Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Samuel Alito's and "not true", Senate race handicapping and more in the "Live Fix" chat

We spent an hour earlier today answering questions -- political and not -- from Fixistas from across the country.

Our favorite moments from the "Live Fix" chat are below and remember to check our our chat every Friday from 11 am to noon.

As we wrote today to those evangelizing about the chat: "Suggested pitch to the unconvinced: 'It's like Gene Weingarten but not funny' OR 'It's like Carolyn Hax but with bad advice'".

How can you go wrong?

To the questions (and answers)!

Athens, Ga.: Do you think we will see more conflict between Obama and the Supreme Court? Shades of FDR and 1937?

Chris Cillizza: I am skeptical that Alito mouthing "not true" will have any major implications beyond drawing lots (and lots) of press attention in the last few days.

Shippensburg, Pa.: What's the most important thing dems. need to do RIGHT now?

Chris Cillizza: 1. Read the Fix. Daily. No, hourly

2. Find a way to reclaim the mantle of change. Problem for Democrats is that voters want change and feel as though it has not been delivered.

3. Talk about jobs and the economy relentlessly.

4. Try to find a way to pass SOMETHING on health care. Or, if walking away from the bill is the only option, do it quickly and don't look back.

Washington, DC: Some polling on 538.com suggests that other Nevada Democrats would have a better shot at holding the seat than Reid. Do you see any other vulnerable Democrats (Senate, Governor, or House) pulling a Dodd and stepping aside for a stronger candidate?

Chris Cillizza: Very interesting question.

I wrote on this recently. The issue for Nevada Democrats is that there is no candidate like Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal waiting in the wings if Reid steps out.

The choices -- Rep. Shelley Berkley, Sec of State Ross Miller -- are fine but none of them are a slam dunk.

And, if Reid was to step aside my bet would be that Rep. Dean Heller (R) who turned down a run against the incumbent would get into the race and be a favorite to win the seat.

All that said, I do think Reid is in dire straits. His campaign to date seems to be focused on affirming to voters how powerful he is in Washington. They know that and don't like him already.

Smithtown, NY: Are you planning a smackdown with White House Communications spokesperson Bill Burton because he dissed The Fix on Twitter the other day?

Chris Cillizza: Yes. I envision it playing out like the fight between Andy Bernard and Dwight Shrute on "The Office".

I will try to run Burton over but won't do it and will wind up crying.

Sounds like most of the fights I have ever been in during my life...

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 29, 2010; 3:00 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: President Obama takes on House Republicans (VIDEO)
Next: Sarah Palin's PAC raised $1.4 million in final six months of 2009

Comments

Time to get something done even if it's wrong.

Posted by: seemstome | February 1, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

"You are making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I don't agree with. And I have to sit here and listen to them."


- Quote from Obama at a meeting in which Obama was attempting to demonstrate how bipartisan he is.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 1, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

drindl


Scott Brown is coming from Massachusetts - and he is going to try to get re-elected in two years - so you can see that he will take some moderate positions - and spend a good amount of time in Massachusetts - and see if he can hold together enough support to be re-elected.

What else can be reasonable for him ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

@drindl,

Guess Scott did not get the memo from the Republicans. When "independence" gets you elected, well, "independence" starts looking pretty good. Now, we'll find out how many true "independents" there are.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 31, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Scott Brown may be an unpleasant surprise for some republicans:

Brown later outlined a few specific issues on which he might break with his own party. Notably, he repeated Sunday he was mostly pro-choice, though he did say he opposes granting federal funds to abortions and thought Congress should work to improve adoption services.

The new senator also signaled he would support the president's plan to offer tax credits to businesses that hire new workers or enlarge paychecks for those they already employ. A number of Republicans have expressed doubts about that plan, fearing it would not spur the hiring that Democrats believe it will.

Later, the Massachusetts Republican stressed he supported the president's proposed spending freeze, which most other GOPers carp is insufficient.

Brown then noted he supported Secretary Tim Geithner's stay at the helm of the Treasury Department, primarily because "the president has to work with the people he feels most comfortable with." Other Republicans, however, have started calling for Geithner's ouster, mostly because of his connection with the AIG bailout.'

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Tebaggers aborting their own movement --

'A message to all members of Tea Party Nation Setting The Record Straight by Sherry Phillips

Judson and I have stayed silent in the face of intense media scrutiny and attacks by former members. As a wife and a mother, I have stood by my husband and family and stayed strong in the face of many baseless accusations and criticism. We have refrained from responding to many of the attacks that have been thrown at us from other "Tea Party" groups, in the belief we did not want to spread the divisions that are already hurting this movement even though that does not seem to be the consideration of some others involved in this movement.'

LOL-- this was inevitable, given the childishness of the baggers.

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Thank goodness for the separation of powers.
why does the media not ask.
"If this is a network feed, and a State of the Union Address".
Why, is there a Wilson camera on the Supreme Court, while the President is speaking?
It looks as if the Hollywood spin is in play.
Congress should impeach Obama, when it returns, for that drama. He may have apologized in the appearance at the GOP meeting, but it should be to the the people.

Posted by: RayOne | January 31, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS STILL SOFT ON TERRORISM


Obama has got to be kidding - after pulling teeth for months, the word is that the terror trials will not be in New York.


I have absolutely NO IDEA how Obama thought he was going to pick a jury in Manhattan - that was STUPID - everyone knows someone who was either there or died, or knows someone who's family was involved.


However, the first problem is we don't hear from Obama or Gibbs on his "soft on terror" decisions - it is always leaked out the side door - quite pathetic - IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE SOFT ON TERROR, AT LEAST BE A MAN AND MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENTS YOURSELF.


I just took a look at the Senate map - and the reasoning for moving the trials IS CLEAR.


If you look at Chris's top ten too - the Republicans have a good chance of picking up at least 7 seats from the top ten - which would put them at 48 seats.


That should get Obama worried.


With Massachusetts becoming a wildcard, any state can possibly go Republican - so the next tier after those 7 - is Wisconsin, Indiana, and believe it or not New York.


One could see Wisconsin and Indiana, although there are strong incumbents in there with great name recognition, going Republican because historically those states are close - so it is possible in this crazy year for the Republican Senate total to go to 50.


Biden still has the tie-breaker.


But then there is New York - and there are TWO seats up this year, because Hillary resigned. If the terror trials became a big issue - and somehow the Wall Street mess became a big issue against Obama, it is possible that a Republican could win one of the seats.


You never know in this crazy year.


My point: OBAMA IS NOT GETTING ANY TOUGHER ON TERRORISM - HE IS JUST LOOKING AT THE SENATE ELECTORIAL MAP AND THINKING HE SHOULD TAKE THE TERROR TRIALS OFF THE TABLE AS AN ISSUE IN THE TWO NEW YORK SENATE RACES.


That is about as far as it goes.


I don't know if the Republicans could get strong candidates together in New York - or even if they would do well, New York is strongly democratic.


I think that just about explains it.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 1:51 AM | Report abuse

Poor schempf. The swamp gas is interfering with his chanting again.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 30, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

"It looks like Sarah Palin may be left holding the bag at a Tea Party event that almost no one else in the movement wants anything to do with."

Man, when even Michelle Bachman finds something beneath her, that's kind of a sign to get out.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

From the same source, but I don't want to be disloyal to CC. This is the crack conservative filmmaker who broke into Sen. Landrieu's office.
---------------------------------------
Judge Orders 25-Year-Old O'Keefe To Live With His Parents
Justin Elliott | January 28, 2010, 11:12AM

"As if James O'Keefe hasn't suffered enough indignity after botching an alleged phone tampering operation at a U.S. senator's office, getting arrested, and being photographed leaving jail, the judge in the case has now ordered that he reside with his parents until the next hearing."

Separately,
"In a statement posted on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government site, O'Keefe writes: "On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building."
-------------------------------------
You couldn't make this stuff up.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 30, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Remember during the campaign when McCain chose Palin? Nobody'd heard of her. For a week or so hegot a boost, she was the bug celebrity, Hot Chicks Vote Republican, he was acting like he actually had a shot. Them something horrible happened.

She opened her mouth.

Out came babble and drivel and nonsense. And, of course, lies, but that goes without saying (Republicans). The esteem and respect propel have for uh her have been dropping steadily ever since.

Lecturing empty chairs about the virtue of the "pry-vit secter" isn't going to help either.

Her book is in the clearance bins already.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

From the famous blog TPMMuckraker

"Palin Still Psyched For Tea Party Convention Despite Growing Exodus
Zachary Roth | January 29, 2010, 10:03AM

It looks like Sarah Palin may be left holding the bag at a Tea Party event that almost no one else in the movement wants anything to do with.

And hundreds of tickets for the convention, now just a week away, are said to still be available.

Still, Palin seems as gung ho as ever. Her speaking fee has been reported to be as high as $100,000 though organizers have not confirmed the figure."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 30, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Hearing none, I bid the rest of you (even fake JakeD3) a fond farewell as we are going on a sunset cruise. See you tomorrow.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I see from the Chevron ads that $62 million has been changed to $59 million per day, so I would like extend and revise my remarks in that regard.

==

Q: what kind of idiot believes advertising claims?

A: the kind of idiot who thinks Palin is qualified for public office. At any level.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! FairlingtonBlade's Excel shreadsheet hardly qualifies as "stalking" now. Does anyone else want to debate these issues.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

@ Noacoler - I am deeply, deeply sorry and apologize without reservation. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact and was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

I accept that pResident Obama is in fact a natural born citizen of these United States of America. I still heart Sarah, though.

Posted by: JakeD3 | January 30, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

I didn't vote for McCain (for probably lots of the same reasons you didn't), but if the choice if Obama vs. Palin in 2012, I will not be voting third party this time.

==

You hope the GOP runs Palin?

You and every Democrat. Fifty states for Obama.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

You and Noacoler (who insists he posts, at most, half a dozen times per day) have posted on this thread more than Moonbat.

==

stalker

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I see from the Chevron ads that $62 million has been changed to $59 million per day, so I would like extend and revise my remarks in that regard.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"yes, zouk, and the fact that you are on here posting every 2minutes every day demonstrates clearly that you don't have any.

That pathetic myth about your German model wife and two perfect children was a truly interesting manifestation of your illness, I must say.

Posted by: drindl"

The best part is how the guy pretends to have an economics degree and then whines about how Obama didn't fix the economy within the first ten minutes of his presidency.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Suzy

Thanks alot, that is exactly what I wanted to hear NOT

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

SuzyCCup:

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Thank God it seems as if drindl and Noacoler have left (for now at least ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Moonbat:

I've posted my boat info on-line, and they still don't believe me. We aren't working with high intellect from them.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 4:20 PM

JakeD, nice boat! Check out this one.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2137/2438149842_e8aa6da1ac.jpg


Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

SuzyCcup:

I didn't vote for McCain (for probably lots of the same reasons you didn't), but if the choice if Obama vs. Palin in 2012, I will not be voting third party this time.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

OK Suzy
Is your hair long or short, is it straight or curly?

Im trying to get the image straight in my head, the dog is already next to you

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 4:16 PM

37, I have to leave something to the imagination.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Moonbat:

I've posted my boat info on-line, and they still don't believe me. We aren't working with high intellect from them.

http://www.boatinfoworld.com/registration.asp?vn=272826

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

SuzyCcup (assuming you are serious):

If it weren't for McCain, you wouldn't even know who Palin is.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 4:09 PM

JakeD, you're right. My boyfriend would be very depressed without Palin. He says she's hot (for an older woman).

And yes, I am serious. If Palin supports McCain, then she should tape her own mouth shut.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

OK Suzy

Is your hair long or short, is it straight or curly?


Im trying to get the image straight in my head, the dog is already next to you

.l

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

SuzyCcup (assuming you are serious):

Even RONALD REAGAN said he could work with someone who agreed with him on 8 out of 10 issues. If it weren't for McCain, you wouldn't even know who Palin is.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Moonbat is an excellent name, I have to say.

so is SuzyCcup - it brings up so many images. Suzy, are you a redhead, by any chance?

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 4:01 PM

Nope. I'm a blonde. Please, no jokes!

Did you ask moonbat?

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

SuzyCcup and jakeD3

I predict that if McCain loses the primary or the general, Obama will make McCain Secretary of Defense.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 3:58 PM


37, McCain is still trying to convince Obama that the surge worked. McCain either has a broadwayjoe mentality or he's senile.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Moonbat is an excellent name, I have to say.

so is SuzyCcup - it brings up so many images. Suzy, are you a redhead, by any chance?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Wow dribbl

I understand envy is about all you have but it is unbecoming, even for someone as nasty and shallow as you.

I suppose if I said I live in a house you would find that too worthy of your liberal spite and rage. Btw I also own several cars and we eat out a lot when I don't feel like making my usual gourmet French meals.

It is a sad statement on your empty life that you track and monitor this and measure your own failure by my success.

You will never be successful libs. No one wants to be around angry people. This explains your lack of a job all these years.

I probably spent more on my boat than you made all year loser. I have nothing but pity for you loser. You seem to have nothing but envy and spite.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 30, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

SuzyCcup and jakeD3


I predict that if McCain loses the primary or the general, Obama will make McCain Secretary of Defense.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

SuzyCcup:

I hope that you will vote for Palin to make that come true.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 2:35 PM


JakeD, I didn't vote for McCain and I certainly didn't vote for Obama in 2008. If Palin endorses that big phony McCain in the Arizona primary (instead of JD), I won't vote for her either.

By the way, if McCain loses the primary against JD in Arizona, look for McCain to pull an Arlen Spector. Hopefully, he'll tape his mouth shut like his wife did in that poster for same-sex marriage. That will shut him up.

Cindy McCain said opposition to gay marriage is driven by hate. Palin hasn't said anything about that.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

You and Noacoler (who insists he posts, at most, half a dozen times per day) have posted on this thread more than Moonbat.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I am reminded about the last huckster that fooled all the simpleton liberals. John edwards. Then there is gore, Lieberman, Kerry and on and on. It won't be long before the current joke of leader passes into this hall of sham.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 30, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

You realize that McCain promised to hold one of those every MONTH as President, right?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

'Note most people get meaning from work, family, hobbies etc.

Posted by: Moonbat'

yes, zouk, and the fact that you are on here posting every 2minutes every day demonstrates clearly that you don't have any.

That pathetic myth about your German model wife and two perfect children was a truly interesting manifestation of your illness, I must say.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


That simply did not happen - Obama did not demolish them.


What happened is that MSNBC and the democrats are so DESPERATE over the past week and half - that they are willing to CHEER AT ANYTHING.


Obama got his coffee in the morning YAY


Obama gets to the office YAY


Obama gets a limo ride to Baltimore YAY


Obama takes questions YAY


The cheerleading that has gone on at MSNBC is beyond silly - the producers there are a bunch of children.


AND they justify it because Fox exists - well the networks were liberal over the decadeds - they threw in their snide remarks - and their liberal slants for decades.


The networks did it and they were able to get away with it for a long time.


Fox News keeps on going through the roof in ratings ? WHY?


People tune in to Fox to see what is goig on there - they want to hear what the other side is saying - AND THEY END UP STAYING.


People channel surf - they go over to CNN and they hear all the liberal remarks thrown in - then they go to MSNBC and those guys are way way over the top.

Chris Mathews is really a shame - here is a guy who worked for the Speaker of the House - and was at the center of things for years - he has the experience - the things that have come out of his mouth have been so ridiculous.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Dribbl thinks that cutting and pasting various rants and raves from angry Hatriot sites gives her miserable life meaning.

Note most people get meaning from work, family, hobbies etc. Hard to go there with the emptiness of the liberal head and the haye ensconced in it's garlic soul.

Meanwhile ped considers this thread his work, family and hobby. How convenient for her. How unfortunate for everyone else.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 30, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

moonbat/zouk/drvl/snobama is like one of those little kids that think when they cover their eyes you can't see them. he honestly thinks he's fooling people by using all these different monikers, and then saying EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS. whatt a dolt.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

And Obama is at the Georgetown game. ZOMG, Y AIN'T HE MAKIN JOBZZZ???????????

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Ped. I mean moe. Are you going to take that from Larry? She seems to have you pegged.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 30, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Too bad for CC that you have trashed his place.

==

CC has gotten exactly what he wants here, don't kid yourself.

Look what people get banned for, and look what they don't get banned for.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler:

I don't wish a Muslim non-citizen to be President.

==

hahaha

do you wear a hat wirh bells on it?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

And Georgetown is pummeling Duke. Ah, a good day.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"Is there any doubt left that the three stooges have sucked all intelligence from this blog?"


No, there's no doubt that you have. zouk -- you and your 200 monikers and joked and 37. nowadays, coming here is like falling into a sewer-- just you 3 turds. i just drop a few disinfectant bombs and leave.

But you pathetic losers live here -- you've got nothing and no one. And that is exactly what you deserve. So stay on here and writhe in your pathetic loneliness and hatred together. How sad is that? All you 3 have is each other -- and each one of you is uglier than the next.

Too bad for CC that you have trashed his place.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Call it whatever you want. Whether it was smart, dumb, a gamble, political calculating or all of the above, when President Obama appeared in front of hundreds of chomping-at-the-bit Republicans with the cameras rolling on live TV he not only made for Must See TV, he also provided the much needed transparency jolt that voters want to see. The President passed the test with flying colors.

This was the American version of those back and forth British Parliament sessions. (The only element missing was John Boehner and Eric Cantor in full white wig mode.) It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that President Obama's decision to step into the GOP lion's (elephant's?) den was designed as a political move. He needs some Republicans on board with his agenda and showing up in front of them may expose them politically as the party of No. But to only consider the political implications misses the point entirely. The upside for President Obama after this political grudge match is measurable.

First of all, he now has the ultimate trump card in transparency. To be able to field questions from the enemy on live TV takes guts. Talk about transparent. This is as naked politically as you can get. This could have been a colossal failure. The White House clearly wanted cameras in there for political reasons but don't think for a second that this couldn't have horribly backfired. Who's to say that President Obama wouldn't have been confronted with some sort of nasty, embarrassing, in your face question? Sort of like a "Joe Wilson on Steroids moment?" You think that wouldn't have made the "YouTube" rounds and sent Robert Gibbs into defensive daily briefing mode? It's a chance the President didn't have to take but he did.

Secondly, to sit there and listen to a talking points question for three minutes and keep your composure showed President Obama at his level headed best. He looked grown up and mature. He gave as good as he received without this developing into a political food fight that only John Belushi could love. In short, he looked presidential.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

As if this blog is not moronic enough, dribbl arrives to produce single digit iq averages.

Is there any doubt left that the three stooges have sucked all intelligence from this blog?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 30, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Today, the Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy grew at 5.7 percent from October through December, a “better-than-expected gain.” The expansion was the fastest in six years. White House economic adviser Christina Romer said the report is “the most positive news to date” on the economy. Speaking on Bloomberg television today, Mark Zandi — who was an adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign — heralded the positive numbers as a result of the stimulus passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama last February:

I think stimulus was key to the 4th quarter. It was really critical to business fixed investment because there was a tax bonus depreciation in the stimulus that expired in December and juiced up fixed investment. And also, it was very critical to housing and residential investment because of the housing tax credit. And the decline in government spending would have been measurably greater without the money from the stimulus. So the stimulus was very, very important in the 4th quarter.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

In all the excitement over President Obama's remarkable smackdown of the Republicans, yesterday, the focus has been so intense on the president's remarkable smackdown that another remarkable moment has only been discussed in passing. Even corporate media commentators recognized yesterday for what it was, and we've seen the reports that even Republicans themselves know they got worked. All of this is good. But there was more.

Yesterday was a unique and remarkable moment in American politics. Many have noted that it's just not possible to imagine a Bush or a Palin similarly standing ground to take opposition questioning. Unless, perhaps, at a comedy club, where they would be revealed as the clowns, albeit dangerous clowns, that they were and are. But to anyone who genuinely cares about the workings of politics, yesterday was as good as it gets. It was riveting.

For any corporate media entity that has pretenses of being about news, that has pretenses of being fair and balanced, and that has pretenses of professional integrity, yesterday should have been a dream. High theater and real substance. Even people who don't often watch political speeches were mesmerized. People on the intertubes will be watching it and analyzing, endlessly. But one supposed news network didn't want its viewers to watch. One supposed news network didn't like what it was seeing. One supposed news network gutlessly turned and fled.

One supposed news network yesterday revealed itself for what it is: a right wing propaganda outfit. A gutless right wing propaganda outfit. Chickenhawks on war who can't even stand the heat of political debate. Turning away wasn't just unprofessional and partisan, it was gutless. And that needs emphasizing. Because it's time for others in the corporate media to stop defending a faux news outfit that clearly isn't about the news.

Yesterday said everything. Yesterday, because it was so afraid of what it was seeing, the right wing propaganda outfit posing as a news outfit turned away from the biggest political news story of the day, and essentially told its audience that if that audience wanted to see the biggest political news story of the day, it would have to turn to the competition. Fox "News" is not about news. It is not professional. And even more, it is utterly gutless. Never forget it.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

SuzyCcup:

I hope that you will vote for Palin to make that come true.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/obamas-qa-with-house-republica.html

The link to the transcripts of the meeting. (Each question and answer has its own link)

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama defended his proposed fee on bailed out banks, saying to Boehner: "If you listen to the American people, John, they’ll tell you they want their money back."

Boehner should have responded by saying, "If you listen to the American people, Barack, they’ll tell you they want their vote back."

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Justice!

A Kansas jury just found Scott Roeder guilty of first degree murder in the killing of abortion doctor George Tiller at his church last May.

The jury reportedly deliberated for less than hour. Roeder, an extremist anti-abortion activist, admitted on the stand that he killed Tiller.

Roeder was also found guilty on two counts of aggravated assault for pointing his gun at church ushers.

The Kansas City Star reports on what's next:

Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert set Roeder's sentencing for March 9. Roeder faces a maximum sentence of life in prison with a chance of parole after 25 years.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Today, the Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy grew at 5.7 percent from October through December, a “better-than-expected gain.” The expansion was the fastest in six years. White House economic adviser Christina Romer said the report is “the most positive news to date” on the economy. Speaking on Bloomberg television today, Mark Zandi — who was an adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign — heralded the positive numbers as a result of the stimulus passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama last February:

I think stimulus was key to the 4th quarter. It was really critical to business fixed investment because there was a tax bonus depreciation in the stimulus that expired in December and juiced up fixed investment. And also, it was very critical to housing and residential investment because of the housing tax credit. And the decline in government spending would have been measurably greater without the money from the stimulus. So the stimulus was very, very important in the 4th quarter.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

2008: Garbage In
2010: Garbage Out
2012: Barack The Trashman Out
2013: Smell the Roses

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler:

I don't wish a Muslim non-citizen to be President.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

LOL SuzyCcup!

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

That "barely literate idiot" will be President of the United States.

==

First you hope for economic collapse, the you pray for a successful terrorist attack, now you hope for a coup d'état.

Is there ANY calamity you don't wish on your country?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

katem1:

I was referring to Senator-Elect Brown (R-MA) I just love typing that last part.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

That "barely literate idiot" will be President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 2:06 PM


JakeD, beware! If Palin supports McCain over JD Hayworth, her political career is over.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

That "barely literate idiot" will be President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Yeah carry a whiny McCain press release as straight news. McCain who behaved like a four year old in the debates, McCain who chose a barely literate idiot as his VP, McCain who snarls at reporters and treats his election loss as a personal betrayal, McCain who lies as much as Palin. Give hôm aplomb.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 1:54 PM


Noacoler, they need you in Arizona. I want JD Hayworth to kick McCain's butt in the primary. Go get 'em!

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

jaked2: I wrote Jan.07/09 for a reason, because it was over a year ago, not Jan this year. why do you continually misquote someone? not between jan 6 and jan 19 this year.

Posted by: katem1 | January 30, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Yeah carry a whiny McCain press release as straight news. McCain who behaved like a four year old in the debates, McCain who chose a barely literate idiot as his VP, McCain who snarls at reporters and treats his election loss as a personal betrayal, McCain who lies as much as Palin. Give hôm aplomb.

You're not a reporter, Cillizza. You're a guy who kisses rear end for privileged access.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


That simply did not happen - Obama did not demolish them.


What happened is that MSNBC and the democrats are so DESPERATE over the past week and half - that they are willing to CHEER AT ANYTHING.

Obama got his coffee in the morning YAY


Obama gets to the office YAY


Obama gets a limo ride to Baltimore YAY

Obama takes questions YAY

The cheerleading that has gone on at MSNBC is beyond silly - the producers there are a bunch of children.

AND they justify it because Fox exists - well the networks were liberal over the decadeds - they threw in their snide remarks - and their liberal slants for decades.


The networks did it and they were able to get away with it for a long time.


Fox News keeps on going through the roof in ratings ? WHY?


People tune in to Fox to see what is goig on there - they want to hear what the other side is saying - AND THEY END UP STAYING.


People channel surf - they go over to CNN and they hear all the liberal remarks thrown in - then they go to MSNBC and those guys are way way over the top.


Chris Mathews is really a shame - here is a guy who worked for the Speaker of the House - and was at the center of things for years - he has the experience - the things that have come out of his mouth have been so ridiculous.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


That simply did not happen - Obama did not demolish them.


What happened is that MSNBC and the democrats are so DESPERATE over the past week and half - that they are willing to CHEER AT ANYTHING.

Obama got his coffee in the morning YAY


Obama gets to the office YAY


Obama gets a limo ride to Baltimore YAY

Obama takes questions YAY

The cheerleading that has gone on at MSNBC is beyond silly - the producers there are a bunch of children.

AND they justify it because Fox exists - well the networks were liberal over the decadeds - they threw in their snide remarks - and their liberal slants for decades.


The networks did it and they were able to get away with it for a long time.


Fox News keeps on going through the roof in ratings ? WHY?


People tune in to Fox to see what is goig on there - they want to hear what the other side is saying - AND THEY END UP STAYING.


People channel surf - they go over to CNN and they hear all the liberal remarks thrown in - then they go to MSNBC and those guys are way way over the top.


Chris Mathews is really a shame - here is a guy who worked for the Speaker of the House - and was at the center of things for years - he has the experience - the things that have come out of his mouth have been so ridiculous.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama tried to make another point - he said that the rhetoric of the Republicans was so rigid - that they did not give themselves alot of room to negotiate - with Obama.


Well, has Obama left himself room to negotiate with the Republicans?

That is totally a fair question.


At this vantage point, it is clear that the far-left liberal democrats could not agree with the moderates in their own party on health care - so where was the room for negotiation with the Republicans?

These points are important - it is true that these actors are reacting to each other in Washington - however the idea of calling out one side when your side is still playing the games - It just is not credible - AND you know what? - Obama and the democrats get away with it for a little while, but it comes back to hurt them badly.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, did you read all the interviews? They were really impressive. Obama has his faults, sure, but it never ceases to amaze me how he has such a grasp over the issues and just knows them inside and out.

And yeah, Obama just demolished them. None of them could even respond to his points. Obviously the point of this wasn't to have a televised debate with a winner or loser, but the fact that the Republicans had such a difficult time responding to him was quite telling.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama was being basically deceptive when he started listing the jobs numbers - the unemployment rate was BELOW 8% WHEN THEY PASSED THE STIMULUS.


It is over 10% now.

So, Obama is trying to say that the jobs were lost before he got in there.


This kind of rhetoric from Obama does not help the atmosphere.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

“there’s not a single person in here” would who would not be “going home to more laid off teachers,” firefighters, and police officers...

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 1:01 PM


Drindl, you're absolutely correct! There was nobody left in the room when he said that.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

actually, i think it was funny.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

How big is the trailer you live in, Suzy? Double-wide? What dya use for snowboards down there -- the cardboard boxes your cases of cat food comes in?

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 12:50 PM


Hello Drindl!

Your mention of cat food reminded me of something.

Early this morning I took Titus, my German Shepherd, on his regular walk. He got very depressed because they had removed his favorite fire hydrant. The city put a parking meter in its place. I said, look Titus - a Pay Toilet!

He didn't think it was very funny.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

President Obama appeared before the House GOP retreat in Baltimore today to offer a defense of his agenda while making good on his State of the Union promise to welcome ideas from the opposition party. In his introduction, Obama gave a strong defense of the stimulus package — which most economists agree has worked — saying, “there’s not a single person in here” would who would not be “going home to more laid off teachers,” firefighters, and police officers. Obama also chided Republicans for taking credit for the benefits while also bashing it:

And then the last portion of it was infrastructure, which as I’ve said, a lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon cuttings for the same projects that you voted against. Now I say all this not to re-litigate past, but it’s simply to state that the component parts of the stimulus are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do — rebuilding our infrastructure, tax cuts for families and businesses, and making sure that we were providing states and individuals some support when the roof was caving in.


Every single House Republican voted against the stimulus package, but as ThinkProgress has documented, many have gone on to tout the benefits it is having in their respective districts. For instance, Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) sent multiple press releases publicizing “imperative” stimulus funds awarded to his state, without mentioning where the money had come from. In December, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) called the stimulus a “large-scale failure,” only to praise a stimulus-funded program as “critical” a few weeks later. Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) sent two press releases out on December 16th — one saying the stimulus had “failed” and the other hailing $1,044,140 in stimulus money for the Carroll County school system.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

From mediamatters.org:

"Is this what Cillizza means by "mouthpiece"?
August 03, 2009 9:46 am ET by Jamison Foser

Would this entry by the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza look any different if it had been written by John McCain's press secretary?

In just a few paragraphs, Cilizza:

1) Touts McCain's influence within the Republican Party

2) Suggests you can't have bipartisan legislation unless McCain is on board

3) Passes on McCain's claims that the Democrats are not truly interested in bipartisanship

4) Passes on McCain's attacks on the inclusion of a public option in health care reform

5) Frames the gulf between McCain and the White House in McCain-friendly terms: McCain, according to Cilizza, is "growing increasingly upset with the growth in government spending and the lack of consultation between the White House and Senate Republicans."

And there isn't so much as a word of scrutiny of McCain's claims. Not a word even hinted at the possibility that McCain's take on anything might not be the whole story."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908030008

Ain't us; it's mediamatters.org...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 30, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama described the health reform legislation as “a plan that is pretty centrist” and pointed out that it already incorporated modified versions of Republican proposals. He said that the legislation reflected the basic elements of a plan introduced in June of last year by a bipartisan group of former Senate Majority Leaders and reminded Republicans that they would have to negotiate with Democrats to incorporate their ideas into the final legislation. “Most independent observers would say” it is “similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton,” Obama added. In 1994, then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole proposed alternatives that included an individual mandate, subsidies for lower income Americans and benefit standards “at least equal to those offered federal employees.”

Throughout the health care debate, House Republicans have resorted to sensational rhetoric and deceitful attacks. In July, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) said that “Democrats released a health care bill which essentially said to America’s seniors: Drop dead.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) predicted that “people die when they’re in line [for health care services],” and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) infamously said that the Democrats health care reform would “put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.”

UPDATE “I give the president an enormous amount of credit, because I’m sure that there wasn’t a person in the room that’s been elected that hasn’t had to go in to an adversarial setting, and be heavily outnumbered and yet stay that long and take those questions,” said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), chair of the GOP’s policy committee.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

“Accepting the invitation to speak at the House GOP retreat may turn out to be the smartest decision the White House has made in months,” writes the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder. “Debating a law professor is kind of foolish — the Republican House Caucus has managed to turn Obama’s weakness — his penchant for nuance — into a strength. Plenty of Republicans asked good and probing questions, but Mike Pence, among others, found their arguments simply demolished by the president.”

UPDATE Ezra Klein sarcastically writes, “Apparently, transparency sounds better in press releases than it does in practice.”

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

'House Republicans were fired up and ready to go for their conversation with President Obama at their annual retreat today. According to the New York Times, members of the conservative Republican House Conference said they were “itching to quiz the president and present their policy ideas rather than listen to another lofty presidential address.” Although such sessions generally occur behind closed doors, Republicans agreed to open it up after the White House said it was willing to do so.

However, after Obama’s strong performance, some Republicans are now regretting that decision. As Luke Russert reported on MSNBC:

RUSSERT: Tom Cole — former head of the NRCC, congressman from Oklahoma — said, “He scored many points. He did really well.” Barack Obama, for an hour and a half, was able to refute every single Republican talking point used against him on the major issues of the day. In essence, it was almost like a debate where he was front and center for the majority of it. … One Republican said to me, off the record, behind closed doors: “It was a mistake that we allowed the cameras to roll like that. We should not have done that.”

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

mediamatters.org is well-respected by whom?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse


How big is the trailer you live in, Suzy? Double-wide? What dya use for snowboards down there -- the cardboard boxes your cases of cat food comes in?

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The Hypocricy of Liberalism


Timothy (Tax Cheat) Geitner
Eric (America is a Nation of Cowards) Holder
Janet (The System is Working) Napolitano
Barack (Acting Stupidly) Obama
Harry (Light Skin Negro Bashing) Reid
Nancy (Chuckles) Pelosi
Bill (Get Me Coffee) Clinton
Hillary (Default 2012 Candidate) Clinton
Joe (Stand Up Chuck, Let 'em See ya) Biden

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I was watching some clips of Obama's speech to the republicans. He sure does stutter a lot when he doesn't have a teleprompter.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

From mediamatters.org, the well-respected media watchdog group:

"Cillizza: Van Jones and ACORN stories "suggest we better pay attention" to what Beck and Hannity are reporting "because they have power"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909200011

Sadly, more from mediamatters.org:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908030008

How many mainstream journalists have encouraged people to "pay attention" to Glenn Beck and Hannity? Frank Rich? Gene Robinson? Bob Herbert? Dr. Rachel Maddow?
MoDo?

Case closed.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 30, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the birther issue, I don't care so much about that. I would much rather see Obama's school records!

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"BB, I assume this is a snark, right?

This blog pushed the Scott Brown gaining/tied narrative from the first Rasmussen outlier poll and kept it going with endless cheerleading through (and during) election day. Then there are the endless Dems in trouble/GOP comeback narrative based, some would say illogically, on information that more GOPers in Congress are retiring than Dems."

Well, Brown did win, so it's kind of hard to make the cheerleading argument.

As for GOP retirements vs Dem retirements, Chris C has oft made the points that you can't look at all retirements the same. I totally agree with this. Dems are leaving more contested districts while Reps are leaving more safe districts.

This is a Senate example, but do you think the retirements of Brownback and Dorgan should have equal weight?

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but I think your examples aren't very strong.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Hi Everyone! Sorry I couldn't make it yesterday. Went snowboarding.

I don't think the watermelon reference was a racist comment at all. But I do have a question. Will they use the fried chicken to grease the melons? It would be easier to roll them.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 30, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Come to think of it, Steele might be able to thank Chip, cause the RNC had to show that they weren't racists, and elected Steele.

Posted by: katem1 | January 30, 2010 10:24 AM
______

Of course, although Steele won, he paid a heavy price. His reputation in the DC metro area (he was very well liked in this region before), for instance. Also, it's our understanding the RNC stripped him of authority possessed by his predecessors to approve major RNC expenditures, and it was reported that Steele himself has said some members are personally scared of him because he's -, well, you know. Sad stuff.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 30, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

k1, what I didn't get was the blog's "reporting" the other day that GOP Rep. Steve Buyer was retiring without one word about WHY. [Answer: serious allegations about a phony charity set up (allegedly) to take donors on golf outings.] How do you not devote at least a sentence about that?

Oh well.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 30, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

At least we are all "Read[ing] the Fix. Daily. No, hourly". This is actually BETTER than CNN because Wolf never talks back when I shout at the tv ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"Endless" cheerleading between January 6th and 19th?! LOL!!! You keep using that word -- I do not think it means what you think it means.

As for the "logic" of GOP vs. Dem retirements, several of us have explained the difference between "competitive" and "safe" seats (including Mr. Cillizza and Mr. Cook). More words you fail to understand.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"As for GOP cheerleading, I don't recall reading about Brown's probable win in this space.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 30, 2010 11:26 AM"
________

BB, I assume this is a snark, right?

This blog pushed the Scott Brown gaining/tied narrative from the first Rasmussen outlier poll and kept it going with endless cheerleading through (and during) election day. Then there are the endless Dems in trouble/GOP comeback narrative based, some would say illogically, on information that more GOPers in Congress are retiring than Dems. The slant is so extreme even a Columbia Journalism Review described this blog as a Drudge "imitator" and "emulator."

Excerpt:

While The Fix, put together by Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post, and Playbook, put together by Politico’s Mike Allen, are often referred to as Drudge’s heirs, neither has the influence that Drudge once had.... Of course, their existence is a testament to Drudge’s legacy as a trailblazer in the field of Internet newsgathering and gossip mongering. But increasingly, a legacy is all the Drudge Report has to offer."

http://www.cjr.org/feature/drudge_has_lost_his_touch.php?page=3

Mediamatters.org also has had some choice words about the bias. For example:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200907150008

Bias is okay as long as it is explicitly called out and acknowledged upfront.


Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 30, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

katem1:

I'm still here.

Chris Cillizza:

It looks like "drindl" finally has some competition in the personal stalker category. Better get IT and legal together to finish those TRO applications pronto ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

From the Fix in February 2009: "On the Democratic side, Rep. Kendrick Meek and state Sen. Dan Gelber are already in the race and Reps. Allen Boyd and Ron Klein are reportedly considering the contest."

As for the question, isn't that kind of a "duh" moment? Q. How do you think an indictment of Sen. Ensign would impact his re-election bid? A. I think it'll help. NOT.

As for GOP cheerleading, I don't recall reading about Brown's probable win in this space.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 30, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

thanks broadwayjoe, and for anyone who doesn't believe me, check out archives of the Fix for Jan07/09 for this statement. How can we not presume a GOP agenda by this blogger? I don't understand why he's on CNN, and never called out for his obvious GOP cheerleading. He still has not responded to my question about how the senate races might be impacted if the FBI investigation of Ensign results in an indictment. All we hear about is Reid's reelection woes. Or how about what are the chances of GOP congressman Nathan Deal getting relelcted, who promised in Nov/09 that he would be sending a letter to the WH demanding to see the Prez's BC, and Deal did send it a couple of weeks ago. We don't hear about GOPers having trouble on this blog. And how come we don't know the name of the Dem that is running for the same seat as Rubio and Crist? My very favourite example of CC's agenda was when he asked the question "Is Obama risking the ire of the media movers and shakers who typically set the conventional wisdom of a presidency?". yeah, Chris he is 'cause that's all part of CHANGE!!!! and you guys have been pissed off ever since your wapo guy asked a stupid question about A-rod at a presser, and Chuck Todd and others got their noses out of joint over being bypassed for HuffPo and other non traditional media outlets. oh no, the playing field has been leveled somewhat...finally.

Posted by: katem1 | January 30, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Cilizza. Are you channeling Obama?

Deadlines, empty threats, gathering the most pernicious leftists on your site and pretending you didn't hear?

You have allowed the nastiest cretin to take over your blog - the pedant. The other angry loons followed her tasteless lead down the path of anarchy.

It has been the wild west here since the ugly element arrived. Simple cause and effect.

Drindl and zouk never stooped to this level.

Look at the group that gathered here all night.

Your days are numbered. You will finally have time for that much overdue writing class in the wake of your job not saved.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 30, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

CC,

I believe this is a valuable discussion, though I recognize it's not the one you wanted to have. I'll be keeping on topic (or at least on interesting threads) on the usual posts, but this one is more like open line Friday. The email account associated with FairlingonBlade is long gone (I think it was when I had a dial-up Earthlink account). Creating a new handle is trivial. My ISP provides me 10 email accounts at any time, so I keep one for personal mail, one for business/spam, and have 8 available at any time. It wouldn't be a bother to create fblade1@verizon.net, fblade2@verizon.net, etc. The fact that a retired attorney did it so easily and openly shows that the system doesn't work. There is no magic banning button, so it's unrealistic to expect CC to have that power. That and the fact that he has an actual *job* and it's not playing net nanny to the comments section.

The fault lies with the Post for having no moderating mechanism for the comments section on its blog posts. The regular news stories generate hundred of comments, most often people spewing venom. The blog posts tend to have a different flavor. The recently departed On Parenting column had its set of regulars, including some trolls (Jezebel for example). Even Kim O'Donnell's deceased food blog had a resident troll (Omarthetentmaker). A fraction of the regulars are here to discuss politics. Armpeg or leapin shows up occasionally to yowl about democrap facists. No biggie.

Until such time as there is a moderation facility, this is going to be the tone. One has to ignore the trolls as engaging them is exactly what they want. I'll be investing in a keyboard with a top row of page downs so that I can keep shifting as they wear out.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 30, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

thanks for the link broadwayjoe, it exactly proves my point about some of the signs at the rallies, how can one not see racisim and bigotry. I must send out kudos though for the tea partyers that kicked Robertson out of the rally for his sign. credit where credit is due. The organizers realize that it discredits their organization with such blatant ignorance and arrogance. Come to think of it, Steele might be able to thank Chip, cause the RNC had to show that they weren't racists, and elected Steele.

Posted by: katem1 | January 30, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

"...And CC, you will never be able to walk back from personally saying you've known Chip Saltzman (of Barack the Magic Negro infamy) a long time and he's the furthest thing from a racist. If Chip isn't a racist than he's incredibly ignorant and arrogant to have released that dispicable CD when running to be the next head of the RNC. What he did was way worse than what the DC's did, yet did you defend the DC's?

Posted by: katem1 | January 30, 2010 10:04 AM"
__________

k1, we had forgotten about the Chip ("Magic N_gro CD") Salsman shout out. Thanks for the reminder. It speaks for itself. QED.

What's odd is the relentless daily bent against the President, his administration, his agenda, and his party. This from a blog (not a personal Facebook page) sponsored by a newspaper (Washington Post) that serves a progressive, multicultural city that is 70% black and which voted for BHO about 9 to 1.

How does the blog justify highlighting an unfavorable poll about the President without mentioning a Washington Post poll published the SAME DAY showing positive numbers? This does not sound like "political news and analysis" but rather an agenda. Sad.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 30, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad that CC has finally banned JakeD. A few weeks ago CC issued a warning to a poster about calling tea baggers swinist racists, basically saying, fine disagree with their policies but don't call them racists. Kinda hard to do when their signs say otherwise, it's not just racism, but bigotry, anti-semiticism with their halocaust portrayals, and the Nazi links. and yet CC let JakeD hang around forever, spewing his hatred. and misrepresenting other posts. Like when he said I had said that the Hawaiian GOP governor had seen the Prez's BC, when I had clearly said the Gov had attested to the validity of the BC.
Where's that poster who used to go by I think Bobby Clemons? He was a rightie that we all could discuss things with, with facts, and resolution, and reality? We want him back! healthy debate is a great information exchange, rather than seeing who can out insult the other with talking points, which seems to be the meme of most of the righties here with constant insults and disgusting comments, especially about the duly elected Prez. it was only 7 years ago that the Dixie Chicks were professionally ostarsized and recieved death threats for their one statement that actually called the President, the President! No racial slurs, no nicknames, and yet the conservative media coordinated a campaign that resulted in death threats to these three traditionally married with kids young women. Yet they came back, and came back with a song that Dem politicians should use for their theme song. How can a majority of the voters possibly forget what transpired during the last administration? And CC, you will never be able to walk back from personally saying you've known Chip Saltzman (of Barack the Magic Negro infamy) a long time and he's the furthest thing from a racist. If Chip isn't a racist than he's incredibly ignorant and arrogant to have released that dispicable CD when running to be the next head of the RNC. What he did was way worse than what the DC's did, yet did you defend the DC's?

Posted by: katem1 | January 30, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

One more item. The Washington Post, you know, the paper that sponsors this blog, reports on A4 of its print version today ("GOP Woos Wary Tea Party Activists"] that Tea Bag Party Founder and President Dale Robertson "has reached out repeatedly to [RNC head Michael] Steele but has been rebuffed." Robertson said, "[Steele] hasn't called me back."

Dale, ya think it might have something to do with that sign you keep carrying?

http://washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader

Just sayin'.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 30, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

BTW, shoutout to noa for fightin' the fight until 2:32am! Gunga Din stuff, IMO. Well done. Signing out.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 30, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Regarding your "question," let me suggest you do a listening tour. Include stops in Harlem, Detroit, Newark, Compton, and East St. Louis, Gary, and Liberty City. When you return from the hospit-, er, your trip, report back here about what people said. All the best.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 30, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

"Obama says he will look at the Republican ideas - and again he said it today and on Wednesday - AND THE REPUBLICANS HAD THE IDEAS READY FOR HIM - WRITTEN OUT."

Problem was the GOP just gave the President a single piece of paper with one word: no. Dale Robertson's crowd may have wanted to add one more word but they kept misspelling it.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 30, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Next up:

"Does anybody believe that asking if the Park Police was going to use watermelons (and other round fruit) if they had run out of eggs for the Easter Egg Roll is not a racist statement?"

Current tally:

AYE -- 2
NO -- 0

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Final vote:

WINNER -- Birther nonsense 210

Alternative to DADT 202
Abstaining 1 (meaning that Kucinich was present for the vote but refused to pick either one)

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

For what it's worth...

I think it was number two: your suggestion regarding what should happen to an entire community of people in the United States.

Don't think it was number one (the r_cist birther comment), even though you were warned about that, since, as many posters have indicated, the host has been okay with r-cist posts in the past...just not posts objecting to r_cist posts. Sorry, don't have a clue as to what number three (Kucinich) is about. Hope that helps.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 30, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

"Does anybody believe that asking if the Park Police was going to use watermelons (and other round fruit) if they had run out of eggs for the Easter Egg Roll is not a racist statement?"

The clerk will re-read JRM2's question as the next order of business.

In the meantime, the clerk is still holding the roll call vote open as to the pending resolution why JakeD was banned. Currently, the vote is:

Birther nonsense (210)
Alternative to DADT (201)
Abstaining (1 Kucinich)

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

@JakeD/D2, your recent "banning" in no way affects your recent HOF induction. That honor will remains untarnished. The Committee is already eliciting nominees for 2011. Any suggestions?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 30, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza:

Just because your fights all seem as silly as those between Andy Bernard and Dwight Shrute on "The Office" doesn't mean that's the way the rest of us fight (was that close enough to a discussion of some of the material you posted?)

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Moron

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 2:32 AM | Report abuse

Obama was not being fully genuine in Baltimore - and he deserves to be called out for it.


First, Obama can not say he is being bipartisan - when all they really tried to do this year with the health care bill is pick off one or two Republican votes.


Obama says he will look at the Republican ideas - and again he said it today and on Wednesday - AND THE REPUBLICANS HAD THE IDEAS READY FOR HIM - WRITTEN OUT.


But the Republicans have been trying to get Obama to listen to him all year.

There were some bipartisan health care meetings in the spring - and the democrats walked out - and said the Republicans have to understand that the democrats won the election and the democrats were not going to compromise.


Well - that is not being bipartisan.


The Republicans are not props for Obama to get his bipartisan pictures when nothing of substance takes place.


NOW after all of this - Obama basically wants the Republicans to hand him some victories and HE WANTS THE REPUBLICANS TO SAVE HIS PRESIDENCY.


Obama really painted himself into a corner - and I don't know how he can get himself out.


ANOTHER MAJOR PROBLEM OBAMA HAS CREATED is the disrespect within his own party that the liberals have had for the moderates in the democratic party.


All year the attitude has been : we have the votes, so let's jam through the most liberal agenda possible - and we don't care what the moderates think.


Well the moderates are NOW the ones who have to go up for re-election and are the ones who are now most at risk in November.


Also, the moderates have the districts which require the most heavy-lifting in terms of challenges to get votes and work required for re-election.


Ironic - how the liberals abused the moderates all year - but now it is obvious that the liberals need the moderates to work extra hard to maintain the majorities in each House of Congress.


Even if the Republicans were to jump to Obama's side, it is doubtful that Obama and the left wing have enough moderate democratic votes.


Obama's debacle has been too public - it has captured the attention of too many Americans - it has entered the discourse too far.


Obama has really gotten this nation angry at him for abandoning his bipartisanship pledge - that pledge meant to most Americans that Obama would negotiate CENTRIST POLICIES. I believe that is the easiest way to put what Obama's clear problem is.


Obama has lost the trust of so many Americans -


The American people want a check on the power of Obama and the democrats - they do not trust him, Reid and Pelosi to govern.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 2:26 AM | Report abuse

Hey pea-brain. Yeah, you, 37th.

When all you have is "who gets to decide" then it's time to slink away because you have absolutely lost completely.

This is always true.

Only someone already posting under many accounts would be concerned about others doing the sane.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 2:16 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


Who gets to decide who are the haters ???


You probably posted that one rant under a different name, and then you re-post it, and say you co-sign.


I don't believe you - I think you are always practicing a deception on here - by using multiple names - and by working with other people.

I say the people who are intolerant are the haters.

You just want one side banned.

You are the one who should be BANNED. Forever.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 30, 2010 1:55 AM | Report abuse

@Louis: cosign on trigger-happy account banning. Yes they will reregister immediately but it gets old fast and it's not possible to create the established online persona thing that drives the trolls.

But this place has gotten so bad now that WaPo has to do something about it. I've never seen so much rage from my side if the aisle as what we saw today in this thread around Jake coming back. Something has to give. But for instant banning to work it would have to be fair, and it won't be.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 1:01 AM | Report abuse

@shrink2: figured you'd given up on this place. Cosign on the chat room conclusion, cosign on closing it. Like DDAWD has been saying all along, ban the trolls or it'll never work. Heyday long past now.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 12:01 AM | Report abuse

"A lot of folks (including quite possibly some at the Post) still can't figure out why, when CF8 called out trolls posting hateful personal attacks against him and openly racist comments about our President month after month with no objection from our host, CF8 got banned but the trolls like JakeD were left alone to spew more hate. Bizarro World. Or maybe just whistlin' Dixie? Who knows?
Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 29, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse"

Did this really happen? I believe it.

Really, Mr. Cillizza, do you know about "trolling?". Are you not aware that some people get perverse gratification out of being nuisances? Or or you aware but playing favorites with trolling posters who share your party allegiance? Why do you stand by and let one person fill up these comments by posting the same words over and over? Or sit by while one poster does a quarter of the posts in a single thread?

But if you're giving the OK to bigots and banning people who call them out then ban me too, and right now, because if someone posts bigotry I'm liable to say something about it, and there may even be "name calling" in my response.

Posted by: LouieEnnic | January 29, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

CC said

"I remain absolutely baffled as to why they continue to post somewhere where they are clearly not wanted."

Grow up Chris.
This is a social networking site for a few people who enjoy each others' company in this particular style. They found each other here.

You have to close your comments section.
It is too bad, but at least no one got hurt.


Posted by: shrink2 | January 29, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza, I have to agree with Noacoler’s post at 9:22 on the blog clock. You have one poster issuing a libel that outshines anything else here. Child molester? If you aren’t phoning down to the IT department and getting this account blocked (forget IP addresses) then you aren’t serious about wanting to clean up these comments. You let this go on for months? You deserve what you see here.

If you wanted to have good comments here you would just have a desktop application that would let you personally block accounts. You could throw the switch on everyone who posts sick garbage, right away, no BS about IP addresses and no crocodile tears about “I don’t understand why they keep coming back.” Months and months of archives here are loaded with ugly nasty stupid posts that you seemed PERfectly happy with, not even small objections.

Someone posts hate? Kill the account. Someone posts “ped” attacks? Kill the account. He comes back? Kill that one too. You don’t need a proctor to watch the comments, you could do it yourself. It’s as clear as it could be that what goes on here has your approval and has had it all along, otherwise you would have stepped in months ago.

Posted by: LouieEnnic | January 29, 2010 10:07 PM
__

The best post on this topic in the last year! Obviously we cosign. I would only add that while banning for things such as racist posts is to be encouraged, banning someone for CALLING OUT out such posts makes no sense whatsoever, especially in THIS multicultural city.

A lot of folks (including quite possibly some at the Post) still can't figure out why, when CF8 called out trolls posting hateful personal attacks against him and openly racist comments about our President month after month with no objection from our host, CF8 got banned but the trolls like JakeD were left alone to spew more hate. Bizarro World. Or maybe just whistlin' Dixie? Who knows?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 29, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

"Atop" the "blog clock" which is right twice a day?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza, I have to agree with Noacoler’s post at 9:22 on the blog clock.  You have one poster issuing a libel that outshines anything else here.  Child molester?  If you aren’t phoning down to the IT department and getting this account blocked (forget IP addresses) then you aren’t serious about wanting to clean up these comments.  You let this go on for months?  You deserve what you see here.
 
If you wanted to have good comments here you would just have a desktop application that would let you personally block accounts.  You could throw the switch on everyone who posts sick garbage, right away, no BS about IP addresses and no crocodile tears about “I don’t understand why they keep coming back.”  Months and months of archives here are loaded with ugly nasty stupid posts that you seemed PERfectly happy with, not even small objections.
 
Someone posts hate?  Kill the account.  Someone posts “ped” attacks?  Kill the account.  He comes back?  Kill that one too.  You don’t need a proctor to watch the comments, you could do it yourself.  It’s as clear as it could be that what goes on here has your approval and has had it all along, otherwise you would have stepped in months ago.

Posted by: LouieEnnic | January 29, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

JRM2


I have to read a report so I can tell you what is wrong with it?


You sound like broadwayjoe complaining about Rasmussen.

You will take anything to make a point which is not really true.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Atop pretending you know what a proxy server is, you don't. You got the term from one of my posts. Anyway I'm not using one. I'm a long way from needing one.

There are also anonymization servers, which you can't do anything about either.

Funny you don't even mention 37th, by far your biggest problem here.

If you wanted good comments you could had them. A solid year of welcoming trolls and bigots makes these repetitive whiny posts a little hard to take seriously, you know.

And no there is no magic banning bullet forthcoming. That's BS.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

I told you exactly how to do it. Not my fault you won't.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

All,

I would love to ban jaked2, noacoler and drivl (among others) since they have -- yet again -- hijacked a post with comments that have nothing to do with the material discussed.

But, as I have stated multiple times, with people like the trio above using proxy servers, they are able to get around the IP ban. We have banned them repeatedly and yet they return to engage in the same childish mud-flinging that no one but they are interested in.

(I remain absolutely baffled as to why they continue to post somewhere where they are clearly not wanted.)

So, until the Post develops a better way to get rid of bad actors -- and I have been told that day is coming -- I ask you to bear with us.

Enjoy the content and take what you can from the discussions. And, above all, please ignore the bad actors. It's the only way to silence them.

Thanks for your patience and perseverance.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | January 29, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Blow me, you sick freak

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

"The “ped” here is addressed to me, and it’s short for “pedophile” or “pederast,” that is to say, child molester." -- Noacoler / Seattle Top / GoldAndTanzanite / Chris Fox

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the ped, the sped and the stooge have gathered again for an all night luv fest.

Posted by: drivl | January 29, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

you're absolutely right ped. Stop coming here.

Posted by: drivl | January 29, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

 
==
 
The “ped” here is addressed to me, and it’s short for “pedophile” or “pederast,” that is to say, child molester.  Zouk may equivocate that it means “pedestrian” or perhaps “pedagogue” and of course Cillizza is going to give him the benefit of the doubt, being a Republican and a Texan and being, needless to say, perfectly OK with calling a gay man a child molester.  And a few bannings ago it was fully spelled out, so the abbreviation shouldn’t fool anyone.  Nor is it intended to.
 
And it’s worth noting that this every-day over-the-top personal attack goes unremarked.
 
Just didn’t want anyone to believe that those rules at the bottom of the page, you know, “mean” anything.  They don’t.
 

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Do you know that 37th and O Street is the main address of Georgetown University in DC?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

You kidding? A dog can stare him down.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 8:46 PM
-------------------------------
Bwahahahahahaha! LOL!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

You kidding? A dog can stare him down.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I don't like doing that to another poster, but Jake is a coward of the first order. He puts out hateful ideas, then runs over to his lawbooks and finds some kind of BS to hide behind (justified homicide, not murder). Then he professes to know nothing about it at all (I'm so innocent here). Then, he hides behind 37th (in either sense of the word). A real MAN would stand up to what he said and take his lumps. I'm more of a man than he is, and I'm a woman!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

I'd say their thought patterns are equally as lazy, ignorant and dishonest but their writing styles are different.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

37th is JakeD.

So is "doof" and there are probably others

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"Why is 37th so hysterical about defending Jake? You'd think he knows him personally.

Posted by: 12BarBlues"
---
Maybe he's got a closet thing for him.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

And BTW 37th if you want to know in detail "What happened to the 787b" use your brain, go to recovery.org and see the numbers for yourself.

But you would rather throw sh*t out there and see if it sticks than do a little homework.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

37th and Jake are so full of sh*t it really is coming out of their mouths.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:21 PM
------------------------------
Why is 37th so hysterical about defending Jake? You'd think he knows him personally.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Aye.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 29, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

37th and Jake are so full of sh*t it really is coming out of their mouths.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Whoops, double-negative. I meant 37th "is", not "is NOT"

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Here's the rollcall

I want Jake off this blog.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Let it go on the record that 37th doesn't think making crude jokes about Watermelons in regards to a black President is NOT a RACIAL statement.

You trying to defend this kind of behavior says a lot about you.

And yes, I would go after anybody who openly makes a racial slur no matter what color they are.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

My posts, which often oppose racism and raise questions about the editorial content of this blog--whether you agree with them or not--often reflect not just my views but in many cases the views of some Fix's published coworkers and many mainstream journalists. The Washington Post is not the Washington Times. The Post is our national political paper of record and has been in the vanguard of the civil rights/civil liberties movement. The late Kate Graham would have ecstatic about, not hostile towards, BHO's presidency. It is this community's obligation to ensure THAT journalistic heritage is respected here.

34, 35, 36, __, 38, 39...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 29, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"What happened to the $787 Billion in Stimulus money"
37th
---
Your lack of knowledge and intellectual laziness is stunning. So I will spell it out for you:
1/3 came as TAX CUTS, not increases TAX CUTS
1/3 is being used to shore up state and local agencies to prevent further layoffs, with big check being handed out by those who voted against the bill.
1/3 Going to fund infrastructure projects (ask Pawlenty how that bridge collapse is working out for him) which are still badly needed since the Army Corps of Engineers has given our infrastructure a "D" rating for the last ten years, and business innovation including green energy.

Two-thirds of the stimulus funds had to go to saving jobs and tax-cuts.

Do you ever think before you post?

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

ha ha roll call ha ha

you're a happy little fellow, aren't you, Jake.

ha ha

winky winky winky

titter titter titter

giggle giggle

isn't it fun being the center of attention?

Eat sh•t and die, would you?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

@ Jake and his defender,

Where is the retraction? If Jake didn't make a retraction, he could make a retraction now, couldn't he?

That is, if he wanted to.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I repeat, does anyone here think that asking if the White House was going to use watermelons instead of eggs for the Easter Egg Roll was a racist statement, or just an "honest question"?

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:03 PM

___________________________________

Stop trying to make a racial incident out of everything ----

Is that really being post-racial?

NO it is being RACIST

You wouldn't go after a black person for being racist, would you?


NO, you would only go after white people.


THAT MAKES YOU A RACIST.

So stop it -


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

I repeat, does anyone here think that asking if the White House was going to use watermelons instead of eggs for the Easter Egg Roll was a racist statement, or just an "honest question"?

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:03 PM

___________________________________

Stop trying to make a racial incident out of everything ----

Is that really being post-racial?

NO it is being RACIST

You wouldn't go after a black person for being racist, would you?


NO, you would only go after white people.


THAT MAKES YOU A RACIST.

So stop it -


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

"Stop with the calls for lynching of racists - it is sooooo 2008

It's like trying to have a witch trial and a lynching all in one.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I repeat, does anyone here think that asking if the White House was going to use watermelons instead of eggs for the Easter Egg Roll was a racist statement, or just an "honest question"?

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:03 PM
------------------------
If it came from Jake, it was racist.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse


@Jake,

Since you like polls, we do this all again tomorrow and see what the folks think then.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

JRM2


You are a laugh


What happened to the $787 Billion in Stimulus money


you know that is a scandal

how many jobs did that create - at $30,000 per job that would be 26 MILLION jobs - where are they???

Obama is a complete and miserable failure.

It is sad, I really wanted to see him succeed.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

I repeat, does anyone here think that asking if the White House was going to use watermelons instead of eggs for the Easter Egg Roll was a racist statement, or just an "honest question"?

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Oh, FairlingtonBlade:

Have a fun weekend yourself : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Why even bother coming here Jake? Nobody likes you. Even Cillizza has had it with you.

Why don't you go make love to your "wife"

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Try reading the report 37th.
BTW: GDP up 5.7%

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

I posted LOTS of times that prior night. Per the pending "roll call" vote, my best guess is "Birther nonsense".

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone see the retraction? If so, speak up.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"Stop with the calls for lynching of racists - it is sooooo 2008

Posted by: 37thand0street"
----
I didn't think that someone could be more intellectually dishonest than Jake but this one surpasses even him.

Jake is claiming he's never posted a racist remark, i supplied the evidence that he indeed has.

So tell me, how is that calling for a lynching? And funny you should use such terminology in this context.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

JRM2:

It was an honest question (if the Park Police ran out of eggs chasing raccoons, I also suggested they could use other round fruit, such as apples or oranges, and that wasn't "racist" ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

""Do Nothing" Obama has gone back to "Doing Nothing"
Posted by: 37thand0street "
--------
Actually Obama is on pace to set a record for most legislative successes in his first year

From the Congressional Quarterly, a non-partisan publication:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003158549

For crying out loud 37th, do some frickin' homework for once instead of spouting your usual anti-Obama sentiments.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010

DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF SUCCESS

Obama is a miserable failure.


Obama has done little for the economy - and right now that is all that matters.

Now Obama wants to go off the reservation again - talking about college football and not concentrating on jobs.


Obama's main problem is he does not understand economics - Obama has no business or economic experience - EXCEPT FOR BUYING COCAINE.

That is why you are getting the kind of administration you are getting - always going off on tangents and forgetting about economics and jobs.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

We all received this message from Chris Cillizza. Jake couldn't imagine what he had done wrong!

------------------------------------
"Folks,

An update: "JakeD" is either banned or will be banned shortly for comments he made last night on the blog.

If there are others violating our rules, please send me an email highlighting the offensive comment.

Thanks,
Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | January 28, 2010 10:06 AM"


Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

There's no such thing as a conservative IP address, drool case.

I'm giving Cillizza valuable assitance in restoring this blog.

By the way, you're an idiot.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"Instead of the Easter Egg roll, are they going to use watermelons this year?

Posted by: JakeD | February 25, 2009 4:40 PM"

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Wow!!! A golden oldie : )

Who's the "stalker" now?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

JRM2, remember this? LOL.

"JRM2:

....I also have never made any overt racist remarks, lately or not.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 5:19 PM"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 29, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is using RHETORIC to complain about the Republicans' rhetoric not being close enough to THEIR ACTIONS ???
Posted by: 37thand0street "
----
Again 37th, you are being lazy or disingenuous. All 40 Republican Senators voted against pay-go, when Bush was President, at least 14 voted for the bill.

It is a fiscally conservative bill that Republicans have been clamoring about since the day they knew Obama was going to be POTUS. It was part of the reason why we had a huge SURPLUS after the Clinton years until Bush and his congress did away with it.

Tell me 37th, when have the Republicans EVER been fiscally responsible?

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Hearing no further nominations, the clerk will read the roll ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Jake, should I post the emails where you asked to see me naked?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


You would love that, wouldn't you? Start banning entire regions of the country which do not agree with you.

Throw out the Constitution.........


Throw out Constitutional Freedom of Speech....

Ban Regions of the Country at a time........


Liberals will do ANYTHING to get their way.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Jake wants us to be sure to know he's not talking about MURDER, he's talking about justifiable HOMICIDE. Get the difference?

"LOL!!! I have no idea if that's why I was banned (but it is funny to see Noalocer suddenly upset about "banned" people posting now), however EVERY law school in America teaches about "justified homicide" in first year criminal law. If explaining that gets one banned now, so be it.

A non-criminal homicide is usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another. A homicide, therefore, may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or ACTUAL murder. There are a bunch of intricate rules, but for the purpose that I brought it up, I need only quote the California State Penal Code that covers justified homicide for executions:

Sec. 196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--

1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,

2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,

3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.

(bgreen2224: as always YMMV)

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 28, 2010 5:23 PM"

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Well, my final spectrum of the day is done, and so I'll be heading home. Have fun with the dancing llamas!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 29, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

JRM2:

Point of order -- only one roll call at a time -- we'll get to your vote next.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

JRM2


Stop with the calls for lynching of racists - it is sooooo 2008

Come on, just stop it

You do not have a mob which you can rile up.

.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Hey Cillizza, don’t say I never did anything for you.
 
If JakeD is posting from a PC then it’s probably not easy for him to get a new IP, he’s not a smart guy and certainly hasn’t the brains to solve a technical problem.  I presume you blocked his IP.
 
If he’s posting from an iPhone then he probably gets a new IP every time he does anything over the cell network interface.  But it’s going to be an IP from a range.  So if Jake is connecting to The Fix on XXX.YYY.AAA.BBB, and you banned that IP, it won’t do much.  What you need to do is ban the entire subnet range, for example XXX.YYY.0.2 through XXX.YYY.255.254.
 
That will affect everyone posting from an iPhone in a sizable region, but that almost certainly includes only JakeD.  Now get to it, would you?
 
Won’t work on me though, I’m not posting from an iPhone, and I *am* technical, and understand networks and firewalling as a programmer.
 
Since he won’t go away by himself …. This blog being his whole “life,” such as it is.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


You have been way over the line many, many times - no one knows why you are still here.

I know, in your arrogance, you believe that the lack of enforcement is a green light to continue your hateful harassing of other posters.

But that is not true.

Chris is just luring you into a false sense of complacency.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

If anybody here believes that asking if the White house was going to use watermelons instead of eggs for the Easter Egg Roll is not a racist statement please raise your hands.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Last call for further nominations from the floor!

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

""Do Nothing" Obama has gone back to "Doing Nothing"
Posted by: 37thand0street "
--------
Actually Obama is on pace to set a record for most legislative successes in his first year

From the Congressional Quarterly, a non-partisan publication:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003158549

For crying out loud 37th, do some frickin' homework for once instead of spouting your usual anti-Obama sentiments.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

I second FairlingtonBlade's nomination, and vote for, birther nonsense. So far, the vote is:

Birther nonsense (2)
Alternative to DADT (3)

Any further nominations from the floor?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

This post is truly one of the best clarifications.

"elijah24:

You are aware that capital punishment CURRENTLY is a "violent" (in every sense of the word) and DEADLY procedure, right? I do not think that shooting patriotic Americans in a firing squad is funny -- I would not be "ok" with a similar bill against Christians, since that would violate the First Amendment -- whereas there is no Constitutional right to deviant sexual behavior. See the difference?

37th:

No, that's just the next version. If I get banned again (like Chris Fox), it will be JakeD3.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 28, 2010 8:35 PM"

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

noa, ain't karma a b___h? :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 29, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama asked the Republicans to have their rhetoric come closer to their actions.

NOOOOOOW

Let me get this right - Obama is using RHETORIC to complain about the Republicans' rhetoric not being close enough to THEIR ACTIONS ???


I just find it amazing that Obama has been complaining all week that the Republicans have not been more bipartisan -

Obama's attitude is : you were supposed to do this and do that....

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler:

Hot poker, all the way up, try it.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

BB, you're right that JakeD/JakeD2 was given a final warning about his r_cist birther posts but actually I think it was his violent/hate post (reposted at 7:29 by 12, thanks, 12) that got him thrown out. I think it is important to know what got him banned so folks know what the line is.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 29, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

So, which one are you trying to do, shaming or ignoring? You keep using those words, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Do humanity a favor, Jake.

Remove yourself from the gene pool.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

@Jake

Good, you are getting with the program. Now, care to repost the rest of your clarifications? Because if you don't, others will.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler:

You wish. As you can seem FairlingtonBlade's vote is that I was banned for "birther nonsense". You and/or BarBlues12 have nominated my 12:11 AM post.

Anyone else have a nomination?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2


When Clinton was President, they had a policy of catching beavers on White House grounds - and they caught one by the Jefferson Memorial.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Next post from Jake. Does this retract his prior post, I ask you:

"Just to clarify my 12:11 AM post, I am not advocating "murder". The death penalty is not "murder." If we repeal DADT, however, we should go back to court martials and firing squads. If anyone has a question about that, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2010 11:11 AM"

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

Following the false accusation that I was advocating "murder", I posted this:

"Just to clarify my 12:11 AM post, I am not advocating 'murder'. The death penalty is not 'murder.' If we repeal DADT, however, we should go back to court[s] martial and firing squads. If anyone has a question about that, let me know."

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2010 11:11 AM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/twittering-president-obamas-st.html

JRM2:

That was actually Park Police policy of trapping ACTUAL raccoons on the White House grounds. If anyone else wants to discuss that, please let me know too.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Jake I've posted more than six times today.

Blow me.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2, this was posted by, er, JakeD:

"Once again, our gracious host has asked us all to simply ignore / shame those who return after being banned:

"A note on the banned commenters:

I have been banning people both by username and IP address but have noticed a desire on the part of some...to use proxy servers to come back with different, unbanned IP addresses.

The truth is that if they want to go to those lengths, I can't do much other than keep banning them.

....

Chris"

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | January 5, 2010 8:34 AM

Posted by: JakeD | January 19, 2010 7:09"

JakeD's saying shame and ignore him so...who am I to question Jake?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 29, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

JD was banned for continuing to post birther nonsense, despite repeated warnings. I've heard of rewriting history, but not when it's three days old.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 29, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"Do Nothing" Obama has gone back to "Doing Nothing"

All Obama has been doing is making speeches - about why is has been "doing nothing"

Wednesday - he had the State of the Union


Thursday - Obama and Biden went to Florida and gave a speech.


Friday - Obama, back from Florida, went to Baltimore to give a speech.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

@broadway joe, here is the post that JakeD is so proud of he can't remember it:

"Good, don't come back then.

Back on topic: I actually agree that we should repeal DADT; let's go back to shooting homosexuals we catch in the military.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2010 12:11 AM"

------------------------------------
There are about six more clarification posts to follow.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

"It's "racist" to even disagree with BHO's policies.
Posted by: JakeD2 "
------
You mean like this below Jake?, is this you "disagreeing" with Obama's policies?
-----------
"Raccoons love raw eggs too. Was this one caught in the Oval Office? Instead of the Easter Egg roll, are they going to use watermelons this year?

Posted by: JakeD | February 25, 2009 4:40 PM"

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Jake is a lousy bigot who has never retracted anything. That would signify maturity and if there's one thing Jake is not it's mature.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Oh, good, Noacoler is back. Please, PLEASE keep posting more than a half dozen posts in a day, LIAR!!!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/handicappers-forecast-dire-out.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

The point was about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"


Obama wants to change that military policy to "Don't Ask, Do Tell"

Jake proposed another way to handle the situation -


that is enough of a description.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Can't imagine how boring life must be at home that JakeD hangs around a blog where nobody likes him and where news of his death would be cause for celebration.

Take your own mealy mouthed advice, creep, and just f•cking leave.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


No one is going to re-post anything


Jake retracted it.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Let them have their hissy fit. It's better than letting them do something that actually benefits BHO.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade


Jake, later on that day, before he was banned, did clarify and retract his statement


so it is time to stop having your hissy fit.

All he said was what he thought the military law should be, and the penalty.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

37th:

It's "racist" to even disagree with BHO's policies. This should be a long list of my prior posts that we can all vote on.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Yes, broadwayjoe, rather than "ignore" please PLEASE post everything you think I was banned for. Then we can vote.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


would you stop it with all the racist stuff? It is getting a little old.

Why don't you get a hold of some old Lyndon Johnson tapes and tell me who the racist is.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues = Cypher, for sure. Now, all of a sudden, the "ban" has to be enforced. How convenient ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

@broadway joe

Looks like it IS possible to get copies of old posts. Turns out Jake cannot remember what post got him banned. Everyone else here remembers it. If Jake is proud of every post, it's amazing he won't repost it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 6:52 PM
_

It may help to repost it. I thought the last straw was one of his r_cist birther posts but I may be wrong. I think I also recall a Jake post encouraging violence against some group. Unclear.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 29, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Forum moderation >< prior restraint. As far as I can tell JD2 has not retracted what JD wrote. In as much as JD2 is not interested even in the pretense of civil discourse, I'll simply ignore it.

As far as today's discussion goes, it's positively Pythonesque. Just substitute moose for an off-topic comment and sacked for banned.

A Møøse once bit my sister ...

We apologise for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked.

Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...

We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

[after more moose nonsense]

The directors of the firm hired to continue the credits after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked.

The credits have been completed in an entirely different style at great expense and at the last minute.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 29, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

@37th,

I am going to keep the pressure up on Jake to disappear off this blog. He was banned by Cillizza but apparently Jake has been able to circumvent the ban. It is not my job to protect Jake from his own bigotry and I will not protect him. If his views are so acceptable, let the readers here make their own decision. Let's not keep it a secret.

If he doesn't repost the post that banned him along with all his clarifications, then others will.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

citizenkane2


You have an extremely good point - elections are for the people to voice their preferences.

However, practically all campaign chests, raised with private donors, can be seen as drowning out the voters.

I believe these issues became much worse with the advent of television commericials and radio commercials - perhaps if we ban those - and require everyone to throw away their junk mail - then we have an election on a level playing field.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

What part of "ignore" are you having difficulty understanding?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

37th:

I was quoting The Architect (Chris Cillizza) from the Matrix. You'll have to ask him.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2, meet JakeD.

"37thand0street:

Our gracious host has asked that we ignore [a banned poster], please.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 5:00 PM"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 29, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

citizenkane2:

It's not up to the Supreme Court to make policy decisions. It's up to them to tell us whether CONGRESS / PRESIDENT's policy decisions violate the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Do you think that to many political pamphlets printed by Thomas Paine also "drown out" the average voter?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Not true? Then is it true that a decision to allow a flood of corporate political donations based on this free speech argument will effectively drown out the speech of average voters?

Posted by: citizenkane2 | January 29, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2


I do not understand your posting at 6:41 - Are you talking about Zion, Illinois?


Last time I was there, the town did not seem to be too lively.


If you could get all the people out of the town before it is destroyed, it would be a good thing.

Then you say "this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it" -


What are you talking about destroying the town, or destroying denial itself?


Please clarify.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

So I hear. Tell me this.

If this decision is really about free speech, then why does this court rule in favor of a decision that will effectively drown out the speech of the average voter? Judicial hypocrites.

Posted by: citizenkane2 | January 29, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Please feel free to "ignore" me (alternatively, see my post to FairlingtonBlade of 5:55 PM ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

If you want to see who the real liars are watch Obama take the house repubs to the woodshed in this video.

To their faces at their retreat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuG2TdgMn0

Posted by: JRM2 | January 29, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

37th,

I was serious about my question. I am trying to determine who I can have a respectful discussion with. I'm not that into your love life. LOL.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


We do not want to re-post Jake's posting - he already tried to retract it or clarify it - and I don't think its fair.
-----------------------------------
I would agree with you normally, except for one stubborn fact: Jake did not retract it. He did clarify it to only make it worse. If you think he retracted it, please post the retraction. I do try to be fair.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


The only thing I truly believe in is love.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Veteran NY Times legal reporter Linda Greenhouse in a piece today expressed concern that the "conservative" majority of the Court may be looking to overturn major chunks of civil rights law as part of turn-back-the-clock agenda. BHO calling them out on a personal basis may cause them to think twice about such an extreme neo-seg agenda.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 29, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

@broadway joe

Looks like it IS possible to get copies of old posts. Turns out Jake cannot remember what post got him banned. Everyone else here remembers it. If Jake is proud of every post, it's amazing he won't repost it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


We do not want to re-post Jake's posting - he already tried to retract it or clarify it - and I don't think its fair.


So let's not re-post what will get soooo many people to have a hissy fit.

In my opinion, if Jake believes the law should be one way, Jake has the right to state what he thinks the law should be - it is a Constitutional Right.


So if other people disagree, then they have the right to oppose Jake's proposed law.

That is how the country is supposed to work. I do not believe in prior-restraint - and last I checked, the Washington Post did not believe in prior-restrain either, however there have been some issues raised lately in which the Post appeared to have a different position.

However, I am confident that the Washington Post will hold to its position against prior-restraint.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2, you may want to talk with this guy, JakeD, or not...

"Our gracious host, Mr. Cillizza, has asked that we ignore or shame [a poster] for repeatedly coming back after being banned.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:05 PM"

Oh well.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 29, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

37th,

Did you happen to read my post to you on another thread (I forget right now). I asked you whether you consider yourself a true believer. Are you convinced about your political views? Or do you have doubts?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm still not sure if 12BarBlues is Trinty, or Cypher ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2


In your defense, you did retract the statement later on.

To condemn you, it is wrong to say what you said.

To condemn everyone else, everyone should just chill out. Everyone is being just a little bit too sensitive.


Everyone in this country has a right to "Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances"


If Jake believes that a law should be a certain way, he has the Constitutional right to state just that - and it is not proper to assess penalties to Jake for exercising his Constitutional Rights.

ANYTHING ELSE IS SIMPLY UNAMERICAN.


.
.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

37th,

You are right about the date/time. Let's see if Jake is proud enough of his post to repost it.

It is not too hard to look at it on the original thread.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

37th:

"We are all here because Zion is about to be destroyed. Its every living inhabitant terminated, its entire existence eradicated.

Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it."

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Let's get back to the objective here: Slamming Obama and EXPOSING OBAMA AS THE FRAUD HE IS.


All this bickering is silly.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I am proud of EVERY post, so I really have no idea why Mr. Cillizza banned me. At least I haven't been banned FOUR TIMES (yet ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

IT IS SO OBVIOUS HOW OBAMA MADE SO MANY MISTAKES THIS YEAR - HE SHOWED UP IN WASHINGTON AND DECIDED HE SIMPLY DID NOT WANT TO DO WHAT HE PROMISED TO DO IN HIS CAMPAIGN -

With a major program such as health care - a massive government program with massive taxes - it is simply unrealistic to have one party create the program with the stated aim to create a long-term electorial advantage for itself.


And that is what happened.


Obama and the democrats turned health care into that kind of partisan struggle - THEN THEY ARE COMPLAINING THAT THE OTHER SIDE OPPOSED THEM.


YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.


This whole week - that is the impression I get from Obama - Obama and the democrats wanted it both ways the entire time -


This is Obama's fault - everytime the Republicans asked to be at a meeing or be included, Obama should have agreed - The Republicans have been ignored the whole year.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


I think you have to go into the archives by now - it was at 12:11 am on Jan 28 which was Wed night - on one of the State of the Union threads.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

You talkin' to me?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I guess JakeD is not too proud of his original post that got Cillizza so ticked off at him, because where is it? Surely he kept a copy, didn't he?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

"I do at most a half dozen posts in a day."

Posted by: Noacoler | January 22, 2010 5:47 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/handicappers-forecast-dire-out.html

YOU LIE!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues will excuse JakeD#, I'm sure, for refusing to address her then too (assuming, of course, that "12BarBlues" is not simply another Chris Fox moniker).

"Noacoler" OTOH I note has now posted SEVEN (7) times on this single thread, TSK TSK ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps he is, but I've never I once tried to kiss his butt as you have, so it means nothing to me. You tried buttering him up but he banned your stupid azz anyway.

It's not "jake's place" anymore.

Buzz off.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza is tired of you as well (and your talk of sodomizing people you disagree with "hot pokers, all the way in" (so, yes, lesbians can be guilty too).

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

We all read what you actually wrote you sick freak

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 5:40 PM
---------------------------
I will not address JakeD#, so I will address you. JakeD# should repost his original post that got him banned if he is so proud of it. Let's see how many here will rally to his defense.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 5:56 PM
---------------------------------
Oh, and JakeD# should post all of his subsequent legal defenses of his original post, so we can really get insight into his mind.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

We all read what you actually wrote you sick freak

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 5:40 PM
---------------------------
I will not address JakeD#, so I will address you. JakeD# should repost his original post that got him banned if he is so proud of it. Let's see how many here will rally to his defense.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

You're moving the goalposts, creep. You want people murdered just for being gay. Can lesbians "commit" sodomy, you damned idiot?

Just go away, Jake, nobody here likes you, nobody here wants to hear from you, we're all disgusted with you, even Cillizza us tired of you, you're an infantile pest, just go.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler:

YOU advocate running me over with an automobile, without so much as a fine, so stop with the (what did you call it?) whining?

FairlingtonBlade:

Yes, this is just like in the Matrix movies where Neo/Smith keep dying (getting banned) but refusing to go away:

"I killed you, Mr. Anderson. I watched you die, and with a certain satisfaction, I might add. And then something happened. Something that I knew was impossible, but it happened anyway. You destroyed me, Mr. Anderson. Afterward, I knew the rules, I understood what I was supposed to do, but I didn't. I couldn't. I was compelled to stay. Compelled to disobey. And now here I stand because of you, Mr Anderson. Because of you, I'm no longer an agent of this system. Because of you, I'm changed, unplugged, a new man, so to speak, like you, apparently free."

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Sodomy is still a violation of Art. 125 of the UCMJ (as were several State laws prior to Lawrence v. Texas).

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

IT IS SO OBVIOUS HOW OBAMA MADE SO MANY MISTAKES THIS YEAR - HE SHOWED UP IN WASHINGTON AND DECIDED HE SIMPLY DID NOT WANT TO DO WHAT HE PROMISED TO DO IN HIS CAMPAIGN -

With a major program such as health care - a massive government program with massive taxes - it is simply unrealistic to have one party create the program with the stated aim to create a long-term electorial advantage for itself.


And that is what happened.


Obama and the democrats turned health care into that kind of partisan struggle - THEN THEY ARE COMPLAINING THAT THE OTHER SIDE OPPOSED THEM.


YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.


This whole week - that is the impression I get from Obama - Obama and the democrats wanted it both ways the entire time -


This is Obama's fault - everytime the Republicans asked to be at a meeing or be included, Obama should have agreed - The Republicans have been ignored the whole year.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"unborn children" is a logical contradiction, freak

you advocate murder of adult US citizens who have committed no crimes

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

At least that's your "logic" as to abortion of unborn children (who no one can argue have done ANYTHING wrong), right?

http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=%22if+you+don%27t+support+abortion,+don%27t%22&hl=en&safe=off

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

We all read what you actually wrote you sick freak

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Jake is about as sick as they come.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

What I said is IF "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed, we should simply go back to the status quo ante bellum. If you don't support capital punishment, don't commit a capital crime (especially while on active duty ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

So buzz off, creep, go troll a cancer support group or something

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 5:17 PM
-------------------------------
I have had cancer and was on a cancer support group. Do you know that there ARE people who do post there, make up stories and get a lot of sympathy and sometimes even money. After a while, most of the posters catch on since the fraudulent posters go overboard. I remember one poster who was so crazy that she would, on a daily basis, describe how she rescued a jet by taking over from the dying pilot and landed it in Dallas. Then, the next day she did something else heroic. And, you know, there were a FEW people who actually still believed "well, it COULD be possible". But not a one of those crazy frauds ever promoted executing anyone.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 29, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Careful, Noacoler, because you've been banned here more than I have (AND you've posted more than six times today ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

I thought that you didn't want a conversation with me?

Posted by: JakeD2

==

you must be dumb as a bag of hair if you haven't figured out that nobody here is interested in a conversation with you. See anyone else begging for it with "let me know" whining? No. Only you.

Not even Cillizza wants you here anymore, and all your "gracious host" butt kissing wasted.

So buzz off, creep, go troll a cancer support group or something

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama said "Let's have the rhetoric get closer to the action"


Quite amazing to hear Obama say that.


It's like a liar telling you to tell the truth, because he doesn't like getting lied to.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the ped, the sped and the stooge have gathered again for an all night luv fest.

Posted by: drivl | January 29, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

I thought that you didn't want a conversation with me?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I swear, I think I have a Pavlovian response to the Fix Chat. Not the actual chat, but the blog posting about it. I start salivating over the upcoming weekend.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 29, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

you're absolutely right ped. Stop coming here.

Posted by: drivl | January 29, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I come for the conversation.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 29, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Why should Democrats come to this blog for advice when they can just read the original RNC pep talks?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company