Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Live Fix Chat: Harold Ford Jr., Michael Steele and best political books

Earlier today we spent an hour fielding questions Fixistas on the wild week that was in politics.

If you missed it (how could you?), the entire transcript is here. But, we've plucked out a few of our favorite questions and answers and excerpted them below.

The Live Fix goes down every Friday from 11 am to noon. Be there!

Albany, NY: Chris, what do you think about this Harold Ford for NY Senate stuff? I've thought it was pretty odd myself, but there really is a lot of unease about Sen. Gillibrand here. Maybe it's the Paterson connection, maybe it's her conservative-leaning House record...I'm not sure. But, there's definitely an opening for someone. Not sure it's a fmr. Tennessee Congressman though...

Chris Cillizza: There is ABSOLUTELY an opening for someone -- particularly in a Democratic primary -- but I am not sure that someone is a moderate/conservative Democrat who is from Tennessee.

If Rep. Steve Israel would have run (the White House talked him out of it), he might well have beaten Gillibrand.

In a general election, I think it's a far tougher proposition because of the Democratic tilt of the state. The latest Republican to consider it is former Rep. Susan Molinari though I am very skeptical she ultimately does it.

Steeleville, UT: Is Michael Steele trying to get the troops riled, or does he think the GOP brand is so bad, he just needs to sell books?

Chris Cillizza: Trying to figure out what Michael Steele is doing is a fool's errand.

I think most establishment Republicans are deeply disappointed in his performance as chairman and are looking for a reason/way to oust him.

I am not sure that ever comes to pass -- Steele still holds considerable loyalty from the grassroots which have a strong say in the identity of the chairman -- but it's clear he has done himself considerable damage with his unending string of impolitic comments over the past year.

If you haven't already read it, go and read Phil Rucker's piece on Steele in today's Post. BRUTAL.

Sacramento, Calif.: What are five must-read books for every political junkie?

Chris Cillizza: Oh man. GREAT question.

Let me give you my one MUST read political books from fiction and non fiction.

Fiction: All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren. Stunningly good...loosely based on the life of Huey Long in Louisiana. Really an amazing work. I try to read this at least once a year.

Nonfiction: What it Takes by Richard Ben Cramer. The best look ever at how politics is really conducted through the lens of the 1988 presidential campaign.

If you don't own both of these books, go buy them now.

Other suggestions?

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 8, 2010; 3:00 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The ten best primary races in the country
Next: Harry Reid apologizes for "light skinned" remark about Obama

Comments

Senator Harry Reid is looking more like Huey Long every day and Michael Steele is just the one to let everyone know there is a rugged vital Republican Party no longer run from the smokey back rooms of party bosses.

About 60% of the population self-identify as "conservative." That includes rank-and-file Republicans along with the TEA Party independents.

Steele is being very disciplined about Republican voters getting too comfortable with the idea that Democrat corruption and bad legistation will cause an easy win in November.

Posted by: johnlloydscharf | January 9, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

"Reasonable" discussion would include answering my "completely hypothetical" hypothetical. That's the WHOLE POINT of the Socratic method. You can't just take Palin out of it. If the "worse" thing she does in two terms (again, completely hypothetically) is ban elective abortions -- no wars of folly, no nukes detonated, no federal program to slaughter wolves and/or parrots, nothing else -- it is clear that YOU would choose another 9/11 rather than vote for her. At least you were being honest about not being able to think rationally when it comes to the former Governor of the LARGEST State in the Union.

Of course, that means that I am the one being, unreasonable, useless and pointless again.

Posted by: JakeD | January 9, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

These are my favorite political junkie books:

3.) "Audacity to Win" - David Plouffe
2.) "All Too Human" - George Stephanopolous
1.) "The Freshmen" - Linda Killian

Posted by: Jindal2012 | January 9, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for an evening of reasonable discussion, Jake. Hope to see more.

Simply highlights the uselessness and pointlessness of zouk and 37th posts.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 9, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"They thought since Obama won, they would get points with their own black man."

It may be even more cynical that that. Maybe Steele was hired to be fired, not to be popular. He was hired to deliver attacks, but more important, to collect attacks.

Now the abysmal fund raising of the Republican failure, the time after getting spanked, will be his fault. It turns out, surprise, surprise, all the Republicans' problems are due to Barak Obama and Michael Steele. Pretty obvious what the real problem is.

Did I mention illegal immigration? Muslims?

"Steele still holds considerable loyalty from the grassroots..."

Is this a joke?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2010 3:07 PM |

Posted by: shrink2 | January 9, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

One good thing about Ford, he may bring a more moderate Dem into the race, either way I will never vote for Gillibrand. She was a mistake from the start, and we have Schummer and Paterson to blame.

Paterson is dead in the water, it's Cuomo's to lose. As for Molinari, if she enters there is a lot of dirt on her and her husband, I doubt she will.

As for Steele, the question is not if, it's when the GOP cuts him lose, again a major mistake on the scale of NBC's Leno mess. They thought since Obama won, they would get points with there own black man.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | January 9, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I agree the Dems should have gone with Harold Ford.

Posted by: JakeD | January 9, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

On Harold Ford running? OK.
No disrespect to Sen. Shummer who has done a bang up job on many levels most notably winning a (D) Senate.
But Harold Ford brings something rare to the table of NY politics, with all of its greatness, and its called Presidential Timber.
If Harold wins this seat, he will be an odds on favorite to run after President Obama. His strong push back on being squeezed out is refreshing and shocking to the NY political system. One that expects 'folk' to stay in their lane. Harold will have none of it. So he will wind up exciting minorities while wooing maderates.
He is a national baller. A JayZ level political player.
Governor Patterson is in big trouble today primarily because he followed the small ball advice of the good Senator to pick Ms. Gilibarnd over the majestic, magnificent and politically limitless potential of Ms. Caroline Kenndedy. It was nuts and he is just starting to recover.
It was local yokel at an age of vocal greatness. Harold Ford has a shot to upset Gilibrand because he is a big time player and student of national politics. NY's new answer to Mr. Obama and fresh shot in the arm of the NY body politic. The bottom line is that it can't hurt.



Posted by: empireport | January 9, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

The Trilateral Commission or Skull and Bones?

Let me try this again--

"The way you walked was thorny through no fault of your own. For as the rain enters the soil, and the river enters the sea, so tears run to their predestined end. Your suffering is over. Now find peace for eternity, [37]."

It's supposed to work.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 9, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


You are still here? I thought you were too shamed to still be here - now that you have been exposed.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 9, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Are these "green jobs" of the 400 K kind for a 45 K job as before? Our green goes out the window and the debt goes up. Job losses continue. Sounds like another liberal big government flop.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 9, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

How sad we have to watch the "triple agent" the bomber of the CIA drone base in his pre-death video. There is this to consider.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

A bunch of families are sad about that fact. Lots and lots of people would be alive today if Bush hadn't promoted the Taliban supporting Musharref to US partner status. We couldn't even find that Mullah Omar guy in Afghanistan, let alone bin Laden. Bush was such a mistake.

The point is, Palin is not smart and we just lived through two terms of dumb (Cheney) and dumber (The Decider).


Romney is at least a smart person, though he really needs to leave a few more of his hairs unpainted, he is in his sixties after all. Too much hair dye makes a man seem like a liar, like Giuliani's man tan. But I digress.


Posted by: shrink2 | January 9, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Hopin' at some point this month, MM will honor us with a rundown of the best anti-BHO, anti-common sense fake MSM controveries of 2009, it being the New Year and all. :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 9, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Seems like old times. Jake and the pedant all night bloviating. Awwww. Bffs.

I thought you promised to buzz off lonely heart?

Tombstone; here lies the pedant chris fox. He was intolerable in person but he sure dished it out to Jake, his lifes work.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 9, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Great link, noa.

I know the false narrative of the past week was: the Dems are doomed. But even if that's right, in the long run (and no serious analyst disputes this), the GOP is likely doomed to be a marginal regional party much like the '48 Dixiecrats, who espoused much the same ideas. Hate is simply not a governing principle. The long-term demographics against the GOP are frankly overwhelming: wait until the kids slandered by GOP extremists as "anchor babies" reach voting age.

From a piece last year:

"The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency in 2001, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline."

http://www.librarygrape.com/2009/05/gop-losing-all-demographics-at-rapid.html

Geez, they are even pushing out RNC head Steele, allegedly 'cause he was making some po'chop money on the side. It seems the moderate wing of the party now consists of Powell, wingman for life Larry Wilkerson, Armitrage, Hagel, Lugar, and...that's it.

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

The Republicans need to think about 1960, 1962 and 1964 -- all were elections that reflected America stepping forward, not looking back.
When Nixon lost the GOP solution then was to turn to Goldwater and their right wing. It didn't work then and it isn't going to work now.
Thanks for the site to Charles Bl0w's Time's piece.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 9, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

This is all you have to know about Obama:


The investigators were questioning the Detroit Bomber - and he was talking.


The Detroit Bomber was telling us about Al Queda in Yemen and the planning of future terrorist plots.


Obama decided to send the bomber a lawyer, who immediately tells the terrorist to "remain silent."

The terrorist stopped talking - and who knows what intelligence information was lost.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 9, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Now you're getting completely hypothetical and asking me to choose between unreal things.  Let's leave Palin out of it, OK?  Her attitude toward wildlife makes it hard for me to deal rationally with her, I go spla, my equanimity evaporates when it comes to cruelty or indifference to the fate of animals.  Just talk about the abortion thing.

Assuming another attack didn't mean two more folly wars, just the relative loss of life, I would call your choice a wash.

Women who get pregnant and don't want to bear the child are going to find a way to get abortions, Jake.  That's not pacifism, that's reality.  They're going to throw themselves down stairs or pour Clorox up their vaginas or go to a guy with a coat hanger but they're going to do it and all your punitivity isn't going to stop them.  And quite a number of them are going to die in the attempt, and it isn't all that long before the botched abortion deaths catch up to and surpass the victims of another successful attack.

Anyway I don't think even Palin could get you that.  Republican presidents have been intoning "stop the slaughter of the unborn" as long as I've been drawing breath and if Reagan didn't do it and two Bushes didn't do it then it's not going to happen.  Not unless we turn into the Republic of Gilead or something.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 9, 2010 3:35 AM | Report abuse

How about 2 Palin terms, with no nuke detonated, worse thing she does is completely ban elective abortions vs. another 9/11 attack?

Posted by: JakeD | January 9, 2010 3:11 AM | Report abuse

I believe that a President Romney would be a lot more like Governor Romney than candidate Romney, lurching rightward to please the base.  And it would be another 4-8 years of Republican economics, which would mean lots of lost jobs and a raw deal for working people, and that would be really awful.  But I think he would approach critical decisions with the same triangulation he exhibits now, not burn down the store.  He might even get serious on global warming.  I think we would lose a lot but we would survive a Romney administration as a nation.  Better than than another 9/11.

Palin is a charismatic figure with a profoundly disarming smile but I don't think the nation or the world or the very earth beneath us would survive her presidency.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 9, 2010 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Well, I need only note that I think Palin would use nuclear weapons on the earliest pretext, without reflecting or accepting counsel of caution, facing the end of all things as she is fond of saying "without blinking."  And I think a global nuclear war would be infinitely worse and final.  And no I am not being hyperbolic, I think she's completely erratic and scattered and given to gestures.  And she believes in the Rapture.  Better 3000 than 7,000,000,000.

Come on, Jake, it's simply irresponsible to want Palin in national office.  Never mind political views.  She's not smart, focused, or rational enough.  Spare me the turnaround with Obama, it just isn't true.  Dote on her if you like, send her money if it floats your boat, but don't let her near anything sharp.

McCain/Palin vs. attack?  Same as above.  McCain is loopy and megalomaniac, and he's gonna croak and leave it to Barbie the Aisle-roller.  Dead planet.

Romney vs. another attack?  Romney.

Can we play nice? I can if you can.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 9, 2010 2:41 AM | Report abuse

If the choice were between 2 terms of Palin or another 9/11, which would you choose?

Posted by: JakeD | January 9, 2010 2:19 AM | Report abuse

Charles Bl*w on the declining fortures of the GOP

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/opinion/09blow.html?hp

A few highlights:

"There is no doubt that the number of people who say that they are conservative has inched up. According to a report from Gallup on Thursday, conservatives finished 2009 as the No. 1 ideological group. But ideological identification is no predictor of electoral outcomes. According to polls by The New York Times conservative identification was slightly higher on the verge of Bill Clinton’s first-term election and Barack Obama’s election than it was on the verge of George W. Bush’s first-term election.

It is likely that Republicans will pick up Congressional seats in November partly because of the enthusiasm of this conservative fringe, democratic apathy and historical trends. But make no mistake: This is not 1994."

und ...

"Simply put, it’s about fear-fueled anger. But anger is not an idea. It’s not a plan. And it’s not a vision for the future. It is, however, the second stage of grief, right after denial and before bargaining.

The right is on the wrong side of history. The demographics of the country are rapidly changing, young people are becoming increasingly liberal on social issues, and rigid, dogmatic religious stricture is loosening its grip on the throat of our culture."

endlich:

"So what’s their battle plan to fight back from the precipice of irrelevance? Moderation? A stab at modernity? A slate of innovative ideas? No, their plan is to purge the party’s moderates and march farther down the road to oblivion.

...

Split hairs about labels if you must, but the Republican brand already has begun a slow slide into obscurity. And turning further right only hastens its demise."

Posted by: Noacoler | January 9, 2010 2:10 AM | Report abuse

That's astonishingly decent of you, Jake.

Obama before catastrophe. We'll make a citizen of you yet.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 9, 2010 2:08 AM | Report abuse

I just said that I hope that Americans save lots more before 2012. I want Obama out, but not that much. If the choice were between 2 terms of Obama or another 9/11, I would take Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | January 9, 2010 1:32 AM | Report abuse

Maybe we'll have some terrible national calamity to cheer the Republicans up. A successful terrorist incident would
get the boubon glasses clinking toot sweet.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 9, 2010 1:17 AM | Report abuse

You haven't heard the words "credit crunch"? I hope that Americans save lots more before 2012.

Posted by: JakeD | January 9, 2010 1:00 AM | Report abuse

New very bad news for Republicans.
I can't think of a better foundation for the American Recovery than this.

"Maybe Americans are serious about spending less and saving more.

The Federal Reserve announced moments ago that the revolving credit held by Americans -- that's credit cards -- fell to its lowest level since the Fed started keeping records in 1943.

Borrowing fell $17.5 billion in November, more than three times what forecasters expected. And this was November -- you know, the month before Christmas?"


The Republican vision is one of relentless spending and borrowing and buying and borrowing. Just go shopping. Envision wealth and you will be wealthy. It is all lies.

Americans have to hold on to their lives and their loved ones while they are puking up disposable junk from China. It is going to hurt, but it is going to work out for us.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 9, 2010 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Do you consider the slaughterhouses in St. Louis to be HUNTING?

Posted by: JakeD | January 9, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

And you believe everything you see on the Internets? It's probably just "semantics" as no real Alaskan considers shooting a wolf from a helicopter to be HUNTING.

Posted by: JakeD | January 9, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Jake, the following statement gets a straight green reading on Politifact's truth'o meter:
"Palin supports "aerial hunting of wolves and other wildlife."

Posted by: elijah24 | January 8, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

ddawd, I sent it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Mark, let me know whenever you send what you're sending, just in case the spamguard filters it out or something.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 8, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Hah, CF8, I didn't think to actually google it myself. The original post actually appears on the first page. Google works fast.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 8, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

mark

faultlines2000@yahoo.com

Posted by: DDAWD | January 8, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Hi there mnteng.
I think we should do this.

No matter what we know, someone else knows more and they are our teachers.

I will collect the list from today and try to get it organized. A basis, a syllabus.

We should get it online. I would love that. A reference library of political basics.

Maybe then we wouldn't get people talking about

Islamodemocrapicfacistnazicommielibretards.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone ask Mr. Cillizza the political implications of setting the State of the Union address on the same night as the premiere of "Lost"?

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

It's not the difference between "planes" and "helicopters". Alaska HUNTERS don't hunt from either. When you get a chance, check it out on page 327. The State had a program for slaughtering wolves on the Alaska Peninsula -- not HUNTING -- which appears to have had the desired effect: more caribou got a chance to live, according to biologists with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

As ugly and as politically incorrect as the wolf killing might seem to some, they said, the helicopter gunning that took place earlier this year saved caribou, especially young caribou, from being eaten alive.

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

For that bill may her copter crash during such a hunt, and may she survive, but pinned in the wreckage, so the wolves she was shooting at eat off her legs.

I and my partner (who is male) will travel to Alaska to piss on her grave. That would be a fitting end.

I'll be sure to leave some mashed potatoes.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Full disclosure, I haven't read it yet. I'm going off of factcheck.org. I intend to read it, but I wont put money in her pocket, so I'm waiting for someone I know to finish their copy, or the library to get their copies back.
That said, I probably should back off until i read it. Mea Culpa
BTW you're right about the planes. They hunt wolves from helicopters. In fact she passed a bill that hunters would be paid for every left front foreleg that they turned in.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 8, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Let me know if anyone else wants to discuss what she actually wrote (yes, she did get a $50,000 bill -- not $500,000 as the AP reported -- from her lawyers in regards to their work assisting the McCain campaign vetting her for the VP nod) which was that she asked the McCain campaign if they would help her to cover the cost of, and she was told that McCain's campaign would have paid all of those bills IF he had won; since he lost, the "vetting legal bills" were her responsibility.

I guess that elijah24 "went home" again?

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

A syllabus! Well, I guess I have enough experience putting those things together. We can put a list together, if you are up for it. Lots of good suggestions here.

If you're interested, e-mail me -- it'll be easier than slogging through the comments section here. I wouldn't mind finding out what political books I still need to read.

Posted by: mnteng | January 8, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Palin was not billed by the McCain campaign for her vetting. She wad billed by her own lawyer for his own part in it.

The fact that she lies is compoundedby the fact that her supporters echo them.

Google "palin vetting costs"

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: that actually return results!

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

ddawd, do you have a one-off or dummy email I can send you something?

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

A hundred grand and nobody figured out she's an idiot and her family is a pack of inbred hillbillies?

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

"The accusation that the McCain campaign made her pay for her own vetting was pretty egregious."

I find it really hard to believe they spent $100k on her vetting or whatever. I think the vetting process consisted on doing a google search for "women against women's rights"

Posted by: DDAWD | January 8, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Lord of the flies

Posted by: JRM2 | January 8, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

I bet Lynn Vincent had to write the autographs too.

Palin probably uses a marker, an X

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

"It doesn't say "BY" Sarah Palin on the front cover.
Posted by: JakeD "
---------------
It is customary when one hires a ghost writer to give credit on the cover, however, Palin gives credit somewhere in the jacket, presumably to give the impression that she wrote the book.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 8, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

She WAS charged $50,000 for her own vetting, and no one "hunts" from planes. Do you have a page # for the "level playing field for the bidding process on the natural gas pipeline" or "that Reagan pulled us by our bootstraps out of a deeper recession than the one we face now"?

Until then, I am simply looking for ONE "lie"?

broadwayjoe:

I answered that question already ON THAT THREAD! Please, something new ...

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

The accusation that the McCain campaign made her pay for her own vetting was pretty egregious. Her demonstrably false opposition to aerial wolf hunting was pretty bad. Her most ethically questionable false claim was that she made the playing field for the bidding process on the natural gas pipeline level. Her most disconnected from reality claim was that Reagan pulled us by our bootstraps out of a deeper recession than the one we face now.
How many did you say you wanted?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 8, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Jake, I saw your "evidence" on the other thread. I had misinterpreted your post to be an homage to CF8. Or a fond retrospective. I guess not. As others have asked, why aren't you similarly obsessed with the banning of moonbat/snowmelt/zouk? Riddle me that.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 8, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if she can name any newspapers now?

Probably not. Her ignorance is her strong suit. And the basis of her appeal to the nasty-grimies.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

She referred to him as O'Biden (kinda funny actually) TWICE during -- supposedly confidential and private -- debate prep. Do you really want me to list all of the BIDEN (and then Obama's) gaffs?

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

The deluxe numbered edition of Palin's with-book

it comes with a pack of crayons

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 5:51 PM
_______

I'm sure you heard that the Mccain camp this week said that during Palin's debate prep, she had a major stumbling block: she couldn't remember Biden's name. Kept calling him "O'Biden." They got around it by having her ask Biden at the start of the debate, "Can I call you "Joe"?" Of course, earlier they had said she had no knowledge of any major policy debate from the last 10 years. Go Sarah-cuda in 2012. BHO awaits.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 8, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

You remember when you asked for the "evidence" that Noacoler = Seattle Top / GoldAndTanzanite / chrisfox8? He also accused me of "lying" about:

His "parrot" references = 14
His references to his (bi)sexuality = 58

(There were actually MORE than 58!!!)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/governors/tumultous-tuesday-winners-and.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Hey there, broadwayjoe!!! I'm compiling all of the links for you (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2) over on my other thread.

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Newtron is stating the big problem that RNC has with Steele is his color. That's Newt, author of the Contract on America, not Al Sharpton. Remember earlier Steele said many of the RNCers were scared of him. Some say Steele was expected to be a front man for the RNC, a compliant, smiling non-pale face for a neo-seg agenda, but he double-crossed.

They didn't count on Steele getting tired of the r@cism and...going rogue--by writing a book and giving paid speeches and such and "by telling Sean Hannity that the GOP was not just unlikely to win back the House in 2010, but wasn't even ready to govern."

The cruelest cut? The GOPers are now comparing Steele to...Larry Craig. Not that there's anything wrong it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/steele-trapped-rnc-chair_n_416919.html

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 8, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't say "BY" Sarah Palin on the front cover. How about what you think is the most egregious "lie" in the actual text?

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Armpeg, if you were a PC I would reformat your hard drive. It's like EVERYTHING you know is wrong.

The "democrap" stuff is just childish. Really childish, so much so that if you ever had an actual point nobody would read it.

But when you say McCain is a moderate, you have any idea how totally outside reality you are? Just look how he acted in debates, like an immature jerk, bitter and vengeful, snarling at reporters.

Youveant someone worse than that? How extreme.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

"Name ONE "lie" from her book"

Really? You only want one? Ok, I'll give you the first one. It's on the cover where it says, and i quote "By Sarah Palin".

Posted by: elijah24 | January 8, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

'From this last book I learned the probable antecedent to the right to bear arms, in an afterthought.'

Individually, or as part of a 'well regulated Militia'?

It's that 'well regulated' thing that makes me think the Founders had a whole different concept in mind. How did we get from 'well regulated Militia' into 'anybody who wants an attack weapon should have as many as they can get'?

Seems like an error in translation to me.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

different topic, one i wish i could have asked cilizza's opinion about during the chat:

after lauren collins's new yorker piece on sonia sotomayor this week, lots of people are bringing up sotomayor's remarks about "wanted" children that she made at a graduation ceremony. the republicans missed this and didn't bring it up during confirmation hearings. did it mean there could be "unwanted" children? no one knows what justice sotomayor thinks on that issue.

though they couldn't use this to maybe deliver a defeat on the confirmation, i'm wondering if it now gets bootstrapped up to the "slow down on health care" argument the republicans are making.

they might say they would have liked to question her on this, but even given an ample amount of time to review her opinions and other pertinent documents they still missed what might be vital information about how she would rule on a give issue. "shouldn't we have time to read this bill to make sure we don't have questions later down the line?" they might say.

maybe it's a stretch, but if they can attach the hysteria of the pro-life movement to the hysteria of the anti-health reform people, it seems like a dangerous combination.

here's hoping it doesn't happen.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/11/100111fa_fact_collins?currentPage=all

http://trueslant.com/kateklonick/2010/01/08/quote-reveals-a-pro-choice-sotomayor/

Posted by: plathman | January 8, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

'Republican conservatives were really dumb, we'd be Democrap Socialist's.'

No, if you were really dumb, you would be you.

"Here's the facts! Michael Steele has done a great job, and because he's done a great job, the far-lefties here hate him."

No, son, it isn't 'lefties' that hate him -- it's his own party. What are you gonna say when he's gone? Whose shoulder are you gonna cry on?

Because he will be, and soon.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Some non-fiction for those of us who are history buffs:

1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft and Debs--The Election that Changed the Country by James Chace

American Melodrama: The Presidential Campaign of 1968 by Lewis Chester, Godfrey Hodgson, and Bruce Page

Truman by David McCullough

Alexander Hamilton, American by Richard Brookhiser

From this last book I learned the probable antecedent to the right to bear arms, in an afterthought.

Truman will let you understand the modern Presidency as no other book I have ever read.

1912 will take you back to the last of the great and meaningful debates in American politics.

I lived the 1968 campaign and American Melodrama, written by the reporters who covered it for the Sunday Times of London, bring it back for me in all its fury.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Name ONE "lie" from her book.

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

This is getting hilarious!! The stupitidy of the liberals here is amazing, that they would try to lecture us conservatives as to who and what type of Republican we should appoint to lead our party, and type of nominee that we should nominate. They actually believe that we're dumb enough to take their advise! Jees, if we Republican conservatives were really dumb, we'd be Democrap Socialist's.
Here's the facts! Michael Steele has done a great job, and because he's done a great job, the far-lefties here hate him. What these pathetically dumb Democrap Socialist's and Obama--worshippers on Chris's blog want to see, is a McCain type of (so--called) 'moderate', 'establishment' or 'maverick Republican'--i e Democrap--lite. The reason they like guys like these is because they know that just about any Democrap they nominate will beat this type of Republican nominee hands down. What they're scared sh**less of is a conservative Republican, like a Reagan or Palin. Michael Steele knows this, and that's why he's working to nominate non--McCains to run for public office.

re. Chris Cillizza wants to know what are some political books people should read.
All Americans should read Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals", which is Comrade Obama's Koran/bible. It's Comrade Obama's and the Democrap Socialist Parties idea and agenda for America.

Posted by: armpeg | January 8, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue: An American Life" is a must-read for anyone interested in how she is going to become the next President of the United States"
==
Jake, I knew there were a lot of lies in that book. I didn't know that it was officially listed as fiction.

Ddawd, I thought about it, but the sheep did nothing but bleet the same crap that they were told to say, much like the people I named. The dogs became the thugs who slaughtered all who crossed Napolian, like the tea-baggers did to Dede Scozafava, and are trying to do to the likes of Charlie Crist and Lindsay Graham.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 8, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Rubber doorstops are more reliable and cheaper too

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

No, it doesn't. For $100 though you could have had her autograph and personalize a copy.

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The deluxe numbered edition of Palin's with-book

it comes with a pack of crayons

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

The Audacity of My Father

Dreams from Hope

Bill Ayers

Posted by: leapin | January 8, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

NYClefty:

Look for Gov. Palin to send a "shout out" to Shirley Chisholm (as well as Margaret Chase Smith) when she announces her bid for the Presidency. It's about time we broke through the highest glass ceiling in the world.

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

That would be a great hook for The Fix.
A syllabus. A set of political reference material recommended to people who wish to keep up and participate at the "preferred" level. CC's velvet rope.

I have not read What it Takes, but I will...

Gone!

Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Did we cover Alexis de Tocqueville, and 'Democracy in America? '

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Shrink: please send to this one at hot mail

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"The Good Fight" by Shirley Chisholm

Posted by: NYClefty | January 8, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I think this is a worthwhile exercise.
How about, instead of five (it is so post-postmodern to make a tiny list of must reads for a "political junkie," as if you read five books and can call yourself a junkie, imbibing just the first doses of a drug that will own your soul), 20 must read political tracts. The three you listed are in fer sure.
All the President's men is important and a classic, but top 20...abeyance.


Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Let hAirHead form her own party and sump votes from the GOP.

People who were excited about her no longer are, it finally got through their heads that she never follows through on anything. But her potency to schism the conservatives is undimished. Go Sarah!

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler, if you have a throw away email address or some generic post-it board, I'll put together a little piece on the blank projective screen. It is interesting to me at least, and understanding it has come in handy. Psychoanalysts at Harvard (A list mumbo jumbo factor) taught me about it, so no wonder Google had no trace. Real, meaningless, useful or not, it is too arcane for The Fix. Like when recipes were posted, we'd never hear the end of it.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"If you missed it (how could you?)"

I was golfing.

"Other suggestions?"

Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue: An American Life" is a must-read for anyone interested in how she is going to become the next President of the United States ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Let hAirHead form her own party and sump votes from the GOP.

People who were excited about her no longer are, it finally got through their heads that she never follows through on anything. But her potency to schism the conservatives is undimished. Go Sarah!

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

We're at 6, but I can think of lots more ...

The Federalist Papers
The Wealth of Nations
The Communist Manifesto
etc.

I like "All the President's Men" too.

I'm not sure how to rank them all though.

Posted by: mnteng | January 8, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"Rush=Napolian, Steele=Squealer, McCain=Boxer, Palin, Boener, Cantor, and McConnel, Beck and Hanity=the sheep bleeting "4 legs good, 2 legs bad" the tea-baggers=The Dogs, with Arlen Spector as Snowball, and Nancy Reagan as Clover

Posted by: elijah24"

Pretty good, but I'd switch your dogs and sheep.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 8, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself."

For me this one sentence encapsulates Hitler's success as a politician.'

And hence, the existence of Teabaggers.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Might be a good time to reread William Shirer.

Get some idea why people who remembered Europe in the 30s were having nightmares during the Bush years.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 8, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

elijah -- have you read 1984 yet? if not, please do. it tells you everything you need to know about the modern 'conservative' movement.

Chairman Steele's agent cancelled a noon interview with ABC News Today [half an hour before] -- for an 'emergency meeting' with the RNC. Will this be a Friday night news dump, that he is ovah?

His out of nowhere book, and his pronouncements to Sean Hannity of yesterday, I beleive, to the effect that the GOP can't take back a majority in either house yet, along with the idea that they wouldn't know what to do with it if they did, make me think his doom is sealed, it's only a question of which Friday night they announce it.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Arlen Spector as Snowball, heh, heh.

According to the cw, he was supposed to be Trotsky.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Agreed, then of course, The Prince.
Are up to five yet?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Rush=Napolian, Steele=Squealer, McCain=Boxer, Palin, Boener, Cantor, and McConnel, Beck and Hanity=the sheep bleeting "4 legs good, 2 legs bad" the tea-baggers=The Dogs, with Arlen Spector as Snowball, and Nancy Reagan as Clover

Posted by: elijah24 | January 8, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

If we're going down that road, the "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu is a political must-read.

Posted by: mnteng | January 8, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

And that is the value of it, he wrote it.

But as bad as it is, it was actually extensively edited for publication, whole sections of it were incoherent (surprise, surprise), according to his biographer of record, Ian Kershaw.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse


'Michael Steele's 12 step program for being removed as RNC chair is an instant classic.'

Indeed. Countdown is starting...

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

ugh! Yeah, I mean, I guess you're right. there is a lot that we can learn from Hitler (mostly in what to look out for so that another one doesn't rise) but good God, it's just painful to read Mein Kampf. Even if they content weren't awful (which it is) the style is that of a 3rd grader who is not the star pupil. Writing was not his strong suit.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 8, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Ah, smart elijah, very smart. There are indeed political must reads that are works of fiction. How stupid of me to suggest there were not.

Nevertheless, Mein Kampf should be on the list of political must reads too.

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself."

For me this one sentence encapsulates Hitler's success as a politician.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: mnteng | January 8, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Shrink, I just re-read Animal Farm and holy crap are there some paralells in todays Republican party! They should pass that book out as a "what not to do" manual.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 8, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Michael Steele and Jim Zorn have gotten together on what it is like to know you are fired even though you are still expected to exceed expectations.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Michael Steele's 12 step program for being removed as RNC chair is an instant classic.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 8, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Other suggestions?

I can't think of a top five AmCiv political must read that is a work of fiction. But I am from an older generation...

Easy (fun) read:
Way Out There in the Blue

by Frances Fitzgerald

Hard (sad) read:
The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party, Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War

by Michael Holt


Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"Steele still holds considerable loyalty from the grassroots..."

Is this a joke?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company