Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Chatting tea party convention, the "Shelby hold", Senate races and more!

Successfully bunkered in the Fix home for the coming snowpocalypse, we managed to carve out an hour in our busy schedule of stockpiling evaporated milk and other canned goods to field questions from loyal readers on the political hot topics of the day.

A few of our favorite questions and answers from the "Live Fix" are below. Miss the chat? You can check out the full transcript here and make sure to put a re-occurring event on your calendar from 11 am to noon every Friday!

Tea Party Convention: Please explain who are, or what is the 'Tea Party'?

Chris Cillizza: Good question -- I just did a segment that will run Monday on the "Newshour" -- WHAT WHAT!!! -- addressing this very subject.

The honest answer is no one knows exactly who the tea party movement includes or how big it actually is.

The broadest definition is a group of people opposed to what they believe to be the creep of socialism in the Obama Administration due to the takeover of the auto industry, the bank bailout etc.

But, there are LOTS of disparate groups -- some of which disagree with one another -- that are considered part of the movement.

I think this weekend's convention will tell us a lot about whether this is a flash in the pan and a legitimate political movement.

Senator Shelby: I see that Senator Shelby has a hold on every single Senate nomination, until he gets money for his state. This is ridiculous -- why do the Senate rules allow this?

Chris Cillizza: Of late, there has been lots of talk about changing the rules of the Senate -- particularly on the filibuster. President Obama has made a point to highlight the fact that Republicans had blocked more legislation in 2009 (and forced cloture votes) than in the 1950s and 1960s combined.

The issue with changing the rules is that both sides know how the political pendulum swings and worry that a rule change that benefits Democrats today could wind up hurting them if and when they lose the majority at some point in the future.

As a result, there is a a real reluctance to change anything....

Health care as an election issue: Hi Chris. Doesn't most polling show that Dems would be better off passing health care, rather than not passing it at this point? Are Republicans going to pull their ads attacking Democratic members of Congress who voted for it the first time if it doesn't get signed into law? (/snark)

Chris Cillizza: Snark acknowledged and appreciated.

The simple fact is that Democrats are currently stuck between Scylla and Charybdis on health care. (STING reference!!!)

Their choices are as follows: 1) walk away from the bill having already voted on it (and, as you note, given Republicans ammunition to attack them) or 2) pass something that poling suggests a majority of the American people either don't want or don't think will change the system in a positive way.

From a political perspective, that is a TERRIBLE choice. Just look at what the health care debate has done to Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas. She is now running behind Republicans who no one even knows in her re-election race this fall.

C-$: Can we start with Simmons, as you are want to do? 1.) Maybe the best way to secure the "Homeless man's Bill Simmons" nom de guerre, would be to finagle an appearance on his podcast? After all, we all consider you to be legit media personality, so you could make it happen. 2.) Simmons loves the old Herm Edwards, "We can build on this" locker room speech. Can't you just see Axelrod and Rahm giving that talk in the West Wing after these recent Q&A's? The Obama team seems to finally be getting some momentum back, but my real question is this: Is an Obama rebound enough? Suppose he really does take this momentum and get back up to 50-55% in the approval polls....so what? Arent Lincoln and Reid and ND and DE gone anyway? Arent 20+ house dems gone anyway, even with a more popular president and a focus on jobs? I hope I am wrong, but we (the Dems) aren't 5 pts behind in these races, we are 15, 20, 25 points behind in some.

Chris Cillizza: DUDE. I would obviously love to be on Simmons' podcast. But, since I haven't even gotten him to refer to me as "the homeless man's Bill Simmons" yet, I feel like I have to take it one step at a time.

To quote Montgomery Burns: "Climb the ladder, Monty."

As for the "We can build on this" moment for the Obama Administration, I think that you are right that even if his approval ratings moves back up to the mid 50s, his party is going to lose seats.

History suggests that the first midterm election of a president's term usually means losses of 15-20 seats in the House and 2-5 seats in the Senate.

As of today, Democratic losses in both chambers look likely to be a bit higher (political handicapper Charlie Cook says 25-35 seats in the House and 5-7 in the Senate) but those numbers would almost certainly drop down to the historical norm if Obama's approval rating rose to anywhere near 55% or higher.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 5, 2010; 3:30 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Primary season is underway!
Next: Palin speaks at tea party convention

Comments

It's not just debt - it's going to be debt and inflation.

We have to jam the breaks on now.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 8, 2010 1:41 AM | Report abuse

Better debt than another Depression. Of course the filth are going to whine either way.

Worth noting that Obama's contribution to the deficits is about 7% of Bush's and we didn't hear anything about the anathema of debt from the filth while Bush was MasterCharging two unnecessary wars.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 7, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I will give my IP though: 127.0.0.1. Now DO YOUR WORST!!

Posted by: Noacoler | February 7, 2010 4:09 PM
----------------------------
LOL. You do live on the edge, don't you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 7, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Nobody would be fool enough to disclose their name and address to a nutjob like 37.

==.

Anyone who posts PI on a blog, especially a public unmoderated one, is either lying (hi, zouk! hi jaked!) or dangerously naive and unguarded.

I will give my IP though: 127.0.0.1. Now DO YOUR WORST!!

Posted by: Noacoler | February 7, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

PLEASE TAKE NOTE


The Obama people and broadwayjoe do NOT want to talk about the budget - or the MASSIVE DEBT that Obama is running up.


no, broadwayjoe and the Obama people want to SMEAR a whole group of people - based on a sign from last spring.


These people offer this country little - a BUNCH OF DECEPTIVE CAMPAIGN THEMES,


A BLOATED BUDGET WHICH SIPHONS MONEY TO DEMOCRATIC INTEREST GROUPS


And they love to try to spark a racial incident to change the subject.

Broadwayjoe - let's register ALL the democrats for a special "Obama Tax" - and have them pay off Obama's debt.


AND everyone else is off hook.


That is a POSITIVE NATIONAL UNITY PLAN THAT EVERYONE CAN AGREE ON.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Note to self: coffee BEFORE posting. Sorry for the typos and the double post.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 7, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Limbaugh is scrupulously courteous to propel who disagree with him. Not only doss he call them all kinds of zoukesque names, he shuts off their microphones first.

Palin is such a lying idiot. She had her chance last night to offere some new ideas and all she did was toss red meat to the scavengers.

Still think she's presidential, Jake?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 7, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Limbaugh is scrupulously courteous to propel who disagree with him. Not only doss he call them all kinds of zoukesque names, he shuts off their microphones first.

Palin is such a lying idiot. She had her chance last night to offere some new ideas and all she did was toss red meat to the scavengers.

Still think she's presidential, Jake?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 7, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of standing by your words department:


Interview with Chris Wallace:

Palin reiterated her call for Emanuel to “step down” and explained that while she’s not “politically correct” or “one to be a word police,” she was committed to “reaching out and to helping the special needs community.” But when Wallace asked Palin about Rush Limbaugh’s endorsement of the language, Palin said she was fine with Limbaugh’s satirical comments. “I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards,’” she said. “There is a big difference there”.
--------------------------
One big difference is that Rush would NEVER apologize for saying anything. Anyone who has listened to him knows that. If Palin demanded an apology from Rush, it would end up her apologizing to him.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 7, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I wonder why 37 is so determined to have Noacoler disclose his name & address. What is 37 planning to do with this info? Otherwise, why would he post so many times demanding it? He must have some kind of retaliation planned, do you think? If he can get Noacoler to disclose his address, who will be next?

==

Nothing of the sort. The guy is completely frickin' retarded and that is the alpha and the omega of our 37th troll

The fact that he reissues the same
posts over and over all day in every active thread and CC is obviously happy with it says all anyone needs to know about these comments. 37th seeks to ahut down discussion and has effectlively done so.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 7, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

You didn't ask Noacoler to stand by his words. You asked for his address. Planning to stop by?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 7, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler has been banned from this blog at least three times - and Chris said to shame him.

Noacoler / chris fox / gold and tanzanite has been so abusive on this blog he should be asked to stand by his words.

Unless he is ashamed of them.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Nobody would be fool enough to disclose their name and address to a nutjob like 37.

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2010 1:36 PM
-------------------------------
Why does he want to know his address?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 7, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Nobody would be fool enough to disclose their name and address to a nutjob like 37.

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse


I see 37th was up late last night, finishing his homework for that mail-order interrogation class. Lesson two: humiliate the subject, then demand information.

You are not a man.

Give me your phone number.

I said give me your phone number!

You are not a man!

Stop posting here, you are not a man.


.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 7, 2010 10:37 AM
--------------------------------------
I wonder why 37 is so determined to have Noacoler disclose his name & address. What is 37 planning to do with this info? Otherwise, why would he post so many times demanding it? He must have some kind of retaliation planned, do you think? If he can get Noacoler to disclose his address, who will be next?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 7, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! Who posted at 3:47 AM again?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 7, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

37 is lonely, margaret, VERY lonely, or he wouldn't spend all his time on this blog-- so it looks to me like he's just trolling for a date. Problem is, poor boy doesn't quite know how to go about it...

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I see 37th was up late last night, finishing his homework for that mail-order interrogation class. Lesson two: humiliate the subject, then demand information.

You are not a man.

Give me your phone number.

I said give me your phone number!

You are not a man!

Stop posting here, you are not a man.


.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 7, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/us/politics/08palin.html?hp

"And pressed about the relationship between the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement, and whether the latter should become a third party, Mr. Palin suggested the two should be compatible.
“The Republican Party would be really smart to start trying to absorb as much of the Tea Party movement as possible,” she said. “This is a beautiful movement because it is shaping the way politics are conducted. You’ve got both party machines running scared.”

==
let's all take a moment to savor this   Count the non-sequitors.  A canary makes more sense.
But it's a beautiful movement.  The colors .. oh, wait, there aren't any.
==
"The convention had gathered here to try to turn the activism of the Tea Party rallies over the last year into actual political power. Her speech was the keynote event of the convention, and the big draw for many of the 600 people who had paid $549 to attend – another 500, organizers said, paid $349 just to see for her speech alone.

The convention had been a pretty sedate affair until the Palin speech, with delegates sitting through panel discussions about how to effect changes in primary elections and how to use new technology to Tea Party advantage. But by the time she took the stage after the closing dinner Saturday night, convention-goers were hungry for the red meat."
==
And Sarah delivered the meat.  A couple of nasty jabs at Obama, and a lot of assuring the audience that they were important people at the core of big events. 
It'd be like a new season of Hee-Haw until you think what things would be like if these people had any power.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 7, 2010 3:47 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


If you can not be a man and post your name, address and phone number,


then please leave.


Go away and never, ever come back.

You are not a man, you are nothing.

Do not post anymore until we have this information.

Stop posting until you give us your name, address and phone number.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 3:38 AM | Report abuse

One would think that a movement representing "the future of politics in America" could fill a hall

Posted by: Noacoler | February 7, 2010 2:53 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


If you can not be a man and post your name, address and phone number,


then please leave.


Go away and never, ever come back.


You are not a man, you are nothing.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 2:52 AM | Report abuse

Frank Rich in the NYT

Smoke the Bigots Out of the Closet

rmal
By FRANK RICH
Published: February 6, 2010
A funny thing happened after Adm. Mike Mullen called for gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military: A curious silence befell much of the right. If this were a Sherlock Holmes story, it would be the case of the attack dogs that did not bark.

John McCain, commandeering the spotlight as usual, did fulminate against the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But the press focus on McCain, the crazy man in Washington’s attic, was misleading. His yapping was an exception, not the rule. Many of his Republican colleagues said little or nothing. The right’s noise machine was on mute. The Fox News report on Mullen’s testimony was fair and balanced — and brief. The network dropped the subject entirely in the Hannity-O’Reilly hothouse of prime time that night.

...

It’s in this political context that we can see that there may have been some method to Obama’s troublesome tardiness on gay issues after all. But as we learned about this White House and the Democratic Congress in the health care debacle, they are perfectly capable of dropping the ball at any moment. Let’s hope they don’t this time. Should they actually press forward on “don’t ask” in an election year with Mullen and Gates on board — and with even McCain’s buddy, Joe Lieberman, calling for action “as soon as possible” — they could further the goal and raise the political price for those who stand in the way. Recalcitrant Congressional Republicans will have to explain why their perennial knee-jerk deference to “whatever the commanders want” extends to Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Stanley McChrystal on troop surges but not to Mullen, who outranks them, on civil rights.

The more bigotry pushed out of the closet for all voters to see, the more likely it is that Americans will be moved to grant overdue full citizenship to gay Americans. It won’t happen overnight, any more than full civil rights for African-Americans immediately followed Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces. But there can be no doubt that Mike Mullen’s powerful act of conscience last week, just as we marked the 50th anniversary of the Greensboro, N.C., lunch counter sit-in, pushed history forward. The revealing silence that followed from so many of the usual suspects was pretty golden too.

==

Come on Republicans, bite the hook.  The filth will crucify you if you don't

Posted by: Noacoler | February 7, 2010 2:22 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


If you can not be a man and post your name, address and phone number,

then please leave.

Go away and never, ever come back.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 2:19 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


We are waiting for you to be a man and post your name, address and phone number.


If you can't do that, don't post.


Stop all this garbage you post.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 2:15 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


We are waiting for you to be a man and post your name, address and phone number.

If you can't do that, don't post.

Stop all this garbage you post.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 2:13 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


Seriously, if you are so free with saying everything that you do on this blog.


Would you please post your name, phone number and address so we find out exactly what your problem is???


Thank you.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler

Come on, you post all this crap, it is about time you be a man and stand behind your words.


Seriously.


Come on, what are you afraid of ????


You are so happy to post your garbage on here.

Let's have your name, address and phone number. Thank you.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 2:08 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


Would you please post your name, phone number and address so we find out exactly what your problem is???


Thank you.

Come on, what are you afraid of ????

You are so happy to post your garbage on here.


Let's have your name, address and phone number. Thank you.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 2:05 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


Would you please post your name, phone number and address so we find out exactly what your problem is???


Thank you.

Come on, what are you afraid of ????

You are so happy to post your garbage on here.


Let's have your name, address and phone number. Thank you.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 2:05 AM | Report abuse

This blog needs a plumber and a mop squad

Posted by: Noacoler | February 7, 2010 2:03 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


Would you please post your name, phone number and address so we find out exactly what your problem is???


Thank you.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Moonbat is back

For any of you who are wondering


Obama has proven me 100% CORRECT.


Anybody else have anything to say?


That is anybody who doesn't belong in an asylum?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 7, 2010 1:41 AM | Report abuse

@Opa: good points all.  But when it comes to the GOP it would be well to note their monumental capacity for self-deception to say nothing of the incredible willingness of their base to believe any lie, run with any meme, say black is white if that's what the Inner Party would have them believe.

But no matter.  The pressure from the extreme right of the party is ever more keenly felt and ever more magnanimously answered.  While you can bet a few wise heads in inner circles like maybe Ed Rollins and David Gergen are taking note of who wins elections and who doesn't, the lesson of Christie / McDonnell / Brown running as a stealth Republican is not going to be heeded.  The base will push for the craziest and battiest and most defiant candidate they can get, and that means Palin.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 7, 2010 1:24 AM | Report abuse

I love the attention Sara Palin is getting but the democrats better beware. The Republican party is not about to commit political suicide by nominating this never-has-been for President. Remember what the Democrats did when they nominated McGovern. This far left guy won, I believe, one state and the DC. Same with far left Mondale. One State! The republicans have surely learned their lesson but if they have not, all they have to do is remember 1964 and Goldwater, who was considered far right at the time but now would probably be considered a moderate by republican standards (For Roe vs Wade, let homosexuals serve in the military etc.) Goldwater won five Southern states and Arizona, his home state. Ever since, both parties have nominated people they could sell as middle-of-the-road. And so will the republicans in 2012, no Sara!! We Democrats can always hope though. Mabey they will be that dumb who knows!!

Posted by: Opa2 | February 7, 2010 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Could you tell us what pedant means oh oracle of imbecility?

Then you can have a pellet. Push down on the bar.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 7, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Yeah the true political cognoscenti get their analysis from TV.

Eisenhower isn't president anymore, you know.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Ped. You are like a rat in a cage. Except the rat figures it out eventually.

Now how about a spin on your wheel?

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Ped. You are like a rat in a cage. Except the rat figures it out eventually.

Now how about a spin on your wheel?

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Sarah palin ---> Il Duce in drag...

Posted by: ODDOWL | February 6, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

That must be what passes for analysis on that network that no one watches. No wonder.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 11:52 PM | Report abuse

(sigh) another grammar lesson for zouk

A paucity is a *fortuitous* lack of something. A paucity of smallpox cases, a paucity of new unemployment claims.

Of course to someone with your morals the fortuitous part is probably reversed.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

A Democrat stratigist described Sarah Palin as "a merchant of hate with an ooh gosh smile..

Posted by: ODDOWL | February 6, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

The paucity of Anything resembling intelligence from any of the liberals on this blog is getting stale.

I understand the vacancy of leadership in your party and the total void of any viable policies, but at some point blame, envy and insult will run out of gas entirely. I am suggesting it already has losers.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Back from Luna already, zouk? How did little Dakota and Rienna enjoy their five star trip?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Ped. I think it is customary in your circles to respond with a double eye gouge followed quickly with a roundabout hammer blow and a suspender snap.

Nyuck. Nyuck.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Think back to his stomping around while Obama was talking in the debates, refusing to look him in the eye. WHAT was THAT? Sorry but don't believe that behavior reflected some quirk that arose ex nihilo between 2000 and 2008. And that's all I have to say without repeating.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd. I know you are incredibly slow witted but how dare you confront the oracle of imbecile on ignorant liberal dogma.

That is why she is a full fledged tenured stooge (mo) and you are still a swamp gas addled eye sucker.

Now play nice. You two have a long lonely night together.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 11:26 PM | Report abuse

But you simply can't ignore his history of going against his party as well as reaching across the aisle. Yeah, perhaps that was all an act for his entire career, but that doesn't make sense to me. I'm not going to get into all the details, but to say that McCain was 0% bipartisan because he supported Bush on Iraq is just overly simplistic.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 6, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Uh, whoooosh, DDAWD.  No I didn't expect McCain to obstruct the Iraq war out of revenge for being slimed.  But I would have expected at least some glimmer of the immature bitter jerk we see now.  Not a peep.  McCain was not only loyal to the man who had him slimed, he was slavishly so.

And I still ain't buying "people change."  That seems -- what was the phrase you used -- incredibly etc etc etc.  Yeah people cahnge with age, usually they get mellower or maybe wiser but the kind of descent we saw in McCain's case wasn't at all common unless there's accompanying regression into the second childhood of hard dementia.  And thick-witted as he is, we're not really seeing that.  Yeah his marbles are rolling out but he's not playing with his poo just yet.

No, for my money the immaturity and megalomania we're seeing openly now is nothing other than what he was better at keeping hidden all along.  Maybe he was biting his tongue waiting for his turn to come around, and his "turn" is doubtless exactly as he thought of it.  I don't think McCain turned from a man of principle and equanimity to the petty jerk we see now, I think he was the same petty jerk all along.  Because long before he ran against Bush in the primaries I regarded him as a megalomaniac and w war-monger.  I think his rep as something else was smoke.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Nagin was term-limited out. He wasn't on the ballot. He wasn't dumped.

And Landrieu's victory is pretty astonishing. I don't think a non-incumbent has ever won outright in the runoff race in the last 50 or so years. To get 65% in a crowded field is just dominant.

He had the name recognition (Landrieu is the big political dynasty here) and also a lot of experience in government most recently being Bobby Jindal's Lt. Gov.

His entry into the race really was a game changer. He played up his experience in government. The other two people were John Georges and Troy Henry. Georges' campaign was basically two pronged. The first was to tout his business acumen and the second was to run a very negative campaign against Landrieu. I don't think either of them sat well with an electorate who wanted an experienced politician to start fixing things right away. Troy Henry was the major black candidate in the race and a lot of his campaign revolved around being black. I think people saw the potential for racial divisiveness and had enough of that with Mayor Nagin.

When Landrieu entered the race in December, the polls were close, but he drew away from the pack to clinch the whole thing today.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 6, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Two Reagan retreads and a dash of science denial. Like America has a future with our coastal cities underwater.

Did she winky winky winky at the cameras?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

"Lame"stream media, I love it!

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

"So was he principled in 2000 but not anymore? I ain't buying it. The difference is the race of the man he lost to.

Posted by: Noacoler "

I buy it. I'm not going to ignore what I saw. People are capable of changing and he changed. He's not the same guy that he was in 2000. McCain was quite certain where the smears came from. He said so himself. He abandoned all that when he was a razor's edge away from the Presidency with the Palin pick and his campaign tactics, but that doesn't mean he was that way his whole life. He was willing to do anything to get the job, but only after he could smell it.

And to think he would be obstructionist towards Bush for this reason is nonsense. He was a cheerleader for the Iraq war, but he's a war hawk. He sees war as the solution for the world's problems. Bush's Presidency isn't going to change that.

Sorry, man, but your logic is completely ass-backwards on this. And like much of your thinking, is incredibly one-dimensional and simplistic.

And I don't even have a clue where the racism stuff is coming from. Like the guy actually had a brown baby - one that he adopted from Pakistan.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1823695,00.html

An interesting column on the Bush-McCain dynamic.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 6, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Did you see the speech or just that highlight? Her top three goals for a conservative House / Senate:

1) rein in spending;

2) jump start energy projects (oil, gas, coal); and

3) allowing America's spirit to rise again.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse


New Orleans will have a white Mayor.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Hahaha so the teabaggers are rudderless, this straight from the horse's uh mouth. Not the first word that springs to mind.

All hail the jerk with the misspelled sign. All hail the babbling idiot waving a Down's baby around by the leg. All hail the red faced red necks carrying swastika signs and monkey dolls.

Yeah, a movement. The kind you eat prunes for.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

New Orleans dumps Nagin


about time.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Already tried your commander in chief, azzwipe. He hit us into two wars we didn't need to fight at all and now we'll never achieve anything great ever again. We went broke so he could prance about a carrier in a flightsuit.

Grow up, freak.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

37th:

Let me know if you watched Palin's speech. She celebrated Reagan's 99th birthday by reminding us of his American dream. But told them no one leader can call the TEA Party their own, with a great question time afterward.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

We need a Commander in Chief, not a Professor of Law -


.


Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

So Sarah "slammed," now there's a big surprise. Sure didn't see that coming.

Anything positive, any actual ideas not tired old conservative chestnuts going back to Reagan? Anything kind or forgiving or humane? Of course not.

Slams are for IHOP.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

37th:

Did you watch Palin's speech? Slammed Joe Biden and "Hopey Changey" thing!

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

I got that part, DDAWD, and I was paying attention years ago.

One thing I remember plainly is that the Bush campaign totally Atwatered McCain, some false rumor about a black baby.  Scuttled him on slime where they couldn't get him on merits.  Didn't hear a lot back then about reverence for the ol' POW.  And McCain's reaction?  One of Bush's most enthusiastic enablers, wagging his little tail about how great it was to be Iraq, singing duets with Lieberman about them terrists.  And troops troops troops troops ... was McCain angry at his despicable treatment by Bush?  Not that I could see.

OK, maybe McCain's a man of principle, putting his loyalty, however misguided, before his bitterness.  Attaboy, Johnny.

Fast forward eight years.  McCain loses to Obama with no slime on the plate, fair and square, losing to the better campaigner and the far more scrupulous politician, refusing to match stunt for stunt in a phony suspension.  No Atwater tricks, on the contrary, McCain lying his head off, enlisting his 50-foot Attack Woman from Wasilla to slime Obama before the rubes .. and he loses again, how does he take it this time?  Like a complete azz.  Snarls at reporters now, going to his befuddled end angry at the world for denying him his rightful due.

So was he principled in 2000 but not anymore?  I ain't buying it.  The difference is the race of the man he lost to.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

The democratic options on health care - the analysis is based on the idea that "the damage is already done." And the damage has been massive to the democratic party.


The whole image of Obama as the bipartisan uniter - who was not only going to unite Washington, but the whole world - and had the power to unite warring Marian spacemen - has been completely destroyed - by Obama himself.


OUCH.


The response of Obama and the democrats - get mean to the Republicans, and try to call them out - is only going to make the situation worse.


First it proves that Obama really does not understand what got him into the position he is in today - which people interprete that Obama has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA ABOUT HOW TO GOVERN.


First impressions matter - and if one takes out the die-hard democrats, Obama's numbers are really, really low.


People have tuned in to Obama over the past few weeks to hear his response - and it has not been "I made a mistake, I will listen to the American people, I will now be bipartisan."


Instead, Obama is punching at the Republicans - which is only CONFIRMING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE what is WRONG WITH OBAMA.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Poor berry.

Stick a fork in him.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Great speech!!! Let me know once you catch up, mark_in_austin.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


McCain ran for President in 2000.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

"I really don't get where McCain was supposed to be some sort of original thinker or man of principle."

It just depends if you paid attention to him prior to the few years leading up to the election.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 6, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

The greatest racism of all. Decades of states and cities being run by liberals. Empty promises, failing schools, enslavement of the inner city population.

==

whoa, information leakage from the Bizarro alternate universe. Off-diagonal quantum interference.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

McCain?  Good government?  Are we talking about John or Cindy?  I guess you mean John since Cindy isn't in the Senate

I really don't get where McCain was supposed to be some sort of original thinker or man of principle.  The way he acted during his campaign and since his election loss is simply irreconcilable with any impression of maturity or iconoclasty.  The man is a brass-bound jerk. During the debates he acted like a complete pissant and he's handled his election loss with the equanimity of a four-year-old.

McCain isn't going to break from the pack to do anything about the Senate logjam.  He's going to hold his breath until he turns blue and when you turn the crank sticking out of his back he'll recite GOP talking points going back to Reagan.  Stop the slaughter of the unborn.  Strong defense.  Small govenment.  Prosperity begins at the top.  One man and one woman.  What a colossal immature bore.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

AlaninMissoula

The way you govern is to COMPROMISE.

Don't you remember how many times during the campaign Obama said he was the one who was going to be bipartisan ???

I haven't seen it - the country hasn't seen it. OBAMA HAS BEEN A FRAUD.

Now the PARTY OF BLAME wants to blame someone else again.

It is a joke.

It is Obama's fault - and you should have been smart enough not to support someone with so little experience.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

By the way, hope all the DC people here are doing ok. You have my best.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 6, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Shelby's over-reach will have a good effect in that the Senate may be shamed into revising its rules. Neither Democrats or Republicans are honest with this issue. Remember when the Democrats were filibustering federal court nominees when the GOP held the majority? Then the GOP majority threatened to change the rules to prohibit that. I wish they had succeeded. Now I bet you won't find a single GOP senator wanting to change the rules, not even "good government" McCain. They won't do that while their strategy is to prevent the Obama administration from governing.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | February 6, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Democrats around the country are going to have to come to terms with just how IRRESPONSIBLE WITH THE COUNTRY they were in 2008 when they nominated a person with so little economic or business or leadership experience.

The LACK OF ECONOMIC EXPERTISE, THE LACK OF BUSINESS EXPERIENCE, THE LACK OF LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE IS THE FAULT OF THE DEMOCRATS.

As the democrats, who wished to double our electric bills on account of global warming, sit buried under 20 inches of snow in Washington - the irony and the message of nature can not be stronger.

The democrats are RESPONSIBLE for this mess we are in right now.

AND the democrats are RESPONSIBLE for the 'soft on terror' policies.


Time to take responsibility for your bad decisions.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

This country is in the midst of an economic crisis - and we have someone with no economic or business experience in control.

The democrats who are not concerned about that FACT are simply IRRESPONSIBLE with this country.


The democrats are lost. They have no idea what to do. First, they refuse to recongize the moral bankruptcy of their far-left agenda.

Then, their own people, the People of Massachusetts put a halt to their far-left agenda.

AND they still don't get it. Obama doesn't get it. All the speeches in the past two weeks have been haphazard and inconsistent.


Is this leadership?


Obama can't even get his own story straight right now.

Al Franken wants to blame Axelrod - but Al Franken will not admit that even his own nastiness to Sen Lieberman contributed to this atmosphere.

The inmates have taken over the asylum - and they are screaming from the windows.


AND the democrats don't seem to care !


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes leapin

the soft bigotry of liberal governance

bad schools
soft on crime
rampant corruption
coddling of failure
excuses and blame
spend like crazy
tax like crazy
grow government
fail fail fail
repeat

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

The greatest racism of all. Decades of states and cities being run by liberals. Empty promises, failing schools, enslavement of the inner city population.

Posted by: leapin | February 6, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin, Thanks for the link the APT. I am fear that I do not know enough about finance to know if it is truly viable, but it is interesting. Jaked2, why does cost of living matter in this case? The percentage is so low that its effect on all but the most poor appears to be slight. I am also not certain that this proposal would cause a flight to London or anywhere else for financial markets. As was noted, the rate is so small that it is covered by daily market fluxuations. But as I noted, my training is not in finance. I would be interested in hearing from those who are better versed in the field have to say.

Posted by: trep1 | February 6, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

You are confused.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Whoa, sexually explicit insults from Mr. CastlesInSpain. Wai, the sting!

Seriously, sultan of the supermodel harem, make up your mind. Am I gay or am I a pedophile? Nobody is both. Pedophiles are just about 100% straight. Look it up.

Why aren't you out cruising in your Gulfstream? Taking your hottie wife and 2.3 Hitlerjugend children out to the lynching or something?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

I thought the Tea Party was a grassroots movement!! Why is there a major political party now involved with this movement?
Do Americans know what a real grassroots movement is?
Check out this site, if you agree, pass it along.
www.AmericaWakeUpNow.net

Posted by: AMERICAWAKEUPNOW | February 6, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Peds contribution to this blog has really sunk to Barack approval levels.

Queen and sodomy references
insults to Jake and 37
raving loony leftist dogma
personal details too sordid for consumption

is it your time of the month ped?

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Peeeeeeeeddddd!!

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

CNN is interviewing a black woman at the tea party convention right now, so I guess she is a racist, right?

==

google "masochism," thickwit

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

It is. Been snowed in all day. :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 6, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to predict the demise of the Republican party. I don't think it's in its last throes by any means. But I do think the teabaggers pose a problem. They do comprise a good portion of the Republican base, and they will remove influence from the moderate in the party. That might be good in some places, but bad in others. I'm not saying that Marco Rubio can't win in Florida, but is there any doubt that Crist would cakewalk his way to the Senate seat in a general? And McCain's primary challenger seems to be getting stronger. Again, Hayworth could win in a general, but McCain could do it with his eyes closed and one hand tied behind his back.

And compounding the problem is that the teabaggers probably have influence disproportionate to their numbers since they are being subsidized by groups like CFG, all the Norquist spawns, and FOX, not to mention all the business interests that benefit from their nonsense (think insurance and banks) Pretty powerful allies, right?

That being said, this is probably a good cycle to test out the influence of the teabaggers. Dems aren't doing so hot in the polls and fringe candidates probably have a far better shot today than they might in two years. Why not go for it? Rubio and Toomey might be one termers, but one is better than none, right? And once you get a guy in a seat, it's not really easy to get rid of him. Incumbents always have a built in advantage.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 6, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Must be a deathly idle weekend xif people who know better are dignifying 37th with long responses. He's and idiot, he's a troll, he's a liar, and he's blog clog.

Teabaggers not racists? The niggar sign not racist? Why even bother?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

The woman probably suffers from Stockholm Syndrome. Serious but curable (except in some extreme cases, see Michelle Maglagang).

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 6, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse


broadwayjoe


CNN is interviewing a black woman at the tea party convention right now, so I guess she is a racist, right?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 5:18 PM

_____

Sounds like the Dave Chappelle skit about the black klansman...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 6, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Listen up, all liberals. Anyone out there feel like defending John Edward's behaviour? I don't. I think he's pretty scummy. The Democrats should feel like they dodged a bullet with him. I can't imagine any Democrat having a good word to say about him. Does that make every word that ever fell from his lips false? No, but it doesn't matter much, does it. He's forever tainted as a scum and that overrides all.

Anyone who thinks the TP movement isn't tinged with racism isn't seeing very clearly. I don't need Garafolo, Nugent, the Pope or anyone else to tell me. I can see it myself.

Does that mean every person is a racist? No.

Does that mean that every word is racist? No.

But, it would behoove the movement to push the obvious racists away -- and make it clear they are not welcome. So far, I for one don't see that occurring yet, i.e. Tom Tancredo's opening remarks.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

The whole argument is just so typical of the current weakness in liberal "thought". Find a single instance of something untoward. Then acuse the entire movement of racism, thereby shutting down debate.

This avoids actually engaging the issue which is actually government spending and runaway irresponsibility of liberalism

really what are liberals supposed to say.

We are not as inept as Jimmy Carter. Run with that.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


CNN is interviewing a black woman at the tea party convention right now, so I guess she is a racist, right?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

broadway and 37,

Any polls out there that describe how the american people view the Tea Party movement? That might be a more practical discussion than how the 3 of us see them.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Of course, Robertson was asked to leave. He let the cat out of the bag and embarrassed his followers. Now he, and his "movement," can't walk back from what he did.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 6, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


There are two people buried in Grant's Tomb - Grant and someone else - do you know who the national figure is ?

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

'You must be the most thick-headed stupid person around.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street '

as good at self-description as zouk.

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

37,

If I understand you, you are saying the incident of the n**gar sign guy is an isolated incident. You are saying that you don't think that others in the movement share his sentiments. I'm assuming that you do NOT share the sign carrier's sentiments yourself, right?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe's continued use of a sexual slur must mean that he is OK with the use of ALL SLURS.

Why are some slurs OK and others are not ??

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I guess so. Sorta like other great national "debates" like: is water wet, is the sun bright, and who's in Grant's Tomb?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 6, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


The link that broadwayjoe posted CLEARLY STATED THAT THE PERSON CARRYING THAT SIGN WAS ASKED TO LEAVE.


But broadwayjoe and others insist on labeling everyone there as RACISTS?

They keep on going through the internet looking for pictures of the signs - hoping to find a slur on one of them.

All the while, they use SEXUAL SLURS AGAINST THESE PEOPLE.

It is complete insanity.

Obama started all this by manufacturing racial incidents in 2008.

Obama was hoping for more racial incidents - Obama said the Republicans were going to be racist -

It's what they want -

They want to manufacture controversies.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

@broadway joe,

37 says there is no racism present in the Tea Party movement? Is that right?

And your position is what? That there is some racism present in the movement?

That's the argument????

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Surely you are not defending the {racial slur] sign guy, are you?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 4:49 PM
__________

Sadly, I kinda think we know the answer to that...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 6, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


How many times do people have to tell you that you are WRONG?


You must be the most thick-headed stupid person around.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


How many times do people have to tell you that you are WRONG?


You must be the most thick-headed stupid person around.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe


Why in the world do you think that a C-list actress has a corner on the truth?

Call Ted Nugent and ask him his opinion.

Why are you such a loser ?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps beating a dead horse here, but for the sake of 37's enlightenment:

"While Tea Party events have become a safe haven for people carrying racist anti-Obama signs, people of colour have stayed away in droves. Members of white nationalist organisations openly participate in Tea Party events and view the movement as a fertile recruiting ground."

http://www.alternet.org/news/144832/just_how_racist_is_the_tea_party_movement

This seems to be representative of journalists' view of the baggers outside Drudge World.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 6, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


Yes, witch hunt - the people who are saying that certain views are not really what they are - but really masking racism.


broadwayjoe is one who loves to say - "no, they are really racists."

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 4:43 PM
-----------------------------------
I feel like I came into the middle of the movie, so thanks enlightening me. So, are you offended that someone accused you of racism. Or are you offended that someone accused TP'ers of racism?

I don't know what is in your heart, but if I saw you carrying the n**gar sign around, I'd certainly suspect you looked at the world through racial lenses. What the heck is wrong with saying that? Seems glaringly obvious.

Surely you are not defending the n***gar sign guy, are you?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe


It makes no sense, as you appear to support, that some slurs are OK, and some slurs are not.


You seem pretty strong in your opposition to the n-word.


But in multiple posts, you keep on using a sexual slur for the tea party people.

Which is it?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe


Would you stop using a sexual slur to refer to people? If you can use a sexual slur, I guess it is OK for people to use the n-word.

OH, you make a big deal about that, right?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


Yes, witch hunt - the people who are saying that certain views are not really what they are - but really masking racism.


broadwayjoe is one who loves to say - "no, they are really racists."

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

37, if you need any more proof give Janeane Garofalo a call. All the best.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 6, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

37th,

Witchhunt? I've been hanging around here a few weeks now and I guess I missed the witchhunt. Are you believing that YOU have been called a racist? Is that the issue?

You say the important issues are the economy and national security as if your saying so, makes it so. I'll say the major issues are the economy and political polarization. Just me saying so doesn't make it so. Surely we can agree on that. So one poster proclaiming the acceptable issues seems a wee bit controlling.

BTW, I didn't say anything about Mass voters or exit polls. You must be talking to someone else.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

From Politico:


Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said presidential leadership on health care had “dried up” since the Massachusetts special election, and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) ripped into White House senior adviser David Axelrod at the Senate Democratic retreat for failing to provide clarity or direction on the issue.

_______________________________

Experience matters - the democrats wanted this guy with NO EXPERIENCE - and no economic or business experience.

Now the democrats are upset that Obama doesn't know how to lead the democratic party.

What about the rest of the country? The democrats are so BLINDED by the fate of their left-wing agenda - that they don't care that the country is stuck with someone in the White House who doesn't know what he is doing, and is running up the debt of the country at unbelievable rates.

AND all Obama has been able to do is blame someone else.


It is Obama's budget - Obama is responsible for spending the money now, not anyone else - well the democrats are responsible too.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

37: Case closed.

Let me share one mainstream journalist's analysis of the tea bag movement.

"Were you wondering what happened to all the rabid, wild-eyed bigots yelling, “Kill him!” and “Terrorist” and “Socialist” carrying stuffed monkey plush dolls at the McCain-Palin rallies? It’s easy in our jubilation over Obama’s victory to forget the many people in America who were deeply fearful and hate-oriented towards an Obama presidency. Those people didn’t just shrug their shoulders at the Democratic victory in Nov 2008. No, they’ve re-organized. Largely abandoned by the Republican party who tapped cynically into their ignorance, fear and hatred and whipped these folks into a racist lather as a Get Out The Vote strategy, the Tax Day Tea Party people have used the internet to find each other and organize."

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/04/the-rotting-racist-underbelly-of-the-tea-party-protests/

...and of course, there's the sign carried by the founder and president of the tea bag party according to teaparty.org.

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

The "founder" misspelled his favorite racial slur (it ends in "er" not "ar") but America got the message.

You'll notice his sign makes no mention of the "creep of socialism in the Obama Administration due to the takeover of the auto industry, the bank bailout, etc." or any of the other cover issues offered by media sympathizers to mask the r-cism thought by many to motivate bagger activities.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 6, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

We have an extremely inexperienced person in the White House now - the democratic party is panicing now that Obama is not giving them leadership right now.


Obama doesn't know what he is doing.

He never did.

I just wonder if he is going to turn back to cocaine - when things get tough, that is what those coke addicts do.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


The general atmosphere - including on this blog - is one of a witch hunt.

The important issues in this country are the economy and national security.


And these people are off on witch hunts to find racists under every stone.


Are you going to say that 1.1 Million people in Massachusetts are racists? They all voted against Obama.


There were no exit polls in Massachusetts - I guess you made up that fact. The people knew they were voting against Obama - and they wanted to stop him from spending too much money.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

'They voted - and they said they are sick of these tactics of the democrats.'

Nope. not according to exit surveys. go read some. what they said is that Coakly was a lousy candidate -- and she was.

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

37th,

Who are you defending? That posters should not be accused of racism?

Or that GOP/Tea Partiers out there in the world, not on this blog, should not be accused of racism?

Or than no one at all should be accused of racism?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 and dridnl


No one wants any false charges of racism.

It is that simple.

Even on this blog, false charges and witch hunts of racism have been rampant.


Even last night.

I believe Obama and the democrats think they have been really clever in bluntly criticism in this way - however, perhaps it is just built up - and ready to explode.

Even in Massachusetts - as soon as everyone saw it was safe to come out - 1.1 Million people went out to register their disgust with Obama's policies.

They voted - and they said they are sick of these tactics of the democrats.


Hear that broadwayjoe ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 and dridnl


No one wants any false charges of racism.

It is that simple.

Even on this blog, false charges and witch hunts of racism have been rampant.


Even last night.

I believe Obama and the democrats think they have been really clever in bluntly criticism in this way - however, perhaps it is just built up - and ready to explode.

Even in Massachusetts - as soon as everyone saw it was safe to come out - 1.1 Million people went out to register their disgust with Obama's policies.

They voted - and they said they are sick of these tactics of the democrats.


Hear that broadwayjoe ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 and dridnl


No one wants any false charges of racism.

It is that simple.

Even on this blog, false charges and witch hunts of racism have been rampant.


Even last night.

I believe Obama and the democrats think they have been really clever in bluntly criticism in this way - however, perhaps it is just built up - and ready to explode.

Even in Massachusetts - as soon as everyone saw it was safe to come out - 1.1 Million people went out to register their disgust with Obama's policies.

They voted - and they said they are sick of these tactics of the democrats.


Hear that broadwayjoe ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

12Bar -- during the teabagger protests there has been a great deal of racist signage, as well. there's definitely an undercurrent of xenophobia.

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 3:44 PM
----------------------------------
If a picture is worth a thousand words, the photo of the n***ggar sign spoke volumes. The fellow carrying the sign did lasting damage to the future of the Tea Party movement, and he was a faction leader! If some liberal had wanted to play a dirty trick and paint the TP as a bunch of racists, he couldn't have come up with a better idea than that sign.

No doubt there are some within the movement who are sympathetic to the sentiment embodied in the n**ggar sign, but most Americans are repelled by it.

We fought that fight over the last 150 years, and we don't want to fight it again. Most of us see the n**ggar sign carriers (and their supporters) as deadenders. Their time has thankfully come and gone.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

You've got to be a certifiable kool aid drinking Wiccan to still fall for the global warming fraud. Or work for wwf.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 6, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

12Bar -- during the teabagger protests there has been a great deal of racist signage, as well. there's definitely an undercurrent of xenophobia.

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Uh...for those not following the TP convention, Tancredo was their opening night speaker.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

37th:

Did you know that Scott Brown didn't bash Obama or even mention healthcare?! So much for the "reality-based" crowd. LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Time to flush the red herrings:

In reality, catastrophic “snowpocalypse” and “snowmageddon” events are exactly what scientists have been warning would hit Virginians because of global warming, in part because warmer air can hold more water. As National Wildlife Federation climate scientist Amanda Staudt notes, winter storms are getting fiercer even as the season gets warmer:

– Wintertime temperatures have been increasing across the northern United States. Since the 1970s, December-February temperature increases have ranged from 1 to 2 degrees in the Pacific Northwest to about 4 degrees in the Northeast to more than 6 degrees in Alaska.

– Winters are getting shorter, too. Spring arrives 10-14 days earlier than it did just 20 years ago.

– Global warming is bringing a clear trend toward heavier precipitation events. Many areas are seeing bigger and more intense snowstorms, especially in the upper Midwest and Northeast.

– Global warming is shifting storm tracks northward. Areas from the Dakotas eastward to northern Michigan have seen a trend toward more heavy snowfall season.

In other news, this past month of January was the warmest on record for the planet.

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the subtext to the Tea Party movement, here is an example. Former congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) declared that "President Obama was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."

"Literacy and civics test, of course, were notoriously used during the Jim Crow era to keep blacks from voting."

Is it so hard to understand why blacks are not drawn to this movement?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

It is bizarre that the snow totals in Washington - they flashed the massive storms over the screen and many of them in Washington have been over the past 15 years - the exact time that global warmists say we have had the warmest period in history.

I don't want to say "in history" because everyone knows that it was warmer in the Medivel Warming Period -


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"Of the republicans who actually won races this year, none of them bashed obama. In fact--far from it. Some of them even praised him."

Yes drindl, this is the worm hole McDonnell discovered, the counterintuitive route back to Republican populism. The TEA people missed the memo. The loyalty oath is in disgrace. The rightist factions are finished and they think they are just getting started.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 6, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama didn't run negatively, as anti-anything. McCain did. Obama ran as someone with ideas. There are precious few of those in the republican camp.

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 3:13 PM
-------------------------------------
Everyone remembers "Hope and Change". How is that a negative campaign? We do have to remember that GW Bush had an approval rating in the high 20's, so 4 out of 5 people wanted to turn the page on him.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

This is what I mean -- this total incoherence:

This week, Republican Florida U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio accused his opponent, Gov. Charlie Crist, of trying to “dilute the voting power of every American citizen” through his support of including immigrants in this year’s Census count.

Crist has remarked that Rubio’s “notion that you wouldn’t want to accept federal funding to make a political point is absurd.” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) stated, “It [not counting undocumented immigrants] would be pretty damaging to Florida. … Pretending they’re not there, not counting them, doesn’t make them go away.” State Rep. Dean Cannon commented that “it’s just important that the count be accurate regardless of their [immigrant] status.” Even Rubio supporter State Rep. Esteban Bovo (R) said, “So much funding is tied to the Census, and to be undercounted could have devastating effects down the line. … I really don’t want our community to get shortchanged.”

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

@Noacoler,

Hey, my friend. I didn't make myself clear--what I meant was the posters on this board could be our "blood brothers", not because we like each other, but because we meet here regularly for the Blood Bash.

I totally agree that there is no comraderie to be wasted with those who "willing to kill off the natural kingdom to keep the oil companies awash in profit aren't my brothers, they're my sworn enemies." They aren't interested in our opinions (yours and mine) and wouldn't waste spit on us.

As to Mrs. Palin, so far she is just talk, she has no substantial power (if she wanted power, she would have kept her governorship). What Mrs. Palin is, is potential power.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Sorry 12bar but people willing to kill off the natural kingdom to keep the oil companies awash in profit aren't my brothers, they're my sworn enemies.

Their vision of life as nothing more than grim persistence doesn't resonate for me in any way.

As for Palin, it's nothing more than The Emperor's New Clothes. I refuse to claim to see the finery.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"Not Obama" is all you need to win this fall.'

Of the republicans who actually won races this year, none of them bashed obama. In fact--far from it. Some of them even praised him.

Obama didn't run negatively, as anti-anything. McCain did. Obama ran as someone with ideas. There are precious few of those in the republican camp.

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

soapm:

Welcome to "Strangle the Beast".

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

More like the Alabama Holdup...

Posted by: soapm | February 6, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The idea of taxing financial transactions may have been workable 30 years ago, but I question the unintended consequences today. How would foreign trading exchanges (London for one) take advantage of their sudden advantage in reduced trading costs? Financial markets are now global, and money can flow out of New York as well as flow in.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Shrink - consider the election of 2006. Were pelosi and reid visionary leaders? did they have agendas that were clear and determined?

No, they ran as "Not Bush" and won.

The same applies to this year.

"Not Obama" is all you need to win this fall.

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

drivl:

Even if it worked as proposed, and somehow got rid of every other tax while raising enough money for current government spending, there will be even less incentive to REDUCE government spending. The incentive to raise the tax "only" 0.1% would be to tempting. Just imagine the political ads: "Less than one-tenth of one percent for universal heathcare for all".

Something for the Taxed Enough Already ("TEA") Party to think about.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

To be clear, I have never called the GOP dead, falling apart or anything of the sort. My compatriots eh? Are those like comm-patriots (don't get Armpeg started!).

Anyway, I have maintained the Rs are in big trouble with the voters (its populist mask fell off, or at least, askew), lacks coherent let alone visionary leadership Steele, Palin, Beck, Pawlenty, Romney, Boehner, Lindsay, Rush, Huck...and so on. I have predicted it will not be relevant on the national electoral scene until 2016. It will of course win many seats in paralyzed state offices and our increasingly (as far as policy making is concerned) irrelevant Congress. The White House now rules the roost in the way the founders feared.

Who knew the Supreme Court would have facilitated the process? They were supposed to stand in the way of the Royal Presidency. Most recently, by turning Congress over to corporate ownership, they have sealed the deal.

Bottom line, the TEA people and the history of how the Republican Party was formed from the break up of the Whig party have little or nothing in common.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 6, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

@Noacoler,

I've been absent for a few days while I stressed out about some ultra high blood pressure readings. Like that really helped. Think the readings were "machine gone crazy" since now its like 110/70 again.

Anyway, the problem with the comments on this board is that most people argue their points as if life itself depended on it. Really, what does it matter if you or I don't think much of Mrs. Palin (as an example). We are just 2 people. What matters is where she polls with the voters as a whole. Others are outraged that we don't agree with them that Obama is a marxist/socialist/communist/fraud. Even if they could convince us, what difference would it make. What do the voters as a whole think?

I think it was shrink2 who very astutely commented that we LIKE to get together and bash each other, all protestations aside. So, instead of seeing each other as blood enemies, maybe we should see each other as blood brothers.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I am also skeptical about the claims such as the high cost of enforcement. the IRS has very little budget for this activity, we have a voluntary mechanism. the main issues with the IRS is mostly old technology and adverse complexity.

For example, we have heard a lot about all the fraud in medicine. Why don't we eliminate it now with no objection? In fact private fraud is at about 4% while public fraud is three times that.

the endless morass of rules makes it difficult to catch a moving target.
I worked on a fraud database for medicare once. We found a doctor doing 60 back operations a day. Well at least billing for them.

there are a lot of powerful interests with high stakes in the current tax code. altering it will be beyond the ability of anyone running for reelection.

guess who has the most money in their PACs? Realtors and NRA. not going to eliminate the mortgage deduction in our lifetimes.

there is also the question of state and locall income in this VAT approach. Just wait until the liberals scare everyone with the usual teachers, police and fire departments will be shuttered.

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

While I am open to alternative tax options, thIs tax proposal has never addressed disparate "cost of living" issues and unintended consequences that any "flat" tax falls short. It still would not get rid of the IRS completely. In fact, it will be a massive expansion of taxation to areas not currently "taxed" although only at a rate of 0.3% or 0.6%. While that may not sound like much added to each individual transaction, it is intended to raise BILLIONS. Would our faultering economy survive? Tax treatment of illegal, black market, cash or barter transactions fall outside this scheme too (except for what I've heard as an added "penalty" amount for the withdrawal or deposit of cash). Would barter or other alternative systems be outlawed? Would gold as more than a comodity make a come back? Assuming current

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Yeah zouk the multimillionaire living across from national landmarks, nothing better to do than post red hate and National Review screeds on a stupid blog, 16 hours a day, 365 days a year.

When do you squeeze in those five-star vacations? Hahahaha.

Prattle on, d|ckhead.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

It sounds like a good idea, Mark - which is why current conditions will never let it happen.

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Anyone can see that the #1 problem in these comments is *name calling* and *ad hominem personal attacks*

(spits)

if you're not going to moderate this sewage please have the f*cking decency to give it a clean death. Shut it down.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I quickly looked this over and it seems to be a VAT tax or national sales tax.

there are several objections to this sort of approach:

1: the special interests will never let the current swiss cheese tax code be altered
2: it is unfairly tilted toward the poor paying more tax than they pay now on even basic items.
3: if the goal is to soak the financial industry, then just do that
4: the greatest threat is that this could be a tax on top of all other taxes
5: privacy issues, who will watch every transaction?

these pie in the sky ideas sound great but there is seldom a path to arrive there from here. with all the spending, the problem wil be more taxes, not less or different. already half the population has no stake in the game and will feel free to vote in more goodies, paid for by those "rich dudes". not a good plan for citizen interest and participation.

I thihnk it is time to strangle the beast. It seems the voters are beggining to concur.

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -

pls read

http://www.apttax.com/

It seems too good to be true - so I guess there is a fault in the logic or the actual numbers are not historically the same as what is presented. This is in your field, so I will drop by later to read what you thought about it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 6, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

I didn't say that the Republican Party sprang forth from nothing (in fact. I said was "it took awhile to get the GOP started" unless you think that Fremont was elected President). Curious that you suddenly think the GOP is alive and well, as all of your compatriots here have repeatedly pronounced it DOA. As I also said "Only time will tell."

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I listened to Rush L. daily for at least 5 years, to Sean Hannity somewhat less and then to Mark Levin occasionally. I am not afraid to hear alternate points of view. My own liberal perspective has not changed during those years, except to become more robust as I understood the underlying principles for the Limbaugh/Hannity/Levin perspectives.

I will listen to Mrs. Palin for the same reasons. There is nothing scary about hearing someone else's ideas and trying to hear them in the most fair manner possible. If she can convince me of the rightness of her principles, I'll be more persuaded. And the reverse is also true.

Someone asked why blacks are not involved in the Tea Party movement. The answer is so obvious to me, that I'm somewhat suspicious of the questioner's motives. Did you ask the question, tongue in cheek? Or are you honestly perplexed? If the former motive, no answer is required. If the second motive is correct, I think drindl's response is actually the most respectful, and that is to ask some blacks.

But I will venture a guess--that blacks read the subtext of the movement and give the subtext more weight than the spoken motives. The subtext makes blacks uncomfortable, make sense?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 6, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

armpit -- too bad you hve no f*cking clue how government works.

Posted by: dribbl


If true, you could be the new liberal candidate for Present ident. no qualifications needed. all you need to do is give speeches. No laws need be passed, even if you have an overwhelming majority. simply find someone to blame. Can you do that?

BTW, you get to spend all sorts of money that isn't yours, unlimited travel to overseas venues, executive chef who will make your dog a veal doghouse, while your subjects starve in the streets.

this assumes you are able to chooses a dog in under a year. Decision making is not really required so take 8 or ten months to mull it over.

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing how quickly things change in three months - in the past three months,


1) Obama's health care plan has fallen apart,


2) Obama's "soft on terror" policies have been exposed


3) Global warming has been discredited - and it has basically been proven there is no impending crisis to warrant expensive action.

Absolutely amazing how quickly these things change.

Obama has messed up his Presidency - and his talk now indicates that he will be unable to save anything -

Obama will be reduced to making meaningless speeches

OH THAT IS REALLY WHAT HE HAS BEEN DOING ALL ALONG.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, on a trip to Turkey, said it may be time to take a "different tack" with Tehran. Other top defense officials at the Munich Security Conference rejected overtures from Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as nothing new.

The frustration reflects concerns that Iran will use the proposal only to buy more time to advance its nuclear ambitions and thwart sanctions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

duh, Ya think???

I know, I know, how about a deadline. no really.

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

dribbl demonstrates its mastery of the written word.

this is a really ugly, nasty critter.

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

armpit -- too bad you hve no f*cking clue how government works.

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

re. 'Obama has made a point to highlight the fact that Republicans had blocked more legislation in 2009 than in the 1950's and 1960's combined'.

Since the Democrap Socialists have had a super-majority and could pass anything they wanted to in 2009, the fact that it was the Republicans who supposedly blocked legislation is moot. And, since most of Barack Obama's and the Democrap Socialists "legislation" was/is nothing more than the Socialist's/Communist's redistribution of all wealth--i e "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", the Republicans who didn't support Obama's and the Democrap Socialist's agenda, should be applauded and given medals. They in fact were standing up for our (still, so far) free Representative Republican form of government, free enterprize, and our Constitution that has made our country into the richest, freest, and most powerful country in the history of the planet.
Blocking Obama's and the Democrap Socialist's agenda to turn our government into a Communist Workers Paradise, and a George Orwell's "1984" one, is comparable to our founding fathers throwing off the shackles and yokes put on them by the British in the Colonial days.
Thank you Republicans for standing up to the Obama's and the Democrap Socialist's Communist agenda.

Posted by: armpeg | February 6, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Not true Jake. The Republican Party was always there, embedded within the Northern Whigs. There was no popular revolt or anti-government uprising. The Republicans formed to deny secession, the TEA people, who knows what they want?

The (re-)use of the word Republican was a branding phenomenon, it did not represent a novel direction or a novel party. It was a way for a large faction of the Whigs to reorganize themselves. The TEA group is not a large faction of a political party than is falling apart.

The Whig party was falling apart and the Republicans wanted to distinguish themselves from the reactionary No Nothings, among others. It is to me perhaps the most fascinating period in American political history and these issues are argued amongst scholars today [It all matters so much because never before or since was America so politicized, as measured by voter turnouts and it all bears on whether a civil war was inevitable...or was actually caused/precipitated by the destruction of the Whig party. Many think the Whigs and Filmore in particular were holding the country together. Lincoln's move from Whiggery to the (Free Soilers etc.) Republicans in 1856 was seen by some as a provocation, at least to the Southern Whig secessionists.]

No matter. The point is this TEA movement has no legs. Our time is not analogous, let alone similar to the time when the Whigs split up. Republican (power and money) is just fine, firmly in the hands of corporate interests and nothing but corporate interests. The Republican Party has its ongoing challenge in the modern era, to win it still has to convince white working and poor people that it has their interests in mind. This means they will, sooner or later, co-opt the TEA voters.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 6, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

You are inviting tragedy by associating yourself or anything with Barack, not just campaigns it seems. so far, all failure all the time. I had no idea it extended to circus creatures. Poor thing. Like the rest of us poor things.

It is the innocent chidren of the next generation that will pay the heaviest price for this temporary insanity our nation has endured.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The first Asian elephant born as a result of artificial insemination at a Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus facility has been pulled from the circus lineup after he became infected with a potentially deadly herpes virus. The 1-year-old calf, Barack, is being treated for elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus (EEHV), a disease that has killed several Asian elephants in zoos across the continent in the past three decades.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Watch for dribbl and the other tin foil hat brigade members to find a conspiracy here.

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure he cheated, Joe. How else do repuglicans win anythhing?

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Now that you mention it, Coakley did raise concerns about "voter irregularities" in her race against Scott Brown. This is something a Post reporter specializing in "political news and analysis" might look into, no?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 6, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

BJ, shouldn't you be demanding a recount somewhere?
Or at least over at the John Edwards for President rally? I am sure dribbl has plenty of leftover bumper stickers and buttons.

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I keep forgetting that dribbl and her three stooges are the only sanctioned 24/7 posters and anyone else is required to ask permission first.

you see if the news gets out that there are other reasonable views of things, the moonbat ideas will continue down the path of becoming a laughingstock, like the present ident himself.

Here's a few rollicking ones:

Spending freeze

CPAN and openness

no lobbyists

bipartisanship

surrender is victory

we extend the hand of friendship

terrorists have all your rights.

Ha ha????

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"According to a recent Rasmussen poll January 24), only...

Stop right there! Once you see "Rasmussen," there's no point in reading further, is there? ;)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 6, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

What a sad and pathetic sack of sh*t you are zouk/drivl. Do you have a potty seat at your computer? You were on here all day, all night and now all day today. What a useless and creepy zero.

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"This loss of confidence is driven not only by the dire prospects of the debt time bomb and the economic and security devastation that would bring, but by the fear of government intrusion into every aspect of daily life."

Like taking control of women's bodies and reproductive choices? Like telling people whom they may or may not marry? Like the government having the power to detain and torture anyone indefinitely, without evidence or charges? Like letting old people and children go sick, homeless and starving?

Pretty scary all right--republican intrusion is as big government as anything on earth. Good thing they're not in power - god help us if they ever get it again... it will be the end of the world as we know it and turn the US into a brutalized and savage Third World.

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Where's AL Gore when we need him. all this global warming effluence is stacking up and prohibiting me from leaving my house.

I am a little confused though, the substance seems to be cold!

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

What she should have said:

Americans have not forgotten the dangers of tying their retirement security to the whims of liberal tax raisers in congress. It was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now. This resolution supports Americans who contribute all their working life to a retirement and want income security in their golden years."

Can you imagine anything more ironic than liberals and present ident bambi lecturing anyone on financial responsibility.

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

About time:

House Democrats are going to force their Republican colleagues to vote on a resolution opposing the privatization of Social Security. The move shows Democrats are putting their full political muscle into painting the Republicans as enemies of Social Security and using the chief GOP budget writer Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to cut benefits as evidence.

Rep. John Larson (D-CT) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) this afternoon introduced the resolution which "expresses the will of House Democrats to preserve Social Security and reaffirms our commitment to working in a bipartisan way to make common sense adjustments to strengthen the program for generations to come."

It's the sort of tough political vote that Democrats have rarely pushed Republicans on since winning back control of Congress in 2006, and similar to resolutions the GOP constantly forced the Democrats to take positions on when they were in power.

The resolution - which has not yet been scheduled for a House floor vote but has more than 20 original co-sponsors - is the latest salvo in the new fight over Social Security.

Democrats say Ryan's "roadmap" that we've been writing about proves the GOP is "dusting off their old playbook" and the majority party fully intends to make this a midterm election battle.

"Republicans are dusting off their old playbook and re-hashing old ideas like the privatization of Social Security that the American people have already rejected," Larson said in a statement. "Their ideas would end the program as we know it and put the retirement security of millions of America's seniors and workers at risk. My colleagues and I introduced this resolution to show the American people that we are standing with them and against these destructive ideas."

Sanchez added, "Americans have not forgotten the dangers of tying their retirement security to the whims of Wall Street. It was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now. This resolution supports Americans who contribute all their working life to a retirement and want income security in their golden years."

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

According to a recent Rasmussen poll (January 24), only 29% of Americans believe the country is on the right track. This loss of confidence is driven not only by the dire prospects of the debt time bomb and the economic and security devastation that would bring, but by the fear of government intrusion into every aspect of daily life.


Trillion-dollar annual deficits, high unemployment rates, a bleak tomorrow for future generations, and unprecedented erosion in the public's trust of the nation's leaders are becoming the legacy of President Obama and his administration.

Hope is often defined as a feeling that something desirable is likely to happen. Around that expectation was built a web of deceit made up of promises that could not be fulfilled and of soothing words meaning nothing but spoken in a calm, reassuring manner. The messenger, a cool yet accomplished reader of prepared speeches trading on his ethnicity and demeanor, became the first part of the equation to sell this deception to the electorate.

The balance of the strategy was to utilize the useful idiots at the once mainstream media to continue unabated with the demonization of the Bush Administration. The inability or deliberate abdication on the part of the Bush White House to aggressively counter the lies and innuendos made the task all the easier.

By deceiving the public as to his real agenda, ignoring virtually all his campaign promises, dealing with his cronies and contributors behind closed doors while rewarding their loyalty, and by his profligate spending, President Obama has done more to destroy faith in the future of the United States than any of his predecessors.


Instead of the cynical cereal-box slogan of "Hope and Change," we must promote and understand the indispensable need for "trust and confidence." If we do not, then the wrong track 71% of the people believe the country is on will never be corrected, and inevitable second-class world status for the United States will become a reality.

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

GREG GUTFELD, HOST: I take issue with one thing Stewart said - no, make that everything. He made a big deal about Fox News laying off President Bush while now laying into Obama, which to me is nuttier than squirrel poop. While Bush was President, he was trashed by a left-wing posse who delighted in military defeat for it meant their side was winning. To them, dissent was patriotic even it meant dead troops.

Fox wasn't ignoring Bush's actions. It was reacting to that, what I would call "Patriotic Terrorism." I saw a fully-realized, anti-America lynch mob who would rather win an election than a war, and that made me more of a righty than 9/11, my life at Berkeley, and all my head injuries combined. Want to see proof of my point: ask yourself where is this feverish anti-war movement now that Obama's in power.

Anyway, Stewart's got to stop whining about Fox tilting to the right. The New York Times just ran a piece pointing out the dearth of conservatives in journalism, theatre, therapy, and academia. You've got a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, a Democrat for President, a liberal media, a left-wing Hollywood, a liberal art and music culture. You've got it all, and you're mad Fox News isn't playing ball? What happened to that whole "Dissent is Patriotic" crap? It seems Fox News only looks right because everything else is left!

Indeed, for as right-leaning as Fox might be at times, it is not even close to how far to the left ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and PBS are.

Not even close!

Bravo, Greg!

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Shut it down.

Posted by: Noacoler


If only YOU would leave, things could get back to normal. no more queeny concentration on all things sodomy.

Posted by: drivl | February 6, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Yes, shrink2, I saw that the first time you posted it. As I mentioned to drindl, it took awhile to get the GOP started as well. Only time will tell.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, the TEA "convention" is a laugher. The organizers say they "hope" to raise $10 million this year.

Evidently they don't know about money and politics; they surely don't realize what the Supreme court has done to political money. This is not the middle of the nineteenth century, now only money talks.

If the tea baggers ever figured out what all those zeros behind the numbers meant, they would realize they are poor people and that means neither party wants their support and neither party will do anything but pander to their agenda...whatever that is.


Posted by: shrink2 | February 6, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I have no problem looking at something like the APT tax (with attention paid to high and low "cost of living" areas). Don't you at least have a VCR? Gov. Palin will also be on Chris Wallace's Sunday morning show.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Street Corner, a "balanced budget and lower taxes" is the same pie in the sky free lunch message we have been getting for years. You know it, as well as I. Cyclical balanced budgets - surplus in the good years, deficits in the bad, balancing over the business cycle - have succumbed in the past to Ds saying during good years "we can spend more" and Rs doing the good years saying "we can cut taxes". I would cut slack for a Congress that spent, or cuts taxes, in a recession down cycle if they then reversed themselves in the up cycle.

Like the good people of Colorado Springs who are tax averse and apparently welcoming austerity, a positive agenda for TEA would feature the unpopular cuts that must be made to balance the budget with no tax increases, plus the further paring that would get us balanced with tax cuts. I could envision ending Medicaid, limiting Medicare and Old Age SS, cutting back the military, selling off the National Parks, and reducing maintenance on the interstate highway system; leaving air traffic control to the airlines and ending both NASA and Ag subsidies. That would probably do it. Sounds like a hard sell, unless most people believe the market mechanism would suffice. To be clear about my position, I do not believe that.

Jake, I am going to an old friend's wedding tonight, but I am sure a transcript of SHP's speech will be available tomorrow.

For both of you, who are looking for a way to shift tax burdens in some tolerable way, I suggest that you read about the automated payment transaction tax proposal by a U Wis. prof.

http://www.apttax.com/

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 6, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Anyone can see that the #1 problem in these comments is *name calling* and *ad hominem personal attacks*

(spits)

if you're not going to moderate this sewage please have the f*cking decency to give it a clean death. Shut it down.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 3:55 AM | Report abuse

The democratic options on health care - the analysis is based on the idea that "the damage is already done." And the damage has been massive to the democratic party.


The whole image of Obama as the bipartisan uniter - who was not only going to unite Washington, but the whole world - and had the power to unite warring Marian spacemen - has been completely destroyed - by Obama himself.


OUCH.


The response of Obama and the democrats - get mean to the Republicans, and try to call them out - is only going to make the situation worse.


First it proves that Obama really does not understand what got him into the position he is in today - which people interprete that Obama has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA ABOUT HOW TO GOVERN.


First impressions matter - and if one takes out the die-hard democrats, Obama's numbers are really, really low.


People have tuned in to Obama over the past few weeks to hear his response - and it has not been "I made a mistake, I will listen to the American people, I will now be bipartisan."


Instead, Obama is punching at the Republicans - which is only CONFIRMING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE what is WRONG WITH OBAMA.


And this whole idea that "charges of racism will give us some momentum" - is another attitude problem which does nothing to really help Obama at this point.


When Obama gets voted out of office, are we going to have another Nixon moment, when he calls the nation "a bunch of racists" - it is certainly possible.


Obama and the democrats are now the PARTY OF BLAME.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 3:13 AM | Report abuse

A balanced budget and lower taxes is not a positive agenda?


I guess you find putting this country in a TRILLION dollars of debt positive???


By the way, Obama's budget director admitted that Obama's budget was "Not Sustainable"


Why can't we get a sustainable budget out of Obama ???

The worst part of this is that Obama was trying to jame a $ 2 - 3 Trillion dollar health care deficit down America's throat - AND THEN Obama was going to start talking about the $ 1.3 Trillion per year deficit he has going with the regular deficit.


How irresponsible can Obama be???


It is clear NOW to all but the most IRRESPONSIBLE AND CLUELESS people that Obama's health care plan was just too expensive and should never have been considered to be implemented under these economic conditions.

And don't try to say that the whole health care plan was paid for, because that was the farthest thing from the truth.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 1:44 AM | Report abuse

Show us your back, 37th, you god damn idiot.

.


Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Be shure to wach me speke at the tee party convenshun. I wil be tawking abowt my plan fore this grate nashun and all the peeple who have to be killed to make us grate agen. I will tawk to awl those empty seets in my littel gurl voise.

Luv,
xoxox Sarha

ps send money

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Jake

Just state your opinion and ignore the other people.


I know it's difficult.

For some reason, there are posters on this blog who look at themselves and believe it is their personal mission to make horrible remarks to everyone on the blog.

Show some substance.


.


Posted by: 37thand0street | February 6, 2010 1:08 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

Let me know if you watch it.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 12:46 AM | Report abuse

I'm tired of just repeating myself.

Posted by: JakeD2

==

says the guy who does the same six posts all day long 365 days a year.

Anyone else / darn spellchecker / if anyone wants to discuss ... let me know / LONG FORM ...

Sure, Jake, sure.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 12:45 AM | Report abuse

So the tea party is accused of "explicit sexual acts?" What's wrong with that. I commit a "explicit sexual act" as often as possible, whenever my wife and I get to bed at night. That's BS. There is enough about the tea party that some of us abhor, not the least of which is Sara Pelin. So let's stay real and not accuse them of things you can't prove and, at any rate, have no place in today's politics. All this BS about one party or the other party has gotten this country where we are today. Nothing gets done!

Posted by: Opa2 | February 6, 2010 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Watch Palin's speech?  Why?  It's a mathematical certainty that she will have nothing uplifiting, positive, or wholesome to say.  The one stroke in the direction of kindness will be some blather about lovely unborn babies, and will segue immediately to hate and condemnation of people who don't see things her way.  Palin's whole appeal is to haters, her entire shtick is mockery and derision and nastiness.

I'm with Mark.  There is nothing positive about the teabagger movement.  It's exactly what it looks like, a bunch of angry old white men and a few angry old white women.  The same people who were yelling "kill him!" as Palin smiled and encouraged them back in '08.  Maybe the movement gives a few retirees something to do with their time but it is far too repellent, far too short on ideas and goals, to be politically significant.

Whoever manages to tap into that anger is going to marginalize himself, losing deservedly.  Rage isn't a movement.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 6, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

I dare you to watch Gov. Palin's speech tomorrow night and come back here to say it was not positive.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 6, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Actually the Whigs broke up and from the old National Republicans (Daniel Webster died, but was not born a Whig - he started his career as a Federalist). After they abandoned the National Republicans in 1832, the Whigs were too successful perhaps (and Tyler too - was poison).

The positive agenda the Whigs sold was in 1840. Later on, the Whigs falling apart, along geographic (slave) lines, was inevitable. Lincoln was not, but fortunately, modern Republicans have no serious leaders.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 5, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Mark


A balanced budget and lower taxes is not a positive agenda?


I guess you find putting this country in a TRILLION dollars of debt positive???

By the way, Obama's budget director admitted that Obama's budget was "Not Sustainable"

Why can't we get a sustainable budget out of Obama ???


The worst part of this is that Obama was trying to jame a $ 2 - 3 Trillion dollar health care deficit down America's throat - AND THEN Obama was going to start talking about the $ 1.3 Trillion per year deficit he has going with the regular deficit.

How irresponsible can Obama be???

It is clear NOW to all but the most IRRESPONSIBLE AND CLUELESS people that Obama's health care plan was just too expensive and should never have been considered to be implemented under these economic conditions.


And don't try to say that the whole health care plan was paid for, because that was the farthest thing from the truth.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 5, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

I have already expressed my displeasure at the attempts of a few on this blog to mischaracterize the tea partiers.


They have been hit with labels of explicit sexual acts - and members of the media just sit by and allow it.


And they are accused of being racist, which isn't true.

And all we hear in response, is not examples or proof, but childish taunts "But they arrrrre, they really really arrrrrrrre."


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 5, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Without a positive agenda, TEA will not be a game changer. The R faction that broke from the Whigs in the 1850s had a positive agenda. This is in no way comparable, at least not yet, and it is not showing any signs of moving in that direction according to published reports.

"Citizens United", on the other hand, may be a game changer. One the TEA people should not like. One we all should not like, I suspect.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 5, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

I've posted how the TEA Party could really shake up both major parties in this countries. Whichever candidate harnesses that raw power can win 2010-2012. I'm tired of just repeating myself.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 5, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Jake


Post something good - that would be redeeming.

yea, a few of these people are nuts and they get people angry.


Posted by: 37thand0street | February 5, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Not the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. There's little redeeming quality left here in the comments.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 5, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Jake

Do you want to get rid of the filibuster too, or just the comments?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 5, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza:

I agree it's time to completely shut off comments.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 5, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

The only way Obama can come out of this mess which he has made is to be bipartisan - and Obama has done nothing over the past two weeks but make statements which run counter to that.

Obama would have to agree to the Republican version of the health care bill - no individual mandate, no massive taxes, no massive government programs.

It is pretty simple.

Rahm said it last summer - the democrats were refusing to pull together and make it happen.

If one can put the Scott Brown situation aside for a moment, can you imagine what kind of democratic infighting would be going on right now between the Senate and House dems ????


The Stupak amendment is just one part of it - why in the world were not the Senate democrats involved in those negotiations - and why wasn't the Stupak language which was negotiated out - in the Senate bill ??


Could it be because the democrats intended on throwing out the Stupak language the whole time ???

The entire process of the health care bill - all the committee hearings and mark-ups - we kept on hearing, Oh this version doesn't matter, It's not going to be the final bill.


Time and time again, we heard there was NEVER a "final bill" - no one knew what was going on exactly - so no one could be against anything (was the strategy) - however in the end no one was in favor of the "final bill" because no one knew what the "final bill" was.

The idea of throwing up a 2000 page bill and asking the country to be behind it or against it within 72 hours is completely INSANE.


But this is how Obama and the democrats WANTED TO HANDLE THIS PROCESS.


They kept on going through the motions of the process - but they kept on saying, we are just moving the bill along, it doesn't matter what is in the bill.

Process matters - those procedures are there so people KNOW what is in the bill - and so that the bill gradually gains support as it moves forward.


There was a conscious, overt decision on the part of democrats to SUBVERT this process.


The bill was rotten, the process was rotten - nothing good could have come from any of this.

The country is better off without this version of the health care bill - and that is what all the adults in this country will tell you.

There are still a great deal of children running around saying other things, including on this blog.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 5, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

@noa: It's hard to imagine MoDo, Gene Robinson, Frank Rich, or HuffPo's Sam Stein describing the tea baggers as fighting "the creep of socialism." (Tell that to Janeane Garofalo if you dare.) But then again it's hard to see any of them giving Chip (Magic N_gro CD) Salsman a shoutout. The lens here seems very distorted.

Isn't it a bit odd the O'Keefe (alleged) Senate office break-in didn't get any coverage here, much less the news about O'Keefe's (alleged) associations? Don't these new news developments merit discussion in a DC political blog given that they put O'Keefe's antics to undermine ACORN voter registration efforts in a MUCH different light. Oh well...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 5, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


You have been banned three times, please leave, go away and never come back.

Thank you.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 5, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

37th, you're a brainless idiot, go the he'll away.


.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 5, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

@broadwayjoe: the fact that racist posters are uncesured here while people like me who call them out get banned for it tells you all you need to know. Leaving zouk's "ped" stuff unremarked just puts a cherry on top. If Chris isn't outrightly bigoted himself he at least doesn't have a lot of convictions about stopping it.

But for my money anyone not turned off by the Southern Strategy is a
rotten bigot, and to claim that isn't 100% of those identifying as Republicans us at worst slightly inaccurate.

Creep of socialism, my butt pimples. They're enraged because their president isn't white and we all know it.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 5, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

The democratic options on health care - the analysis is based on the idea that "the damage is already done." And the damage has been massive to the democratic party.


The whole image of Obama as the bipartisan uniter - who was not only going to unite Washington, but the whole world - and had the power to unite warring Marian spacemen - has been completely destroyed - by Obama himself.


OUCH.


The response of Obama and the democrats - get mean to the Republicans, and try to call them out - is only going to make the situation worse.


First it proves that Obama really does not understand what got him into the position he is in today - which people interprete that Obama has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA ABOUT HOW TO GOVERN.


First impressions matter - and if one takes out the die-hard democrats, Obama's numbers are really, really low.


People have tuned in to Obama over the past few weeks to hear his response - and it has not been "I made a mistake, I will listen to the American people, I will now be bipartisan."


Instead, Obama is punching at the Republicans - which is only CONFIRMING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE what is WRONG WITH OBAMA.


And this whole idea that "charges of racism will give us some momentum" - is another attitude problem which does nothing to really help Obama at this point.


When Obama gets voted out of office, are we going to have another Nixon moment, when he calls the nation "a bunch of racists" - it is certainly possible.


Obama and the democrats are now the PARTY OF BLAME.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 5, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe

OOOHHHH LOOKK Over there - under that rock - there's a racist !!!

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 5, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Chris and broadwayjoe


Chris - would you please ban broadwayjoe for his continued use of a sexual term for people?


These attacks have to stop.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 5, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

noa, it's troubling that a Post-sponsored blog is repeating the bigots' cover story that the tea baggers are concerned about "the creep of socialism" and the decline of the auto indutry. Gimme a break. Not surprisingly, stormfront is extremely supportive of the tea bag "movement."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 5, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

"Were you wondering what happened to all the rabid, wild-eyed bigots yelling, “Kill him!” and “Terrorist” and “Socialist” carrying stuffed monkey plush dolls at the McCain-Palin rallies? It’s easy in our jubilation over Obama’s victory to forget the many people in America who were deeply fearful and hate-oriented towards an Obama presidency. Those people didn’t just shrug their shoulders at the Democratic victory in Nov 2008. No, they’ve re-organized. Largely abandoned by the Republican party who tapped cynically into their ignorance, fear and hatred and whipped these folks into a racist lather as a Get Out The Vote strategy, the Tax Day Tea Party people have used the internet to find each other and organize."

==

He rings the bell.

Why do we have to put up with all this nutty denial that the Republicans in general and teabaggers in particular are rotten with racism? Not exactly like it came out of nowhere.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 5, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

I love reading the Washington Post and seeing how delusional Democrats are. It gives me a chuckle every day. Stay safe from the snow storm, Washington. Pray for global warming.

Posted by: kenpasadena | February 5, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

They say that conservatives have no sense of humor. However, I think one of the greatest practical jokes is to get thousands of people who get tax cuts to go out and complain about taxes all while referring to themselves as teabaggers.

It's like Christo meets Ashton Kutcher.


Root for my Saints on Sunday!

Posted by: DDAWD | February 5, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"The broadest definition is a group of people opposed to what they believe to be the creep of socialism in the Obama Administration due to the takeover of the auto industry, the bank bailout etc."

This is factually untrue! A sad false narrative. Most journalists who have actually interviewed the baggers found they know or care little about taxes, the auto industry, etc. In fact none of them seemed to know that BHO had lower taxes for people on their income bracket.
The president and founder of the tea baggers "movement" waves a sign that says nothing about taxes or bank bailouts. But it does display the founder's favorite racial slur (we guess), albeit misspelled.
____________

This analyst here presents a more widely accepted view of the teabaggers:

"Were you wondering what happened to all the rabid, wild-eyed bigots yelling, “Kill him!” and “Terrorist” and “Socialist” carrying stuffed monkey plush dolls at the McCain-Palin rallies? It’s easy in our jubilation over Obama’s victory to forget the many people in America who were deeply fearful and hate-oriented towards an Obama presidency. Those people didn’t just shrug their shoulders at the Democratic victory in Nov 2008. No, they’ve re-organized. Largely abandoned by the Republican party who tapped cynically into their ignorance, fear and hatred and whipped these folks into a racist lather as a Get Out The Vote strategy, the Tax Day Tea Party people have used the internet to find each other and organize."

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/04/the-rotting-racist-underbelly-of-the-tea-party-protests/

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 5, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Shut up and go away you damned idiot.


.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 5, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama's own budget director said that Obama's budget is unsustainable.

WHY doesn't Obama put up a sustainable budget?


Why is Obama SO IRRESPONSIBLE ???

It seems Obama wanted everyone to forget about the budget situation, until he jammed through his health care plan - so the whole budget would be a complete disaster.

THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU ELECT SOMEONE WITH NO ECONOMIC OR BUSINESS EXPERIENCE EXCEPT FOR BUYING COCAINE.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 5, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Did any of you guys see the book review for Jenny Sanford's new book?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020404377.html?hpid=topnews

Are there any synonyms for the word "wow"? Because that was the word that kept popping into my head while reading it.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 5, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said of Sanford’s trip: “I am pleased to see that the governor is finally taking an interest in South Carolina’s public schools.” “After going to court last year to prevent stimulus funds,” Clyburn added, “his meeting with Secretary Duncan appears to be the governor’s admission that the stimulus was not only necessary but effective.”

Posted by: drindl
------------------------------------------
Effective, yes, because in effect it's "free" money. But effective for how long a time period? After the hangover the fact remains that debt needs to be paid off in future time periods to pay past expenses. The unfunded mandates, expenses and salaries for next year and future years will still be there and in the end only a bigger hole has been dug...but to have that euphoric moment of free lunch (or a bombastic speech)...priceless

Posted by: leapin | February 5, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

The democratic options on health care - the analysis is based on the idea that "the damage is already done." And the damage has been massive to the democratic party.

The whole image of Obama as the bipartisan uniter - who was not only going to unite Washington, but the whole world - and had the power to unite warring Marian spacemen - has been completely destroyed - by Obama himself.

OUCH.

The response of Obama and the democrats - get mean to the Republicans, and try to call them out - is only going to make the situation worse.

First it proves that Obama really does not understand what got him into the position he is in today - which people interprete that Obama has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA ABOUT HOW TO GOVERN.

First impressions matter - and if one takes out the die-hard democrats, Obama's numbers are really, really low.

People have tuned in to Obama over the past few weeks to hear his response - and it has not been "I made a mistake, I will listen to the American people, I will now be bipartisan."

Instead, Obama is punching at the Republicans - which is only CONFIRMING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE what is WRONG WITH OBAMA.

And this whole idea that "charges of racism will give us some momentum" - is another attitude problem which does nothing to really help Obama at this point.

When Obama gets voted out of office, are we going to have another Nixon moment, when he calls the nation "a bunch of racists" - it is certainly possible.

Obama and the democrats are now the PARTY OF BLAME.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 5, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

'South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) waged a high-profile war against the economic stimulus package last spring, claiming that accepting the $700 million for which his state was eligible would lead to “a thing called slavery.” Even as his state’s unemployment rate climbed above the national average, Sanford maintained his partisan and politically motivated refusal to take the funds.

But yesterday, Sanford flew to Washington to demand $300 million in stimulus money for education, the State newspaper reports:

Sanford, who spent much of last year fighting parts of the Obama administration’s stimulus plan, now wants S.C. to have a piece of $4 billion in “Race to the Top” education money. [...]

Sanford’s trip — which did not appear on his official calendar — is especially hypocritical because the majority of stimulus money destined for South Carolina was to fund education and save thousands of teachers’ jobs. Yet, in March, Sanford told Fox News host Glenn Beck that taking the money would be akin to “fiscal child abuse.”

Indeed, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said of Sanford’s trip: “I am pleased to see that the governor is finally taking an interest in South Carolina’s public schools.” “After going to court last year to prevent stimulus funds,” Clyburn added, “his meeting with Secretary Duncan appears to be the governor’s admission that the stimulus was not only necessary but effective.”

Posted by: drindl | February 5, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

gee cracker, maybe if knew any black people you could ask them.


Posted by: drindl
-----------------------------------------
I asked. The response was that the research needs to be done to see if stats are available. I received a respectful response not a hateful, racist insult.

Posted by: leapin | February 5, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

and now the radical right has become a tool of foreign corporations.

Posted by: drindl
---------------------------------------
Aren't them foreign corporations mostly incorporated in foreign socialist paradises?

Posted by: leapin | February 5, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

37 thinks she's the Red Queen --

OFF WITH HIS HEAD! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

Posted by: drindl | February 5, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

37 thinks she's the Red Queen --

OFF WITH HIS HEAD! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

Posted by: drindl | February 5, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Notice how easily the insults and overt racism runs off the liberal tongue.

you three stooges are total losers and deserve whatever horrible Karma is certainly headed your way.

Posted by: drivl | February 5, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


YOU NEED TO BE BANNED FOR YOUR COMMENTS AT 5:29 pm

In addition, you are probably Broadwayjoe, or working with him, so he needs to be BANNED as well.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 5, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

leapin

here is a funny effect. I can write something like:

I voted for barry because he was a light skinned Negro who didn't speak the ghetto dialect and besides he was clean, articulate and not menacing.

Now normally liberals would be beside themselves with rage over those overtly racist remarks, as they should be.

but since the dopes who run their own party are the sources of the quotes, they are stuck with saying nothing about them and pretending that those are perfectly normal things to say about a successful (moderately) black man in modern america.

Posted by: drivl | February 5, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Well, I never see any black Republicans ever getting elected to anything, so it might just be based on principles. Alan Keyes, Michael Steele, Lynn Swann (don't nigggers love football???)

As for nigggers not attending tax parties, perhaps they don't feel the need to protest their tax cuts.

And as for the education of nigggers, they have a lot more political knowledge than white people. I think Bush's approval rating was like 3% among nigggers. That says it all.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 5, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

And here is somebody who says he isn't racist -- LOL:

'Is there any evidence that blacks did not attend the Tea Parties because they didn't have an iron in the fire (i.e. they don't pay taxes)?

Do we have any sociological data that shows white Americans (because of their race) are more involved in the political process in America than black Americans?

Do we have any educational statistics that show black Americans, because of their race, are less educated and less involved in government?

Do we have any financial or employment information that reflects white Americans pay more taxes than black Americans?

I'm sitting here trying to figure out why there aren't more blacks at the Tea Parties. It doesn't make any sense to me - blacks will get whacked by increases in Obama's taxes just like everybody else.

Why didn't the blacks protest also?

Does anybody know?'

gee cracker, maybe if knew any black people you could ask them.

Posted by: drindl | February 5, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"The radical left which began as a protest against authoritarianism has become a tool of the power hungry. "

and now the radical right has become a tool of foreign corporations.

Posted by: drindl | February 5, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

It always puzzles me when some black folks insist they only voted for BO because of his principles, but are certain all who voted against him did so based on race. The double standard, whose ox is being gored, the beam in the eye, nullifies most of the left wing comments here. You'd think there were no solid arguments that support the view from the left.

Is there any evidence that blacks did not attend the Tea Parties because they didn't have an iron in the fire (i.e. they don't pay taxes)?

Do we have any sociological data that shows white Americans (because of their race) are more involved in the political process in America than black Americans?

Do we have any educational statistics that show black Americans, because of their race, are less educated and less involved in government?

Do we have any financial or employment information that reflects white Americans pay more taxes than black Americans?

I'm sitting here trying to figure out why there aren't more blacks at the Tea Parties. It doesn't make any sense to me - blacks will get whacked by increases in Obama's taxes just like everybody else.

Why didn't the blacks protest also?

Does anybody know?

Posted by: leapin | February 5, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

leapin

the word on the leftist bulk email is that the Taxed Enough Already people are racist. that was all the instruction the moonbats got. don't expect any other ideas until the next set of emails arrive.

In the meantime they will have to resort to what they know best- personal attack, insults, hate, envy, projection. you know the game.

you have a job - not likely, A car - impossible, you date girls, never, you own a home, how could you. people talk to you - unheard of.

you see, that take their own pitiful empty lives and project them to everyone else on the Internet. hate and envy spiced with failure and anti-social mysogyny.

Posted by: drivl | February 5, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I've never seen people so thoroughly willing to be taxed; so believing in the competence of government. The radical left which began as a protest against authoritarianism has become a tool of the power hungry. Actually, that's not exactly correct. They were always being used to further a tyrannical objective. The Marxists among them still believe that a worker's paradise is possible even with so much history arrayed against the supposition. Cries of racism merely deflect from the issue and diminish the meaning of the word. Garofalo doesn't appear to be a very deep thinker. More of a reactionary with delusions of relevence.

Posted by: leapin | February 5, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

One of the essential tenets of socialism is public ownership of the means of production. What does this mean? It means that governments, rather than private individuals, own business enterprises. (See GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc.)

Another essential tenet of socialism was expressed by Karl Marx: "From each according to ability, to each according to need." What does this mean? That the political process should be used to take from those who have money to give to those whom the politicians and bureaucrats believe need it more. (See Obama, “redistribution of wealth”).

Posted by: leapin | February 5, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"The broadest definition is a group of people opposed to what they believe to be the creep of socialism in the Obama Administration "

C'mon -- do you really think any of these people have a clue what 'socialism' actually is? If they did, they wouldn't be saying this crap.

This is just parroting what their hate radio masters say.

Posted by: drindl | February 5, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The broadest definition is a group of people opposed to what they believe to be the creep of socialism in the Obama Administration due to the takeover of the auto industry, the bank bailout etc.

But, there are LOTS of disparate groups -- some of which disagree with one another -- that are considered part of the movement.

I think this weekend's convention will tell us a lot about whether this is a flash in the pan and a legitimate political movement.

==
 
Fred Hiatt should call you into his office and wash your mouth out with soap.  Better yet, HClO4.
 
“They believe to be the creep of socialism.”  As if any of those red-faced septuagenarians could so much as name a single tenet of Socialism.
 
As though the Tea Party movement is ANYTHING but the racist proxy that real journalists accurately portray it as.
 
As though The Fix is anything but an RNC steno pool.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 5, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"I think this weekend's convention will tell us a lot about whether this is a flash in the pan and a legitimate political movement."
----------------------------------------
This weekend's convention will tell nothing. Most of the dissatisfied have work and family commitments. In this economy they don't have money for junkets. They are saving every penny to brace against the ever increasing possibly of losing their jobs. However, the Dbaggers have time to attend their free lunch parties, fully secure, with government benefit package in hand.

Posted by: leapin | February 5, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company