Cap and Trade before the elections.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 14, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


How are you going to get a message out that you are hanging upside down in a pit ?


I'm sure broadwayjoe and ddawd will come and get you.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Both Rick Perry and Ron Paul are going to have strong runs.

==

That's what Kaopectate is for.

You realize that Perry wants to break up the USA and Paul will be 75 years old? And speaks with a fingernails-on-chalkboard whine?

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I'd love to see Lincoln go down. This woman is not remotely beneficial to the Democratic cause. And what good she may do for ordinary Arkansans is entirely unclear. Some Republicans may disagree but she is a political waste of time.

Posted by: CopyKinetics | April 14, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

SamanthaAdams


Yea all that is going to happen too.


If Obama had stuck to his campaign promises, he would have had a chance, but he didn't and all his credibility is gone.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

@drindl,

I read your post about the R's needing someone new to run. Someone whose name we don't know yet.

That reminds me of the White Knight problem in business.

Problem: Business is in trouble, product wrong, quality sucks, priced too high, customers won't return calls. You get the picture.

Board of Directors says, oh sh!t, then

Step 1 is usually to try to sell the dog off. Rarely works.

Step 2 is to fire CEO and underlings, usually in reverse order.

Step 3 is to look for White Knight to save the company. Takes months and usually can't find anyone who looks very good.

Step 4 is what they should have done in the first place. Look at who they already have, choose the best of the lot, cross your fingers.

The point is there are no White Knights, no unnamed savior to bail out a bad situation. We already know the names of the Republican candidate pool--and its my guess that the next R nominee is in that pool. Not out there somewhere, waiting to be found.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 14, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

37th & O writes
"Take a look at the Republican primary field and the Republican primary electorate - that is all I am saying."


If you're saying that the most likely GOP primary voters are the same nutballs that attend TEA party rallies and don't see the logical disconnect between cutting taxes to zero, government to zero, but not touching the military, social security or medicare, well, maybe you have a point.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 14, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

And Obama will take apart any of the "potentials" in debate. My dream debate would be Obama - Palin. That'd be hilarious. I think Romney is the only one who could get in the room with Obama. Actually, I think that one would be interesting. Two eloquent guys -- very different philosophies.

==

Palin would score some early zingers with the hate crowd but there would come a Bentsen-Quayle moment that would leave her staggering, if she was smart enough to realize she had just been knocked out, which she isn't. She'd have notes scrawled in crayon on her little paw but .. ugh. I can't go on.

Romney's talking pointism would be so far below Obama's command of facts and detail that before it was over he'd be hopping up and down on one leg and rubbing his belly, even unto a hair out of place. A rout.

Vast, vast, vast stature gap between Obama and any of the little dwarves who want the job on the GOP side.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Ah, I love the responses that poll results posts tend to get. "These poll results are not in line with my own personal beliefs, so they must be wrong, I say! It can't be possible that a majority of people disagree with me, can it?"

It's been interesting to see how little energy potential Republican presidential candidates have been able to generate. With all the controversy that's surrounded some of President Obama's key decisions, not to mention the whole economy-is-in-the-gutter thing, you'd think there would be some names rising to the forefront as contenders, but it seems like the less recognizable names are being ignored and the recognizable names are being dismissed. 'Course, that's similar to the way Democratic candidates turned out during President Bush's first term, but that made sense as Bush was basically untouchable for a while after 9/11.

Makes me think that the eventual 2012 Republican nominee will be someone whose name isn't really being bounced around as a contender right now. If the economy is still terrible in late 2011/early 2012, Mitt Romney has a pretty solid chance, and if all indications are that Obama is going to crush his opponent no matter who it is, I could see Sarah Palin eventually coming away with the nod, but otherwise, I'm skeptical that any of the people we're discussing will be atop the 2012 ticket.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | April 14, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

today's discussion reminds me of the shouting match that I had with jake2 a couple of weeks ago when he inisted that he knew exactly how the 2012 would turn out. His twisted analogy was that it is a fact that Obama would lose, presiely the same as gravity when falling out of a building. Last week Rs were up by +4 in the generic Congressional poll; yesterday CNN had Ds up +4. Politics are so fluid that no one can yet predict preciely what will happen this Nov until maybe Oct, much less in 2012. Today its the economy stupid. By Nov 2012 it could just as easily be an issue no one even considers today like war and peace. In short 2012 discussions are a total waste of time and nothing but pure partisan conjecture, nothing more.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 14, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

drindl


It is absolutely amazing - WHAT PART OF OBAMA'S TAXES ARE UNSUSTAINABLE do you not understand ????


The budget deficit is at a trillion dollars.

OH yea, everyone will accept the new benefits - and a future Congress will figure out how to pay for it ??? It is not going to work that way.


Dream on.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1


Take a look at the Republican primary field and the Republican primary electorate - that is all I am saying.

One may be drawn to Romney because he might seem strongest right now - but Romney has significant problems which were at play when he did not pull it together when McCain was at his low points in 2007 - and in a way Romney's negatives are higher now.

So who is left ? and where do they stand.

Both Rick Perry and Ron Paul are going to have strong runs.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I seriously doubt if we will be even talking about HCR in 2012. Issues will be ironed out, older people will see the sky didn't fall, small business will be happy, the currently uninsured [and uninsurable] will be thrilled, the currently insured will still have the same, or better.

But if for some reason we are, Mitty is doomed:

"Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) continues to struggle with questions about why he wants to repeal a health care law that is so similar to the health reforms he signed in 2006 as Governor of Massachusetts. As he travels the country promoting his new book, Romney has had to embrace his plan while at the same time attacking Obama’s very similar proposal. This rather nuanced position has led the governor to adopt a series of contradictory positions. Recently, Romney argued that the individual mandate is unconstitutional (after saying in 2008, “I like mandates. The mandates work.”), insisted that Massachusetts is not a model for federal health reform (after saying in 2009 that “Massachusetts is a model for getting everybody insured“), and called his plan “the ultimate pro-life effort” (even though it covers abortions).

Yesterday, Bill O’Reilly further challenged Romney on the success of RomneyCare, forcing the governor to defend his plan and admit that Massachusetts relied on federal dollars to expand health care coverage. “Actually, from the beginning the plan was a 50/50 deal between the federal government and the state government,” Romney said in response to O’Reilly’s claim that state spending on health care was out of control. “The feds fund half of it, they have from the very beginning,” he repeated, while maintaining that Massachusetts solved “a problem at the state level.”

O’REILLY: You know me. I’m a simple man. Okay? You say you solved the problem in the state, but depending on 50 percent of your funding from the Feds.

ROMNEY: As we did from the beginning."

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

AS far as Scotty Brown, he of the pink hot pants, so far he has voted by and large with Dems. Teabaggers have fallen out of love with him and he is a complete lightweight. He might keep his job if he keeps voting like this, but he isn't going anywhere else.

==

Maybe he'll grow up and switch parties. Quite the pleasant surprise so far, Mr. Brown is. Figured out fast there was no future in skewing to the far right.

Remember when 37th was screaming demands that he be seated? Looks like the Democrats still have 60 votes. Heh heh heh.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

shrink -- I don't think any of the Rs currently floating around will be the candidate. None of them can win and I don't see real enthusiasm for any, except Palin, but even though her fans are whooped up, there just aren't enough of them.

I think to have a chance, they will need someone new, someone with a positive message. As long as they are the Party of Know Nothing, they can't win. We don't elect angry in this country.

This is now a [sore] loser message:
"
HENNEN: I’m proudly accepting that label of rooting for failure for his policies, but, I mean, should we, is that what Republicans are doing? Are we rooting for failure? Is David Axelrod right?

BACHMANN: We’re, we’re, we’re hoping that President Obama’s policies don’t succeed, exactly as you said."

'Considering that the goal of something like the stimulus is to create jobs and help the economy recover, it’s odd that Bachmann would actively want Obama’s policies to fail. She might think it will fail, but why would she want it to fail in creating jobs?'

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

If you think Obama's Campaign Machine was powerful in '08, wait 'til it has 3 more years to strengthen. It will break it's own fund raising record by a substantial margin.

And Obama will take apart any of the "potentials" in debate. My dream debate would be Obama - Palin. That'd be hilarious. I think Romney is the only one who could get in the room with Obama. Actually, I think that one would be interesting. Two eloquent guys -- very different philosophies.

In the mid-term election, the Dems will lose seats in both Houses but retain a majority in each.

Then, in 2012, The Unstoppable Obama Campaign Machine will trounce whomever the Repubs put up -- by an even larger majority than Obama pounded McCain.

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | April 14, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Give it up zouk this blog is soaring today and there is nothing you can do to bring it down.

Dinner last night was shellfish, shrimp and squid mostly, cooked over a charcoal pot in thje middle of the table. Even with two cans of carbonated water, very expensive here, the total for four adults and one kid was $7, and it was to-die-for delicious. Enjoy your tasteless cheeseburger, chump.

I know you're just trying to get some sorely-needed attention (something more than "thanks for the friend request") with all the juvie bug-lunch talk,but you're way off base there. I'm in Việt Nam, not China, there is so much food here that not even the poor are hungry. Edible plants grow everywhere, banana and coconut spring out of every square inch of ground, pineapple is native here (imported to Hawaii), and the cuisine is about the most sophisticated and absolutely the healthiest on earth. When I started eating this stuff in 1995 my acne cleared up right away, I felt a thousand percent better, slept better, smelled better.

This is a country where you can eat vegetarian and not miss meat, everything is just so good.

Now go beg some loose women to look in your direction. Loser.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

37th and Street ---

I generally love your posts.

[politics omitted]

Posted by: Jay20 | April 14, 2010 10:40 AM


So Zouk, don't get your skivvies in a bunch every day just because leftists and liberals still exist.

Look, here is Jay20, openly admiring the stylings of the 37thand0street project. The Right is alive, right here on The Fix.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Obama's policies are losing support at an increasing rate, yet he seems unlikely to change course. So he will probably not be able to get 50% of the vote against any Republican in 2012. His only hope is to go very negative, very early, against whichever Republican becomes the front-runner. Even then, I don't think that plan will work. He fooled a lot of folks in 2008, but they will not make that same mistake in 2012.

Posted by: JBaustian | April 14, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Rick Perry reminds me a lot of POTUS Bush. He is great at campaigning and lousy at governing.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 14, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

BSimon1:

I agree with your post.
Rick Perry is a very artful campaigner, But none of his achievements on the campaign trial take away from the fact that he has drawn serious competition from people IN HIS OWN PARTY in each of his reelection bids.

If people truly thought he was an effective governor, this wouldn't happen. Even controversial governors like Schwarzenegger and Sonny Perdue didn't draw well-known candidates in their own party to run against them.

Again, people keep marvelling at candidates' campaigning skills as opposed to what they have accomplished in their roles as public official and/or in the private sector!

Posted by: Jay20 | April 14, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Obama's putting together a strong and effective presidency. His poll numbers look solid and are probably now on the rise. "Leaders" of the Republican party are all proven losers or unqualified, ominous for them; Ron Paul is part of the Tea party delusion that it constitutes a powerful movement, when the opposite is true: it's a noisy fringe. So far so good!

Posted by: dudh | April 14, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

The dopiest stooge too?

How do you do it Cilizza?

Posted by: Moonbat | April 14, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

"I don't think you understand who the American People are "

WE are the American people, guy -- all of us here and WE elected Obama quite handily one yer ago and WE will reelect him in 2012. You're kind of confused, apparently. You should get out more.

AS far as Scotty Brown, he of the pink hot pants, so far he has voted by and large with Dems. Teabaggers have fallen out of love with him and he is a complete lightweight. He might keep his job if he keeps voting like this, but he isn't going anywhere else.

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

BSimon1:

I agree with your post.
Rick Perry is a vert artful campaigner, But none of his achievements on the campaign trial take away from the fact that he has drawn serious competition from people IN HIS OWN PARTY in each of his reelection bids.

If people truly thought he was an effective governor, this wouldn't happen. Even controversial governors like Schwarzenegger and Sonny Perdue didn't draw well-known candidates in their own party to run against them.

Again, people keep marvelling at candidates' campaigning skills as opposed to what they have accomplished inside and out of office!

Posted by: Jay20 | April 14, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Anyone know what isotope of uranium is used in power plants?

Posted by: DDAWD | April 14, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

37 -- I don't know what you call the different voices in your head, but can we keep this one? I don't agree with most of what you say, but at least it's rational.

Mark, congratuations in Texas elections! Glad it's a little better.

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

We have a stooge quorum. All intelligent life on this thread will now vanish.

Drivl, Ped and Loud and Dumb will now do the liberal demonstration of flooding with lots of words without actually saying anything.

Just like berry.

Check back later. ped saved up 3 bucks for lunch and will depart soon.

Posted by: Moonbat | April 14, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

A secessionist and a guy who thinks our financial problems will be solved by returning to the gold standard are the most likely GOP nominees? There aren't enough cliches in the world to describe the delusions under which you apparently live.

==

Next to Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty is a serious contender. If you were riding an elevator and Ron Paul was talking, you'd get off many floors away from your destination and take the stairs.

And Perry is too nutty-righty even for Texas.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

37th and Street ---

I generally love your posts. But you are falling into the Obama Trap when you are talking about Scott Brown running for President.

Like, Obama, Brown had a pretty undistinguished career as a state senator, defeated some ill-equipped campaign competition both in the primary and general election and banked on his alleged "charisma" to elbow his way into the national spotlight.

People are now astonished that the Obama administration hasn't accomplished much (and what tasks have been completed have had mixed reviews).

Romney has run multi-national corporations and a state that has been traditionally very difficult to govern. In his 1st try for the presidency, he came in 2nd place to John McCain, who had been a presidential contender since 2000. (Keep in mind Ronald Reagan ran for President 3 times before he got the GOP nomination).

Am I Romney fan? No. I'd rather see Governor Haley Barbor get the nod.

But Romney shouldn't step aside for an Obamaesque cipher like Scottie Brown.

Posted by: Jay20 | April 14, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

"You can complain about Bush all you want - but that hate is limited to the anti-war wacko democrats"

my dislike(I don't hate) of POTUS Bush has zero to do with the war, nothing.

Its purely economic and has to do with how he mismanaged the economy and a critical date Sept 15, 2008. Are you familiar with that date 37th or do I need to fill you in?

Talking about polling, I read a poll last week asking voters who they most blame, Obama, Bush, or Congress was most to blame for our current economic woes. Guess who was on top by 2:1 over Obama?

I think that even most Rs would agree with me that the country will not even consider a Texan from either party for POTUS for a long long time, but hey if you want a Perry/Bachman ticket even though Perry stands an even chance of getting the Texas boot this Nov, tell me where to send that contribution.

You have yet to tell me in detail why Barbour is not the best voice for the GOP mindset in 2012, especially when it comes to rewriting the Civil War.


Posted by: leichtman1 | April 14, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

StreetCorner - when you post that HCR may be another fiduciary nightmare I worry that you are right because I fear that the Congress [D or R] will not have the cojones to raise taxes or cut benefits as needed, or as put off to 2018 in the law. But when you post that taxes have already been raised, I think on balance you are wrong. Much of the ARRA [stimulus] was tax cuts. Small biz gets tax credits for health insurance in place on employees.

Only increase so far is the removal of the double dipping of major corps on getting fed subsidies and then deducting the payments made with the fed subsidy from income. They are still getting the subsidy - just losing the deduction. Heck, I pay taxes on the SS portion of my income, so I have no sympathy for
Caterpillar when they say they are losing their drug deduction to the extent of their subsidy.
=================================
So seriously, have I catalogued this correctly or do you know of an actual tax increase that puts the Admin in net tax increase land at this point?
=================================
If what you mean is that the HCR will require tax increases, I agree. But say that, then. Do not confuse me with posts that say our taxes have increased since BHO was elected.\, unless you can post links or facts that I do not know or have forgotten.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 14, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Someone please, we are still waiting for an answer to Mark's question, explain how Palm Beach went for the Democrat. This is Bernie Madoff country. Where is their rage, their fear?

Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Ohhh How the Washington Posts liberal writers still fall before Pres Bo and bow.
2012, Pes Bo will be retired by the voters of the USA.

Posted by: yokohlman | April 14, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

"Folks......you have to start considering the "source" when it comes to so-called "news"........sad but true"

and this from a clown who undoubtedly watches FOX. The laughs keep coming.

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Bondosan


Sure no problem.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Oh look, Its the King of Projection again, up so early in the morning, already ooozing with hate. Aren't that some 'models' over at Model Mayhem looking for you?

==

Just ignore him. He's trolling worse than Jake ever did (good riddance), even unto fifth-grader gross-out crap to get attention, daring anyone to point out how factually out to lunch he is.

We all saw his MM page, the guy is the biggest loser on the face of the earth. Let him stew in his own juice.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

37th & O writes
"I think the strongest Republicans for the nomination are actually two Texans - Rick Perry and Ron Paul."


A secessionist and a guy who thinks our financial problems will be solved by returning to the gold standard are the most likely GOP nominees? There aren't enough cliches in the world to describe the delusions under which you apparently live.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 14, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Cheney / Gingirch in 2012.

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | April 14, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Those who argue that Democrats might lose one or both houses of Congress are making an economic argument. Slow growth/high unemployment = angry, anti-incumbent voters. But what if the economy really perks up?

First some analysis by Larry Kudlow:

Sometimes you have to take your political lenses out and look at the actual economic statistics in order to gauge whether we’re on the road to recovery or not. … No one has written more about the future tax-and-regulatory threats from the big-government assault of Obamanomics. But most of that is in the future. The current reality is that a strong rebound in corporate profits (the greatest and truest stimulus of all), ultra-easy money from the Fed, and some very small stimuli from government spending are all working to generate a cyclical recovery in a basically free-market economy that is a lot more resilient than capitalist critics would have us believe. So conservatives should not lose their cool and blow their credibility over a cyclical rebound that is backed by the statistics.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 14, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

There is a new poll out today which has


Obama 42


Ron Paul 41

Anyway - this thing has a long way to go.


Clearly the nation has made the decision already to replace Obama -

And Obama has accepted that - if he had not accepted that he would not be acting the way he is.

Meanwhile, instead of working on the economy, Obama is holding the MOST MORONIC SUMMIT IN HISTORY.

Obama could have gotten the same agreements over the telephone. Canada is going to send its radioactive material here ? How is that a victory ? Let them keep THEIR OWN SPENT FUEL.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

A couple of comments:

1. Obama will only grow in stature over the next three years while jobless Republicans like Palin, Gingrich, and Romney will look smaller and smaller and more insignificant and annoying.

2. I'm looking forward to repeats of NY-23 across the country in November. Is Tom Coburn up for reelection? Maybe you baggers can figure out how to take him out, too.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 14, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

37:

As I've told you before, I'm part of the group that you speak of.

We have an early-morning conference call around 5:00AM EST (sometimes Chris himself joins in, but he's usually just trying to piss us off with a typical "Dems in Distress" post).

You should join us. I'll send you the dial-in number and passcode if you'd like.

Posted by: Bondosan | April 14, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"At this rate, Obama is spending SO FAST that by 2020, the interest on Obama's debt will be 20% of our GDP." And so on and on and on...

The Republican position is remarkably simple: economic disaster is now inevitable because of all things Obama.

If economic disaster happens, we can argue about whose fault it is (everyone is the right answer, but a blame game followed by a witch hunt makes people feel better).

But if there is no economic disaster, what becomes of Republicans? How can they get their angry, frightened people to hate or be afraid of Democrats if and when they not only don't sh!t the bed, the clean out the Augean stables, not in a day, but fast enough.

I don't see a Republican political platform absent economic disaster. They are desperate for disaster.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

micholina writes
"Preview ....government can't get this little project off the ground and its the same government thats going to run the Health Insurance...God help us,,,"

Actually, that's not at all true. The little program you cite is run by Treasury. The health care exchanges that are to be setup under health care reform are to be run by the states; those roles will be limited to defining what is covered in each state - the actual insurance will still come from health insurance companies, just like the health insurance that people buy today.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 14, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

If there is a group of democrats here who are working as a group - and who have the general effect of spamming the board - what is the proper response to that?

==

There is only one response possible:

"If you believe that, you need to see a psychiatrist."

Do you seriously see any sign of coordination or lockstep among the liberals here? We disagree with one another all the time. And while the righties post like cattle (or sheep), all raising the same "points" on the same day and using the same stock phrases to do so, we liberals are as unherdable as cats. There is no Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck for us as there is for you.

As for harassment, take note of how the "harassment" drops away when you don't spam the blog with repeats and dumb formatting.

Please keep making sense as you were earlier and just drop this paranoid stuff. There is nothing there.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

leichtman, I think that is the essence, and I think White can sell it. Add in higher ed and CCs and revising the "Margins Tax" and White runs a completely biz friendly campaign, right down the middle, that only alienates the fundie right, who are not voting D no matter what.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 14, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

"Tell us more about Deutch's CD, please, FL posters."

Agreed. I wouldn't've thought the district of Boca Raton & Palm Beach would go 62:35 for the Dem...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpk2uJfXmb7eplGSpGYsUuT6KqXgD9F2MKFO1

"BOCA RATON, Fla. — Republican backlash over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul had little effect in the nation's first U.S. House race of 2010."

"With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Deutch, an attorney, had 62 percent of the vote compared to 35 percent for Republican Ed Lynch. No-party candidate Jim McCormick trailed far behind with just 3 percent."

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 14, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

leichtman1


To be honest with you - I think the strongest Republicans for the nomination are actually two Texans - Rick Perry and Ron Paul.


Anyone else to the field will have to have anti-Washington cred.


I'm thinking in terms of the Republican primary electorate - take a look around the country and see who the big Republicans are - I like to discount candidates who are often mentioned, but who I don't think have enough to pull it together.

Everything you said about Perry - that might be the in-Texas perception of him - but he doesn't have that perception in the Republican primary electorate.

Texas has many advantages - it is a big state and it is not a big blue state. It also has the advantage of being both in the South and in the West.


Thune has the opposite problem - South Dakota does not have a strong region - Texas almost has two.


You can complain about Bush all you want - but that hate is limited to the anti-war wacko democrats.


Rick Perry has the ability to raise all sorts of money - he has the contacts through the Republican Governor's Association.

Obama is not going to win - the country is sick of him - and Obama just threw away any chances that he could make a comeback.

Obama's taxes HAVE TO BE ROLLED BACK.


It is that simple - it is either going to happen now or during an economic crisis like Greece - which would you prefer ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

The GOP morphs into the Party of No Change:

"At one level, it is good to see the Republican Senate leadership finally express clear positions on the financial industry and what we need in order to make it safer. At another level, what they are proposing is downright scary.

In a Senate floor speech yesterday, Senator Mitch McConnell (Senate Republican leader) said,

”The way to solve this problem is to let the people who make the mistakes pay for them. We won’t solve this problem until the biggest banks are allowed to fail.”

Do not be misled by this statement. Senator McConnell’s preferred approach is not to break up big banks; it’s to change nothing now and simply promise to let them fail in the future.

This proposal is dangerous, irresponsible, and makes no sense. The bankruptcy process simply cannot handle the failure of large complex global financial institutions – without causing the kind of worldwide panic that followed the collapse of Lehman and the rescue/resolution of AIG. This is exactly the lesson of September 2008.

If a huge financial institution were to reach the brink of bankruptcy, the choice again would be: collapse (for the world economy) or rescue (of the very bankers and creditors who are responsible for the mess). The point of the reforms now before us is to remove that choice, as far as possible, from the immediate future.

You cannot responsibly propose what Senator McConnell is now putting forward: Do nothing and later on we will be tough – despite the fact that, at the key moment of decision, the consequences of being tough on a failed global megabank (and its creditors) would be catastrophic. This is the true road to disaster."

Simon Johnson, Baseline Scenario
http://baselinescenario.com/

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 14, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Yeah Right Cilizza. I bet any present ident would love to be in this position one year in:

about to lose huge majorities in both houses

ongoing weakness in economy, job losses. No idea what to do

making enemies of our foreign friends, bowing and begging our enemies

Iran about to get nukes. No idea what to do.

Out of control spending. No end in sight

reduced to debating Sarah palin over leftist policies.

Protesters in the street

must accuse foes of racism and violence to deflect critics.

Record drop in approval ratings. Ongoing decline.

Yeah I bet few would envy that loser position.


Posted by: Moonbat | April 14, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

By 2012, the citizenry will be so thoroughly sick of this administration, they'd vote for Porky Pig.

Posted by: Lilycat1 | April 14, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse


"Poor lonely Ped.
Posted by: Moonbat" |

Oh look, Its the King of Projection again, up so early in the morning, already ooozing with hate. Aren't that some 'models' over at Model Mayhem looking for you?

[google King of Zouk, look at the cache version]

Posted by: drindl | April 14, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

do you think the SBE makeup will be part of the gubenatorial race mark? Seems like seccesion, annulment, school drop outs and right wing SBOE members is not the image that moderates in our state want to portray. Tying that fringe Perry image to discouraging corp relocations to Texas is the way I would frame it.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 14, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I would tend to disagree with any poll conducted that says that Obama will win again in 2012.

CNN's polls are all over the board, sometimes credible, sometimes not.

Posted by: pjcafe | April 14, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Fine - that's what you think - but Obama is completely out-of-touch with the American People

==

He's neither out of touch nor, as you said earlier, out of step.

I was discouraged and depressed by his first year, buyer's remorse mitigated only by the conviction, stronger than ever, that we dodged a bullet by putting organ grinder McCain and his monkey-girl out to pasture.

Now Obama is doing one good thing after another; HCR is *major* and will Make Friends And Influence People once the hysteria gives way to the reality. And after eight years of pure ugliness, why, this could catch on.

When you talk about Perry and Paul as being important t's cleart you're the one out of step and touch, very much so. They're two seriously ko0ky men.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Bondosan


If there is a group of democrats here who are working as a group - and who have the general effect of spamming the board - what is the proper response to that?

Then that group turns to tactics of mocking and harassing individula posters.

This group has been at work for over two years - and they have been working in shifts.

So for this group to complain - that lacks any legitimacy.

This groups main aim is not to just post - it is to dominate the discussion with far-left ideas - their complaints are based in their dismay at not being able to dominate the discussion. Plain and Simple.

However, this same group wants to be free to use their tactics.

So Bondosan - what do you want to do about that ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Poor lonely Ped.

Nothing constructive to do no matter where. How about a hobby that doesn't involve boys? But then all that could put a dent in that cave full of gold under the Billy goat bridge. Instead of those yummy crickets, it will be termites for lunch.

Perhaps photography. It does not pay well but it is a good passtime if you can afford it. Oh. Never mind. Capitalism has not treated your particular "skills" well.

Posted by: Moonbat | April 14, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

The questions asked by polls oftentimes have answers.

Posted by: hoser3 | April 14, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Fine - that's what you think - but Obama is completely out-of-touch with the American People

==

He's neither out of touch nor, as you said earlier, out of step.

I was discouraged and depressed by his first year, buyer's remorse mitigated only by the conviction, stronger than ever, that we dodged a bullet by putting organ grinder McCain and his monkey-girl out to pasture.

Now Obama is doing one good thing after another; HCR is *major* and will Make Friends And Influence People once the hysteria gives way to the reality. And after eight years of pure ugliness, why, this could catch on.

When you talk about Perry and Paul as being important t's cleart you're the one out of step and touch, very much so. They're two seriously ko0ky men.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

StreetCorner, thanx for the 9:27A post. Thinking mode is better than CAPS repeat mode!

Ira, this BoEd has to finalize its lunacy in May. That'll be a fun meeting. I am not sure a vote won't defect then. But in any case, search "textbooks" at the TX Trib and there will be a bunch of articles about the mess.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 14, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

once again 37th you prove you lack any knowledge of Texas politics. Perry just barely won his last re-electio against a weak field of Chis Bell who had zero name id outside of Houston and less than $1 million against Perry's $20 million. Perry is far from a shoe in this year and many Texans are truly sick of his hard right shtick. After POTUS Bush I doubt any Texan will be given a serious look at POTUS consideration again in my lifetime. My sleeper GOP nominee is still Hailey Barbour, his pronouncement last week that McDonnell's ignoring slavery further reinforces that he best represents the mindset of the national GOP.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 14, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


You will realize one day (when the real bill for the health care plan comes in - and when you realize how much cap and trade will cost) - that the democratic liberals are way out of touch with the moderates in the democratic party.

Obama has temporarily dealt with this situation by sacrificing the moderates in the democratic party this November.

This November, not just those in Congress will lose, it will be across the board downticket.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

37:

I must commend you on actually posting comments that are somewhat on point, even if I find your propositions and conclusions bizarre (Romney to get behind Scott Brown? Romney has only one purpose in life...to become president. He's not going to get behind anyone).

If you keep engaging in dialogue without constantly spamming the board, you will find that your peculiar perspective is quite welcome here.

Posted by: Bondosan | April 14, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I believe polls always have results.

Posted by: hoser3 | April 14, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Mark, I think you're right on the textbooks. The board could definitely play around with the fringes and be a little revisionist, but to remove Thomas Jefferson (did they really do that??) is to overplay the hand. I can't see districts with any sort of power standing for a redaction of all things Jefferson.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 14, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

jaxas70


Fine - that's what you think - but Obama is completely out-of-touch with the American People.

Sorry.

I don't think you understand who the American People are - I don't know where or who you are - but get out of where you are - if it is a liberal area or an urban core - and go out to America and ask people what they think.


At this rate, Obama is spending SO FAST that by 2020, the interest on Obama's debt will be 20% of our GDP.

There is a little economics behind Obama's health care program - it is COMPLETELY UNSUSTAINABLE.


You are like a teenager with a credit card running to the mall telling an adult that they are out of step.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

The Republican nominee this year is going to have start with serious credibility from the Tea Party crew - which means the fiscal conservatives - and then be able to reach out and be acceptable to the moderates

==

A clear description of the corner the GOP has painted itself into: the GOP conservatives are simply irreconcilable with the moderates of ether party or with independents. Anyone acceptable to the voters outside the Base will not arouse Base enthusiasm. The Base wants snark and hate and fear, they're political perverts who are aroused by ugliness.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

This newspaper is such a liar. There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama could be remotely a contender for the 2012 presidential race. We all know how the WP/ABC polls are done, NOT.

Posted by: candyzky | April 14, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

jaxas70 those polls are probably right - but they are two years out - and there is no campaign - and no one knows who the candidates are.

Any discussion of the Republican nomination has to include Romney, yes, but there is a sense that he just doesn't have it - first, there is his religion which is difficult - second is that he is from Wall Street - third he is from Massachusetts which may not be that bad, but it draws suspicion within the Republican party.


One has to look at Rick Perry - because he has got everything - and because of the field - also Rick Perry has a round at the Republican Governor's Association.

John Thune may have less contacts around the country.


The Republican nominee this year is going to have start with serious credibility from the Tea Party crew - which means the fiscal conservatives - and then be able to reach out and be acceptable to the moderates.

Romney really goes the opposite way - he starts as a moderate and then seeks conservative support.

So Rick Perry and Ron Paul look like the guys who are going to be the strongest next year.

Remember - the field is going to have to come together in the next 14 months.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

37thand0street, you make the same mistake most conservatives make when you cavalierly make the charge that President Obama is out of step with the American people. Even on his worst polls he still has roughly half the voters on his side. I would hardly characterize that as being out of step.

You tend to buy in to the hogswallow you hear on talk radio or see on Fox News which gives you a distorted view of reality. Indeed, even on the villified health care bill the public is fairly evenly split.

I will say it again. Nothing you are seeing in the daily tracking polls or in the various issue oriented polls has much meaning or validity. The President--for all of these bile soaked harpoons fired at him--is still head and shoulders above everyone else in his approval numbers, even at his lowest as told us by the deeply flawed Gallup tracking poll.

Posted by: jaxas70 | April 14, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Little hard to believe, 37th, when most of your posts are about total trivialities on the level of squeezing the toothpaste tube instead of rolling it from the end as being impeachable offenses.

Far be it from me to discourage you when you're making sense, even if I don't always agree.

It's a great day (night for me) at The Fix!

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

The following needs to be passed to get America working again:

1. suspend issuing new labour visas.

2. for every foreign visa holder, an American of a different ethnicity must be hired to learn from the foreign labour visa holder.
failure to hire will deport the foreign labour visa holder and the company assessed a fine of 250,000 per occurrence.

3. in every state that has a port receiving inports, a private company will train the unemployed to check out cargo containers.
each container will be checked by a crew of 10 to 20 people to avoid any delay in offloading the cargo.
this will be funded by the importers. this company will create an infrastructure and it's own police force to insure the integrety
of the company.

4. order all corporations to foward profits back to America to be taxed.

5. in every state that has a foreign border, a company and all it's infrastructure will be hired to protect the state from intruders.
this will be paid by those that cross the border into America. this company will also search all cargo coming in by truck.

6. instead of using foreign labour visa holders to pick produce, released felons will be given the opportunity to unwind, make
some money and release the anger from being locked up.

7. for every empty lot in America, the owners shall provide onsite 24/7 security to insure the empty lot is not used for anything illegal.

8. for every empty building in America, the owners shall provide onsite 24/7 security.

9. companies shall adhere to EEOC guidelines. Failure to do so will result in fines of 250,000 per occurrence.

10. cancel all foreign social security agreements.

11. raise taxes on corporations that don't manufacture at all in the USA.

12. give tax breaks for those that do manufacture entirely in the USA.

13. invest in energy independence.

14. invest in developing our own food supply.

15. invest in the space program.

16. all federal and state work must be done in America.

17. all work involving financial transaction will be done in the USA.

18. all local goverments that are financed by property values will develop the budget and then set the property tax rate to
finance the budget.

19. term limits for politicians.

20. all politicians that fail to pass a budget will be ineligible to run for reelection.

will provide more later...

Posted by: DwightCollins | April 14, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

I truly hope you are right about our textbooks mark, I had heard it was a done deal and a national embarrasment. Keep us posted that is truly good news from the publishers. In my mind the actions of our SBOE is an economic one. Taking Jefferson out of our textbooks sends a horrible message to Fortune 500 Companies considering moving their headquarters to Texas. Hopefully that and allowing metal detectors in our state capitol will prove that Texas has finally reached the 21st century. I was truly amazed to read comments in our Houston Chronicle blog praising Perry's opposition to those metal detectors. Apparently they are OK for our courts but controversial in protecting our state legislators. True insanity.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 14, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


It is me, the same me - there is no duty - I could use some help here.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


It is me, the same me - there is no duty - I could use some help here.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

How utterly typical and amusing. When conservatives are confronted with a poll that shows Obama beating all leading republican candidates, suddenly that poll has to be liberal and biased.

Look. I do not put much stock in any polls. Remember that in 2004, George W. Bush's approval numbers were already in decline, yet he managed to eke out a victory over a candidate the corrupt, cynical media had allied with the scummy right wing propaganda machine had convinced everyone had fabricated his Vietnam war credentials and medals.

Many conservatives take heart from the Gallup daily tracking poll which has Obama at his lowest approval levels. But that poll is deeply flawed because it fails to weight the more highly populated blue states on the coasts which are heavily democratic. And, Gallup traditionally skews its polls to likely voters which are older and more affluent voters. You can safely bet that any Gallup or Rasmussen or Quinnipeac poll uses the likely voter model which favors republicans.

The point is that the CNN Opinion Research poll is probably more reliable because on national races pitting two candidates head to head and weighted by sate-to-state populations are likely a better predictor of what you will see in the next Presidential election.

Posted by: jaxas70 | April 14, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin


These points can be massively debated - JFK campaigned on a platform of cutting taxes and closing the missile gap - not too much different from Reagan's platform.

The 1960s took the whole political spectrum and moved it to the left.

Then the 1980s - with Reagan's rhetoric but not really his policies - moved the whole political spectrum to the right. (One really has to evaluate Reagan also in the context of his campaigns in 1968, 1976 and 1980 - he was much a figure in the context of the 1970s.)


Who knows what to say about Obama right now - he is so out-of-step with where the country is - I guess the left will disagree and claim they have a mandate based on a bunch of lies.

A bunch of lies does not make a mandate - if you wanted a mandate, you should have told Obama to either tell the truth or stick to his platform.

Anyway that is another issue.


.


Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, CF. Shrink, I do not think Leichtman's prediction on text books will hold: the publishers are showing signs of rebelling [they really are all here in Austin]. The publishers also are right to assume that when the next SBofEd is seated it will repeal the most egregious excesses of this one.

I am imagining this Board, which will be in power until after the fall school year begins, personally redacting TJ by hand all summer. :-)

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 14, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

What is going on in Colorado in the Republican party is going to go on all over the country - the more conservative Republicans do not want the moderate Republicans as their candidates.

==

Exactly. They would rather lose.

Whoever has the 37th duty today should post more often. I'm stunned. This AND a favorable-to-Obama column from CC? I expect the alarm clock to ring at any second and find I've been dreaming.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

AFSCME has its head up its...oh, skip it, everybody already knows that.

On to good things,

"Consumer prices edged up a modest amount in March with prices outside of food and energy rising at the slowest pace over the past 12 months in six years."

Uh oh, still no sign of inflation. Republicans, the economic news is getting too good to ignore. Are your disaster predictions making sense yet?

Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

the Republican world view is all ugly

==

Amen, dude, amen

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

@mark: yes it is relative, and you're correct in my denoting the collapse of the CPUSA in principled reaction to Stalin's purges as the reason.

But I'm more interested in the global axis than the volatile US one, and I will never be able to call anyone who believes in The Marketplace to be of the left.

The money here is unapologetically labeled Xã Hội Chủ Nghĩa, Socialist Republic, and the hammer and sickle flies in the wayward breezes. Cretinous heads would pop at the people who somehow find motivation to work, and work hard, despite the demotivation of Socialism (so much for right-wing presumptions), and the exploding heads would throw dangerous fragments of bone at the growth of the middle class here. You should see my neighborhood.

How's the middle class doing in the free market USA? Not as well as here.

Relatively speaking.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

What is going on in Colorado in the Republican party is going to go on all over the country - the more conservative Republicans do not want the moderate Republicans as their candidates.


This battle has been going on for a long time.

It has been going on way longer than the Tea Party movement - in many ways the Tea Party is just another label for the old battles within the Republican party.

Sometimes one gets the feeling that the battle within the Republican party has been going on for generations - never really getting a resolution - but just shifting issues and labels.


My feeling is the conservative wing of the Republicans - the fiscal conservatives - see the Tea Party as momentum to push out the moderate Republicans first - and then go after the democrats.


This battle has been going on for a long time - it is not new to the last year with the Tea Party movement. It is really important to think of it that way - and understand that these people are a whole lot more invested with these issues - over a period of years and decades.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

re: #5 - I agree with Leichtman. AFSCME must be grinding its EFCA axe here. Chopping off Lincoln's head will get them an anti-union vote across the board, but they will have taught 'ol Blanche a lesson, yessirree.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 14, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Well Noa, then Republicans are in even greater trouble. I have always believed the reason people like Gore and Kerry and Dean et al lose was their inability to connect with the lumpen.

If this is so, if it is true a POTUS candidate has to make people "feel safe" when they vote, the Republicans have no viable candidates for 2012. There are kooks, has-beens, fakes, perennial losers and of course, more kooks.

Republicans have done and will continue to do everything they can to make people feel unsafe with Barak HUSSEIN Obama, but there is a problem with the rage machine, a fatal flaw.

Whether it is Palin's nasty sarcasm or the relentless predictions of doom and gloom, the Republican world view is all ugly. If you buy their Brand you have to feel unsafe and the masses like to feel safe.


Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

I guess if Pulitzer was giving prizes for most use of meaningless polls CC would have won hands down. People: don't get all happy-happy or pissed off about any poll. They are essentially meaningless, like the one touted on wapo's front page on Good friday--showing marked dislike of the HCRbill. Then at the bottom of the article we learn that of the 1009 people that responded, 94% were white, and 73% conservative. Not quite a TRUE reflection of the country's 130,000,000 voters. and it only took two reporters to put this wonderful story out there. Polls of Nov/08 showed the Pres. race as too close to call, when the results were anything but. Who out there has ever voted because of what a poll says? the polling companies and the media keep each other alive and seemingly relevant by spewing out these polls, like they are written in stone. The poll questions are configured to give you a headache trying to answer truthfully, are often vague and confusing. I just love when commenters use polls to justify their anger towards this and any administration. SHEEPLE!!!

Posted by: katem1 | April 14, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

sorry for the typo: Washington.

CC fails to account for conservative Ds and there are plenty of us, who would be supporting Lincoln and opposing AFSCME and Halter if we lived in Arkansas rather than Texas. That was Hillary's model in the primary that won her most southern primaries. While I disagree with Lincoln on many issues I fully appreciate that she represents a conservative southern state and can't vote like Gillibrand in Arkansas; she is absolutely right to be voting like her Arkansas constituents.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 14, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

I guess if Pulitzer was giving prizes for most use of meaningless polls CC would have won hands down. People: don't get all happy-happy or pissed off about any poll. They are essentially meaningless, like the one touted on wapo's front page on Good friday--showing marked dislike of the HCRbill. Then at the bottom of the article we learn that of the 1009 people that responded, 94% were white, and 73% conservative. Not quite a TRUE reflection of the country's 130,000,000 voters. and it only took two reporters to put this wonderful story out there. Polls of Nov/08 showed the Pres. race as too close to call, when the results were anything but. Who out there has ever voted because of what a poll says? the polling companies and the media keep each other alive and seemingly relevant by spewing out these polls, like they are written in stone. The poll questions are configured to give you a headache trying to answer truthfully, are often vague and confusing. I just love when commenters use polls to justify their anger towards this and any administration. SHEEPLE!!!

Posted by: katem1 | April 14, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

@DDAWD: Sure TPaw is going to run, so is Harold Stassen if he's still alive, so is Ralph Nader, but among the recognizable names Pawlenty will probably be the very first to drop out He is stunningly uninspiring and has vast negatives.

Following the likely candidates is all well and good and is one of the things we come here for, yesssss Precious, but when Pawenty does a press release to blast Obama is *isn't newsworthy*, it belongs on page 12 of the Living section, it barely bears mention, certainly doesn't deserve a whole column. As others have noted, this is about the only "space" among the major papers paying any attention to that drowsy dweeb. Political dependency is all well and good but let's have some perspective.

Anyway, this column rat cheer pretty much negates my main point. I was almost shocked to see it. Anticlairvoyant, almost.

Funny, speaking of walls o' heat .. we had a 108 Fahrenheit day in Seattle a few months ago, breaking all records for the city by two degrees. Some GOP teeth-gnasher chose that day to tell me in the steam room, cooler than outdoors, that the jury is still out on global warming. Here in Cần Thơ it's occasionally over 90, Saigon is hotter mainly by virtue of being a city loaded with concrete and engines. I don't go there anymore, too damned crowded.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Chris F., your note about "no left" since 1939 is intriguing.

That is relative, no? The nation is to the right of USA 1939, to the left of USA 1952, to the right of USA 1964, and to the left of USA 1983. If by the left of 1939 you meant the CPUSA, that is gone. If you meant Norman Thomas, that is almost gone, in part by adoption of its peripheral welfare state ideas by capitalists. If you meant FDR, that brand of D is alive and well: big domestic government and assertive FP.

Reminds me of the conservative "right-center" nation argument. By definition, at any single time, the median view of the body politic is the center. Only a timeline can add to that information.

In the long view, "liberal" and "conservative" have identifiable meanings to English speaking political scientists that exclude totalitarian structures, but which could include Fabian socialism as a voluntary choice on the liberal side and which could include a regime like Turkey's with a constitutional role for the military to protect the secular democracy on the conservative side, generally supported over time by the electorate.

But the loose [and completely subjective] way we throw those terms around now makes discussion more difficult. Labeling masks real differences among the persons and views labeled.

Your time frame suggestion is the way to get a comparative overview.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 14, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

sorry shrink2 the damage to our textbooks is likely irreversible, but at least they now can't purge Washinton.
Tripple play bad news for the GOP: deficit down $100 billion yesterday; retail sales up 1.6% and S&P at 1200 today.

the turnout yesterday in Harris Cty was less than 5%, my polling place 12 miles away and Lehrmann barely won but victorious nonetheless; read there were several TeaParty candidates that won R legislative seats though. Thanks for getting me to cross party lines to support responsible Texas judges. When will we start following states like Virginia and have our judicial races nonpartisan, hopefully that is something Gov White will get behind?.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 14, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

At some point this year, Romney is going to make a decision - whether to run for President himself - or to put Scott Brown in ahead of him wich Romney being behind him. The two are going to work together.


This whole thing is very interesting.

Romney has to gauge what stopped him from getting the nomination last time - McCain was out of it for a time - and Romney failed to pull it together in that time. Scott Brown is not going to face the same situation as Romney had in those months late in 2007.

Scott Brown is the stronger candidate - with wider appeal.


You might find the Republicans uniting behind a candidate fairly quickly next year - Pull out the razz-ma-taz candidates and who are the real strong candidates ? Put it together in your own mind.

A candidate like Michele Bachman might have appeal on the surface, but she isn't going very far.

John Thune has some serious problems - he is from a small state in a region that does not have big states.

Rick Perry is going to be a strong candidate - all the jokes about electing Jefferson Davis to lead the Union aside.


The big question is what will Romney do with Scott Brown. The smart thing to do would be to be the man behind Scott Brown - stick Scott Brown out there - and Romney can handle economic issues or be Chief of Staff.

This avoids all the negatives which Romney has.

Ron Paul is going to be out there - with a significant following - and he will be narrowing the electorate - effectively making the nominee have to get to a supermajority.

Think about it.


One thing - in the last cycle there were all sorts of Senators running - you don't have that on the Republican side this time - maybe because of the presence of Hillary.


It is interesting because since 1999 the gorilla in the room has been Hillary - and now she really isn't in the field this year - almost all of a sudden.

Obama is going to be out - there is going to be a solid democratic group behind him who would vote for him no matter what - but Obama is going to lose

YOU just can't not have a guy in as President during an economic crisis who shows no interest in economic issues - to the point that during the crisis the guy goes before Congress and basically says he did not come to Washington just to handle the economy.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 14, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Noa, we probably disagree more in degree than in an absolute sense. I don't think it's wrong to pay attention to Pawlenty either. I don't think he has a chance at winning the nomination, but him and Romney are pretty much sure things to run for President in 2012 and I think it's fine to see what he is doing to facilitate this run. It's a little bit of insight into how the game is played.

Our weather is the opposite too. Spring is just incredible in New Orleans. In the summer, it feels like being in an oven. When you step outside, it's as if there's a wall of heat.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 14, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Good news Mark, so now will Thomas Jefferson make a comeback, or has Phyllis Shlafly replaced him? Can we call capitalism Capitalism, or is it Free Enterprise from now on?


Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Tell us more about Deutch's CD, please, FL posters.

==

Cliff Notes: Republican Rising has definitely peaked.

Great post, mark.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

re #3: Flores, a retired Bryan oil and gas executive, brought former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, who endorsed the A&M alum and actively stumped for him on the trail, back into the limelight. Edwards congratulated Flores and looked forward to a spirited campaign. I think Chet is in good shape, but he will be in campaign mode now, full time.

Tell us more about Deutch's CD, please, FL posters.

Slightly off topic, but related to #3, are yesterday's TX runoffs. Judge Lehrmann, the incoming ABA Family Section Chair, did beat Rick Green, the ethically challenged former legislator backed by Chuck Norris, for the R nomination to a S.Ct. seat. Green, while in the Legislature, lobbied the state health department which prompted a criminal investigation from the Travis County district attorney’s office, which determined that it was not a crime for a legislator to be a lobbyist at the same time. He also appeared in an early morning infomercial for a dietary supplement called FocusFactor in his Capitol office, which attracted criticism from his colleagues. Always among the "Texas Monthly" worst legislators, he never had appeared in a courtroom as a lawyer. Five former S.Ct. Justices issued a plea for Lehrmann. It was still a close race. I worked hard for Lehrmann and was scared silly by this one.

One more: Career educator Marsha Farney easily beat creationist home schooler Brian Russell for the SBofEd. That weakens the power of the cretin bloc I think to a -2 vote minority in the fall, even if the D loses to Farney. She won every county in the district and more than three-fifths of the votes cast. There was a better R in the race originally, a Round Rock Sci teacher, who missed the runoff. Still, the worst cretins are gone.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 14, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Of course the liberal/progressive really trust the POST and CNN because they have never shown any bias in their reporting in the past......... (insert big eye roll)

==

Aren't you that guy who's always trumpeting Rasmussen polls?

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

@shrink2: all of that makes sense only on the presumption that voters will think analytically, make their choices based on what they know, as opposed to on what they believe. Do you see a lot of evidence of that? I don't.

Worth a read: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/opinion/03blow.html

Consider that in 2000 the voters elected an incompetent lout based on who they'd rather have a cold on with and in 2004 they re-elected a sadist. Thinking people will re-elect Obama without a moment of hesitation; that's a minority in America.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

CNN, the lowest rated news station on cable tv, says obama leads? I guess they only asked Democrats because every other poll known to man has obama behind "any Republican" including Palin.

Posted by: cathyjs | April 14, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Well this certainly is the "fix" alright.

First off who's going to believe a poll conducted by a liberal/progressive political outlet like CNN? ....besides contaminated liberals...? lol

The POST "fixes" their polls too and still have not shown the installed/elected one below 50%..........lol...unbelievable

Of course the liberal/progressive really trust the POST and CNN because they have never shown any bias in their reporting in the past......... (insert big eye roll)

Folks......you have to start considering the "source" when it comes to so-called "news"........sad but true

Posted by: allenridge | April 14, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

I keep wondering whether the fact that I despise public employee unions makes me more left or right. Sure the right hates public employee unions too, but I wonder...

Anyway, on to another day of making fun of Republicans. "When you look at what is happening in Washington, it's just a disaster for our future," said Pataki. Another fool makes a fool of himself. Predicting disaster is such a mistake.

Republicans are ignoring the fact that they will have no ground to stand on when said disaster fails to materialize. If the dollar is stable, the deficit is shrinking, jobs are being added, in short, if people are better off two years from now than they are now, certainly better off than they were at the end of the lost decade (the Bush/Cheney era) what will Republicans say?

If we were in charge none of this would have happened? Sure there was no disaster after all, but if we were in charge (and did nothing), you would be even better off? No, they have to keep fomenting rage. When the only tool you have is a hammer, I s'pose every voter looks like a nail.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 14, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Republicans will lose in 20912 unless they develop a strong and consistent leader. Americans are still generally separating their frustration with Democrats in Congress and some of Obama's policies with their favorable perception of the man himself. Republicans have no one to compare with Obama on a popularity scale.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | April 14, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Leave it to the WaPo to select the MOST favorable poll out there and write an article on it. CNN is the ONLY poll showing 50% approval all others are at 43-45%. And these goons earn a pultizer. gimme a break. stop your subscriptions now.

Posted by: espnfan | April 14, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

This article is nothing but therapy for deluded leftists. Obama is a sitting duck. America made a terrible mistake electing such an incompetent pig to the WH and will no doubt exact its revenge in the next election.

==

For an "incompetent pig" he sure put daffy old John McCain outnto pasture, maybe you'd better rethink that.

And oh, there has been no actual "left" in the USA since 1939.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Um, Chris? CNN may have the savior risen, but Gallup has him at an all-time low for him.

Posted by: JohnnyGee | April 14, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

This article is nothing but therapy for deluded leftists. Obama is a sitting duck. America made a terrible mistake electing such an incompetent pig to the WH and will no doubt exact its revenge in the next election.

Never again.

2012 cannot come soon enough.

Posted by: DCer1 | April 14, 2010 7:23 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- A watchdog panel overseeing the financial bailouts says the Obama administration's flagship mortgage aid program lags well behind the foreclosure crisis and leaves too many families out.

The Congressional Oversight Panel says in a report released Wednesday that the administration projects only one million families will end up with lower monthly payments as a result of the program. The report says six million families are more than two months behind with their payments, and 200,000 more families receive foreclosure notices each month.

A year and a half after launching the program, "Treasury is still fighting to get its foreclosure programs off the ground," Elizabeth Warren, who heads the independent panel set up by Congress, told reporters Tuesday.

Warren warned that borrowers who have their monthly payments lowered as a result of the program still could lose their homes because the payments remain high and many Americans are facing new financial strains.

"Redefault signals the single worst form of failure" by the Treasury Department, said Warren, who is a professor at Harvard Law School. "Billions of taxpayer dollars will be spent and families will nonetheless lose their homes."
========================================================================

Preview ....government can't get this little project off the ground and its the same government thats going to run the Health Insurance...God help us,,,

Posted by: micholina | April 14, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney.. ya he sure did give a drop out speech, he made some laugh at his bazaar statement. Anyway, after reading the blog below I could never vote for Romney, and I passed it along to my friends and family, they thought he is a jerk too.

http://mittromney2012potus.blogspot.com/

Posted by: LOL1 | April 14, 2010 6:51 AM | Report abuse

What does that say about the 12% who do not think she is qualified, but would still vote for her over Obama?

==

good catch

It means that at least 12% are so compartmentalized in their thinking (if you can call it that) they can embrace a direct contradiction. And that's really scary.

"Orwellian" is overused, but this is a seriously creepy case of it. People who know she isn't qualified but would elect her anyway, placing their desire for conflagration before their self-interest. Suicide by vote, kinda like suicide by cop.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 6:42 AM | Report abuse

Romney's favorability is probably based on his CEO image, that 40% sounds axiomatic ... those who are reflexively reverent of a guy in a shiny suit. And unlikely to change their minds much after months of the turbo-charged phoniness that Mitt exudes.

But in the Internet Age there remains the grim YouTubularity of Romney's primary dropout speech in 2008, when he practically bawled in petulance, presenting his businesslike triangulation as dropping out for the good of the nation. Democrats could replay that over and over and there would not be much more than the 40% who still genuflect at Wall Street, which everyone else rightfully despises.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 6:34 AM | Report abuse

An interesting item in this poll is that Obama beats Palin 55-42 (sorry JakeD), but that only 30% of the people polled think Palin is qualified to be president. What does that say about the 12% who do not think she is qualified, but would still vote for her over Obama?

Posted by: trep1 | April 14, 2010 6:30 AM | Report abuse

Very happy to see this post, Chris. I've become accustomed to seeing nothing positive about the President here.

Eight points is quite a bit of a gap. True, Obama doesn't face reelection for over two and a half years but he's looking more and more like a leader since he decided to go hands-on with HCR.

@DDAWD: point.

@trolls: try not to be too predictable in your outrage.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 14, 2010 6:12 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company