Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Winners and Losers in the Texas primary

On its face, the analysis of last night's Texas primary is pretty straightforward: Gov. Rick Perry won (big time), Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison lost (also, big time).

But, here at the Fix we like to go behind the headlines to bring you some of the less obvious winners and losers from the night that was.

Our picks are below. Have some of your own? The comments section awaits.

WINNERS

Perry for President: Perry proved that he, perhaps better than any other Republican politician in the country, understands and connects with the Tea Party movement. (In an interview back in May 2009, Perry had this to say about the growing anger on the right: "There is a real movement afoot in our country There is a legitimate tempest that is brewing across this country.") Perry's decision to side with the tea party crowd early and often not only tamped down any energy against him from his right flank but also turned him into the closest thing the movement has to a leader -- other than perhaps will she/won't she former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. If Perry can beat former Houston Mayor Bill White this fall -- a race where he is a favorite but not an overwhelming one -- he would be well positioned to make a bid for president as a candidate of the Tea Party movement. And, yes, we know, Perry has said he has no plans to run for President and run at every turn against Washington. We also know that EVERY politician would like the top office. Period.

Dave Carney: Carney isn't a name most people know but he deserves a huge amount of credit for Perry's victory. Carney, a New Hampshire-based Republican strategist, has long been Perry's chief strategist and, as long as a year ago, insisted that the governor was the clear favorite in a race that, he argued, wouldn't be as close as many pundits -- the Fix included -- thought. He was right.

Tea Party movement: No, Debra Medina didn't win the governor's race but she did take 20 percent -- and nearly 275,000 raw votes -- in a contest where she was drastically outspent by two candidates with far higher profiles to start. And, don't forget that Medina likely destroyed any momentum she was building with her comments that the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks could have been an inside job. With Perry's early embrace of the Tea Party crowd, it's also reasonable to assume that he won a significant chunk of those voters as well -- meaning that the actual percentage of Tea Party vote in the Republican primary could be 30 percent or even higher. That's not nothing. (Worth noting: Tea Party candidates ran surprisingly competitively in several downballot races as well.)

Governors: There is a quiet rivalry between the nation's governors and its Senators. Senators tend to view themselves as the big thinkers who are guiding the nation's political and policy debates. Governors insist that they are the ones who are in the trenches day in and day out developing and implementing solutions that work for average people. (Of the difference, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said recently: "Senators talk about doing things, governors do things.") Perry's sweeping victory over Hutchison is sure to become a talking point for governors in the never-ending debate over which position requires the most true political talent.

LOSERS

Washington: Perry ran his entire campaign against Washington, turning the race into a referendum not on his decade in the governor's office but rather on Hutchison's nearly two decades in the nation's capitol. Perry upended traditional political calculus by using the pork Hutchison brought to the state from her time on the Appropriations Committee as a negative. Hutchison never seemed to grasp the level of animosity toward Washington that existed among Republican primary voters, running a traditional campaign in a very non-traditional year. For other members of Congress running for state offices -- Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R) in Michigan, Rep. Gresham Barrett (R) in South Carolina, Rep. Artur Davis (D) in Alabama among others -- Hutchison's defeat should be seen as an ill omen. Having service in Washington on your resume these days is detrimental to your political health.

The Bush Team: Almost the entire senior leadership of the George W. Bush's White House -- from former Vice President Dick Cheney to senior strategist Karl Rove were active supporters of Hutchison. And yet, all of their public appearances and private advice did little to help her. The Bush folks have perennially underestimated Perry as a politician but that misjudgment was never so glaring as in their decision to pick the wrong horse in this primary.

Tea Party movement: Yes, in the Fix world you can be both a winner and a loser on the same night. Did the Tea Party movement prove that is has a significant following in Texas? Yes. Did it prove it can elect its own members in high profile races? Not really. Medina was never anything more than a runoff spoiler while the much-touted Tea Party challenge to Rep. Ron Paul (R) turned into a nothingburger as he won re-election with upwards of 80 percent. Influencing races is one thing, winning races is quite another.

Michael Williams/Roger Williams/Florence Shapiro/David Dewhurst/John Sharp: This quintet -- four Republicans and Sharp -- have been waiting for the better part of the last two years for Hutchison to formally resign her Senate seat and, in so doing, set off a special election race. Hutchison's original timetable had her stepping down last fall but she ultimately decided that she wouldn't resign until after the gubernatorial primary. With the primary now in the rear view mirror, we can't find a single Republican operative who thinks Hutchison is going to make good on her resignation oath -- although she has yet to address the issue directly since conceding the race last night. If Hutchison decides to serve out her term, all five of the people mentioned above will have two more years (at least) to wait before they get a chance to run. That's a long time to wait for a Senate race.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 3, 2010; 10:43 AM ET
Categories:  Governors , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rick Perry wins in Texas, Democrats pounce
Next: Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) won't run for reelection

Comments

What a laff riot.  Obama is about to score a real big one that will axe away a lot of the frustration with the glacial pace of achievement, and a bill that will have millions of Americans ready to walk though fire for him, because they’re not going to face ruin as soon as someone in their families gets sick.
 
And make no mistake, the trolls know this, which is why they’re popping blood vessels right and left, and why they’re tossing out one IDIOTIC distraction after another .. procedure quibbles, arch threats about abortion, various unhinged expressions of hysteria, and of course, that heaviest of hitters, the goobers’ opiate of choice, the          BIG BACKLASH to come.
 
Suck it up, losers.  Your side lost. 

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

Why did comment moderation only last a few wonderful days?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 4, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse


============== HTTP://www.b2b2.us==========

sells clothing,footwear,handbags,Sunglasses

Our products sell well in Europe and North America.
Our main product list is as follows:
1.Fashion Sports shoes:
Shox,Dunk,Jordan, Air max, Air force,Adidas, Puma,Prada,D&G, Chanel,
Gucci, Lacoste, LouisVuiton,Bape,Evisu,Timberland,ugg,boots,Burberry,
4us,Hogan,Dior,Greedy
Genius,Versace,Convers,Coach,Dsquared,Maurt,etc.
2.Fashion T-Shirt & Jeans & Jacket:
Bape,AF,AAF,BBC,Evsiu,Juicy,GGG,Burberry,ED-Hardy,Chanel,G-Star,Red
monkey,Christian
Audigie,sinful,lacoste,POLO,Armani,Smet,Baby,Levis,Justcavalli,Versace,True
Religion,Artful Dodger,Rock,Coogi,Crown Holder,RMC,etc.
3.Fashion Handbags:
LV , Prada , Chanel ,D&G, Fendi , EDhardy, Burberry , MIUMIU ,
Gucci ,Chloe , Juicy and Chole,Burse,etc.
4.others:brand watches(rolex,Longines...), belt(d&g, gucci, prada,
chanel, burberry.... ), hats, sunglasses etc.
we sincerely hope to establish the business relation with you.
Looking forward your visit.

Our Website: http://www.b2b2.us

Posted by: nikejordans1 | March 4, 2010 6:59 AM | Report abuse


============== HTTP://www.b2b2.us==========

sells clothing,footwear,handbags,Sunglasses

Our products sell well in Europe and North America.
Our main product list is as follows:
1.Fashion Sports shoes:
Shox,Dunk,Jordan, Air max, Air force,Adidas, Puma,Prada,D&G, Chanel,
Gucci, Lacoste, LouisVuiton,Bape,Evisu,Timberland,ugg,boots,Burberry,
4us,Hogan,Dior,Greedy
Genius,Versace,Convers,Coach,Dsquared,Maurt,etc.
2.Fashion T-Shirt & Jeans & Jacket:
Bape,AF,AAF,BBC,Evsiu,Juicy,GGG,Burberry,ED-Hardy,Chanel,G-Star,Red
monkey,Christian
Audigie,sinful,lacoste,POLO,Armani,Smet,Baby,Levis,Justcavalli,Versace,True
Religion,Artful Dodger,Rock,Coogi,Crown Holder,RMC,etc.
3.Fashion Handbags:
LV , Prada , Chanel ,D&G, Fendi , EDhardy, Burberry , MIUMIU ,
Gucci ,Chloe , Juicy and Chole,Burse,etc.
4.others:brand watches(rolex,Longines...), belt(d&g, gucci, prada,
chanel, burberry.... ), hats, sunglasses etc.
we sincerely hope to establish the business relation with you.
Looking forward your visit.

Our Website: http://www.b2b2.us

Posted by: nikejordans1 | March 4, 2010 6:54 AM | Report abuse

Yeah the "non-Republican" who shills and primps and pirouettes for the GOP, only trotting out this lying distnction as a way to get some attention. "too liberal" winky winky winky and "I voted for Alan Keyes" *titter titter titter*

Now put on your skirt and talk to yourself in the mirror, crossdresser.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 4, 2010 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Since I am not a Republican, I can honestly say that they would have been wrong to do away with the filibuster. Of course, Obama has changed his tune since he was in the Senate.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 4, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

So now a straight majority vote, the very thing that Republicans screamed for with Bush's yahoo nominees, is a "blatent" (sic) power grab.  Of all the bloody cheek.

Don't you ever stop lying, Jake?  Might try it one time, just to see what it feels like.  Then historians could say "on this day in 2010 JakeD wrote something honest."

A simple majority vote is hardly a parliamentary offense, you know.  Matter of fact minority rule is weird and ezceptional and brings to mind such luminaries in political history as South African apartheid, no doubt one of Jake's esteemed systems of governance.

Methinks the filth are reading a little too much into Scott Brown.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 4, 2010 12:17 AM | Report abuse

"You'd better put some ice on that."

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 11:52 PM | Report abuse

The American economic model is going to change. Creating and consuming Medical Care will replace creating and consuming other stuff. Get used to it. Relax. The doctor will see you now...

Posted by: shrink2 | March 3, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Byrd (D-WV) has stated that reconciliation should not be used on Obamacare or (earlier) Hillarycare. Hopefully there are nine more brave Dem Senators to stand up against this blatent power-grab.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

The GOP could get a veto-proof majority too.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse


JRM2

In response to your comment at 7:28, you are right - however there are significant parts of the health care bill which require government action on an ongoing basis - so if the Republicans take over the House next year, the House can simply refuse to provide funding for the implementation of that bill. THAT WOULD HALT THE HEALTH CARE BILL.


Then when Obama is thrown out of office, the entire bill can be repealed.

In any event, if the Republicans control one or both Houses of Congress, all sorts of things can be negotiated as part of the budget process.

Obama made a serious mistake not working toward a compromise this past year.

All this is Obama's fault. He is going to get nowhere - any progress he thinks is getting done will be UNDONE.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Reagan's carcass should have been fed to sewer rats. Not too late for that frivolous clotheshorsr he married.

Never forget her Just Say No thing.. "back in the 60s when this whole thing started" ... yeah back when the scions if the wealthy started getting high. It didn't matter when it was in the ghettos. Lousy low-class b|tch.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 3, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

For those of us who admired Ronald Reagan:

Tomorrow would have been his and Nancy's 58th wedding anniversary (send prayers and well wishes to her : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 7:53 PM

JakeD, I loved Reagan. I especially admired his hair. Better than Romney's and Perry's. I guess there's something about big hair and male candidates. (even Clinton had big hair). Don't know what happened to the Bush's though. Must of had the wrong genes.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 3, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

For those of us who admired Ronald Reagan:

Tomorrow would have been his and Nancy's 58th wedding anniversary (send prayers and well wishes to her : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

"Ronald Reagan sold guns to the Islamic republic of Iran. Was that legally treason? Posted by: Sutter "

Candidate Ronald Reagan negotiated the continued holding of American diplomats as hostiges in order to insure his own election. THAT CERTAINLY WAS TREASON. He then authorized the transfer of highly classified defense weapons systems, with full stocks of spare parts and all techncal manuals. That information was far more damaging to the United States than the piddling theoretical secrets Julius Rosenberg gave the Soviets. Rosenberg and his wife paid for their treason with their lives. Reagan and Bush I are still heroes to the Republican Party.

And still unindicted co-conspirators in treason.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 3, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Poor jake, he can't ever admit a mistake (hey that rhymes) even down to blaming his miss-types on that "darn spellchecker"

==

yeah insecurity like that is pre-teen

darn spellchecker winky winky winky

such s happy little feller

if he's found murdered with an emoticon carved into his forehead, the cops should look to this blog.. but once they read his posts they'd say the trail is cold.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 3, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline:

You mean like when the promises to close GTMO begin to be carried through in earnest?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

"I dont think the country is ready for another Texas Governor for President. Posted by: vmrg1974 "

But a ticket with Two big hair people would be Soooo photogenic.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 3, 2010 7:36 PM


Yeah, just think, Romney/Perry against Hillary/anybody. The Big Hair versus the Botox.

Romney/Perry 2012!

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 3, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

"I dont think the country is ready for another Texas Governor for President. Posted by: vmrg1974 "

But a ticket with Two big hair people would be Soooo photogenic.

Remember the punchline to the Limerik, "A Lesbian in the Khartoum, took a transvestite up to her room..."?

Posted by: ceflynline | March 3, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Biggest LOSER, Perry:
"Perry for President: Perry proved that he, perhaps better than any other Republican politician in the country, understands and connects with the Tea Party movement. (In an interview back in May 2009, Perry had this to say about the growing anger on the right: "There is a real movement afoot in our country There is a legitimate tempest that is brewing across this country.")"

Perry panicked when KHB got in the race, went bizarre for even T-People, and survived, not because of his T-Posture, but because his opponents caused Texas Republicans who cared enough to vote, (not very many, all heads counted) to vote for the least revolting option.The T-Party didn't bring very many votes with them, see all the other races, and they didn't demonstrably bring very many for perry, but now he is saddled with his pandering to them, and they are going to claim that he owes them.

White has more than enough film footage to paint Perry as a worthy successor to the Louisiana Longs, ESPECIALLY Earl.

Here's hoping he uses it all.

Next biggest loser, the republicans, who are saddled with perry and his friends. Performances like Perry's, Bunning's, and the whole T-People movement can't help give a Republican Party with no creds and no platform traction when the Obama promises begin to be carried through in earnest.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 3, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

"There is a real effort out there to subvert the intention of the Senate rules - that is a serious offense.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 7:08 PM |"
--------
The bill was already passed in the House and Senate with a majority, the Dems intend to pass amendments to the bill using a simple majority, those are the rules and that is what will be done.

FYI: Conservatives can run all they want on repealing the HCR bill but the President has veto power.

Posted by: JRM2 | March 3, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Poor jake, he can't ever admit a mistake (hey that rhymes) even down to blaming his miss-types on that "darn spellchecker"

Posted by: JRM2 | March 3, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

"We could have a picture of a mob storming an embassy or a fialed resue attempt (maybe helicopters crashing in the dust) to represent poor military capabilities favored by liberals.
Posted by: leapin |"
----
Up until now I've ignored your hateful, ignorant, mindless posts but this one takes the cake. To infer that liberals invoke poor military strategies is absolutely idiotic. Republicans repeatedly mismanaged the war in Iraq and basically abandoned Afghanistan, not once, but twice creating the situation which we have now over there.

Since Obama has been in office he has been extraordinarily effective at finding, capturing and killing most of the Taliban and Al Qeada leaders in the Afpak region, way more effective in one year than Repubs were in over 7.

We are now starting to see some real progress in Afghanistan just in time for AIles of Fox News to come out and condemn the war.

Posted by: JRM2 | March 3, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

3rd "in" = "is" (darn Spellchecker ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

There is a real effort out there to subvert the intention of the Senate rules - that is a serious offense.

Hopefully Rep. Stupak can stop all this craziness right now.

There are serious problems here.


.

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

There is a real effort out there to subvert the intention of the Senate rules - that is a serious offense.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the democrats are getting dangerously close to breaking the Senate rules - which will create a crisis like none other in American history.


What makes it even worse, is recorded statements by Obama and Biden on the exact subjects in 2005.


We may be in the territory of breaking the laws - the Constitution says the Senate makes its own rules - if there is an effort to break those rules - it is unConstitutional - and may qualify as High Crimes and Misdemeeanors.

Obviously, if Obama tries to ram this through with reconciliation - and there are questionable policy provisions jammed through - it is grounds for impeachment.


If the Republicans take control of the House, they can impeach Obama. It really is Obama's choice at this point.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Yeah stepping on a crack in the sidewalk is grounds fir impeachment.

What a moron.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 3, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Keep in mind, also, that the threatened "nuclear option" in 2005 was over the Senate Dem's refusal to allow an up or down vote on judicial nominees (part of their CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY of "advise and consent"). The nuclear option is now being threatened as to plain ol' legislation, which the Senate has no duty to pass one way or the other. Like I said, if Obamacare in rammed through and funds abortion, then there will be blood.

==

unhinged melodramatic junk

Jake doesn't like abortion so if abortion gets funded there'll be suicide bombers. What a braying jackazs you are.

I hope the FBI pays you a visit.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 3, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the democrats are getting dangerously close to breaking the Senate rules - which will create a crisis like none other in American history.

What makes it even worse, is recorded statements by Obama and Biden on the exact subjects in 2005.

We may be in the territory of breaking the laws - the Constitution says the Senate makes its own rules - if there is an effort to break those rules - it is unConstitutional - and may qualify as High Crimes and Misdemeeanors.

Obviously, if Obama tries to ram this through with reconciliation - and there are questionable policy provisions jammed through - it is grounds for impeachment.

If the Republicans take control of the House, they can impeach Obama. It really is Obama's choice at this point.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

37th:

Keep in mind, also, that the threatened "nuclear option" in 2005 was over the Senate Dem's refusal to allow an up or down vote on judicial nominees (part of their CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY of "advise and consent"). The nuclear option is now being threatened as to plain ol' legislation, which the Senate has no duty to pass one way or the other. Like I said, if Obamacare in rammed through and funds abortion, then there will be blood.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the democrats are getting dangerously close to breaking the Senate rules - which will create a crisis like none other in American history.

What makes it even worse, is recorded statements by Obama and Biden on the exact subjects in 2005.

We may be in the territory of breaking the laws - the Constitution says the Senate makes its own rules - if there is an effort to break those rules - it is unConstitutional - and may qualify as High Crimes and Misdemeeanors.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

The way the democrats stuck with Charlie Rangel proves they are unfit to govern.

Case closed.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

leapin:

It's not worth trying to reason with that one, trust me.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else does not understand the following, please let me know:

"The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 had put the kingdom and its ruling House of Saud at risk. Bin Laden met with King Fahd, and Sultan, Minister of Defence of Saudi Arabia, telling them not to depend on non-Muslim troops, and offered to help defend Saudi Arabia with his mujahideen fighters. Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed, and after the American offer to help repel Iraq from Kuwait was accepted, involving deploying U.S. troops in Saudi territory, bin Laden publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the U.S. military, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the 'land of the two mosques' (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil."

Originally posted at 4:05 PM

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


You are wrong again.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Osama bin Laden did his part in attacking the US not because America had shown weakness that emboldened him; that’s not a reason to do something, it’s only a factor in diminishing fear of failure. He said that the reason for the attacks was because American presence in his native Saudi Arabia was offensive to him, and there is no reason, however much he’s unlikeable, to doubt his word

Posted by: Noacoler
-------------------------------------------
This means that we have to put Germany, among many others, on the watch list. I could be persuaded towards isolationism.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


Read my posting to you at 4:43 pm


Thank you.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

What tomfoolery in here today.
 
Osama bin Laden did his part in attacking the US not because America had shown weakness that emboldened him; that’s not a reason to do something, it’s only a factor in diminishing fear of failure.  He said that the reason for the attacks was because American presence in his native Saudi Arabia was offensive to him, and there is no reason, however much he’s unlikeable, to doubt his word

Posted by: Noacoler | March 3, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

We have a 3 Trillion Dollar - basically unfunded program - which the democrats are attempting to FORCE A FINANCIAL CRISIS ONTO A FUTURE CONGRESS IN ORDER TO RAISE THE TAXES TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE.


When the American People realize fully what the finances are, Obama's name and legacy will be synonymous with overspending and financial nightmares.


To spend and never know how it will be payed for - to obama.


To get stuck with a bill (like at a restaurant) - to get obamaed.


To try to get a friend to pay his share of the bill at a restaurant - Man, you are not going to obama me, are you ?


To force a program or a rule on an unwilling person - to ram an obama.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the history of these events is all very well documented. We'll tone it down and agree on some things. How about this.

The Beirut attack was the worst day for the US Marines since Iwo Jima. The method of that attack and its results were not lost on terror professionals. Clinton's absurd adventure in Somalia was perhaps less excusable than Reagan's fantasy in Lebanon, by then, Clinton should have known better.

But the Beirut attack was enormously important. A suicide mission against a building full of people, Timothy McVeigh probably had an inkling.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 3, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

I think bin Ladin was trying to bolster his credibility to the Arab world. If you don't believe me, just go read the 9/11 Commission Report. As for why Reagan said he would not do what he did do, he ended up having big fish to fry (you know, that whole "winning the Cold War without firing a single shot" thing?). Now, are you aware that the U.S. (in particular the CIA) was fighting along side with the Afghan mujahideen -- including bin Laden -- during Reagan's terms?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

The Earthquake in Chili has made the Earth spin faster - which has made the days shorter - everyday, not just the day of the earthquake.

Think about it.

That means we are all getting older faster.
THAT MEANS YOU !!!!
.
Posted by: 37thand0street
------------------------------------------
Wow -
That means drindl’s cognitive lapses are accelerating.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Jay20

I was being sarcastic about the statements on here about never electing a Governor of Texas

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 & 37 and O Street --

JakeD2, I agree with you on this one ...

37 & O Street -- if we are going to keep the entire Texas delegation out of the White House for starting wars, then, I suppose we can keep the Arkansas delegation out for starting affairs.

Posted by: Jay20 | March 3, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


You are a fool - the terrorists attacked us.


We were nice about it in the 90s (which the policy which you are now advocating)


We had the first world trade center bombing


Khobar Towers bombing


The two American embassies bombing in Keyna and Tanzania


They bombed our apartment buildings in Saudi Arabia.

The USS Cole.

THE POLICY YOU ARE ADVOCATING FAILED.

OK - it failed. you are a complete idiot.

The reason it failed, because you are a complete idiot - is because we never hit them hard enough in the 1990s and we ended up with 9/11.

I will call you an idiot again, just in case it didn't sink in the first time.


THE ONLY WAY TO WIN THIS WAR IS TO WIN THE WAR.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

The Earthquake in Chili has made the Earth spin faster - which has made the days shorter - everyday, not just the day of the earthquake.


Think about it.


That means we are all getting older faster.

THAT MEANS YOU !!!!

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


I did answer your question in the other thread - go look for it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

For someone who tries to pass himself off as a retired lawyer, Jake sure has a sketchy notion of what is meant by “proof.”

Hint, troll: it means something more than repeating assertions over and over with lots of caps.

Nobody with a scientific education is comfortable with the term, but then anyone who talks about “supernatural erosion” isn’t in that group.

Posted by: Noacoler
----------------------------------------
NeoCom Statist detected.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Well do you think ObinL was lying to ABC news? But that is not really the point.
Why did Reagan say he would not do what he did do?

Caspar Weinberger gave a speech in 1984 at the National Press Club nine months after Reagan said after the barracks bombing that the United States would never back down from terrorists, but then withdrew the Marines from Lebanon. Weinberger said don't commit insufficient military forces to an ill-defined mission with no clear national interest or exit strategy.

Sure Carter did it, Clinton did it, Reagan did it too. Playing with guns is dangerous.
Once you go there, you better be really good at it and understand what killing people does to their relatives.


Posted by: shrink2 | March 3, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Jay20 and Jack D2


Are you two going to make the connection - Lyndon Johnson - escalation of Vietnam

Bush - Iraq and Afghanistan

OH MY -

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

For someone who tries to pass himself off as a retired lawyer, Jake sure has a sketchy notion of what is meant by “proof.”
 
Hint, troll: it means something more than repeating assertions over and over with lots of caps.
 
Nobody with a scientific education is comfortable with the term, but then anyone who talks about “supernatural erosion” isn’t in that group.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 3, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Jay20:

Someone initially brought up Afghanistan as an example of why (allegedly) the U.S. will never again elected another Governor from Texas as President -- not very logical to me either -- then someone else impugned Ronald Reagan as the reason bin Laden decided to attack the U.S.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

YOU posted "Then, though Reagan said right after he would never "back down" to terrorists, his decision to pull after the barracks bomb (he found out he was not acting in a movie anymore) lead Osama bin Laden, to conclude that when America gets hurt, it quits."

I just proved that was NOT what led bin Laden to said conclusion. You are aware that the U.S. (CIA) was fighting along side with the Afghan mujahideen, right?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Why all the talk about Afghanistan? This post was specifically about the fall-out from the Texas gubernatorial primaries.

Posted by: Jay20 | March 3, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan in February 1989 (again after Reagan had left office), Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia in 1990 as a hero of jihad, who along with his Arab legion, "had brought down the mighty superpower" of the Soviet Union. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 had put the kingdom and its ruling House of Saud at risk. Bin Laden met with King Fahd, and Sultan, Minister of Defence of Saudi Arabia, telling them not to depend on non-Muslim troops, and offered to help defend Saudi Arabia with his mujahideen fighters. Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed, and after the American offer to help repel Iraq from Kuwait was accepted, involving deploying U.S. troops in Saudi territory, bin Laden publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the U.S. military, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil.

Shortly after Saudi Arabia permitted U.S. troops on Saudi soil, bin Laden turned his attention to attacks on the west. On November 8, 1990, the FBI raided the New Jersey home of El Sayyid Nosair, an associate of al Qaeda operative Ali Mohamed, discovering a great deal of evidence of terrorist plots, including plans to blow up New York City skyscrapers, marking the earliest uncovering of al Qaeda plans for such activities outside of Muslim countries. Nosair was eventually convicted in connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and for the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane on November 5, 1990.

Bin Laden continued to speak out publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, for which the Saudis banished eventually him. He went to live in exile in Sudan in 1992, finally coming into favor under the Taliban rule, where he planned the final stages of the 9/11 attacks AFTER Clinton withdrew from Somalia.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

In a 1998 interview with ABC News, bin Laden said the U.S. response to the Beirut bombing showed "the decline of American power and the weakness of the American soldier, who is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut in 1983, when the Marines fled."

Posted by: shrink2 | March 3, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

leapin:

Keep in mind that they have no clue about U.S. history (recent or long-since past). For instance, reports suggest bin Laden earned a degree in civil engineering in 1979, or a degree in public administration in 1981, when Reagan was first elected. We know that bin Laden was busy fighting the SOVIETS in Afghanistan. He didn't turn his attention to the U.S. until after Reagan was well out of office.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

No, just like Reagan's mock war-lord act, Jimmy Carter's hostage rescue disaster was an inexcusable disgrace and had terrible consequences, still to this day. We'd better just leave the money alone.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 3, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Jnorow:

I completely agree with your post.
Gov. Perry continues to draw serious challenges from not only independents, but prominent people in his own party. He's a two-term governor -- these types of challenges are almost unheard of in other instances.

Let's remind ourselves that Perry had 49% of the GOP vote AGAINST him. If I was in his shoes, I'd been humbled by that.

This talk of him running for President is premature at best. With Governors like Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels around, i.e. governors who have broad-based support from many demographic groups, who needs Perry on a national ticket?

Posted by: Jay20 | March 3, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

*sigh* All this chatter about secession, and not one mention of the formal legal underpinning on this. Not some word that a Founder may have written or uttered, or some signing amendment, but the actual law of the land.

The Supreme Court made it pretty clear in Texas v. White (1869) that the union was perpetual and secession ordinances were "absolutely null." However, it also offered two cases where it may happen: revolution, or by "consent of the States." Considering the latter is unlikely, I'm guessing the only option remaining would be extra-legal (i.e., revolution).

And back to the main topic - no way do I see Perry as presidential timber. But I've been surprised before by what people would vote for - including Perry winning the primary straight up with someone to his right (essentially).

Posted by: grounder | March 3, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"Obama and the democrats have gone from "Blame Bush for everything" to


"Well Bush did it, so we can do it too"


That is the change we have gotten."
==
I answered this one earlier today on another story, but since you ran away without refuting it, I'm gonna do you a favor. I copied it and brougt it here for you. Now you don't even have to search for it.

"Bush spent trillions on a war in Iraq which cost the lives of more than 4000 Americans, and didn't make us any safer.
Obama spent trillions to stem the loss of jobs, caused by the Bush recession; and will spend billions on health-care, which, provided it isn't repealed, will save the lives of millions. That isn't about "Bush did it too". If you can't see that, I must reiderate my case about willed-ignorance. Why is it ok to spend trillions of dollars we don't have to kill people, but not to save them?"

Posted by: elijah24 | March 3, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

billy8:

ARTICLE V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

AMENDMENT X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I don't see any legal arguments for secession there.
Granted, I am not a legal scholar.
The only "state's rights" the CSA wanted was the right to annex Cuba and central America and turn them into slave states.

Posted by: billy8 | March 3, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

You are (intentionally?) mixing up President. The 9/11 Commission actually determined that bin Laden was inspired by CLINTON'S pullout from Somalia.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

U.S. Grant had a lot of problems, but I'd rather have him on my $50 than Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: shrink2
-----------------------------------------
How about Jimmuh Cartah? We could have a picture of a mob storming an embassy or a fialed resue attempt (maybe helicopters crashing in the dust) to represent poor military capabilities favored by liberals.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


I am disappointed that General Sherman is not depicted on any bills - the destruction that he brought was more than anyone else.


And he doesn't have a disasterous Presidency to detract from his record.


And he never dyed his red hair, like Lindsay Lohan does all the time.


Seems like a slam-dunk to me.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse
-----------------------------------
I would argue that South Carolina, and not W.T. Sherman brought that destruction.

Posted by: billy8 | March 3, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

billy8:

ARTICLE V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

AMENDMENT X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


I am disappointed that General Sherman is not depicted on any bills - the destruction that he brought was more than anyone else.


And he doesn't have a disasterous Presidency to detract from his record.


And he never dyed his red hair, like Lindsay Lohan does all the time.

Seems like a slam-dunk to me.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Chris...you obviously don't have a handle or depth of knowledge on Texas politics. Perry is one of the most unpopular govs in history...he has had alot of luck including winning last time with only 39% of vote. KBH ran an awful campaign and I voted for her. Perry doesn't need to worry about presidential ambitions which are a joke in itself (except I remember another gov who shall remain nameless from Georgia that was worthless)...his big problem is KBH voters are going to put the democrat in the gov chair and I will be one of many casting my Republican/Independent vote for Bill White....so go focus on something that has potential cause Perry doesn't.

Posted by: jnorow | March 3, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the democrats have gone from "Blame Bush for everything" to


"Well Bush did it, so we can do it too"

That is the change we have gotten.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan's idea of economic stimulus was pulling WWII battleships out of mothballs so they could lob enormous shells toward the PLO neighborhoods of Beirut.

But the first major suicide attack in a style that has become all to common killed 241 armed service members, including 220 Marines.

Then, though Reagan said right after he would never "back down" to terrorists, his decision to pull after the barracks bomb (he found out he was not acting in a movie anymore) lead Osama bin Laden, to conclude that when America gets hurt, it quits.

U.S. Grant had a lot of problems, but I'd rather have him on my $50 than Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 3, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Beyond advocacy of a return to Jim Crow literacy tests for prospective voters and n-word signs, can't say that I know...Sorry.

Posted by: broadwayjoe
------------------------------------------
Do you know anything about the Dbaggers and the free lunch party? Apparently they are against free assembly and spending non-existent funds, but what else?

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

No Corner, we have some good former presidents. FDR, Kennedy, Trueman, LBJ, Clinton. It's really easy to pick out one unsuccessful former president from the opposing party, and act like he is the mold for all of that parties presidents. Of course it goes right back to that willed-ignorance that I mentioned earlier today. W, and Hoover are not the standard for the GOP, and Carter isn't the standard for us. grow up.

Posted by: elijah24 | March 3, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Billy8


Everyone knows that Jefferson Davis is from Mississippi - he doesn't have residency.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse
------------------
Actually, he was from Kentucky, like Lincoln.
He was a Senator from MS, before he was president of the CSA, which is apparently news to most of the people on this board (yourself not included).

Posted by: billy8 | March 3, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

As far as tea parties being 'peaceful' -- I don't consider a bunch of people armed with assault weapons and signs about 'watering the tree of liberty' to be 'peaceful'.

There is inherent violence, intimidation and threat involved. And all the talk about armed revolution and blood, all of the infiltration of the Tea parties with militia groups, white supremacists, Birchers and other extreme radicals will only accelerate their demise into a bloodthirsty mob.

Sure -- it's about hating to pay taxes, but it's also about hating Barack Obama and his family very personally.

You can see by all the extreme rhetoric on this blog today what it's all about -- nothing but hatred -- the most base and bestial kind.

Posted by: drindl

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

These statements are just silly, drindl, and they fly in the face of the experience an actual Tea Party protest. The people there are normal people, and many have their children along with them. Yes, a few have guns, and they are protesting in favor of Second Amendment rights. No one in the Tea Party movement has threatened the president or his family, and no one has fired any guns.

Is some of the rhetoric threatening to politicians and to Washington? Absolutely. But much of the rhetoric is borrowed from the American Revolution, and violence against government has always proven a metaphor and not an actual call to arms. If Tea Partiers were actually taking shots at elected officials, I'd agree with you that these people are scary, but virtually all of them are normal, hard-working Americans who don't want to see violence any more than you do, and if you can't understand their metaphors, then the problem is with you.

To be fair, too, one can find similar threats and metaphors of violence from all over the political spectrum. The left is famous for these, and every time the left hearkens back to the '60s and to the "revolution" of that time, they are plugging into leftist violence, except that that violence went far beyond metaphor and turned very real.

I'll add as well that the Tea Party was already fomenting before Obama came into office. Bush's bank bailout was really the first spark that got people angry, and many Tea Partiers are as angry at Republicans as they are at Democrats. There is no particular malice toward Obama because of his race, and it's really only the left that keeps injecting race into the discussion. Tea Partiers tend to focus on taxes and government policy. Many of these people fit the same political mold as those who voted for Ross Perot in 1992, and race was not an issue between those three candidates. Ideologically, Perot's supporters and the Tea Partiers seem very closely aligned to me, so if Perot supporters were not racists raging against a black man in the White House, then Tea Partiers probably aren't either.

Posted by: blert | March 3, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

So I've read through most of the posts on hear, and the poster called leapin seems to be for the overthrow of elected officials he or she doesn't like, is for censorship (leapin gets to decide), is for civil war, is for teaching creationism in public schools (clearly in violation of the US Constitution), and is against democracy (thinks majority rule is the same thing as totalitarianism.
How completely anti-American.
Maybe you should move to a taliban stronghold for a while - maybe then you'll appreciate a democratic society free from the tyranny and religious rule.

Posted by: jeffc6578
-------------------------------------------
You're a poor reader. I don't wish for the expense of a move in this poor economy maybe if I received stimulus funds. That is unlikely I'm not a friend of BO. Our form of government is a republic not a democracy. I and growing numbers do appreciate a society free from the statist tyranny of O, Reid, and Pelosi. The US constitution prohibits religious rule while guaranteeing freedom of religion.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Billy8


Everyone knows that Jefferson Davis is from Mississippi - he doesn't have residency.


.

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

realize that this is probably not the place to get an "unbiased" answer, but does anyone know what the Tea Party Movement is actually for?

I do know they say they are against taxation, and they seem to be ovewhelmingly caucasian, and some of them wear tea bags in their hats, but what are they actually in favor of?

Posted by: SamanthaAdams
_________

Beyond advocacy of a return to Jim Crow literacy tests for prospective voters and n-word signs, can't say that I know...Sorry.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 3, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I like Grant - we $50 bill

Im sure the democrats are trying to figure out which bill we should put Jimmy Carter on.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I would agree with that, if we can also put FDR on the $10.

Posted by: elijah24 | March 3, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse


"A new GOP-sponsored bill in the House would replace Ulysses Grant with Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill."

WOW -- think of all the jobs this will create!

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

blert writes
"What is more, the Founders in the Constitution plainly laid out the right of states to quit the union when they might so choose"

Check into the senatorial debate between Robert Hayne (SC) and Daniel Webster (MA) on this...

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | March 3, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse
-------------------------
This is insane garbage.
I'd love to see words from the Constitution to that effect.

Posted by: billy8

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


To start, the 10th Amendment reserves rights to the states not explicitly given to the federal government, and no power is specifically ascribed to the federal government in deciding when or whether states can leave the union, meaning that this right is reserved to the states.

Also, in ratifying the Constitution, Virginia and New York explicitly wrote into their bills ratifying the document that they reserved the right to withdraw from the union at any time they saw fit. Likewise, in selling the Constitution to various states, many of its proponents argued to state legislators that states retained primary power and could withdraw if they felt they were infringed upon.

Practically speaking, this makes for potentially disastrous government as a nation constantly in threat of falling apart can never be strong, and the Civil War illustrated just how disastrous withdrawal from the union can be. However, constitutionally, the 10th Amendment is the only word on the subject, and supporting evidence from the time period makes clear the Founder's intent.

Posted by: blert | March 3, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

So I've read through most of the posts on hear, and the poster called leapin seems to be for the overthrow of elected officials he or she doesn't like, is for censorship (leapin gets to decide), is for civil war, is for teaching creationism in public schools (clearly in violation of the US Constitution), and is against democracy (thinks majority rule is the same thing as totalitarianism.
How completely anti-American.
Maybe you should move to a taliban stronghold for a while - maybe then you'll appreciate a democratic society free from the tyranny and religious rule.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | March 3, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Excerpt from HuffPo article about prominent GOPer calling out party for its r-cism:

"Despite paeans to diversity, the Republican Party clearly does not want a black man -- or any minority candidate -- in the Senate, leading conservative blogger Erick Erickson wrote Wednesday.

"It is starting to get really disgusting," Erickson, the editor-in-chief of the right-wing site RedState wrote. "First, the GOP said it needed diversity and chose the orange Charlie Crist over the Latino, Marco Rubio. Then the GOP said it needed to do better outreach in the black community, so it ignored Michael Williams in Texas and tried to find a rich white guy to run for the Senate. Now that Kay Bailey Hutchison has lost the Texas primary to Rick Perry without even making it into a runoff, the Washington, D.C. Republicans are scared to death a black man might actually get appointed to the Senate as a Republican.""

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 3, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

The Perry/Party of NO! Platform:

Always vote No if a Democrat is president.
Always vote Yes if a Republican is president.
Only allowed to watch Fox news.
Only allowed to listen to self described entertainer and drug addict Rush Limbaugh.
"We are Fair and Balanced."

Tax cuts to Debt, putting every American on welfare.
War is good, but charge it to our kids to pay.
Give your Social Security to the Wall Street Bonus boys.
More tax cuts for the rich, our leaders.
Lower wages for workers, no unions.

Allowable Death Panels:
40 million Americans without healthcare.
Guns for all.
Death penalty.
Wars of choice.

Don't believe in science, education, or pollution. If you can't see it, if I can't put my hands in the holes, it doesn't exist.

You betcha!
Palin/Perry 2012

Posted by: chucky-el | March 3, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

If there were states ready to seceed, why haven't they done it yet?

Posted by: elijah24 | March 3, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse
----------------------
That will never happen again.
The country today hardly resembles the one that went to war with itself.

Posted by: billy8 | March 3, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


Im not a fake.

Why are you complaining? Have you ever been to Texas?

Why are you so out of touch with the American people that you think all of this is out-of-bounds ???

Go back under the rock you crawled out from.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

What about that don't you understand, or are you just another sore loser?

Posted by: drindl
----------------------------------------
I don't understand the part about spending trillions that are non-existent. Could you explain? Thanks. I have more questions after that.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

If there were states ready to seceed, why haven't they done it yet?

Posted by: elijah24 | March 3, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Under "Winners" you forgot "Swimmers." Perry is an avid master's swimmer. i wonder if that means Michael Phelps is a Tea Partier?

Posted by: kenpasadena | March 3, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"Perry for President: Perry proved that he, perhaps better than any other Republican politician in the country, understands and connects with the Tea Party movement."

What???? Secessionist rants and the support of a racist proxy movement headed by some guy who waves an n-word sign qualify Perry to run for President?
And a shout-out to teabagger Debra Medina? Have you lost it?
___________

No winners in all this craziness.

Losers

KBH
folks who believed KBH would keep her word and resign from the Senate
Debra Medina
Dale Robertson's Tea Bag Party
the State of Texas
voting rights
the fake 37
Juan Williams (natch)
sports broadcasts by "Mrs." Mary Carillo
"news and analysis" in this space
the third installment of the Spider-Man and Matrix series (unwatchable)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 3, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait to see Perry duke it out with Palin, Pawlenty and Romney. So far the democrats are in a win-win situation.

Posted by: blarsen1 | March 3, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

As far as tea parties being 'peaceful' -- I don't consider a bunch of people armed with assault weapons and signs about 'watering the tree of liberty' to be 'peaceful'.

There is inherent violence, intimidation and threat involved. And all the talk about armed revolution and blood, all of the infiltration of the Tea parties with militia groups, white supremacists, Birchers and other extreme radicals will only accelerate their demise into a bloodthirsty mob.

Sure -- it's about hating to pay taxes, but it's also about hating Barack Obama and his family very personally.

You can see by all the extreme rhetoric on this blog today what it's all about -- nothing but hatred -- the most base and bestial kind.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

blert writes
"What is more, the Founders in the Constitution plainly laid out the right of states to quit the union when they might so choose"

Check into the senatorial debate between Robert Hayne (SC) and Daniel Webster (MA) on this...

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | March 3, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse
-------------------------
This is insane garbage.
I'd love to see words from the Constitution to that effect.

Posted by: billy8 | March 3, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

lol@talk of civil war. You really think these people would shed blood for anything? Don't forget the reason they are even Republican in the first place is the promise of a free lunch by tax cuts. Yeah, not quite the most self-sacrificing bunch.

And seriously, don't talk to jaked.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 3, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"That's why people are against the insurrection of the statists against America. An election is not license for government takeovers."

What the hell are you talking about. An election means that a new group takes power. That group decides domestic and foreign policy.

What about that don't you understand, or are you just another sore loser?

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

blert writes
"What is more, the Founders in the Constitution plainly laid out the right of states to quit the union when they might so choose"

Check into the senatorial debate between Robert Hayne (SC) and Daniel Webster (MA) on this...

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | March 3, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

So the "battle of the hair" is over:

It was "good hair" Perry against "big hair" Hutchison.

Looks like "good hair" won the day!

Posted by: Heerman532 | March 3, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

So the "battle of the hair" is over:

It was "good hair" Perry against "big hair" Hutchison.

Looks like "good hair" won the day!

Posted by: Heerman532 | March 3, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

blert writes
"What is more, the Founders in the Constitution plainly laid out the right of states to quit the union when they might so choose"

where?

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 3, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

37th:

Because the Dems will fund abortion before that (same reason that the Missouri Compromise" was unacceptable too).

elijah24:

No coup de tat, I just want those States who are ready to quit the Union to do so (assuming you are referring to the HYDE Amendment).

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

So the "battle of the hair" is over:

It was "good hair" Perry against "big hair" Hutchison.

Looks like "good hair" won the day!

Posted by: Heerman532 | March 3, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Talk of civil war in 2010 is completely silly, and I imagine anyone advancing an argument for civil war is aware of how insane they sound to the rest of us.
Posted by: billy8
----------------------------------------
True, it’s more likely in late 2011 or early 2012 as the economy, the dollar, and employment continue their downward slide.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

And Rick Perry would lose.

Posted by: 8-man | March 3, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

If Governor Perry was really presidential timbre, he wouldn't have drawn serious challenges in his own primary in the last two elections. No matter how good a campaigner he is, people in the GOP clearly are concerned about his performance as governor.

Posted by: Jay20 | March 3, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Party of the Adults?

Where'd that come from?

Are you referring to a post I made about the U.S. needing a third party? The one I called the party of the sane? I never said I was a member either. I might be every bit as whacko as you!

How 'bout, "I'm rubber and you're glue..."? Is that a good argument?

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | March 3, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Party of the Adults?

Where'd that come from?

Are you referring to a post I made about the U.S. needing a third party? The one I called the party of the sane? I never said I was a member either. I might be every bit as whacko as you!

How 'bout, "I'm rubber and you're glue..."? Is that a good argument?

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | March 3, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

TO ALL THE DEMOCRATS
Let's have an HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT HEALTH CARE - JUST TELL US HOW YOU ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT - WITHOUT THE ACCOUNTING TRICKS"

Same way Bush paid the Invasion of Iraq.

And, the same way Bush paid for the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Posted by: SamanthaAdams

______________________________________


Obama and the democrats have gone from "Blame Bush for everything" to

"Well Bush did it, so we can do it too"


That is the change we have gotten.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

The longer Obama persists with this health care bill, the worse it will be for the democrats in the fall elections.


In fact, if Obama tries to have another set of votes, the democrats are going to reach a point-of-no-return.


Obama simply does not understand the electorate - he doesn't know how many people are upset with him - and they just keep on hearing that Obama won't stop.
There are certain segments of the electorate which Obama is losing, for good, and they are not coming back. The election is being decided NOW.

Obama is hurting the moderates in the House.


One has to wonder what is going on behind the closed doors in the House - the moderates have to be saying that they will not walk the plank for Obama. The Senate is now in play - a fact which no one would have believed a few months ago.


Obama has made a mess.

Late December really saw a whole bunch of problems for Obama - first the vote on Dec 24 - everyone was saying, "why do they have to vote on a holiday" What is the rush? It just increased the mistrust that Obama and the democrats were doing something sneaky.

Then the terrorist incident that Obama bungled really hurt him as well.

The democrats have the attitude that the damage is already done, they can only help themselves from here. That is not true. Obama and the democrats are sinking further - and they are continuing to hurt themselves.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"It saddens me that so many people believe we are a democracy when our form of goverment is a republic."


Touché. However, the point stands: our system of government is based on elections, not insurrection.


.

Posted by: bsimon1

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


You're right, but our history is also a little more complicated than this because the U.S. only came into existence through insurrection. What is more, the Founders in the Constitution plainly laid out the right of states to quit the union when they might so choose, and as soon as states exercised this option, we ended up in a bloody war that ultimately sent the message that states cannot simply leave the union at their own choosing, a principle which remains constitutionally dubious, but which is necessary to create a strong country.

Our history with insurrection is quite conflicted, and to be fair, the Tea Party has been very peaceful in protests so far. They threaten government and elected officials with being thrown out of power and speak of revolution, and there are some secessionists among them, but what shape this revolution will take isn't exactly clear. Most Tea Partiers seem content to throw officials out through legal means.

In reality, though, if the Tea Party really wants to reset Washington while working through legal means, they have two options: 1) Put enough legislators in power in Washington that they start calling the shots, and then ensure that these people don't fall to the same special interests, big money influences, and corruption, or 2) capture power in enough states that they can use state legislatures to call a constitutional convention that entirely circumvents Washington. It's never been done before, but it would allow an organized majority to stage a legal revolution.

Posted by: blert | March 3, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

TO ALL THE DEMOCRATS
Let's have an HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT HEALTH CARE - JUST TELL US HOW YOU ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT - WITHOUT THE ACCOUNTING TRICKS"

Same way Bush paid the Invasion of Iraq.

And, the same way Bush paid for the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Posted by: SamanthaAdams
----------------------------------------
This is a disingenuous answer from a member of a party that has billed itself as the "adults" that were supposedly going to "clean up the mess" of its predecessors.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse
=============================================
Agreed.
"I know you are but what am I" is not an adult argument.

Posted by: billy8 | March 3, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

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

Pieces falling into place for vote on health-care reform

In a way, the Scott Brown election might be somewhat of a blessing. Since the Senate bill doesn't have Stupak in it, the House will have to sign a bill without that provision. And since abortion isn't a budgetary concern, it can't be passed through the Obama sidecar.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 3, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"As I said, if Obamacare funds abortion, then time for elections will be over."
Posted by JakeD
==
So lemmegethistraight: You don't trust the Heid Amendment, so you want another protection written by the same body that brought you the Heid Amendment which you dont trust. And if you don't get what you want, it will be time for a coup de tat?

Posted by: elijah24 | March 3, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

TO ALL THE DEMOCRATS
Let's have an HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT HEALTH CARE - JUST TELL US HOW YOU ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT - WITHOUT THE ACCOUNTING TRICKS"

Same way Bush paid the Invasion of Iraq.

And, the same way Bush paid for the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Posted by: SamanthaAdams
----------------------------------------
This is a disingenuous answer from a member of a party that has billed itself as the "adults" that were supposedly going to "clean up the mess" of its predecessors.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2

If the Republicans take control of the House, they can halt all spending on the health care bill. Why isn't that good enough ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2

If the Republicans take control of the House, they can halt all spending on the health care bill. Why isn't that good enough ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

37th:

As I said, if Obamacare funds abortion, then time for elections will be over.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse
--------------------------------
Talk of civil war in 2010 is completely silly, and I imagine anyone advancing an argument for civil war is aware of how insane they sound to the rest of us.

Posted by: billy8 | March 3, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm tickled by the comment about how Gov. Perry stands "for the people."

As I pointed out in a previous thread, "the people" as a whole will never agree on anything, ever, no matter how cut and dried the issue might seem. Ask a roomful of randomly chosen folk which of them would like to be whacked in the head with a golf club, and you're guaranteed to get at least one taker, probably several. And then, when someone shouts out, "No! Because I am a dedicated Democrat/Republican, and I strongly oppose getting whacked in the head with a golf club!" 10 people from the other party will not only immediately consent to being whacked in the head with a golf club, they'll demand to be walloped in the beanbag with a lacrosse stick as well to prove just how wrong that other guy is.

Also, I love the implication that educated people don't count as real Americans. I mean, I'm used to the implication that someone doesn't count as an American if he or she does not believe what you believe, but this implication that only the ignorant are to be trusted is a new one by me. I'm just waiting for those who espouse that argument to declare that electricity is un-American. "The signers of the Declaration of Independence didn't know how to operate a dishwasher AND BY GOLLY THAT'S THE PRINCIPLE OUR COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON WOOOOO U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A!"

Posted by: GJonahJameson | March 3, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1


Yea, but our government started with insurrection - AND the intent of the founding fathers was to have an insurrection every 20-30 years.

So, we are long overdue.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

37th:

As I said, if Obamacare funds abortion, then time for elections will be over.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"TO ALL THE DEMOCRATS
Let's have an HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT HEALTH CARE - JUST TELL US HOW YOU ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT - WITHOUT THE ACCOUNTING TRICKS"

Same way Bush paid the Invasion of Iraq.

And, the same way Bush paid for the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | March 3, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

corpse
–noun
1.
a dead body, usually of a human being.

I'll make it more simple for you.
The DEAD BODY of JEFFERSON DAVIS.
Does that help?

Posted by: billy8
------------------------------------------
Dead body as a candidate? In IL the dead bodies are usually dem voters not candidates for office.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse
------------------------
Are people really this unaware of American history??
I used Jefferson Davis because of Perry's secessionist talk.
I guess I thought most people knew who Jefferson Davis was.

Posted by: billy8 | March 3, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama said that "The American People need more control over their health care"

Well, the American People have said that they do not want the health care bill.


So, how is trying to jam the bill through Congress giving the American People more control.

This guy is a complete liar.

His ego has caused him to go completely delusional.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Touché. However, the point stands: our system of government is based on elections, not insurrection.

Posted by: bsimon1
------------------------------------------
That's why people are against the insurrection of the statists against America. An election is not license for government takeovers.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I realize that this is probably not the place to get an "unbiased" answer, but does anyone know what the Tea Party Movement is actually for?

I do know they say they are against taxation, and they seem to be ovewhelmingly caucasian, and some of them wear tea bags in their hats, but what are they actually in favor of?

Posted by: SamanthaAdams

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

You could ask this question of any political party, and you'd get conflicting answers for all of them. Democrats and Republicans alike are a hodgepodge of different interests, and what they are in favor of sometimes is subject to internal conflicts. The best measure is what they actually pass in terms of policy, followed by what platform they adopt at their conventions, but since Tea Partiers haven't passed any policy and didn't really adopt a formal platform at their recent convention, I am not sure that they can really be pinned down.

This said, the Tea Party is a mix of people who are skeptical of federal government intervention in individual lives and who are against high taxation, especially when that taxation goes toward bailing out failed businesses or redistribution of wealth schemes. They tend to hew to a fairly traditional brand of American radical individualism, and thus believe that individuals should enjoy the fruits of their own labors. Their outlook typically mixes populism and fiscal conservatism.

Tea Partiers are not anarchists, and they believe firmly in the rule of law. Their protests so far have been peaceful and legal, but at the same time, protest is at the root of the movement, and an underlying theme of the protests is that government is so broken that we need to throw out much of the government we currently have in order to save the country.

Demographically, the movement is slightly more Caucasian than the overall population, but not by a huge amount. There are quite a few Hispanics and Asians in the movement, and although some blacks have taken prominent roles at rallies, their overall numbers are fairly low. Slightly more men are attracted to the movement than women, although the first protest organizer was, in fact, a woman. Slightly more people in the 30-49 age group tend to be Tea Party fans, and they also tend to be more Protestant than the overall population, as well as slightly more suburban and rural. Tea Partiers are also highly educated. Three quarters have gone to college, and about 40 percent have a 4-year degree, compared to about half having attended college for the population as a whole and only about a quarter having a degree. These are the demographic trends, but actual participants vary a lot.

As for the tea bags, that was an early part of the protests, hearkening to the Boston Tea Party, as a rejection of government action against popular will. Recently, one doesn't see nearly so many tea bags in the mail to legislators or hanging from hats.

Posted by: blert | March 3, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Please understand that we think it is Obama, Reid, and Pelosi who are guilty of treason (we are simply defending the Constitution from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC). Let me know if you have any questions about that.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Sure, I have questions. What the H**l are you talking about? Did you take off the tinfoil hat before talking? Do you REALLY think that there is that much difference between Republicans and Democrats?

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | March 3, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

corpse
–noun
1.
a dead body, usually of a human being.

I'll make it more simple for you.
The DEAD BODY of JEFFERSON DAVIS.
Does that help?

Posted by: billy8
------------------------------------------
Dead body as a candidate? In IL the dead bodies are usually dem voters not candidates for office.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"It saddens me that so many people believe we are a democracy when our form of goverment is a republic."


Touché. However, the point stands: our system of government is based on elections, not insurrection.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 3, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"As has been documented, well over a hundred GOP lawmakers have voted against or condemned the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, while later touted the funding or asked for more money. The latest person to point out this hypocritical behavior is Republican Gov. Charlie Crist (FL). Yesterday, while speaking at his last State of the State as governor, he called out governors who “may have rather loudly condemned the stimulus money” but who accepted it anyway:

CRIST: A few governors may have rather loudly condemned the stimulus money, but that did not stop any of them from quietly accepting it. … During these very difficult economic times, we do a disservice to the people who elected us., the people who are counting on us, to elevate ideology over problem solving. We are here to guide our ship through a storm.

Watch it:

Indeed, several governors who were stimulus opponents have proudly touted its funds in their states. Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), who said that he would’ve voted against the stimulus if he was still a member of Congress, presented a jumbo-sized check of federal grant money authorized under the Recovery Act to residents of Vernon Parish. He later toured the state in a “Louisiana Working” tour, handing out millions of dollars of stimulus money while simultaneously attacking “Washington Spending.” Similarly, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) bashed the stimulus, while his top economic adviser acknowledged that there were “tangible results from this spending.”

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

FLIPPIN MITTIE


'Yesterday, former Gov. Mitt Romney made the rounds on various television shows as part of a promotional tour for his new book, “No Apology: The Case For American Greatness.” During an interview on NBC’s Today show, host Matt Lauer noted that Romney has “been having a good time taking some shots at President Obama over the last several months.” When Lauer asked if Obama has “done anything right,” Romney cited the President’s Afghanistan policy:

LAUER: Has President Obama done anything right, anything good in the past 12 months?

ROMNEY: Yeah. No question about it, he’s done several things well. … He boosted our effort in Afghanistan, which is the right course to take.

Yet nearly 12 hours later on Fox News, Romney attacked the President’s handling of Afghanistan, claiming that Obama had diverted attention away from Afghanistan to focus on health care, which he dubbed a “classic error”:

HANNITY: Do you think Barack Obama is tone deaf? What do you think of him?

ROMNEY: Look, I think he’s a lot worse than tone deaf. I think he has such a low level of experience in dealing with tough situations like this that he’s made some classic errors. "

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Re: Perry continuing as Texas governor and as presidential timber. Heaven forbid and heaven forbid.

Posted by: laloomis | March 3, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we just elect the corpse of Jeff Davis?

Posted by: billy8


correction. that's Corps. didn't you get the memo from the spelling bee chimp?

you may also want to know that reconciliation is no longer an obamination on the democracy, it is now considered a simple up or down vote, you know, like when Bush wanted one for his supreme court justice.

Posted by: drivl | March 3, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse
-----------------------
corpse
–noun
1.
a dead body, usually of a human being.

I'll make it more simple for you.
The DEAD BODY of JEFFERSON DAVIS.
Does that help?

Posted by: billy8 | March 3, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we just elect the corpse of Jeff Davis?

Posted by: billy8


correction. that's Corps. didn't you get the memo from the spelling bee chimp?

you may also want to know that reconciliation is no longer an obamination on the democracy, it is now considered a simple up or down vote, you know, like when Bush wanted one for his supreme court justice.

Posted by: drivl | March 3, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

corpse
–noun
1.
a dead body, usually of a human being.

I'll make it more simple for you.
The DEAD BODY of JEFFERSON DAVIS.
Does that help?

Posted by: billy8 | March 3, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

TOO FUNNY -- DEFINES 'ORWELLIAN'


'In January, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) joined other potential 2012 Republican presidential nominees at Fox News as a paid contributer. Last night, she appeared on Jay Leno’s show and decried the state of the mainstream media as “quite broken,” and — touting her employer’s slogan — in need of more “fairness” and “balance”:

PALIN: I studied journalism, my college degree there in communications. And now I am back there wanting to build some trust back in our media. I think the mainstream media is quite broken and I think there needs to be the fairness, the balance in there — that’s why I joined Fox. Fair and balanced, yes. You know because, Jay, those years a go that I studied journalism it was all about the who, what, when, where, and why, it was not so much the opinion interjected in hard news stories. … As long as there is not the opinion under the guise of hard news stories — I think there needs to be clear differentiation."

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Re: Perry continuing as Texas governor and as presidential timber. Heaven forbid and heaven forbid.

Posted by: laloomis | March 3, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Sutter


You are guilty of treason. what's the penalty again?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

drivel/zouk -- i am truly sorry for you, but you will never ever meet me, so it would be best for you to move on and try to get past your obsession with me.

you only embarrass yourself.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

It saddens me that so many people believe we are a democracy when our form of goverment is a republic.


Posted by: leapin


It is only a republic when libs are in the minority. Remember that during that time all obstruction and defiance was noble. the highest form of patriotism. blocking military budgets during combat was patriotic.

now blocking further handouts that violate just passed PAyGo is cruel and inhuman. Objecting to government takover is treason and irrational.

We are back to a full fledged dummy ocracy. Led by Present ident Obimbo.

simply play back what Barry said about reconciliation when he was in the minority.

Posted by: drivl | March 3, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

we actually know who jake is and where he is located. so if anyone feels that he is getting serious with his assination threats against obama, pelosi, et al, please let us know and we will forward that info to the FBI>
Posted by: drindl
------------------------------------------
Generating “assination threats” against specific people from general comments about civil war is no more accurate than one insinuating that you are going to have sex with DDAWD because his girlfriend is away and he has needs.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"Out in Eastern Oregon, the Aryan Nation arrived a couple weeks ago, replete with swastika armbands, trying to decide whether to relocate.

The 2 big towns in Grant County (pretty much all white - I guess that was what caught the racists eyes), John Day and Canyon City threw a fit and yet I still can not believe people are walking around wearing swastikas on their arms. I know, the ACLU defended Nazis in Skokie and the counter demonstration won and yadda yadda. But America, who are you? Just a bunch of hate groups threatening each other, jockeying for position?"

i'm not surprised at all. look at all the winger morons on this board. wanna bet how many have swastika porn at home?

"Eisenhower integrated the military and for this reason alone, I am not afraid of the armed wing of the Republican Party. The armed wing of the Republican Party will pull its terrorist stunts and innocent people will die. But they are no threat to the nation. "

yes, some already have died and you are right, more will. i expect a lot of IRS offices will be hit this year -- republican officials are encouraging this.

what's funny is all these morons who call themselves 'patriots' lose an election and suddenly they want to secede or violently overthrow this country they 'love so much.'

That isn't patriotism, that's treason. But they don't understand language too well, so maybe that's the problem.

Happily, however, we have the military to crush them if they ever start getting out of hand.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

TO ALL THE DEMOCRATS


Let's have an HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT HEALTH CARE - JUST TELL US HOW YOU ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT - WITHOUT THE ACCOUNTING TRICKS.


Let's back out of all the accounting tricks, and you tell me how we are going to pay for the health care bill.


- You have 7 years of revenue against 10 years of benefits - that adds about 2.5 Trillion dollars.


- You have 500 Billion dollars which is coming out of Medicare - that is being spent twice.


- You have the 225 Billion "doctor fix" which is off budget.


- So you are at about 3.2 Trillion Dollars - How are YOU going to pay for it ???


AND that does not include the usual cost explosions that take place in new programs - you will probably be closer to $5 Trillion after 10 years.


HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THIS ???


Just tell us how you are going to pay for all of this - go ahead.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

We don't need another Texas "cowboy" in the White House...

Posted by: HiloBob | March 3, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Nothingburger?

More words like this, please. I had to look it up. I found it in Urban Dictionary, to wit:

"Something lame, dead-end, a dud, insignificant; especially something with high expectations that turns out to be average, pathetic, or overhyped."

Posted by: dognabbit | March 3, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The definition is NOT "anyone who disagrees with me," though that seems to be widely used these days. Just seeming to not sufficiently oppose those you see as the counry's enemis doesn't count. Heck, Richard Nixon recognized Red China and Ronald Reagan sold guns to the Islamic republic of Iran. Was that legally treason?

Posted by: Sutter | March 3, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

People should stop worrying about paying more for health care. With or without the passage of "reform", you are going to spend a lot more for health care. That means you don't buy something else. This is where you get to feel free: you get to decide what you won't buy.

Sure, some people think they won't spend as much more for health care if "reform" does not happen and other people think they won't spend as much more if it does. But either way, we are all going to spend a lot more for health care.

The industry could be like a parasite, sapping the strength of the economy while everybody is out, fighting with HR about sick leave codes on their time sheet, waiting for an appointment, sitting in the chairs next to the pick up window at Rite Aid...Or "reform" could be a productivity engine, xtra-healthy Americans with perky smiles feeling good about working xtra hard for the future.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 3, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we just elect the corpse of Jeff Davis?

Posted by: billy8


correction. that's Corps. didn't you get the memo from the spelling bee chimp?

you may also want to know that reconciliation is no longer an obamination on the democracy, it is now considered a simple up or down vote, you know, like when Bush wanted one for his supreme court justice.

Posted by: drivl | March 3, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

POLITICS IS RENDERED MOOT IN AN AMERICA WHOSE GOVERNMENT SILENTLY TORTURES, IMPAIRS THOSE AN EVIL SECURITY CABAL CONSIDERS 'DISSIDENTS' OR 'UNDESIRABLES.'

***

VETERAN JOURNALIST EXPOSING NATIONWIDE U.S. GOV'T MICROWAVE CELL TOWER TORTURE SYSTEM DESCRIBES LATEST SILENT ATTACKS

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-govt-uses-cbs-news-cover-microwave-cell-tower-torture

NOW IT'S OBAMA'S GESTAPO USA. WHEN WILL TEAM OBAMA ACT?

• Reporter exposing gov't cell tower microwave torture held hostage to community stalking, police-protected, GPS-equipped vigilante squads that burglarize, vandalize and terrorize -- officially-enabled lawlessness that afflicts many thousands of other unconstitutionally targeted and persecuted Americans.

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves

BUCKS COUNTY, PA- BASED MAGLOCLEN FUSION CENTER: "GROUND ZERO OF A MID-ATLANTIC STATES AMERICAN GESTAPO."

WHY WON'T THE FBI OPEN A DOJ / CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION INVESTIGATION -- AS REPEATEDLY REQUESTED?

nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR:
poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2 (see "articles" )
NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories" )

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 3, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who predicted that 3/3/10 wouild be the day that the moonbat dribbl actually cracked can collect the pool money.

I know it is difficult to say that she was not completely insane yesterday, but to be fair, this has been coming a long time and the outcome was inevitable. A question of degree? certainly.

But clearly the most deranged person on the blog and considering how loony tunes some of the other stooges are, she deserves recognition for that one simple accomplishment in her otherwise empty life.

Posted by: drivl | March 3, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Secessionist Rick Perry?
""There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that."

Why don't we just elect the corpse of Jeff Davis?

Posted by: billy8 | March 3, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"If the next president doesn't come "from the people," there most definitely will be a civil war in this country. "

more treason. round em up and bring out the firing squads.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

America has had its fill of Texas governors in the White House.

Posted by: wrw01011
----------------------------------
Judging from the sinking O presidency they also have had their fill if IL politicians.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

we actually know who jake is and where he is located. so if anyone feels that he is getting serious with his assination threats against obama, pelosi, et al, please let us know and we will forward that info to the FBI>

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

To the commenters who think Perry as US President is unrealistic, let me say this: You're the ones who are out of step! To your liberal thinking, this may not compute, but that's YOUR problem. PERRY FOR PRESIDENT. HE CONNECTS WITH THE PEOPLE, THE R E A L PEOPLE, NOT THE IVY-LEAGUE "EDUCATED" ARROGANT KNOW-NOTHINGS! If the next president doesn't come "from the people," there most definitely will be a civil war in this country. We're not turning socialist!

Posted by: georges2 | March 3, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

hey jake -- who are you threatening to kill now?

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


Be serious No one is going to do anything.

The armed wing of the democratic party killed more people - look up weathermen

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"It saddens me that so many people only believe in democracy until their side loses."

Well said, bsimon1.

Posted by: GJonahJameson
-------------------------------------------
It saddens me that so many people believe we are a democracy when our form of goverment is a republic.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

'Cosign, bsimon1. Bunning is not the only tantrumming baby on the Right.'

they ALL are.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

It's called an election that they won in 2008. You, leapin, are a treasonous warmonger.

Posted by: jillcohen
------------------------------------------
Barack Obama 4/25/05: “The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”

Joe Biden 5/23/2005: This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said ‘change the rules.’ ‘Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said ‘Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.’ You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.
Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.
Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Jake


We are not having a Civil War - look at the pictures from the other Civil War, it is just too horrible.


I know you don't like Obama

What we can do is win the election in November and block the funding for the health care bill. Then repeal the rest of it when we have the votes.

That is simple -


And it will take less time than a Civil War, less carbon imprint, and cost less money - it is basically more efficient. Will you get on board with me ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

jillcohen:

Please understand that we think it is Obama, Reid, and Pelosi who are guilty of treason (we are simply defending the Constitution from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC). Let me know if you have any questions about that.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Cosign, bsimon1. Bunning is not the only tantrumming baby on the Right.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 3, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Out in Eastern Oregon, the Aryan Nation arrived a couple weeks ago, replete with swastika armbands, trying to decide whether to relocate.

The 2 big towns in Grant County (pretty much all white - I guess that was what caught the racists eyes), John Day and Canyon City threw a fit and yet I still can not believe people are walking around wearing swastikas on their arms. I know, the ACLU defended Nazis in Skokie and the counter demonstration won and yadda yadda. But America, who are you? Just a bunch of hate groups threatening each other, jockeying for position?

Eisenhower integrated the military and for this reason alone, I am not afraid of the armed wing of the Republican Party. The armed wing of the Republican Party will pull its terrorist stunts and innocent people will die. But they are no threat to the nation.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 3, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I prefer a dishonest discussion of health care. It's worked so far.

Posted by: JakeD3 | March 3, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

You missed Bill White as a winner. He switched from the Senate to Governor's race because he knew that Perry was going to win it and Hutchison was going to stay in the Senate. He is also much better positioned to run against Perry than a more moderate (at least in feel) Hutchison. He has been reelected twice as Houston mayor getting around 90% both times so he can take the independents by storm and some Republicans. The biggest issue for him is define himself and not let Perry do it for him.
I do have to congratulate Perry as much as I do not like him for winning this race when he only carried 39% in the last general election he ran last time.

Posted by: bradcpa | March 3, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"It saddens me that so many people only believe in democracy until their side loses."

Well said, bsimon1.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | March 3, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

HEAR! HEAR!

There should be no room for mythology in science class. Otherwise we'll get some bunch of nutballs proposing that Zeus be introduced as a potential source of lightning, and that 'the students should make up their own minds.'

.
-----------------------------------------
Yes all pictures and dvd's of E-Gore should be removed from the classroom.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Perry from Texas for President? What is he smoking? If this country ever again puts a Texan in the White House, that really will be the end. The last two from there, different parties, got us into expensive and needless wars and/or left the justified one, Afghanistan, before it was finished. On top of which the most recent one's administration got us into the horrible mess we are in financially and gave us tax cuts and tax breaks, both for those who least needed it. We need another one of those? I think not! And wasn't Perry's mantra about Hutchison that she was a Washington insider? Sounds like he would like to be one of those himself? Gag, gag and another gag at the thought! What is wrong with Texans that they could not see through this guy. Here's hoping that, for once, the Democrat wins the governorship election there.

Posted by: nana1ellen | March 3, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Perry for president?We all know what the last president from Texas did to this counmtry and the world and he was a republican also so nononononononono thanks never again

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | March 3, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are basically ruling without the consent of the governed which makes then essentially impeachable.


Posted by: leapin

___________________________________________
It's called an election that they won in 2008. You, leapin, are a treasonous warmonger.

Posted by: jillcohen | March 3, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

we'll get some bunch of nutballs proposing that Zeus be introduced as a potential source of lightning, and that 'the students should make up their own minds.'

.

Posted by: bsimon1 |


I know, I know. Let's tell everyone that al gore is the source of our salvation and then tell them everyone already agrees and the case is closed. then when anything that resembles actual science emerges, we don't have to bother with it. Everyone can simply get on their knees and pray to his royal highness of green for some more end of world predictions.

Zeus be introduced as a potential source of lightning = man is a potential source fo warming. possible but not definite.

Posted by: drivl | March 3, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Chris I normally like and agree with your analysis, however, you are delusional if you think Rick Perry can be a Presidential candidate. A Presidential candidate who has essentially endorsed secession from the Union? While resentment against Washington may be at an all time high, the Tea Party movement are basically anarchists, nut cases who don't see themselves that way. America has had its fill of Texas governors in the White House.

Posted by: wrw01011 | March 3, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THIS ???


Just tell us how you are going to pay for all of this - go ahead.

Posted by: 37thand0street
------------------------------------------
Reform is necessary to control increasing health care costs. Single payer is the solution. What better way to control the cost of a thing than to let people consume as much of it as they think they need, paid for with Other People's Money? Barack Hussein Obama (mm-mm-mm), Nancy "I have a lot in common with those people carrying swastikas" Pelosi, and Harry "Light Skinned" Reid are geniuses!

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Samantha, the tea partiers are basically anarchists, very similar to the Symbionese Liberation Party of the 70's. They beleive in the overthrow of government, which makes them, essentially, guilty of treason.

Posted by: drindl


Say, didn't one of those guys ghost write barry's book?

the only violence I can recall recently was that kook amy who was a rabid barry lover. she shot people because she was not going to get a guaranteed job. Remember, in liberal lalaland, you have a guarantee to all sorts of things: housing, job, medical, dental, vision, cars, travel to Dominican Republic, parking, heat, non cable TV, edubacation, ignorance, graft, retirement, gasoline and arugula.

don't worry, someone else pays.

Posted by: drivl | March 3, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Perry "the hair-do" in 2012! LOL! Governors from Texass had their time and thank goodness its over. Never again!

Posted by: jillcohen | March 3, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

TO ALL THE DEMOCRATS


Let's have an HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT HEALTH CARE - JUST TELL US HOW YOU ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT - WITHOUT THE ACCOUNTING TRICKS.

Let's back out of all the accounting tricks, and you tell me how we are going to pay for the health care bill.


- You have 7 years of revenue against 10 years of benefits - that adds about 2.5 Trillion dollars.


- You have 500 Billion dollars which is coming out of Medicare - that is being spent twice.


- You have the 225 Billion "doctor fix" which is off budget.


- So you are at about 3.2 Trillion Dollars - How are YOU going to pay for it ???


AND that does not include the usual cost explosions that take place in new programs - you will probably be closer to $5 Trillion after 10 years.


HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THIS ???

Just tell us how you are going to pay for all of this - go ahead.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 3, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"would you join me in another Civil War?"


It saddens me that so many people only believe in democracy until their side loses.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 3, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"... it may turn out that Creationists have lost their potential to screw up science text books around the whole country.

That would be a win for public education."


HEAR! HEAR!

There should be no room for mythology in science class. Otherwise we'll get some bunch of nutballs proposing that Zeus be introduced as a potential source of lightning, and that 'the students should make up their own minds.'

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 3, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

You meant whiners, didn't you?

Posted by: jckdoors | March 3, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Another loser was Republican Hispanics in Texas, since the incumbent Chairman of the Railroad Commission (Victor Carrillo) was defeated for renomination by a nobody with a non-Hispanic name. This kind of thing that happens often in downballot GOP races; a Hispanic is appointed to a RR Commission or Supreme Court post by a Republican governor then defeated by an unfunded unknown candidate with a "white" name in the next primary.

Re: newspaper endorsements and Rick Perry--Perry made a public decision not to even ask for newspaper endorsements this time. So the fact that they all endorsed KBH is relatively meaningless, though she tried to get some mileage from it in her ads.

Posted by: Budikavlan | March 3, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed at the different electoral numbers being thrown out--the state of Texas website last night said 100 percent of the vote count was in and Medina had 17 percent of the vote...still neither 20 percent nor 17 is a winning number and a run off spoiler, only maybe...some who voted Medina might have voted for Hutchinson but that's a big assumption.

Posted by: mil1 | March 3, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

pmendez:

If Obamacare funds abortion, it's more than just "a little" plausible. I'm sure you are aware that Lincoln (intentionally?) provoked the Civil War by attempting to re-supply Fort Sumter. This is where I draw the line finally.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD!

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: Actually, the Reds lost the Spanish Civil War. The communists and the anarchists and the syndicalists spent too much time killing each other instead of fighting Franco.

Seriously, read up on the events leading to the Spanish Civil War. Spain had a constitutional republic. Left used increasingly un-constitutional means to marginalize the right. Right gave up on politics and the army tried to stage a coup. But the coup was poorly executed, and poor city people starting shooting at rich, religious country people.

Sound at least a little plausible?

Posted by: pmendez | March 3, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

For those who are SURE they wouldn't vote Perry for President:

You've only seen one year of Obama so far . . . never say never.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

leapin:

I love your posts, you know I do, but Reid and Pelosi cannot be "impeached" or otherwise recalled until November 2, 2010. It would take longer than that to amend the Constitution and provide for such a "recall" mechanism for Congress.

Along those lines, if Obamacare funds abortion, would you join me in another Civil War?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

So will Texas secede now? (just kidding . . .)

Good. Let Perry run for president. I can't wait to vote against him. And I'm a centrist, not a liberal.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | March 3, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris, if you think this country is going to elect another Governor of Texas as President, you need to go check in a home. Once in my lifetime is enough thanks and I even voted for him in 2000.

Posted by: NotBubba | March 3, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

We will have to wait for the R runoff in my district, but it may turn out that Creationists have lost their potential to screw up science text books around the whole country.

That would be a win for public education.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 3, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

You've got to be joking. We've already tried the "Idiot from Texas" route, and as they say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, we won't be fooled again."

Posted by: Ralphinjersey | March 3, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

One other loser: Texas newspaper endorsements, and perhaps newspaper endorsements everywhere.

http://www.texastribune.org/topics/endorsements/

Beyond the bigs, KBH was endorsed from Lubbock to Tyler. I do not think Goodhair got any endorsements at all. Someone in TX will correct me if I am wrong here, but the point remains. Newspaper endorsements were of no value.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 3, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Perry needs to get rid of all that government largess in his state. Perry hates government, yet the various government entities are one of the biggest employers in that state.

Perry is such a dumbbell. Or is he just treating the people of Texas as dumbbells?

Posted by: Maddogg | March 3, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Rick Perry for president??? You must be kidding. The guy's a f*ing idiot, plus he looks like a mafia thug.

Posted by: bb211 | March 3, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Just what we don't need, another republican president from Texas.

Posted by: lizharris817 | March 3, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

leapin wrote - and I'm not kidding:

"Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are basically ruling without the consent of the governed which makes then essentially impeachable."

What kind of drugs are you on, leapin?
They were duly elected, you right wing freak.

Posted by: jeffc6578
----------------------------------------
Left wing stoodge - Your medical maryjane must have come from a bad bunch. I didn't say they were not duly elected.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"Read up on the Spanish Civil War and you'll get a good idea of what we're in for. Not a regional conflict, but an ideological conflict.

Posted by: pmendez"

Don't the Communists always win these things anyways? Since they run everything in the US now, having a civil war just seems like a big circular runaround.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 3, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are basically ruling without the consent of the governed which makes then essentially impeachable.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 11:53 AM
*******************************************
Yeah? Explain how they're (a) governing (as opposed to what Bush, DeLay, and Lott were doing) and (b) do you understand the words "election" and "majority"?

Posted by: st50taw
------------------------------------------
-Barack Obama 4/25/05: “The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD:

You seem to be in a sad mood...

Posted by: pmendez"

I am extremely sleep deprived, also a bit hungry and my girlfriend is out of town, so that basic need is unfulfilled too. I forget what else Maslow says I need. I do have shelter, though.

That being said, I feel good. I'm making good progress on my dissertation. Thanks for the concern.

Also, I am really confident the HCR bill will get passed. That also lifts the spirits! :-D

Posted by: DDAWD | March 3, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

I want to stop all abortions, but not at the cost of sterilizing every female of child-bearing age. Same thing with Obamacare (if we can stop it now, that's better than reaping political gains by letting it pass). I was asking shrink2 the same question on a prior thread.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 3, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

leapin wrote - and I'm not kidding:

"Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are basically ruling without the consent of the governed which makes then essentially impeachable."

What kind of drugs are you on, leapin?
They were duly elected, you right wing freak.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | March 3, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are basically ruling without the consent of the governed which makes then essentially impeachable.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 11:53 AM
*******************************************
Yeah? Explain how they're (a) governing (as opposed to what Bush, DeLay, and Lott were doing) and (b) do you understand the words "election" and "majority"?

Posted by: st50taw | March 3, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Rick Perry for President?
I'd love to see it.
There's is a massive amount of footage of that anti-American SOB pushing for secession - It would be fun to see him try to explain that to the people of America who aren't from Texas, and who love this country.
Even better would be a debate including Rick Perry and Sarah Palin.
Whichever whack job gets the republican nomination could even ask Jim Bunning to be their running mate.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | March 3, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Very funny and very true besides he is an aggie ,aggies ain't too bright
If he ran for president he would cvome up with some republion lie about suceeding that he did not really mean it

Posted by: lildg54 | March 3, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

You seem to be in a sad mood...

Posted by: pmendez | March 3, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Perry as a Presidential candidate? What are you smoking? Or are you just trying to fill column space? You guys at the WaPo political desk are ready to pin the potential candidate label on anything that walks upright and has opposable thumbs.

Posted by: st50taw | March 3, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

JJEDIFF:

Sorry, but the 2nd Civil War is already baked into the mix.

Read up on the Spanish Civil War and you'll get a good idea of what we're in for. Not a regional conflict, but an ideological conflict.

Posted by: pmendez | March 3, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Rick Perry for President?
I'd love to see it.
There's is a massive amount of footage of that anti-American SOB pushing for secession - It would be fun to see him try to explain that to the people of America who aren't from Texas, and who love this country.
Even better would be a debate including Rick Perry and Sarah Palin.
Whichever whack job gets the republican nomination could even ask Jim Bunning to be their running mate.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | March 3, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Republicans should be happy, right? Democrats will use reconciliation to pass through the HCR bill. The Senate bill has passed and recon will be used to add on the little bit that Obama wrote. And that's it. Dems have the votes even without Stupak.

But this is what Republicans want, right? They claim that America hates the bill and voting for it is electoral suicide and blah, blah. So when the Democrats vote for it, Republicans will be able to take both the House and the Senate and then repeal the bill. Obama will veto it, but obviously the Republicans will control 2/3 of both the House and Senate so they can override the veto and then they can eliminate taxes for people making $100k and make gays chop off their penises, but lesbians can still make movies and black people will have to take literacy tests and all oak trees will be incinerated and obama will be deported to Africanistan and Palin will be declared queen and we can start wars with everyone and a nuclear holocaust is ok since we all go to jeezus anywyas, well, except for democrats and polar bears since they are jerks for needing icecaps to live.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 3, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Perry positioned to be president of what - Texas after they secede.

Posted by: rlj1 | March 3, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

By the way, Perry is also a secessionist, so maybe his rise to power can spark a second Civil War (the first Civil War was the bloodiest conflict in U.S. history), just like his mentor Dubya Bush almost sparked a second Great Depression.

Posted by: jjedif | March 3, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Cantor is admitting that he has no ideas at all, that the stuff they were pushing was phony, that he wants things to stay exactly as they are, as i originally stated but perhaps you are a little slow... most wingers are on the low IQ side so I understand.

Posted by: drindl
-------------------------------------------
Obama's political sleight of hand is basically putting a nice red cherry on top of a dung pile sundae.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

All this increasingly frantic Tea Party Movement bashing is sounding more and more to me like progressive elitists whistling past the graveyard.

"Sticks and stones" and all that...

See ya in November!

Posted by: pmendez | March 3, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Samantha, the tea partiers are basically anarchists, very similar to the Symbionese Liberation Party of the 70's. They beleive in the overthrow of government, which makes them, essentially, guilty of treason.
Posted by: drindl
------------------------------------------
Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are basically ruling without the consent of the governed which makes then essentially impeachable.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Cantor is admitting that he has no ideas at all, that the stuff they were pushing was phony, that he wants things to stay exactly as they are, as i originally stated but perhaps you are a little slow... most wingers are on the low IQ side so I understand.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Perry is the son that Bush never had...except Bush is actually a genius compared to Perry. Perry and Palin would be a match made in...what according to them...heaven. What it's not a heaven I'd every want to get stuck in.

Posted by: jjedif | March 3, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Some Dems, knowing White was a lock, also voted for Medina to attempt runoff chaos.

Posted by: brian72975 | March 3, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) was first, telling Obama that including his party's ideas was just "political cover."

In other words, Cantor is admitting they don't want to change the status quo -- it was all fake out. which is exactly what his insurance company benefactors want.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 11:24 AM

in other words, referring to Obama's health care bill, Cantor is admitting lipstick on a pig is still a pig.

Posted by: doof | March 3, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Samantha, the tea partiers are basically anarchists, very similar to the Symbionese Liberation Party of the 70's. They beleive in the overthrow of government, which makes them, essentially, guilty of treason.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Um, aligning with the teabaggers last May isn't early. FOX had been promoting them for months and they had their big day on April 15th. May is late in the game. I think an actual early supporter of them was Rush Limbaugh who brought them up during the 2009 CPAC back in February. By May, the bandwagon was in full gear and Perry was merely another jumper-on.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 3, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I realize that this is probably not the place to get an "unbiased" answer, but does anyone know what the Tea Party Movement is actually for?

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | March 3, 2010 11:37 AM


can anybody tell me what Obama and the democrats are for? what did they accomplish in the last year?

Posted by: doof | March 3, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin was a winner. She endorsed Perry. Now she needs to retract her endorsement of McCain.

Posted by: doof | March 3, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I realize that this is probably not the place to get an "unbiased" answer, but does anyone know what the Tea Party Movement is actually for?

I do know they say they are against taxation, and they seem to be ovewhelmingly caucasian, and some of them wear tea bags in their hats, but what are they actually in favor of?

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | March 3, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

The Texas election will boil down to who Perry, 39% last time, can convince to run as an independant and water down the vote.
People are getting tired of Single Party Rule, mediocre health care, education and high Insurance Premiums. If the Federal Government cut off funds to Texas, a welfare state, they'd be bankrupt.

Posted by: ddoiron1 | March 3, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I dont think the country is ready for another Texas Governor for President.

Posted by: vmrg1974 | March 3, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I dont think the country is ready for another Texas Governor for President.

Posted by: vmrg1974 | March 3, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I dont think the country is ready for another Texas Governor for President.

Posted by: vmrg1974 | March 3, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I dont think the country is ready for another Texas Governor for President.

Posted by: vmrg1974 | March 3, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

"President Obama today will offer his final stamp of approval on a compromise health care reform measure that Democrats hope can pass Congress in the coming month. Obama yesterday offered an olive branch to Republicans by telling congressional leaders he will include four GOP ideas in his plan.

But Republicans immediately dismissed the ideas and issued scolding statements saying Obama should scrap a year's worth of work on health care and start over.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) was first, telling Obama that including his party's ideas was just "political cover."

In other words, Cantor is admitting they don't want to change the status quo -- it was all fake out. which is exactly what his insurance company benefactors want.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I could use a good nothingburger right now.

Posted by: JakeD3 | March 3, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

I think Ron Paul's victory WAS a victory for the Tea Party movement. Opponents for his seat called themselves Tea Party, but never were. Note that he got 10% MORE of the vote than last primary when he was challenged by an out and out spendthrift neoconservative. There are people who have a different approach in his district, but it has nothing to do with the Tea Parties. That was just a marketing gimmick.

Posted by: sailingaway1 | March 3, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Nancy "I have a lot in common with those people carrying swastikas" Pelosi along with Perry connects with the Tea Party movement.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company