Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Bad Week for House Republicans



Republicans Reps. Mark Kirk, Jim Gerlach and Mike Castle are either in or considering statewide bids. AP Photo/George Widman

Twin decisions this week by Reps. Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Jim Gerlach (Pa.) to run for statewide office in 2010 have handed House Republicans a setback as they seek to build momentum heading into next November's election.

Kirk, although he has yet to formally announce, is widely expected to enter the open seat Senate race in Illinois while Gerlach is running for governor in Pennsylvania next year.

Both Kirk and Gerlach sit in Democratic-leaning districts that Republican strategists acknowledge privately will be almost impossible to hold. President Barack Obama carried Kirk's 10th district with 61 percent and Gerlach's 6th district wth 58 percent in 2008.

A third Democratic leaning seat could come open in short order as Delaware Rep. Mike Castle (R) is openly contemplating running for the Senate in 2010. Obama carried the First State with 62 percent in 2008.

We have written recently that Republican recruiting in the House has picked up in the first six months of the 2010 cycle but, of course, the flip side of that argument is that the same increased enthusiasm and optimism among Republican politicians leads them to make runs for higher office.

While Republicans will make real efforts in the seats of Kirk, Gerlach and Castle (if it comes open), the underlying demographics -- not to mention that each of the seats is in a very expensive media market -- argue against their ability to keep the seat under their control in 2010.

Couple that trio of seats with Louisiana's 2nd district -- a strongly Democratic seat won in a stunning upset by Rep. Joseph Cao (R) in a 2008 runoff -- and it's not unreasonable to think that Democrats are in very strong position to pick up at least four Republican-held districts, a nice position for a party with a 40-seat majority to be in so early in the cycle.

A look at the broad national playing field still suggests that Republicans are in a position to gain seats in the 2010 midterm election -- especially when once considers that Democrats picked up more than 50 seats in the last two elections, leaving GOPers with lots (and lots) of targets.

But, the four districts mentioned above give Democrats a head start in preventing substantial seat losses in 2010.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 14, 2009; 3:22 PM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Jim DeMint's Lonely Quest
Next: Morning Fix: Winners and Losers, Sotomayor Day 2

Comments

Jim Gerlach may as well back out of the Governor's race & run for US Senate against Toomey. Gerlach could make a real run at Specter, if he could beat Toomey in a primary. Toomey is very unlikely to give Specter, or even Sestek. Gelrach could give Specter a run for his money, and would likely be the favorite against Sestek. No mistake, my money is still on Specter to keep his seat. Senate Republicans have to be feeling pretty good and are having about all the recruiting success thus far this cycle. Cornyn is doing a great job with recruiting & raising cash. He's likely now to get Kirk & Castle, now if he can get Gelrach to drop the governor's race & run for US Senate.

Posted by: reason5 | July 15, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Those are actual numbers, Jake; your "60 million" is opium smoke

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 15, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | July 15, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

If she runs as a Republican, she will get more than 60 million votes.

==

130 million voters

20% are Republican

71% say they "might" vote for her.

20% x 71% x 130 million = 18.5 million

Rounding up to 20 for the vanishingly small number of independents (the real kind, not your fake-out party) who'd be irresponsible enough to vote for her.

You live in a dream.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 15, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

If she runs as a Republican, she will get more than 60 million votes. Does anyone ELSE want to discuss that (or, God forbid, the thread topic)?

Posted by: JakeD | July 15, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

CORRECTION: Quayle raised $2,106,323.42 first quarter 1999. Obviously, if she decides to run, Palin will be able to raise much more than that.

==

So? She'll be luck to get 20 million votes nationwide. Everyone knows she's an idiot.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 15, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

CORRECTION: Quayle raised $2,106,323.42 first quarter 1999. Obviously, if she decides to run, Palin will be able to raise much more than that.

P.S. to Mecaenas -- as long as you answer my questions in a civil manner, I will return the same courtesy to you.

Posted by: JakeD | July 15, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

One difference, of course, is that Dan Quayle never raised $1 million plus for his own run for the White House. Why don't you worry about your own politics and let us do the same here?

Posted by: JakeD

==

He can post whatever he likes, you don't run this forum. You try to, repeating a small palette of stock phrases like a script-bot, but anyone who surfs here is on an equal footing. Deal.

As for Palin's million, so what? Dan Quayle ran with Bush the Greater, he didn't flummox around in a series of impulsive stunts looking for attention like an 8th-grade cheerleader. Palin has been in the press for ten months, constantly, she has the rabid support of millions of shabby low-class voters, and all she can raise is a lousy $900K? That's freakin' peanuts.

Some people probably spent more than that on fireworks a few weeks ago, to set off in their driveways.

A lot of petty lawsuits are settled for more than that.

A law library in a middlin' law office costs more than that.

As much controversy swirls around your Harpy-Barbie, you'd think she would have raised a hundred million.

Why don't you sell your trailer and your other shirt and send the money to her PAC?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 15, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats will maintain control of the House for years to come.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 15, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Mecaenas:

One difference, of course, is that Dan Quayle never raised $1 million plus for his own run for the White House. Why don't you worry about your own politics and let us do the same here?

Posted by: JakeD | July 15, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Congressman Jim Gerlach announced his candidacy for Governor of Pennsylvania. Problem is, he didn't come to Pennsylvania to do it. Isn't that the way it's done? You appear IN the state (hometown, congreesional district, state capitol) at a presser with the state flag behind you, surrounded by your family, your Republican mentors, your homies? He could have tweeted it, I suppose.

Whatev's, this district is going blue.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 15, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I thought the purpose of the analysis of Sonia Sotamayor was to assess her competance to be a supreme court judge. If that is so what is the relevance of her not being a descendant of a North European. Do non North Europeans have a strange shaped brain or odd sense of logic or morality?, do they eat with their knife held in their left hand? or is all this interrogation stuff just a game played out by people with little else to do?

Question ,., is Sarah Palin more important than former VP Dan Quayle? Is so could someone tell me why and how. If she is not, why do people still prattle on about her?

If your President Obama has insulted us English then somehow or other it seems to have escaped the notice of the English press...its the first Ive heard of it. We normally rely on the French to do that.

When I read that a huge sum of money was to be devoted to expanding education I thought for just a moment that President Obama was announcing the formation of a U.S.style Open University similar to that which we have had these 40 years and now acknowledge by all parties as a major contributor to the health, wealth and knowledge of the people of this country. Maybe we should go international with it as some contributors to this column might find it of great benefit.

Suns shining in England... Stock market is up. Unemployment is at 2.6M. House prices record three consecutive months of growth. Eight British soliers came home in coffins from Afghanistan - 48% of people support our being there. Parliament is off on holiday.

Posted by: Mecaenas | July 15, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Answer me first Click! For the Record amp! In a civil manner Whrrrrr! Birth Certificate Amp-Click! Watermelons Hussein! Amp. Answer me first first first first Click.

Posted by: nodebris | July 15, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

That's not an answer.

Posted by: JakeD | July 15, 2009 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Every week is going to be a bad week for House and Senate Republicans as long as they remain the party favoring the rich, business interests, torture, militaristic neo-con foreign policies while opposing equal rights for gay persons, universal health care and basic science. Sounds like the modern version of the Know-Nothing party.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | July 15, 2009 2:30 AM | Report abuse

She has to get her messianic victim status established.

==

'member some of those people interviewed at her rallies?

"Sarah Palin is filled with the HOLY SPIRIT"

uh, yeah, 'scuse me this is my floor

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 15, 2009 2:20 AM | Report abuse

You answer my question first.

==

This IS an act, isn't it?

I really need to believe it's an act. Otherwise there isn't enough aspirin in the world

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 15, 2009 2:18 AM | Report abuse

You answer my question first.

Posted by: JakeD | July 15, 2009 1:46 AM | Report abuse

I thought you were ignoring me instead?

==

Speaking on behalf of probably most readers here .. don't you EVER tire of repeating yourself?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 15, 2009 1:17 AM | Report abuse

For reasons unclear, "Phalin 2012" and and "imminent GOP comeback" have been the predominant themes in this space for the last few months even though neither narrative is supported by the ground facts, only by Kristol/Fox talking points.

==

Maybe someone at WaPo is chanting over a pile of entrails .. "make it so ... make it so ..."

DAMN that liberal bias to reality!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 15, 2009 1:16 AM | Report abuse

I thought you were ignoring me instead?

Posted by: JakeD | July 15, 2009 12:42 AM | Report abuse

To Kelly14, so the exact same statement is only "outrageous" if the speaker belongs to the majority?

Posted by: JakeD

==

I was going to make some expression of incredulity but then, I guess you really ARE this dumb.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 15, 2009 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Goldman is Nemesis.

This is not a bank this is government.


Posted by: shrink2 | July 14, 2009 11:26 PM | Report abuse

music playing...

"keep on looking on the briiiiaaght side of life!"

Mrs. Palin is figure right out of the Life of Brian. She could be a post-modern Jesus archetype and she does not even know it, except she wishes she knew, she can sort of tell.

She has to get her messianic victim status established. Karl? Karl!?

Posted by: shrink2 | July 14, 2009 11:07 PM | Report abuse

"It's why Sarah Palin can be sliced apart for things said by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live while Joe Biden is treated seriously despite being the biggest doofus ever to occupy the Vice-Presidency."

Incidentally, I love the Biden guy on Saturday Night Live.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 14, 2009 11:01 PM | Report abuse

"Barack Obama is spending us into [foolish irrational rightwing junk omitted]... favorite bar"

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 4:04 PM
_________
The above makes just as much sense as the full text of the post.

Give my regards to Audra Shay.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 14, 2009 9:22 PM | Report abuse

"...especially when once considers that Democrats picked up more than 50 seats in the last two elections, leaving GOPers with lots (and lots) of targets."

Since this is the second time CC has made this "point", I just have to bring up Custer's last day, or the Alamo. They may have gotten massacred, but hey, did they look on the bright side? Did it occur to them they had an ever growing number of targets?

Posted by: shrink2 | July 14, 2009 4:55 PM
__________
For reasons unclear, "Phalin 2012" and and "imminent GOP comeback" have been the predominant themes in this space for the last few months even though neither narrative is supported by the ground facts, only by Kristol/Fox talking points.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 14, 2009 9:13 PM | Report abuse

To Kelly14, so the exact same statement is only "outrageous" if the speaker belongs to the majority?

Posted by: JakeD | July 14, 2009 9:13 PM | Report abuse

¡y viva chorizo!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 9:08 PM | Report abuse

The exact SS quote was: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."
_______
The part of the quote most critics ignore is "who hasn't lived that life." In other words, the wise Latina would make better decisions than a white male WITHOUT her experience. IF he had that experience, his decisionmaking, SS would argue, would be just as good.

As for the need to convince Senators of this or that, Judge Sonia is expected to get mote votes than Alito (who stonewalled the Committee on questions about his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (seems "CAP" was concerned about the same thing that the swim club in Pa. was)) did. Even Graham, one of her most out-of-control critics, has said her confirmation is a done deal absent a meltdown.

Viva Sonia. Viva beans and rice. Viva pigs feet.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 14, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment was unfortunate (she has acknowledged as much). And if it had been made at a time when Latinos were the racial majority of this country, I would think it outrageous. But it wasn't and it isn't.

Graham and Sessions know it too. Oh yes they do.

Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, guys. Enough already.

Posted by: Kelly14 | July 14, 2009 8:45 PM | Report abuse

"A look at the broad national playing field still suggests that Republicans are in a position to gain seats in the 2010 midterm election -- especially when once considers that Democrats picked up more than 50 seats in the last two elections, leaving GOPers with lots (and lots) of targets."
________

I hope that you will expand on this in future columns. What seats are the Repubs likely to take?

I also hope that Charlie and his parents are well.

Posted by: Kelly14 | July 14, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Lisa421: I think you uh people have milked this inconsequential remark for as much bloody milk as you possibly can. And it looks like this is all you have.

Better get used to "Justice Sotomayor."

And I bet at least one of the conservatives kicks bucket in the next eight years.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 8:28 PM | Report abuse

That is what I expect from Sotomayor as well, but we could be surprised too. The Republicans just need to hold things together until August 3rd. Hopefully, Obama's healthcare takeover does not pass before then.

Posted by: Lisa421 | July 14, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Lisa. Big whoop. Another liberal shiboleth from messiah destroyed by common sense and overwhelming popular opinion. Like that ever stopped a lib once established in power. They lie through their teeth to grab the reins.

How many empty campaign promises has Barry shattered?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

At least she shot down President Obama's characterization of a judge's heart making the decision. She says that she would only apply the law to the facts. Now, whether enough Senators believe her is the question.

Posted by: Lisa421 | July 14, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

To broadwayjoe, it is not a "claim of white male exceptionalism and privilege" to simply point out that a "wise Latino (sic) woman" does not necessarily make "better" decisions. Too bad you cannot admit that Sotomayor's comment is the arrogant claim of exceptionalism.

Posted by: Lisa421 | July 14, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Bad week for Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, too. Pulitzer Prize winner Gene Robinson (whose columns oddly never seem to qualify for "Fix Picks") on the Sotomayor hearings and the bogus charge of "identity politics."

Excerpt:

"The only real suspense in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is whether the Republican Party will persist in tying its fortunes to an anachronistic claim of white male exceptionalism and privilege.

Republicans' outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor's musings about how her identity as a "wise Latina" might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any "identity" -- black, brown, female, gay, whatever -- has to be judged against this supposedly "objective" standard.""

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 14, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Just what do Libs think the CIA does?

==

why they bombs muzzies, right?

kerHUCK! kerHUCK!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Obimbo is so totally clueless he is trying to compensate by appointing sone 35 czars and 70 other aides. Not a single person is responsible and there is no inherent knowledge resident. If you need a job and cheat on your taxes and the cabinet is full, donate to obimbo and become a czar.

Does it smell like cccp yet?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Remember, folks, PgUp is your friend

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Why the hell would anyone wanting to hold national office choose to run as a Republican?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"...especially when once considers that Democrats picked up more than 50 seats in the last two elections, leaving GOPers with lots (and lots) of targets."

Since this is the second time CC has made this "point", I just have to bring up Custer's last day, or the Alamo. They may have gotten massacred, but hey, did they look on the bright side? Did it occur to them they had an ever growing number of targets?

Posted by: shrink2 | July 14, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I love how all the moonbat peacenik Libs know every last detail about intelligence, the CIA, the NSA and the laws.

Of course right after they get their thoughts form Kos.

I almost had to break out laughing when I wrote Libs and inteligence in the same sentence.

But I do recall that Peloony stated that the CIA lies all the time. so are they lying now? Or is it more likely that the Libs are disgracefully covering their own ineptutude and lies with this bunk?

In the end, the Libs are angry with Cheney for planning on killing terrorists. Just what do Libs think the CIA does?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Once again, I seem to have accidentally (and most unwillingly) chanced upon King_of_Zouk's private blog.

It makes me think of George Bernard Shaw's remark to Mrs. Patrick Campbell when she suggested they have a child together by saying, 'Imagine with my looks and your brains what the child might become!' 'Ah, but my dear lady, what if it were the reverse?'

Clearly, only an infinitesimal number of bloggers' parents ever had such a conversation!

Posted by: sverigegrabb | July 14, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

WHERE IS DICK AND LIZ CHENEY ON THESE NEW CHARGES?

Why Isn’t Cheney in Jail?

As I wrote yesterday about the CIA program that Panetta recently disclosed to Congress:

As a former CIA agent says, the real question is who ordered the CIA to withhold the information from Congress.

In a nation of laws, Bush, Cheney or whoever in the White House ordered the cover-up of the operation would be prosecuted.

We now know who ordered the cover-up.

It was in fact Cheney.

According to the New York Times:

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees…

The disclosure about Mr. Cheney’s role in the unidentified C.I.A. program comes a day after an inspector general’s report underscored the central role of the former vice president’s office in restricting to a small circle of officials knowledge of the National Security Agency’s program of eavesdropping without warrants, a degree of secrecy that the report concluded had hurt the effectiveness of the counterterrorism surveillance effort.

This is not the first time Cheney has broken the law.

Posted by: opp88 | July 14, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I think the utter futility of the Dems attempt to change subjects to avoid their errors and ineptitude is precisely on topic.

Repubs running next year is not that urgent now is it? Meanwhile the Libs prance out the "Evil Cheney" meme to avoid responsibility for anything ever.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure that the Republicans will take a Senate seat and a governorship over two House seats.

BTW: KoZ has a little too much free time today. You think he could find *something* on topic.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 14, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting that the messiahs book is not allowed in prison because it is so subversive of american morals?

Remember all that stuff we told you Libs before the election? you know, the spsnding, the corruption, the weakness, the inexperience, the anti-americanism, the incompetence?

Told You SO.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Contrary to the Lies and Untruths issuing from the America-hating GOP, they are going to lose even MORE seats.

America has had enough of the No Ideas Party of No and their penchant for blaspheming in God's Name and pretending to be moral people.

The Commandment against Lying was not a suggestion - it was a command.

Posted by: WillSeattle | July 14, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

At the same time those Republicans are giving up their current seats, (probably) to Democrats, they are giving their Democratic opponent in the race they are opting for a big helping hand, because, in running for the Senate they will bring their obstructionist records to a contest in states where such obstructionism is no recommendation. They bring legislative records that they would basically have to run against. And running for governor of Pennsylvania on a cut taxes and live with it record puts Jim Gerlach in the same unenviable position as John Kasich will be in shortly, trying to explain how he will be able to finance a state with lots of problems while cutting its income by whatever amount he can get past the legislature. Translation: No change in the Senate, non among the governorships and three losses in the house.

But it wasn't going to be a good year for Republicans any way, and perhaps Kirk, Gerlach, and Castle may each have reached the same conclusion, that they are history anyway, better to lose at the next level than to lose where you already sit.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 14, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Disarray. That's one word to describe the status of the Obama administration's legislative program as Congress heads into its final four weeks of work before the August recess.

All this sounds like muddling by incompetents, but in fact these Democratic legislators are (mostly) highly competent, and they are trying to do very hard things: restructure government regulation of -- or establish government control over -- one-sixth (health care) and one-tenth (energy) of the economy. And they're dealing with a president who has shown a striking lack of interest in details and whose signal legislative achievement so far -- the $787 billion stimulus package passed in February -- has visibly failed in its asserted goal of holding unemployment down to 8 percent.

Polls show that most voters -- and increasing numbers of independents -- are queasy about vastly increased government spending and more concerned about bolstering the economy than about reshaping health care or addressing projected global warming. They've noticed that the stimulus package hasn't delivered the promised results. Do they want to turn over the health care and energy sectors to a president inattentive to details and congressional leaders in disarray?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is dumb: Yes, I know that Barack Obama went to Columbia University and Harvard Law School. However, George W. Bush also went to Harvard and no one on the Left ever seemed to think that made it difficult to hang the "dumb" label around his neck. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Yet and still, was it George Bush who claimed that there were more than 57 states? Did Bush say he saw our "fallen heroes" in the audience during a speech? Was it George Bush who made a racist comment about "typical white people?" Did W. spend 20 years without complaint at a church where the pastor spouted off ignorant, anti-Semitic ideas and conspiracy theories? Was George Bush so much of an airhead that he actually ended up "thanking himself in a speech" because that's what his teleprompter said to do? Was it George W. Bush who tried to walk into the White House through a window? If Barack Obama were a Republican, the words "Too dumb to be President?" would have already appeared beside of his picture thousands of times by now.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Nevertheless, Barack Obama promised us a new day when he got into the White House. Oh, we were going to see what real diplomacy looks like when Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office! However, that hasn't worked out so well, has it? Obama has managed to insult our best allies in Britain multiple times, he sold our Eastern European allies out to the Russians, who incidentally, have run rings around him so far, and he stayed silent for far too long when he should have been speaking up for the people in Iran. Obama has also sided with a dictator-wannabe over freedom-loving people in Honduras, the Taliban have taken over half the country in Pakistan under his watch, and he is already proving to be the most anti-Israeli President we've had in the White House for decades. In other words, our friends now wonder if they can rely on us and our enemies have been emboldened. Even Jimmy Carter took a couple of years to screw things up this badly on the foreign policy front.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is spending us into bankruptcy: George Bush was savagely criticized by the Right for his spending. In fact, it was the single biggest criticism of him throughout his administration -- and rightfully so. The Left even got in on the act. The mainstream media hammered Bush for the deficit and so did the Democrats, despite the fact that they always seemed to be screeching that we weren't spending enough money.

Fast forward to Barack Obama, who is already the biggest spender we've ever had in the White House. The previous champ, FDR, at least had a depression and WWII to deal with. On the other hand, at a time when ordinary Americans have had to cut back, Obama supported Bush's 700 billion dollar plus TARP bill and funneled hundreds of billions of dollars to fat cats in the banking industry. He spent billions more of your money helping his union pals at Chrysler and GM. He slammed through a stimulus bill that will cost more than a trillion dollars despite the fact that it hasn't stimulated the economy -- and since economists were already projecting that the economy would recover in the 2nd half of 2009, if not now, then when? Meanwhile, Obama wants to take over the health care system, he wants to spend billions on Cap and Trade, and they've even been floating the idea of a 2nd Stimulus Bill. Bush may have been like an irresponsible person who was living month to month by paying bills with his credit card, but Obama's like someone taking out a third mortgage on his mother’s house so he can spend the next few months buying rounds of beer for his friends at his favorite bar

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Most liberals in this country are intellectually dishonest which is why they don't have the slightest qualms about grotesque double standards. That's why Al Gore can live in a mansion that consumes energy like a football stadium while he tells you to cut back. It's why Sarah Palin can be sliced apart for things said by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live while Joe Biden is treated seriously despite being the biggest doofus ever to occupy the Vice-Presidency. It's also why Barack Obama gets a free pass for many of the same things that George Bush was criticized for doing. Here are just a few of the criticisms aimed at George Bush that could be better applied to Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is a shameless liar: Bush lied! Bush lied! Bush lied! How many times did we hear that over the last eight years? It was repeated endlessly despite the fact that whatever else you want to say about George Bush, he could fairly be called one of the most honest politicians in America. That's why the "lies" he was supposed to be telling were always things like, "He thought there were WMDS in Iraq, but there weren't" or "Bush said he wants to bring democracy to Iraq, but he's lying!"

Meanwhile, Barack Obama has already broken more campaign promises in less than six months than Bush did in two terms. Obama promised no tax increases for people under $250,000 and he's working on multiple bills, including health care and cap and trade, that would raise taxes even on the poor. He promised transparency, to hold all bills for 5 days before they are signed so the public could comment. It hasn't happened once yet. Barack even promised to "negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN." How's that pie-in-the-sky promise working out?

Additionally, almost everyone reading this article could probably name off at least one or two more whoppers that President Jug Ears has reeled off. During the campaign, he was promising fluffy rainbows and multi-colored kittens to make every child in the world happy and now that Obama's President, it's "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't really matter, just like FDR who knew 1928(Al Smith didn't get the memo) was going to be a republican year, 2010 will also be a republican year. We could run just about anybody next year and still win. Our fiscal year still has three months left in it and we are already a trillion in the hole. We are building a national debt that will simply break our backs in the near future if we do not reform medicaid/medicare and Social Security, plus discretionary spending. My advice, go short on the market.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 14, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

i applauded McC for his straight talk in MI. I am glad the Prez is following suit.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 14, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama took a dose of reality to Michigan on Tuesday, saying that thousands of jobs lost to the auto industry's downturn are not coming back and it is time to prepare for new industries. (Snip)... Obama planned to promote a $12 billion initiative to boost community colleges and increase the graduation rate.


didn't McCain get ridiculed for this on the campaign. It only took Obimbo six months to figure it out.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Swing districts are more difficult to identify in 2009 than they were in 1959, but they do exist. Demographic shifts can make safe districts become swing districts.

i assume Kirk and Gerlach come from swing districts. I know Castle does because his CD is the entire state.
Cornyn is backing relatively moderate Rs for the Senate.
What will be the strategy of the Rs in swing CDs?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 14, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company