Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

House Democrats try to stay on offense heading into 2010 midterms

Faced with a difficult national political environment and daunting historical trends heading into the 2010 midterm elections, House Democratic strategists have long subscribed to an age-old cliche: a best defense is a good offense.

In a political context, that means finding Republican-held seats where Democrats can make pickups -- or attempt pickups -- this fall in hopes of mitigating what appear likely to be significant losses across the country in their own ranks.

This morning the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee showed a bit of its hand in that regard with the release of its "Red to Blue" list of Republican-held districts and open seats where the party believes it can win.

Of the baker's dozen of races on the list, President Barack Obama carried nine in 2008: California's 3rd (49 percent), California's 45th (52 percent), Delaware's at large (62 percent), Illinois' 10th (61 percent), Nebraska's 2nd (50 percent), Ohio's 12th (54 percent), Pennsylvania's 7th (56 percent), 15th (56 percent) and Washington's 8th (57 percent). (Pennsylvania's 7th district is a Democratic open seat.)

In the remaining four "Red to Blue" seats, President Obama won 49 percent (Florida's 12th), 45 percent (South Carolina's 2nd), 43 percent (Tennessee's 8th) and 40 percent (Kansas' 4th).

While the 49 districts currently held by Democrats that Arizona Sen. John McCain carried in 2008 get the lion's share of attention heading into the 2010 midterms, it may well be the 33 districts held by Republicans and won by Obama that make the difference between majority and minority status for Democrats.

If Democrats can steal seven to ten (or so) of those Republican-held Obama districts, they make the majority bar that much higher for Republicans who go from needing 40 seats to looking at a pickup of 50-ish Democratic seats to retake the majority

A quick glance at those 33 -- the full list is after the jump -- suggests two states may be looked back on as Democratic missed opportunities: California and Michigan.

Of the eight(!) California congressional seats that Obama won in 2008, only two made the "Red to Blue" list. That means that people like Reps. Elton Gallegly, Buck McKeon, David Dreier and Brian Bilbray may escape serious challenges in swing districts.

Ditto Michigan's four seats -- the 4th, 6th, 8th and 11th -- where Obama won in November 2008. None of that quartet of districts made "Red to Blue" including the seats of Reps. Fred Upton and Thad McCotter each of which Obama won with 54 percent in 2008. (Filing doesn't close in Michigan until May 11 so Democrats still have some time to find serious challengers in those Obama districts.)

Of course, simply because a race doesn't make the "Red to Blue" list doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't being targeted by Democrats; a good example is Louisiana's 2nd, which is perhaps the best pickup chance in the country for Democrats (Obama won it with 75 percent) but doesn't appear on the list.

And, in any election, there are a handful of districts where both sides feel as though they could have -- and should have -- made competitive but didn't.

That said, faced with a very tough election cycle, House Democrats have to miss as few races as possible. Their margin for error isn't terribly large.

Republican-held districts won by Obama in 2008
California's 3rd (Obama won with 49 percent)
California's 24th (51)
California's 25th (49)
California's 26th (51)
California's 44th (50)
California's 45th (52)
California's 48th (49)
California's 50th (51)
Delaware's At-Large (62)
Florida's 10th (52)
Florida's 18th (51)
Illinois' 6th (56)
Illinois' 10th (61)
Illinois' 13th (54)
Illinois' 16th (53)
Iowa's 4th (53)
Louisiana's 2nd (75)
Michigan's 4th (50)
Michigan's 6th (54)
Michigan's 8th (53)
Michigan's 11th (54)
Minnesota's 3rd (52)
Nebraska's 2nd (50)
New Jersey's 2nd (54)
New Jersey's 7th (50)
Ohio's 12th (54)
Pennsylvania's 6th (58)
Pennsylvania's 15th (56)
Virginia's 4th (50)
Virginia's 10th (53)
Washington's 8th (57)
Wisconsin's 1st (51)
Wisconsin's 6th (50)

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 10, 2010; 9:43 AM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Assessing the Eric Massa impact (or lack thereof)
Next: Meg Whitman's odd press strategy

Comments

Updated 1:32 p.m.

By Ben Pershing

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) introduced a bill Thursday calling for the House ethics committee to restart its probe of ex-Representative Eric Massa (D-N.Y.), as Republicans seek to focus attention on what Democratic leaders knew about Massa's behavior and when they knew it.

Rather than approve the measure outright, the House voted, 402 to 1, to refer the bill to the ethics committee. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) was the lone "no" vote, and 15 lawmakers -- many of them members of the ethics panel -- voted "present."

Though technically the panel is now under no obligation to act, it is likely the committee will follow the instructions laid out in Boehner's resolution.

The bill directs the ethics committee "to investigate fully ... which House Democratic leaders and members of their respective staffs had knowledge prior to March 3, 2010 of the aforementioned allegations concerning Mr. Massa, and what actions each leader and staffer having any such knowledge took after learning of the allegations." The measure orders the panel to report its findings by June 30.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 11, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi knew about Massa in OCTOBER!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 11, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting to note that sixteen of these districts are in just three states. In all three cases the top of the ballot race is going to look very different in 2010 to 2008.

Obama won Michigan with a margin of almost 17 points. Everyone expects the Republicans to win the gubernatorial election there this year.

Obama won California by 24 points. The gubernatorial election there is likely to be very close.

Obama won Illinois by 25 points. Again, the gubernatorial election is likely to be very close.

Note, the GOP does not have to win either CA or IL this year for the environment to look very different to 2008.

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

Al Queda is VERY WELL KNOWN for using multiple bomb plots - and multiple planes in its attacks.


So, instead of questioning the Detroit bomber on the possibility of additional bombs, Obama gives the terrorists a lawyer.


We have to wait 5 weeks for any intelligence.


THAT IS PUTTING THE LIVES OF AMERICANS AT RISK UNNECESSARILY.


Obama SHOULD RESIGN IMMEDIATELY FOR JUST THAT.


This is not an impeachable offense ??? Yes it is.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

But you have NO choice about getting out of where you are, do you, zouk. Nope. You're stuck there fir the rest of your nasty pointless life.

So have fun ranting against liberals and the President, get as sick and derisive as you like, invent whatever snide s hitty mockery gloats your boat. We're out here living life and you're in the loony bin with nothing more to do than curse your non-crazy superiors online, until you get your Internet privs taken away by your doctor.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 10, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

. Whether you agree with HC reform or not at least Ds are paying for most of it


What color is the sky in your world. You are delusional.

Nice try and you did better than most of the loons on this site, but the facts don't support your position in the least.

You have utterly confounded past projections and manipulations with actual and present projections. You made the right choice getting out of finance.

Posted by: Moonbat | March 10, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

don't play well with the other "children".

couldn t have said that any better myself.

Unfortunaely anyone who does not agree with your unintelligible comments is met with ugly personal insults. Onve again we all get it you hate Obama and want him impeached and replaced with Sarah Palin. Its getting really old to read that constant rant.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

the difference as you constantly state is that Bush kept the wars off budget the same with his tax cuts and medicare Part D which will go forever and lead to trillions inf future debt. liberal finance whiz? No from the CBO and Budget Commitee Reports. You can whine all you want but Bush and Hastert made it clear during the Medicare Part D debate and that phony vote that went on for 6 hours by Dennis Hastert and DeLay that no one on your side complained about it not neing paid for. I know b/c DeLay was my Congressman at the time and when I spoke with his office in Sugarland Texas they made it perfectly clear that its effect on the deficit did not concern them in the least b/c it was off budget and according to them didn't count. Whether you agree with HC reform or not at least Ds are paying for most of it unlike the current faux deficit hawks who made zero effort to pay for their tax cuts, Medicare Part D or the war. Facts are a stubborn thing so whine all you want to b/c even most rationale conservatives understand that those Bush error unfunded policies exploded the deficit far more than anything Obama has done.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

no I wanted the tax cut and Medciare D to be honestly included in the deficit projections and not designated as an off budget emergency expenditure like a hurricane or earthquake.

Wow. You confused actual with projected again. Perhaps finance is not your thing. Maybe something a little more fact free and math lite. Like law.

Posted by: Moonbat | March 10, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

My facts come directly from a table of data from the agency charged with recording the information

the liberal finance whiz finds some lefty policy institute that does some "analysis" and comes up with the usual liberal lie.

Now what exactly is wrong with the raw data that the finance whiz is trying to disguise?

Simple. Everyone knows libs are spending like there's no tomorrow. There may not be at this rate. Triple the expense the first year.

Now how stupid do you have to be to actually think Obama is frugal?

Posted by: Moonbat | March 10, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Al Queda is VERY WELL KNOWN for using multiple bomb plots - and multiple planes in its attacks.


So, instead of questioning the Detroit bomber on the possibility of additional bombs, Obama gives the terrorists a lawyer.


We have to wait 5 weeks for any intelligence.


THAT IS PUTTING THE LIVES OF AMERICANS AT RISK UNNECESSARILY.


Obama SHOULD RESIGN IMMEDIATELY FOR JUST THAT.


This is not an impeachable offense ??? Yes it is.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1


The wars are going to be OVER - the spending will STOP.


That is the big difference.

The democrats want to create a program with uncertain costs and which will go on FOREVER -


The costs will SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL.


That is the difference.


.


Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1


We can all see that you have learned how to copy-and-paste on the computer.

Congratulations.

Beyond that, no one knows what you are talking about - and you lack basic comprehension skills.


And you don't play well with the other children.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

"you wanted the cost of the entire war paid for in the first year"

no I wanted the tax cut and Medciare D to be honestly included in the deficit projections and not designated as an off budget emergency expenditure like a hurricane or earthquake.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorites quotes about the deficit and national debt, you decide:

http://www.cbpp.org/about/

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Bush Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook
"Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections.

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [6] (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure 1).

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.[7]"

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I see now. you wanted the cost of the entire war paid for in the first year. same with everything else.

I knew it was some mush brained notion from some lefty website:

the conservation report.

Kos would have been better.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

http://conservationreport.com/2010/01/15/politics-bush-ii-administrations-%E2%80%9Cunpaid-for-policies-will-continue-to-add-trillions-to-our-deficit%E2%80%9D/

CRS: "Congress has approved a total of about $944 billion" for operations "initiated since the 9/11 attacks" through the end the 2009 fiscal year. In a September 2009 report titled "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) stated, "Congress has approved a total of about $944 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans' health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks." CRS added, "This $944 billion total covers all appropriations approved by Congress for FY2001 to meet war needs through FY2009," which ended September 30, 2009.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

You asked for souces that the war, tax cuts and Part D were off budget "emergency expenditures here they are; incidentally Bush inherited a surplus.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

More sad is that serial plagiarist drivl/moonbat/snowbama/king_of_zouk doesn't even come up with his own material, but cuts and pastes the kool aide from his favored selective-fact sources.


Posted by: bsimon1


It seems simple simon, like most liberals, prefers to simply invent facts, his own material, budget numbers that tell a good story. the global warming/cooling efforts prove this.

It also seems that independent sources, like the CBO, are not partisan enought to qualify as a liberal source. I wonder if Greenpeace has some data we can use. Or perhaps code pink?

the problem with liberalism these days is the internet. We can fact check the lies in minutes.

Poor Harry was caught in a doozy at the summit, saying no one is talking about reconciliation, only to have the video emerge almost immediately.

Poor barry has the same touble keeping his billions and trillions straight. no matter there, no one beleives a word he says anymore.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Cheney exactly like you attacks terrorists having legal counsel. You by stating that Obama went out and personally hired legal counsel for them, which is about the most inane comment I have read from all of your rants here. Those were you precise words which you now want to deny posting even though you posted it at 2:29 pm. Its called the 6th Amendment. Do either you or Ms. Cheney get that? Since you love the Constitution so much why not try actually reading it.

I am not about to waste any more time reading of your all cap posts screaming lib, liberals,that you hate Obama, want to impeach Obama because he disagrees with you(an unusual but predictable comment from you), ad nausea. Not interested. Take your garbage elsewhere.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

You will notice the liberals either

1. flee when confronted with facts

2. chant the same thing over again as if it will be more convincing if chanted louder

why don't you finance whizzes show me exactly what you are talking about with some facts from a source that isn't linked from Kos.

CBO would be fine.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I think I understand the source of the poor liberal math whiz's confusion.

when a President proposes a budget to congress at the beginnign of a year, it is often broken down into various components. This is very confusing to liberals as they are very weak at adding up things, only at subtracting.

the press, being the plebes that they are report the fraud involved with not releasing things like DoD prices and CIA funds. they then claim that these are missing from the budget, which they are.

By the end of the year, the CBO rolls everything up into a single number which they publish to compare across the years in an orthodox fashion. all the pieces are included, even wars and social security and liberal boondoggles. did the money for a war dissappear? Of course not.

now if you like creative accounting to fool the voters, all you have to do is collect money all decade long and only spend once you leave office. this is how barry's health care bill meant to cut costs "only" costs every one of us an additional 2500 per year. Next decade it will be more than twice that.

these are CBO numbers, not invented moonbat fantasies that liberals like to throw around with aplomb.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"ignoring the liberal math whiz fictions the actual numbers are:

2008: -458B
2009: -1413B"


Left unsaid is that the crazy liberal math whiz fictions involve principles like putting the costs of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan into the budget, rather than funding them as supplementals that aren't reflected in the numbers drivl uses.

More sad is that serial plagiarist drivl/moonbat/snowbama/king_of_zouk doesn't even come up with his own material, but cuts and pastes the kool aide from his favored selective-fact sources.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 10, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

actually I never did any such thing. The bailout was absolutely necessary unless we wanted to see America's banking system totally collapse which was likely hours from happening. I applaud Paulson and Bush for doing so even though most Rs now say they oppose the bailout and would just have soon let the banking system and the world economy collapse, how mature.
What I criticized and what you refuse to respond to was that none of this was added to the budget deficit. Not the bailout, not Medicare Part D, the 2 wars or the 2001 $1.4 trillion dollar tax cut ALL OFF BUDGET. It is that absolute hypocrisy by you and drivl that is galling but who cares we are all used to that.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

ignoring the liberal math whiz fictions the actual numbers are:

2008: -458B
2009: -1413B

Anyone see the difference? It's called liberalism. We have nothing to show for this except continuing downslide across the board.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

the finance whiz makes up numbers that are nonsense. I am using CBO figures that are published.

did you channel yours through Cleo?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf

Bush hid a war. utter nonsense. I completely understand why you got out of finance so quickly.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1


I don't think you understand the Liz Cheney issue - she wants to know which lawyers are working at the Justice Dept who represented terrorists - to try to determine if they have soft-on-terrorist views which would INFLUENCE THEIR WORK AT THE JUSTICE DEPT.


OK, DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

That is different from the Detroit bomber case - in which the issue is when to question the bomber - to see if there are more bombs coming on additional planes.


Got it ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1


typical liberal - the liberals on here today were trying to claim credit for the economic recovery


Well, you can slam Bush for the cost of the bailout, or you can take credit for the recovery,


You can not have both.


AND Bill Clinton started this bubble economics, if you want to blame someone, blame him.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

this what you and Cheney had to say about the Justice Dept laywers appointed to represent the terrorist. Apparently neither you nor Ms. Cheney who actually went to law school understand or care about the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, This was your idiotic comment: "Obama gives the terrorists a lawyer"


This is what known leftie Kenneth Starr thinks about your's and Cheney views:

"A group of lawyers who served previously under Republican presidents has issued a public denunciation of Ms. Cheney’s tactics; calling them “unjust,” “destructive” and “shameful.” The letter was signed by former Independent Counsel Ken Starr and fomer Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, among others"

you are welcome to call Kenneth Starr any ugly name you choose. Go for it.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1


Why do you keep on calling your postings garbage???


You can do better, just try.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

the $400 billion does not include the Bush off budget items:
1. $1.4 trillion 2001 tax cut;
2. $850 billion Medicare Part D;
3. 2 wars and close to $2 trillion also off budget;
4. AIG and Bear Sterns bailout compliements of Dec 2008 Pauslon and Bush $900 billion and then passed onto Obama's budget.
The first thing that Obama did was to shift the cost of the 2 wars started by Bush into the deficit for honest budegting.
$5 trillion unaccounted for Bush debt, priceless.
You are entitled to your opinions, just not your own facts.
I will wait to hear from you how Bush's tax cuts, Part D, 2 wars, and Wallstreet bailout were accounted for under Bush's deficit that you and the righties would conveniently like to attirbute to Obama.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1 |


You are confusing two different issues - again, you are completely confused and WRONG

When will you learn?

It is amazing that you are even allowed on a computer.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

you are nothing compared to him.

thank you for that compliment

again listen to the interview of Kenneth Starr and read the letter from the other leftie Lindsey Graham

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

so according to the liberal finance whiz, a deficit of 400 billion max after 8 years, after fighting two wars and passing a prescription bill is roughly the same as a 2 trillion one after 8 months with it soaring to 20 trillion soon enough.

Liberal math below:

400,000,000,000 = 20,000,000,000,000

some of you may notice the extra set of zeros involved. Just ignore them and they will go away.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

apparently some here think that if they deliberately post garbage over and over again, it makes their post anything other than the pure garbage that it is.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1


Im talking about the Detroit bomber - and I confirm my position.

And Dick Cheney can spear a fly with a toothpick, you are nothing compared to him.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse


Al Queda is VERY WELL KNOWN for using multiple bomb plots - and multiple planes in its attacks.


So, instead of questioning the Detroit bomber on the possibility of additional bombs, Obama gives the terrorists a lawyer.


We have to wait 5 weeks for any intelligence.


THAT IS PUTTING THE LIVES OF AMERICANS AT RISK UNNECESSARILY.


Obama SHOULD RESIGN IMMEDIATELY FOR JUST THAT.


This is not an impeachable offense ??? Yes it is.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

explain myself. Just listen to the interview of Kenneth Starr and Graham letter the other day on MSNBC and you will know exactly what I am referencing as to legal representation Even these libs understand how dispicable Cheney and drivl's comments are.

interesting that you are suddenly interested in the deficit. Didn't hear a word from R when Bush added an unaccounted $1.4 trillion to the deficit in 2001; $850 billion unaccounted in 2003; $2 trillion with 2 wars UNPAID FOR or $900 billion dollars by Bush and Paulson for AIG et al again unpaid for. Oh R hypocrisy really smells.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Al Queda is VERY WELL KNOWN for using multiple bomb plots - and multiple planes in its attacks.


So, instead of questioning the Detroit bomber on the possibility of additional bombs, Obama gives the terrorists a lawyer.


We have to wait 5 weeks for any intelligence.


THAT IS PUTTING THE LIVES OF AMERICANS AT RISK UNNECESSARILY.


Obama SHOULD RESIGN IMMEDIATELY FOR JUST THAT.


This is not an impeachable offense ??? Yes it is.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year's record for the full year."


Take out the unfunded Medicare Part D, the excessive tax cuts unaccompanied by spending cuts and two wars - all the products of the borrow-and-spend administration of Bush 43 - and the deficit suddenly doesn't look so bad. Why is it that a conservative couldn't finish one war in a 3rd world country smaller than Texas in twice the time a liberal won simultaneous wars in Europe and the Pacific?

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 10, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

What kind of dolt doesn't realize that the promizes during the campaign are not the program that was negotiated in Congress?


you can print that on Barry's political tombstone.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

What kind of dolt doesn't understand that collecting money for 10 years and only spending it over 6 years is a very unusual way of counting.

What kind of dolt can't see that these bozos are spending us into bankruptcy?

Spending is saving
warming is cooling

Can you imagine what kind of furor the Old Gray Hag would be in if this was a Repub?

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"which is it Liberal math whiz - minus or plus. I guess when someone else pays it really doesn't matter much."


What kind of dolt doesn't realize that the program proposed during the campaign is not the program that was negotiated in Congress?


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 10, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

this is what liberal economics gets you:

The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year's record for the full year. The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year. The deficit through the first five months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.

AND


Unemployment rose in 30 states in January, the Labor Department said Wednesday, evidence that jobs remain scarce in most regions of the country. The data is somewhat better than December, when 43 states reported higher unemployment rates, but worse than November, when rates fell in most states.

AND eventually:

Former City Councilwoman Monica Conyers was sentenced to 37 months in prison today, prompting her to erupt in screams and vow an appeal. U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn also sentenced her to two years supervised probation, despite her efforts to withdraw her plea.

Maybe she could get adjoining cells with her husband.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1


Explain yourself.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

From a fact sheet on Obama's campaign website (PDF link): Obama’s plan will save a typical family up to $2,500 on premiums by bringing the health care system into the 21st century: cutting waste, improving technology, expanding coverage to all Americans, and paying for some high-cost cases. However, the CBO just produced this analysis of the senate health care bill (another PDF link) which concludes that the Senate health care bill will raise the average family's health care premiums by $2,300.

which is it Liberal math whiz - minus or plus. I guess when someone else pays it really doesn't matter much.

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

"So, instead of questioning the Detroit bomber on the possibility of additional bombs, Obama gives the terrorists a lawyer"

where in the world do you dream up this garbage?
Apparently Libs like Kenneth Starr and Lindsey Graham would vehemently call you on that slur.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

drivl


You are right - the liberals always have to lie to get their programs passed - why don't they just tell the truth??

Everyone is sick of them.

It is alot like the politically correct directives - they are rarely voted on - they are usually handed down without votes or anything.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

It is difficult to keep up with liberal name changes:

cooling is warming
choice is abortion
war is overseas contingency
cops are stupid
Marines are corpses
taxes are fees
spending is prosperity
terrorists are isolated extremists
bombings are man made disasters
reconciliation is the nuclear option, wait, scratch that, now its a simple up or down vote
jobs are saved, not created
closed doors are the new transparency
private funds are public funds
gitmo is closed, I mean relocated, well not really
bombers on planes are simply everything functioning as planned
chrissy foxxy is Gold is Noacolor

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

don't know who BARRY is you jerk.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

don't know who BARRY is you jerk.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

didn't warren buffet famously turn on barry last week and essentially call him a fool?

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

President Barack Obama is pushing a new anti-fraud plan

Desperation is so unbecoming.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

yes math and stock weaklings like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Cuban and Warren Buffett who you would refer to as weak people who fear the market.

and these titans of our nation's economy with rather progressive social views are scoffed at by the rabid right?

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

The funny thing is that making up data is exactly what Al gore does in his rants.

Now all the green worshipers can rattle on about how cooling is warming and other tommy rot. how thunderstorms prove everything. how blind ignorance and mass hysteria is "science".

no wonder everyone in the world is now laughing at Obama and his fellow loons.

they have screwed up energy, diplomacy, war, economics, pretty much everything they have touched.

Even the sycophant press can't hide it any longer.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Al Queda is VERY WELL KNOWN for using multiple bomb plots - and multiple planes in its attacks.


So, instead of questioning the Detroit bomber on the possibility of additional bombs, Obama gives the terrorists a lawyer.


We have to wait 5 weeks for any intelligence.


THAT IS PUTTING THE LIVES OF AMERICANS AT RISK UNNECESSARILY.


Obama SHOULD RESIGN IMMEDIATELY FOR JUST THAT.


This is not an impeachable offense ??? Yes it is.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

The funny thing is that making up data is exactly what VDH does in his columns.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 10, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Most liberals

I see you have confused the term most with all. no wonder you flunked out of math. simply no ability to reason in the modern liberal brain. suggest you revert to the chanting, it seems that is the limit of your abilites:

MMMMMM MMMmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm

Were you always this stupid or is it progessive stupidity over the years?

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

" Most liberals are completely confounded by math and science and often confuse them with religion, preferring to simply beleive. That is why they fear the market so, it is like magic and utterly inexplicable"

yes math and stock weaklings like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Cuban and Warren Buffett who you would refer to as weak people who fear the market.
What they fear are boneheaded economic policies that deregulate the banks, worship at the feet of Madoff, and bring our nation to the precispise of economic collapse an economic theory that you should be quite familiar with.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The only difference is I can't send a paper to Science saying "One day...at band camp...someone told me...that blocking a DNA repair enzyme...will interrupt...WBC signaling...the end"

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

Make up data. that is what liberals with an agenda do. find some high school kids term paper that supports your goofy notions. Reduce your model to a single variable that can obtain lefty grants and raise taxes. you will be fine.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

we didn't hear you zouk. what'd you say you do again? i mean, besides this? is there anything else? think hard.

Posted by: drindl | March 10, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

glenn beck is selling gold like hotcakes for his one sponsor. the suckers are falling all over it. man, are they gonna lose big.

on his show he's always shrieking like a baboon that the world is ending, pimping guns, gold and god. course he's an atheist, but his suckers-- i mean audience will fall for everything.these are the stupidest people on earth. why are they all in this country?

Posted by: drindl | March 10, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Only one stooge missing now. Ped, where are you? Hording gold under your bed like the other trolls?

Everyone knows that finance degrees are for the math weaklings that eventually wash out and head somewhere else useless, like law. Most liberals are completely confounded by math and science and often confuse them with religion, preferring to simply beleive. That is why they fear the market so, it is like magic and utterly inexplicable.

this is why global warming/cooling is now a laughingstock, along with liberal economics, war policy and pretty much every other idea originated in the 60s and since discredited.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

hey leichtman - ask drivel/moonbat/zouk what his degree is in. it's always good for laugh. ask him why if he has a big fancy job he's posting on his blog every 4 minutes all day long for years now.

Posted by: drindl | March 10, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

heheheh, of course I get paid for having ideas.

The only difference is I can't send a paper to Science saying "One day...at band camp...someone told me...that blocking a DNA repair enzyme...will interrupt...WBC signaling...the end"

You know, I've got to prove what I claim. Show some data and all.

and lol@being derided for attending seminars. Yeah, we all aren't born knowing everything.

It'll be funny when you have to actually start looking for jobs someday, zook. Trust me, VDH is not representative of the real world. It's not a coincidence that the people who think like him are also the ones who don't appear to have actual work.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 10, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote: Why are the right wing radio flaks are still pimping gold?
----------------------------------
There is a maxim about gold. When you hear gold advertisements on the media, the gold bubble is over. This is a ritual that has repeated for decades.

First the value investors buy (when no one thinks prices can POSSIBLY go up). Then they sell to the:

Momentum traders who ride it up (to prices so high that no one thinks prices can POSSIBLY go up anymore). Then they sell to the:

Public who is too dumb to look behind them and see that they are the last buyers.

Happens over and over and over again.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 10, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

job creation is a lagging economic indicator.
Mark Zandi, do you have any idea who he is, predicts jobs to start growing at 200,000 p/month by summer. Unfortunately as job creation happens more people who are unemployed and quit looking come back on the unemployment rolls and artificially inflates the % of unemployed.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Why are the right wing radio flaks are still pimping gold? Michael Savage says he has all his money in Gold because he does not want a wheelbarrow full of worthless paper.

Anyone buying gold now is an idiot. Had they bought gold two years ago or value stocks last year (like me and I guess, bobbywc too) they would smiling. We bet Obama's perpetuation of the Bush corporate welfare program would work in the short term and it did.

Monetizing debt is the short term fix for a liquidity crisis.

In the next few years, there will be no hyperinflation and gold is going to tank again, it always does.

But by 2016, the profligate and indistinguishable (in terms of cost no object, there are major differences on what and upon whom they shower money) spending patterns of the party in power will be haunting us and it may not matter which party wins by then, unless this country can figure out how to pay for what it demands from its government.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

actually idiot boy I have a law degree and a major in finance.

Simple question for you: do you have any idea what the DOW did for 10 years under R leadership? That's right -1%,

its forward thinking alright. The DOW bottomed shortly after Obam took office and has gone up 65% since.

You can scream and insult all you want how the sky is falling but very few here take your posts or insults seriously.

Rs like drivl slept through the economic debacle of 2008 and believe that absoluetly nothing happened, it was all a mirage. Tell that garbage to hank Paulson.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention that the jobs report, a more conservative view, doesn't react months ahead, instead, small business wait until the policy is actually in place before making any moves. the policies on the horizon are not making anyone feel confident about future business - taxes, regulation, fees, no reward, all risk, redistribution, etc.

with the glacial pace that Present ident Obumbler makes decisions, the jobs outlook is going to remain very bad, only improving if everyone totally stops looking for work, a measure that is not on the books. Kind of like jobs saved, whatever that mother goose fiction is.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, I understand that you are the first in your family to graduate the sixth grade (barely) but I will take pity on you and type slowly.

the stock market is a forward looking vehicle. It saw the perils of Obama early and reacted, by crashing the market in anticipation of potential government takeover, regulation and high taxes.

now that the voters have waken up and realized the peril that liberals deliver, the market is reacting as expected to the change in house and Senate leadership anticipated in november.

braindead liberals will not realize this effect until a few days after the election results, with Baghdad BJ still trumpeting the "victory" long after Nancy and Harry leave town. I'm not sure he doesn;t think President gore just left office.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Rs will have to sell the idea in 2012 that the economic recovery happened in spite of all the Statist Socialist [insert unhinged rants here if desired] policies crammed down our, oh wait I was going to omit that.
They have already started, it is not going to work.

Americans will compare 2012 to 2008 and 2008 to 2000. Obama will crush whatever front runner emerges from the laughable list of Republican leaders elbowing each other to the right these days.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"So while Washington has run amok, I do believe that this great stock market rally over the past year gains — the S&P 500 is up 68 percent and economy-sensitive small-caps are up 95 percent — is in part telling us that political regime change is coming our way this November."

the DOW rising 65% is a sign of creeping socialism and R gains???????????????????

Huh do you not understand how insanely contradictory your post is?

what that shows is one thing only. A healing economy.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD/fourth stooge: Aren't you the guy who looks on University bulletin boards every day for a free lunch?

you are a typical liberal free luncher in every respect.

VDH actually makes a living off his thoughts and writing. you couldn't sell an original idea if your life rested on it.

I suspect you will never get that dissertation accepted, even at that backwater college you muck over to for the free lunches.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

So while Washington has run amok, I do believe that this great stock market rally over the past year — the S&P 500 is up 68 percent and economy-sensitive small-caps are up 95 percent — is in part telling us that political regime change is coming our way this November.

Lawmakers are selling a product that the rest of the country refuses to buy. The big-government march toward statism is under so much attack that it may be overthrown before it really takes hold. That’s the beauty of a free voting democracy like ours.

We the People are the best bulwark to maintain the kind of economic freedom that creates wealth, prosperity, and American exceptionalism. That’s why I can still find some optimism in this story.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

lol, VDH. I'd give 10-1 odds that he completely fabricated those conversations. Not because I don't believe there are people who don't think that (hell, you talk to enough people and I'm sure someone will say that Jesus will return to earth in the next ten minutes)

It's just that VDH lies about everything he says.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 10, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

don't have his phone number or email.

My suggestions if Rs think that running on the economy is a winner for them would be to show clips of Sept and Dec 2008 when Paulson and Bush were on tv every day with the Bear Sterns, Lehman and GM debacle and the DOW losing 800 points each day and telling voters that Rs promise to bring back those disastrous economic policies if elected; is that what they want. I just dare Rs to run on their unreglated economic policies that brought this country to the brink of worldwide economic collapse. Images of those days would destroy R chances. So if Rs want that debate as to which party is better for the economy I say bring it on. I am sure this post will bring us back to arguments again about Phil and Wendy Gramm.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

The leg has stopped shivvering:

The Thrill Is Gone: Chris Matthews Comes Down to Earth [Tim Graham]

Obama's political charisma is now so weak that Chris Matthews is unimpressed. On Monday night's Hardball, Newsweek writer Howard Fineman talked tough about how Barack Obama has never explained how the health plans before Congress will both cover 30 million uninsured people and save money at the same time. This revelation caused Chris Matthews (sitting in Jerusalem right now) to be struck with the idea that perhaps Obama is not the Messiah:

And it seems to me what Howard is saying is, it's like the President is offering himself as almost like a savior who can take the loaves and the fishes, and have a few fishes and loaves of bread, and feed thousands and thousands of people. And there's only one guy that could do that and he's not President of the United States. I guess that's the problem.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Even the President of Haiti was reluctant to have his picture taken with Obama today - he thinks it may hurt his re-election chances.

The local head of the NAACP also declined to have his picture taken with Obama as well -

Postmasters of small towns run whenever there is a possibility they may be caught on camera with Obama.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The Time for Talk Is Over. Come on, Mr. President, You Promised!

Mark Knoller of CBS News remarks that tomorrow in St. Louis, President Obama will give his 52nd speech or remarks on health-care reform — out of 463 speeches/remarks since taking office.

Back on July 20, President Obama declared "the time for talk is through."

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1


When are you going to tell Obama that the democrats want to run on the economy this year ?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

drivl


You have some very good points


The problem is the union leaders - after getting some concessions - they go to the convention in the following year - and they say "What are we going to get next?"

There is never an idea that they are paid enough, that there is a balance - it is always more more more.

That is why we are in the current situation.


Too many times everyone has given in - they just do not get it.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"Are the democrats on this blog actually trying to say that the economy is in better shape" ? H*** Yes

only an uninformed partisan who has been asleep since Sept 2008 would think otherwise. I could link you to articles on CNBC and Bloomberg showing where the DOW, GDP, GNP and corporate profits have risen since the economic disaster of 2008-2009 but you would likely just rant that CNBC and The Wallstreet Journal are nothing but shills for Ds.

Apparently Rs are going to run on their economic successes of 2008 and how they would love to bring back the unregulated economy of 2008 back to America.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Democrat Robin Carnahan, who is running for Senate in Missouri this year, skips town just in time for the president's arrival.

that pretty much says it all.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

There is a joker in the CA race this fall. It's called the "Legalize, Regulate, and Tax Marijuana" campaign and polling suggests 51% to 56% of the voters approve (as of Feb 2010).

If the organizers of this ballot initiative push hard on college campuses and are successful in getting out the youth vote, there exists the possibility that no Republican will be safe in the state, not even in Orange County.

Posted by: mibster | March 10, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The upcoming election will be determined in great part by voters' perceptions of Obama.


At this point, Obama is a complete disaster.


Obama has REFUSED to make the necessary course-corrections. AND even worse for the democrats, Obama has created an impression in the voters' minds which will be difficult to change in the fall.


Obama CONTINUES TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.


Did Obama ONCE during the health care summit say - OK how can we both compromise our positions to meet IN THE MIDDLE ???


NO, not once did Obama say he would meet in the middle.


Instead, Obama's entire attitude was - I will throw a few of your ideas into my 2400 page bill.


How is that the MIDDLE?


Obama blew it - people gave him a second chance.


On Obama's second chance, Obama says NO IM GOING TO KEEP ON TALKING ABOUT HEALTH CARE.


Now everyone can't wait to get RID OF OBAMA.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Victor Davis Hanson has taught for over twenty years in the California State University system, and he has some insight into the mentality of the selfish brat protesters we mentioned here last week.

I have talked with a few students and employees over the last year and I think the angst behind the protests runs something like this. In sum, apparently state employees, teachers, and students believe that there is either

(a) a "stash" of money somewhere that is unspent and could easily ease their pain (e.g.," they" have all sorts of money and are lying to us about its undisclosed location);

(b) we could raise income, sales, and gas taxes to even more record highs and encourage perhaps 4,000 a week to leave in consequence (e.g., why do some need BMWs or private planes when "we" need cheaper tuition?);

(c) the 1% who pay about 50% of the state income tax burden could easily pay 80-90% of it (e.g., I get along on $50,000, so why can't someone who makes $300,000 give $250,000 of it to meet "our" needs?);

(d) we could renounce our debts to state bond holders (if they have excess cash to buy bonds, why are they so greedy not to give "us" some of it?) and use the savings for more subsidies, entitlements, and salaries (without my job at the DMV, prison, school (fill in the blanks), the rest of you could not survive.)


State employees have pretty much the same mentality. Hell, progressives in general have pretty much the same mentality

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"No false claim left behind" is the perfect summation of President Obama's last-gasp push for a bill that hasn't even been written. No matter details or cost, it'll cure whatever ails you and America.

He's for it, whatever it ends up saying. Just as he was for the House bill and the Senate bill, both before and after they were written, although they contradicted each other in key ways.

And we have to do it now -- now, for history, before it's too late.

For Obama, it's already too late. The public took a leap of faith on him once, and his expensive potions are making the country sicker. The sell-by date on his promise machine has expired.

The more he attacks dissenters and corporations and the more he makes promises too good to be true, the less appealing he is. We like passion in our president, but desperation is unbecoming.

At home and abroad, the administration has veered so far off course that Washington is abuzz over which White House honcho will get the heave-ho. Mutual back-stabbing has begun in earnest.

Fine, let's amuse ourselves with the spectacle of a sacrifice or two. But let's not kid ourselves. The president is the problem.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Chris


One can look closely at these districts - and the real situation is far different from the appearance

First, most of these districts are in states which McCain did not target - remember McCain pulled out of Michigan?

There might be colleges in these districts too - which produced voters in 2008 which are unlikely to show up in the numbers this year.

We all know the story about Delaware -

Once one looks closely at each of these districts, a vastly different picture will emerge - and in the words of Glen Beck - they are "wasting your time."


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

It's clear the the GOP will pick up some seats in 2010...How many? History shows that this election cycle is always difficult for the incumbent party especially with such a weak economy and sour national mood.

The GOP will not take back either chamber because they are devoid of ideas and can't fully capitalize on the economy and weak job numbers. They are still the party of 'NO' and have yet to coalesce around moderate candidates that appeal to independents. They think their obstructionism will net them victories but it only furthers the disapproval with the broken system in D.C.

If you are interested in reading more you can visit our blog at http://dropdeadpolitics.com/

Posted by: dropdeadpolitics | March 10, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

TO: "doof" @ 11:50 a.m.

Is that short for "doofus?"

Because only a practitioner of lame paid blog-spam psy ops would provide another opening to point out that a rogue, covert Bush-Cheney program of personal destruction is using a nationwide cell tower- based weapon system to conduct what amounts to an AMERICAN GENOCIDE.

The fact that this heinous program has been exposed by a veteran journalist who has worked for major mainstream media outlets makes the attempted character assassination campaign a transparent exercise in Gulag-style authoritarianism.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to your utter lack of apparent taxpayer-funded "tradecraft."

HAS PRESIDENT OBAMA BEEN TARGETED FOR MICROWAVE ASSAULT / ENTRAINMENT?

See "comments" section, "U.S. Silently Tortures Americans with Cell Tower Microwaves" at:

http://www.poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2
NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 10, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Does the lead lemming pointing toward the cliff while driving a Toyota constitute an offense ???


I guess.

Obama is not just dragging down the House members - but the democratic candidates downticket - this year is going to be horrible for the democrats.

Passing the health care bill will make it worse.

If Obama gets the health care bill passed, that will make the bill an issue in November - but the whole year the democrats have been trying to "get health care behind them" so everyone forgets about it.


The entire premise that the democrats have to get something done way before the election is flawed - if they don't want to stand by their votes, don't make them.

The people don't want that - no one does.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Republicans in Congress have been calling since last year for the CIA to release all briefing minutes to determine who in Congress knew what and when about "torture" or enhanced interrogations -- and which, if any, approved of the methods. Democrats like Pelosi had called for a "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's treatment of terrorists, but after the CIA released part of the briefing information, Pelosi, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, and the Obama administration backed away from the idea. What, did the truth not serve them?


Despite Ms. Pelosi's "suggestions" to release all briefing memos, a major public interest agency has been forced to file lawsuits to get them.
Once the full truth is known from the CIA memos, Pelosi will be caught in a web of her own making. Then what? It's unlikely that the House Speaker will apologize or retract her accusation. The time and effort spent by watchdogs like Judicial Watch to bring out the truth years after Pelosi's CIA slander (or careless words) may not reap any immediate penalty to her, but maybe it will affect her reelection in November.


Ms. Pelosi has been entrenched in the Congress for 23 years, rarely challenged in her San Francisco district. Perhaps after this credibility "clunk," even California Congressional District 8 liberals will finally be sufficiently offended or embarrassed by Ms. Pelosi's many missteps. These would include but not be limited to Pelosi's self-entitled $2.1-million expenditure of government funds over two years for an Air Force jet for her and her family's use, including more than $100,000 for catering and alcoholic beverages aboard said jet, and $1.1 million of taxpayer funds to squire a delegation of 106 people to the purpose-challenged Copenhagen climate summit. Ms. Pelosi has also been listed as one of "Congress' Top Ten Most Corrupt Politicians" in 2007, 2008, and 2009.


Meanwhile, many federal dollars were no doubt expended to have CIA staff review, redact, and unsuccessfully fend off the release of records which are proving the House Speaker to be "misleading." It is certainly very expensive to have Nancy Pelosi in Congress. There are two able Republicans running who hope to replace her.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

The upcoming election will be determined in great part by voters' perceptions of Obama.


At this point, Obama is a complete disaster.


Obama has REFUSED to make the necessary course-corrections. AND even worse for the democrats, Obama has created an impression in the voters' minds which will be difficult to change in the fall.


Obama CONTINUES TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.


Did Obama ONCE during the health care summit say - OK how can we both compromise our positions to meet IN THE MIDDLE ???


NO, not once did Obama say he would meet in the middle.


Instead, Obama's entire attitude was - I will throw a few of your ideas into my 2400 page bill.


How is that the MIDDLE?


Obama blew it - people gave him a second chance.


On Obama's second chance, Obama says NO IM GOING TO KEEP ON TALKING ABOUT HEALTH CARE.


Now everyone can't wait to get RID OF OBAMA.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

The relentless push for ObamaCare is driving down President Obama's net disapproval rating to its worst performance ever. The Rasmussen Daily tracking poll, which is based on an automated telephone poll of likely voters, making it one of if not the most reliable poll. From today's Rasmussen report:


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.


America is grading him and the grade is not a B+; I would say the equivalent is C- and falling. Time for some remedial action or possible suspension. Maybe because he has been skipping so much school -- playing golf, traveling around the world; listening to musical soirees; expressing boredom at legislative details and the hard work of being President.

Time to send out the truancy notices.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Every two years, I hear that this time -- this time! -- the Democrats have a candidate who's going to pose a serious challenge to Rep. Pat Tiberi in OH-12. And every time, Tiberi lays waste to the competition. The thing is, I could see OH-12 going to a Democrat -- honestly, I could -- but the race is never just between a Democrat and a Republican, it's between a Democrat and Tiberi, who is incredibly popular among his constituents. President Obama won OH-12 because he took the independent vote and probably a few of the Republican votes, but it's nigh impossible to wrest the independent vote away from Tiberi. Heck, a lot of his popularity isn't even connected to his political stances; it comes from his being one of those Congressmen who's always there to help any constituent who comes to him for help.

Paula Brooks is a stronger candidate than the Democrats have fielded in OH-12 in ages, but that seat is Tiberi's for as long as he wants it, barring some sort of major scandal. And although Brooks, unlike a lot of the Democrats before her, has proven she can win elections -- she's been pretty much untouchable as Franklin County Commissioner, though the Republicans don't even try to win those seats anymore -- she's going to face a tough sell in more Republican-leaning sections of OH-12. And the fact that she doesn't even live in the district isn't going to work in her favor.

I can see how the numbers might show the Democrats have a chance in OH-12, but I seriously doubt they do, no matter what the political atmosphere. My feeling is that any energy spent there might be better spent elsewhere, or saved up to mount a serious challenge for when Tiberi decides not to go for re-election.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | March 10, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Doof:

Jake and I have a $1,000 wager about whether Obama will win reelection (with the proceeds to going to a charity that we designate). You want in?

Posted by: Bondosan | March 10, 2010 11:11 AM

yeah i'm in. i'll use the stimulus money that obama wasted. plenty of it still sitting around doing nothing. everybody on this board can be in too. you're a kind man to invite me. what happens if obama doesn't run in 2012?

Posted by: doof | March 10, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

democrats on offensive? ha ha, that's funny. leading your group over a cliff can be offense i guess. better than waiting to be ambushed. depends on how you look at it. retreat might be better for them.

Posted by: doof | March 10, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Are the democrats on this blog actually trying to say that the economy is in better shape - and that Obama deserves CREDIT FOR DOING NOTHING ????


What is this - an affirmative action bizarro world???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 10, 2010 11:45 AM


you need help. right away.

Posted by: doof | March 10, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

The upcoming election will be determined in great part by voters' perceptions of Obama.


At this point, Obama is a complete disaster.

Obama has REFUSED to make the necessary course-corrections. AND even worse for the democrats, Obama has created an impression in the voters' minds which will be difficult to change in the fall.

Obama CONTINUES TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Did Obama ONCE during the health care summit say - OK how can we both compromise our positions to meet IN THE MIDDLE ???

NO, not once did Obama say he would meet in the middle.


Instead, Obama's entire attitude was - I will throw a few of your ideas into my 2400 page bill.

How is that the MIDDLE?

Obama blew it - people gave him a second chance.

On Obama's second chance, Obama says NO IM GOING TO KEEP ON TALKING ABOUT HEALTH CARE.


Now everyone can't wait to get RID OF OBAMA.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Dem Route to 2010 Resurgence: Restore Human, Civil, Constitutional Rights in an America Decimated by Eight Years of Bush-Cheney covert "program" tyranny:

SECRET HOMELAND-LED PROGRAM SILENTLY TORTURES, IMPAIRS, 'SLOW KILLS' AMERICANS WITH NATIONWIDE CELL TOWER MICROWAVE/LASER 'DIRECTED ENERGY' WEAPON SYSTEM: VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Secret Bush-Cheney legacy multi-agency federal-local program uses cell tower/GPS satellite microwave/laser electromagnetic precision "directed energy" RF radiation attack system to silently torture, impair, subjugate "targeted" citizens -- and oversees local police-protected "community watch" vigilante harassment, vandalism, and financial sabotage campaigns. Electromagnetic and social neutralization, elimination of "dissidents," undesirables.

• Why so many cell towers saturate the American landscape -- urban and rural.

• Weapon system patents reveal silent, powerful attack system in YOUR backyard.

• American human rights atrocities, ideological purge, under the cover of national security.

WHY WON'T MAINSTREAM MEDIA QUIZ THE GOV'T ABOUT THIS DOMESTIC WEAPON SYSTEM -- IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IN AMERICA?

See: poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2 ("articles" list)

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

BUCKS COUNTY, PA- BASED MAGLOCLEN FUSION CENTER: "Central command for a Mid-Atlantic States American Gestapo."

WHY WON'T FBI OPEN A DOJ / CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION INVESTIGATION?

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR: NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "U.S. SILENTLY TORTURES..." and "GESTAPO USA" ("stories" list).

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 10, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

more hypocrisy:

"As the outlook on passage of health reform improves, Republicans have shifted to a new obstructionist strategy: attacking the process of reconciliation. Republicans claim that reconciliation was only intended to be used for bills dealing closely with the budget.

In fact, when Republicans were in power, GOP lawmakers used reconciliation numerous times to pass major domestic policy legislation, including the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and important changes to health care policy. In fact, 34 of the 41 Senate Republicans have used reconciliation in the past to pass major pieces of domestic policy.

In 2005, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) famously defended reconciliation as “majority rules.” Think Progress has compiled a video of some of these 34 senators who have, in the past, defended reconciliation and railed against the filibuster. Some highlights:

– “If you’ve got 51 votes for your position, you win.” — Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), 3/15/05

– “For some time, I hoped that my colleagues who oppose reform would allow a majority in both bodies to prevail and do what the vast majority of the American public desires.” — Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 10/15/99

– “It [the filibuster] is the product of a rule of the Senate passed many years after the ratification of the Constitution. This rule does not derive from the authority of the Constitution.” — Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), 5/19/05

– “Filibusters are neither an idea of the founding fathers nor a historical tradition of the Senate.” — Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), 4/27/05

Posted by: drindl | March 10, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I wonder how much this list is being influenced by the up ticket races in places like CA, FL, and Illinois. I would think that the Dems have a real good chance of stealing a few of the Illinois seats especially, given President Obama's populairty in his home state. Deleware isn't even a contest, it is going Blue.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 10, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Bobby:

I couldn't agree with you more. Two weeks ago, I bought 16,000 shares of Citigroup at 3.40 a share. I always seem to make money when Democrats are in the White House, and lose ground when Republicans are in charge.

Doof:

Jake and I have a $1,000 wager about whether Obama will win reelection (with the proceeds to going to a charity that we designate). You want in?

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

This is all academic - come November if unemployment continues to go down, and my 401k congtinues to go up because of the stock market recovery the campaign message will be "hold the course with the Dems, or go back to deregulation and corporate greed with the Repubs. " The people are fickled - bread and butter is always the issue. the Repubs can no longer use terror to get people to ignore the bread and butter issues

Posted by: bobbywc | March 10, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

What did Pelosi know about Massa, and when did she know it?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 10, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

Many of these districts were not in states which were targeted by McCain - and there also might be demographic reasons for some of these numbers - for instance there may be colleges in these districts which normally experience lower voter turn-out.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Washington's 8th will be a tight race for sure. DelBene (a Reed College grad!) should win,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzan_DelBene

but is is going to be tough in a district that has never sent a Democrat to Congress.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

One has to remember the advertising budget which Obama had - Obama first said he was going into the campaign finance system - then he pulled out.


Then there were all sorts of stories that the credit cards coming into the Obama campaign were not getting checked properly - to see if they were even from this country, much less up against contribution limits.

The bottom line is the advertising disparity in the election was like no other in recent history of Presidential elections.

ALSO, many of these districts are in areas in which MCCAIN WAS NOT COMPETING.

McCain was targeting certain states for their electoral votes, and if these areas were outside that strategy, McCain was not even trying in these areas.


So, this list means little.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

DFL should've won MN-3 last year, but nominated a rookie candidate against an experienced politician. Rep Paulsen has kept his head down; though with a wave a populism, the right candidate might be able to take him out this year. They'd have to play up the lack of bipartisanship and/or ask where he's been. One strategy might be to campaign on how the suburbs are seeing the fastest growth of food stamp use & poverty - what's Paulsen doing about it?

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 10, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company