Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democrats lose majority support in Gallup polling

1. Democratic strategists, already worried about the recent spate of retirements within their ranks, got more bad news late Wednesday with the release of a year-long compendium of Gallup polling data that showed a majority of Americans no longer identify themselves as Democrats. For the entirety of 2009, 49 percent of Gallup's sample -- more than 21,000 interviews -- said they either were Democrats or leaned toward Democrats in their political views, the first time since 2005 that the party does not have a majority share of support. (The Democratic high point this decade came in 2008 when 51.5 percent of those polled identified with the party.) More problematic for Democrats is the trend line of the numbers last year; in the first three months of 2009, the party's support stood at nearly 52 percent while in the final quarter of the year it had fallen to 47 percent. "The gains the Democratic Party made in public support during the last several years of the George W. Bush administration have disappeared," concluded Gallup pollster Jeffrey Jones. While fewer people are identifying themselves as Democrats as the dawn of 2010, not all the news is bad as Republicans still lag behind in the race for support. In 2009, just under 41 percent (40.7) called themselves Republican, a far cry from 2004 when that number stood at 45 percent. Still, the decline in Democratic identifiers speaks to the fact that many independents -- particularly those with Republican leanings -- that sided with Democrats in 2006 and 2008 are no longer doing so. That trend among independents, born out in the governors races in New Jersey and Virginia in 2009, is a major potential trouble spot for Democrats looking to minimize their losses in this year's midterm election.

2. A new memo released late Wednesday by former Connecticut Rep. Rob Simmons' (R) Senate campaign makes the case that state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D), touted by Democrats as the savior of retiring Sen. Chris Dodd's (D) Senate seat, may, ultimately, be less than he at first appears. The memo -- penned by Public Opinion Strategies pollster Neil Newhouse -- engages in a bit of expectation-lowering ("Rob is going to be further behind Blumenthal two weeks from now than he is today") before laying out the hurdles before Blumenthal: the need to take positions on federal issues, running a competitive and targeted campaign for the first time in two decades and withstanding a deep dig on his record as Connecticut's top cop. "Obviously, we are in a different race now than we were 24 hours ago, and Blumenthal is the flavor of the day," concludes Newhouse. "But, in the end, this campaign is going to be won or lost on the national issues that are trending our direction." In the runup to Dodd's retirement announcement Wednesday, some Democrats familiar with Blumenthal warned that the assumption that he would save the party from certain defeat might be overstated given his thin record of electoral success in competitive contests. And, there will clearly be a proving period for Blumenthal when he will either emerge as a solid presence on the stump or the second coming of erstwhile New York Senate candidate Caroline Kennedy. While Republicans are right to try to quickly puncture the hype surrounding Blumenthal, the simple fact is that the Democrat sits in the catbird's seat in the race today.

3. Lost amid the focus on the retirements of Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) is the fact that Democrats must now find a replacement for Gov. Bill Ritter (D) who formally left his reelection race on Wednesday. Attention is focused on the moment on Interior Secretary Ken Salazar who spent four years representing Colorado in the Senate before being chosen by President Barack Obama for his current post. Prior to his election to the Senate, Salazar served as the state's attorney general and made no secret of his interest in the governor's office. Asked about his interest in the race on Wednesday, Salazar offered the classic "I'm not going to comment on that" response. (Where would the political world be without non-denial denials?) We understand there is some interest on his part in the race but Salazar also knows that no other Democrats -- Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff are mentioned -- will get in or out of the race until he makes up his mind so he has the luxury of doing things on his own time table. One person almost certainly rooting for a Salazar candidacy is freshman Rep. Betsy Markey (D) who faces an extremely difficult reelection race in her 4th district. The eastern Colorado seat has a considerable Hispanic population -- 17 percent according to the 2000 census -- that would almost certainly be energized by the chance to cast a vote for Salazar at the top of the ticket.

4. The flurry of Democratic retirements on Tuesday led to some terrific journalism about what this means -- and what it doesn't -- for the national political landscape. The Post's Dan Balz wrote that "the euphoria among Democrats that accompanied President Obama's inauguration a year ago has disappeared," adding: "Survival is now the watchword." Liz Sidoti, the Associated Press' lead political reporter, described the series of departures as "a dispiriting trend for a party that had been soaring after winning control of Congress and the White House in back-to-back elections," and noting that "the losses could hamper candidate recruitment, activist enthusiasm, and grass-roots fundraising." Politico's Jonathan Martin and Alex Isenstadt offered a counter to some of the outlandish claims that Tuesday marked the beginning of the end for Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. "Republicans are poised to make major gains in the House and the Senate, but the number of seats necessary to reclaim the majority makes it unlikely that they could knock the Democrats out of power in either chamber," the duo write. Stay tuned to this space later today for the Fix's winners and losers from one of the most unpredictable -- and memorable -- days in politics in recent memory.

5. Here's part 4,786 in our continuing series entitled: "Why politicians shouldn't use Twitter." In Minnesota, a Republican running for an open state Senate seat apparently tweeted back in May that President Obama was a "Power Hungry Arrogant Black Man." Later, according to a report from Minnesota Public Radio, the same candidate sought to link Democrats to pedophilia. Um, not smart.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 7, 2010; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Analyzing the Democratic retirements
Next: "Politics and Pints" is back!

Comments

There have to be a few (relatively) sane people in the RNC who're thinking about winning a national election, something more than a gubernatorial sop.  And those one or two sane voices are probably speculating, maybe more than idly, how to get that cretin Sarah Palin out of the picture.  It can't be only Democrats who recognize that the teabagger right is too repellent to real people, that it will cost them election after election everywhere but the rural south.

Oh to be a fly on the wall .. they have to know that discrediting her won't work.  Catch her stealing, get a photo of her screwing another man or another species, won't work.  Her fans are far too crazed to do anything but circle the wagons.

I bet they're trying to figure out a way to kill her.

And blame it on Democrats.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

ceffy _ I was only including tht for hard figures. the primary season is going to be much more expensive for Rs than they thought, but you and I know that.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

But the RINOs are people ostracized by the GOP for being too honest or not crazy enough, while the AIPers are people too crazy and dishonest for the GOP. They won't join forces any more than the Unitarians will join with the Reconstructionists.

OTOH if we can get them talking they just might murder each other. I like it!

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

"Let the teabaggers rule the primaries, and let the Democrats rule the nation"

As a lifelong Democrat and damn proud of it, I agree.

The point is, though, that there is SUCH a large crowd of RINOs, Independents, AIPers, and such running around out there that they MUST at somepoint realize that they are an electable majority.

When that happens the neoAIP and the GOP change places. Then the highly entertaining ranting comes from Ross and his flip charts,

But at least he made some sense.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 7, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

I thought I had made that clear, bsimon, from something I posted earlier, but maybe I didn't. Polls other than Rasmussen have given Blumenthal a 30 point lead.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline: The Republicans who had any integrity left their party long ago.  Those remaining are the ones for whom politics is about winning, period, their alleged principles are nothing else.  Abortion, economics, environment, whatever, if the liberals like it they hate it and vice versa.  They won't leave for a more hospitable party because they left long ago.  Now they call themselves independents.

I'm talking about the voters.  When it comes to the few remaining moderates in the party, well, it gets a little bizarre.

Maybe they don't have any integrity either.

But even if we were to allow that there are some Republicans still carrying cards who aren't complete jerks (I haven't met one in quite a few years), given the history of third parties in this country would you want to make that bet?  Makes me think of Perot and Nader and the next words that come to mind are "they lost."

I crow in glee at flypaper parties like the AIP and that one that Hoffman ran on .. Conservative Party .. they serve one civic function: taking votes away from the GOP.  So please by all means let Palin call the shots.  Let the teabaggers rule the primaries, and let the Democrats rule the nation.  I'm unhappy with them but they're not going to incinerate the planet.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

" "Then there is the issue of money. The RNC spent 90 million dollars this year. What did they get for their money? Two governorships and no Representatives. This is a bad dollar to win ratio for any party.
The NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) has only 4.3 million on hand and a debt of 2 million. They have barely enough to support one campaign let alone the 40 or more they need to be able to reclaim the House. The DCCC on the other hand has 15.3 million, with a debt of 2.6. This allows them to play a hell of a lot of defense as well as some offense in the coming cycle."
And Michael Steele, their hapless fundraiser, is too busy making speeches for personal gain to pay much attention. Posted by: drindl"

Your Arithmatic assumes that the first expense for the republicans will come in the general election.

With tha Palinistas looming larger and larger in the equation, there is going to be a series of very expensive primaries, monetarily and public opinion wise, first. The bad vibes and more than bruised feelings aren't going to help the base make up the numbers they lack in the general election.

I can't for the life of me understand why there isn't a growing, active center or center right party out there right now looking for NonDnonR moderates to field in their first election. Granted thatit is hard for dedicated republicans to change Parties, no matter how badly they have been treated, there HAVE to be a few Fremonts and Lincolns and Sewards and Chases out there.

Where oh where is that stealth party anyway?

Posted by: ceflynline | January 7, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Once again, Noacoler is BANNED poster Seattle Top / GoldAndTanzanite / Chris Fox. Our gracious host, Mr. Cillizza, asked us (at 11:46 AM) that we ignore or shame him for repeatedly coming back after being banned.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Shrink2: please explain blank projective screen. Google gives dead references

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

"But zook/37th/moonbat wants to show Chris C that he has a big epenis and jaked seems to have lifetime immunity. So if you're skipping past their posts, awesome. I am too."

I have to if I want to post here.  Some things just make me sick, racism is one of them.  When I read that JakeD "monkey" post I felt a wave of malaise pass across my vision and my guts heaved.  I don't like feeling like that and I don't appreciate being reminded what deplorable and hateful people are citizens of the same country I am.  I may run into "people" like that on here, but in real life I wouldn't give anyone like that the time of day off his own watch.  They are beneath my notice.

Really really need to wonder, with talk about banning people coming up all the time, why this disgusting crap gets the OK.  If anyone is to be banned it's them, for the blog-flooding more than for the racism. And given the number of CC posts, sorry but I reject your generous speculation that he doesn't know what goes on in his blog.  He knows, and he accepts it.  But I don't read his columns anyway, his bias is too extreme for a good reporter.

I doubt I'll succumb to the baiting, but if I do feel free to check me.  You can reach me privately at hot mail dot com.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza:

What does "-1-2-3-a17-" mean?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

It is newer Subaru Outback with lots of ski area stickers and other outdoor enthusiast paraphernalia on it, a Williams College sticker, a Washington Huskies sticker and I have never had an at fault accident in my life.

It is definitely the Fight Terror with Justice sticker. And there are liberals who don't like it either. They think it advocates the summary killing of terrorists. Like, fight terror with JUSTICE!!

It has been on the car for a few months and I just decided right now to get rid of it. In shrink talk we call this type of thing a 'blank projective screen' and it often brings out the worst in people.

Gone for toady, Feirabend.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Are you a good driver?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Sure. But then why do so many people get mad at my "Fight Terror with Justice" bumper sticker?

37th appears to believe justice means coddling terrorists and losing actionable intel*. Americans should get an in-service on justice.

I think people get mad because they think if justice happened we wouldn't be able to go to war with terror or drone bomb the terrorists or torture them, something. I don't get it. When I'm driving I just get the finger.

*secret agent talk I learned watching 24**

**joke


Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

A big one, Ddawd? I would guess almost none at all. So would most women. Might be the root of the problem.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Chris, are you sure there is nothing else you can do?


'Backing, filling, shucking and jiving takes time.

Posted by: Moonbat

Prettty revoltingly racist stuff for the WaPo.|

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD: I'm not flaming anyone. Flame wars are boring. I just commented on the obvious provocation going on here. I have no intention of worsening it."

Yeah, we're in agreement. Chris C was way too lax about banning people. Yeah, he's not always around to see what happens, but it was pretty obvious that some people were not going to heed his warnings. And jaked should have been banned without a warning and zook should have been banned the second he started his whole pedophile thing. I can see that there are some areas where the line is blurry, but those two completely cleared the line. Not even close. Yeah, you want to have unpopular views on here, that's fine, but their complete utter racism should not be tolerated for one second, not for onea single warning.

But zook/37th/moonbat wants to show Chris C that he has a big epenis and jaked seems to have lifetime immunity. So if you're skipping past their posts, awesome. I am too.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 7, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

There's nothing wrong with "Justice".

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Romans 13:1-4

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

37th

"Justice, I once researched the word. It was an interesting journey. There is an element of revenge in it."

So said 'Obaama'. That is the person I was responding to about my leftist bumper sticker.

He happens to be entirely correct. The earliest evidence we have of written law (from Mesopotamia) has extensive remedies for the injured, all of which nowadays would be conceived as revenge.

In later Germanic law (which evolved to become a key part of the English Common Law), these revenge/remedies were explicitly designed to prevent blood feuds.

How odd now that the term Justice has become anathema to the revenge seekers.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 (maybe "tomorrow" you can find time to actually debate the point):

We know you think it's "wrong" regardless, but the issue on the table CURRENTLY is whether torture has ever produced credible or reliable information that has, in fact, thwarted terrorist attacks and saved American lives. Read this report, and then we can talk about that specific point:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100600455_pf.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Jake. I got distracted by a moment of work while at work. Please allow me this opportunity to give your question my undivided attention ;)
Simply: It's wrong. Even if I were to believe that everything that is asserted in favor or torture is true, and that the practical arguments against it are false (which I SO don't), it is still wrong. What is it that makes us a great nation? Is it the power of our military? Is it our pretty flag, or patriotic songs? Is it our remarkably good record of winning wars? No. What makes us great is our set of principals. Our belief that while there is a huge grey area in which we can disagree about right and wrong, there is a line of demarcation which we will not cross. We will not commit genocide. We will not silence our critics by force. We will not force any religion on anyone. You've read the bill of rights. Among these rights is the right to a fair trial, and to never be subject to cruelty at the hands of the state.
Our enemies believe we are an evil nation. A nation without morals. If we abandon these most fundamental values out of fear of the attacks or terrorists how do we do anything but prove them right. My soul is worth more to me than my body. And my nation’s soul is worth far more. I can only speak for myself, and at that anything wise that I could say has probably been said more eloquently by someone else. In this case Alexis de Tocqueville said it best when he said “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
With that, I'm going home. I may check back later. If not I'll talk to you all tomorrow.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Fine, he's not on your side re: this one issue. Please answer the question (it's like pulling teeth with you ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

But clearly he is not from my side. Not on this issue. Liberals don't speak with one voice on much of anything. On this, Dershowitz has taken the conservative side. Thats fine, but it doesn't make him right. You may recall, a large number of Democrats, many of them liberal, voted for the war in Iraq because of the fear and emotion of that moment in time. They were wrong. Many of them would admit as much if you asked them today.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Present ident O Dither misses two deadlines today alone.

Backing, filling, shucking and jiving takes time.

Iran passed four deadlines last year. Still nothing.

All Taliban leaders are gitmo alumni. Kirk.

Obama to slickie - how do you get the attention off all the lies?

Mass moves to likely dem. Wow. That's like Alabama quitting the confederacy.

Gibbs refuses to answer press on cspan issue.

The wheels are coming off the obimbo cart.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"30 points? When did 23 and 24 morp into 30 ?"

I suspect the 30 comes from the polls other than rasmussen. If you reread the post, the 23 & 24 numbers are from Rasmussen, which were noted to be tighter than numbers from other pollsters.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 7, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

"His position paper was written, by the way in 2002, no more than 15 months removed from the attack itself."

Well, wait a minute. You were first bringing up your opinion "... this willingness to torture that so many suddenly have, is not about being safe."

I was simply using Dershowitz as someone (from your side) who was concerned about that from the beginning. While I can't speak for Alan, I can assure you that my motivation is 100% about keeping the American people safe. Now, we can go back to the debate if torture has ever produced credible or reliable information that has, in fact, thwarted terrorist attacks.

On June 16, 2004, the 9/11 Commission reported that the original plan for the September 11 attacks called for the hijacking of more than four planes. That was the first "official" confirmation that further attacks had been prevented. In fact, on October 6, 2005, House officials stated that the government had foiled a previously undisclosed second plot to crash even more planes into buildings on the West Coast in mid-2002. In a televised speech on February 9, 2006, President Bush asserted that American counterterrorism officials had indeed foiled a plot to slam planes into at least one building, which he identified as the "Liberty Tower." According to President Bush, information obtained from al-Qaeda leader Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (to use Asian confederates from Jemaah Islamiyah recruited by Islamic militant Hambali for the hijackings) prevented said attacks. Assuming that's true, why are a few lingering symptoms of oxygen deprivation to a KNOWN TERRORIST not worth the lives saved?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

drindl


30 points? When did 23 and 24 morp into 30 ?


You sound like a democrat spending tax money.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Just curious, dottyo, but how many have been removed so far?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Blumenthal is ahead of every other contender by 30 points.
Even Rasmussen has Blumenthal ahead in CT [although not by as much as every other poll]

The new Rasmussen poll of Connecticut, conducted last night in the wake of Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd's retirement announcement, confirms that Democratic state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is now the heavy favorite to keep the seat for the party.

Blumenthal leads former Rep. Rob Simmons by 56%-33%; Blumenthal leads former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon by 58%-34%; and Blumenthal leads financial analyst Peter Schiff by 60%-24%. These results are fairly similar to yesterday's numbers from Public Policy Polling (D), which was conducted just before the news of Dodd's retirement and Blumenthal's entry into the race.

Dodd had been performing badly in previous Rasmussen polls. From the pollster's analysis: "With a single announcement, Chris Dodd transformed the Senate race in Connecticut from one that leaned in the GOP direction to a fairly safe bet for the Democratic Party."

Note: Blumenthal leads financial analyst Peter Schiff by 60%-24%. Schiff is the Teabagger pick.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Press ignored the exsistance of the TEA PARTY REVOLT , who are unwilling to support a Government that acts as tyranny and ends the USA for the unborn with bailouts and dictating to the people, by refusing to earn a dime extra to tax.

Press ignored the enmasse movement by the people into the TEA PARTY and the Independnt Party to pull the electoral college rugs out from under the 2 corrupt Partys.


Press ignores the mounting vote of No Confidence by petition numbers.

PETITION:

The REDRESS of the 2009 Federal Government of the United States of America
For NO CONFIDENCE
By the recall of :
The Congress, (all names listed both Partys)
The Hill , ( all names listed both Partys)
The Cabinet, (all names listed)
The Czars, ( all names listed)
Barack Hussein Obama ( all "currently" known names listed: Barack Hussein Soroeto, Barack Hussein Dunham )

BEAR REVOLT was started by Veterans ( Czar nick named terrorists) seeking to empower the active troops with a clear documentation of the majority's will of the people via archival quality hardbound petitions (signatured by all men, women, and children who have No Confidence this 2009 Federal Government).

The signed petitions are being entered into County recordations offices as a "recorded document", then pooled, and placed as a" Document" into the Library of Congress by the people of each State.

The well documented majority with " no confidence" can allow the defenders of the US Constitution the ability to carry out the "will of the majority".

It seeks to void all signatures of the current Fed 2009, and hence can retro from 2010 , 2011, etc. to do it.

This Redress call was named when Pelosi went to THE BEAR REPUBLIC of California , threw imported ACORNS at their heads,
then called them astroturf and walked on their backs with her spikey heels out the door absolutely refusing to listen to them saying NO.


I guess that is why the US Constitution's beneficiaries needs a press that will vet the Government for the people, and open illegally closed intel on all of the Public servants, just to keep them from becoming dictatorships.

The people are removing what they cannot trust.


Posted by: dottydo | January 7, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Sure. Of course there are jerks. But just as "well-intentioned" doesnt describe 100% of humanity, "jerk" doesnt describe 100% of conservatives. I doubt that it describes 15% of them. And by the way, there are as many jerks who take my point of view but for the wrong reasons, as there are who oppose me.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

'We will be voting for Linda McMahon.'

LOL. Nobody cares.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I did, Jake. I get the point of his position, but it is irrelevant to me, Because it doesn't in any way address my primary objection to torture. And it barely addresses my secondary objection. His position paper was written, by the way in 2002, no more than 15 months removed from the attack itself. I wonder if Mr. Dershowitz still feels that way, now that he has had a few years to get past the emotional gut-check of that day. Even if he does, however, he still doesn't address my issues, and is therefore ineffective in swaying me toward his way of thinking.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Elijah: allow me to note two distinctions you just made: well-intentioned and decent. That does not describe 100% of humanity. Some people are just jerks.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

37thand0:

I agree with your post @3:40P. But until Noacoler starts bullying other posters into silence, I think he should still be welcome to post his thoughts, whether he has been previously banned or not.

And I appreciate that you've toned down your posts in this incarnation.

Posted by: mnteng | January 7, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Bravo, elijah. The older I get and more I learn the more tolerant I have become. It seems you are the same. Cheers.

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Did you Google Dershowitz + "torture warrant"?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

That sounds like a very lonely way to live, but I hope it works for you. I, on the other hand will be happy to go on accepting the imperfections of well-intentioned people, and hope that they will continue to accept mine. If their intentions turn out to be less than noble, it's a different discussion, but most people are decent people, and should be respected accordingly. And in my presence, they will be.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

You are assuming that "37thand0" has been banned from here.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

mnteng


I believe in tolerance - and the First Amendment - and I oppose the efforts of other posters here to silence people with harrassment and bullying.


Tolerance is what is called for.


And an understanding that other people have opinions that are different from your own.


Some people somehow believe that everyone should agree with them.


I don't agree with that.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

'Snowbama' time in Hawaii
Agence France-Presse, by Staff  
KAILUA, Hawaii — US President Barack Obama took a respite from the pile of grim news clouding his vacation, taking a group of friends and their kids for a chill Hawaii delicacy -- shave ice. At a shave-ice store near his vacation rental, Obama on Friday picked one of the concotions, made of ice and fruit syrup and known as the "Snowbama" in his honor -- flavored with lemon-lime, cherry, and passion guava

Plus a dash of ineptitude, a jigger of inexperience and a cup of dither.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Elijah: maintaining an open mind is not a very strong imperative for me; on the contrary, I regard keeping one’s mind open after the evidence is in to be foolish.  You’re right, I don’t know the people behind the words, and for the record I don’t want to.  If someone said something as racist as calling Obama a monkey at my dinner table I would tell my guest to leave my house and never contact me again.  I have no intention of keeping an open mind to whatever weaning trauma might lay behind his abhorrent ideas.  And no I don’t think differing personal experiences excuse disgusting beliefs.  Same for cruelty to animals; someone I knew for 20 years made a joke about killing a cat and that was that, I haven’t seen him since.
 
Recommended reading (sorry but you’ll be getting a lot of this from me): Viktor Frankl, “Man’s Search for Meaning.”  Frankl was in a concentration camp and watched his father waste away and die, endured years of starvation and slave labor and came out of it with philosophical insights instead of a lifelong obsession with vengeance.  America was attacked on 9/11, and for some people this was enough to jettison everything that was once noble here.  Not for me.
 
I feel very comfortable in drawing lines, sorry.  But not really.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


That all sounds wonderful. But in the real world, the demands of intelligence requires us to keep our sources secret.


This is because we need to keep our sources for more information in the future.


Therefore, it is not wise to utilize those sources in court for a trial. It's pretty simple. The result is that all the available evidence is not used in court.


It is important NOT to reveal the sources, because you give an advantage to the enemy - and you hamper your future operations.

That is why you can not "fight terror with justice"

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I don't think drivl is going to appreciate having her blog taken over.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

37thand0 writes:
"You have been banned - the honorable thing to do would be to leave."

Really? Perhaps a little self-awareness on your part would be in order here.

Posted by: mnteng | January 7, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: I'm not flaming anyone. Flame wars are boring. I just commented on the obvious provocation going on here. I have no intention of worsening it.

I've set up several domains and operated message boards in the past. Trolls would show up. We'd give them a warning or two, then ban them. If someone posted racist stuff I would just pull the switch then and there and not lose a wink of sleep over it.

Why would I engage people whose insincerity is so plain? I already said I skip past them. But usually it takes a lit longer to figure out who to skip over. Here it's plain as could be.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

We will be voting for Linda McMahon.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

You can disagree if you like, but in doing so you cast judgement on a lot of people you dont know. Maybe my comparison of torture to abortion was unfair to abortion, but those on the other side, could logically say that it was unfair to torture. People aren't evil for their viewpoint if their intentions are noble. And a good many of our opposition is in fact very loyal.
Like I said, you can make your case, but if you make this case, you can't call anyone else closed-minded.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The ped spies humanity in an individual who would blow up a plane.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Funny.
I have this bumper sticker,

"Fight Terror with Justice"

A lot of people don't like it. I can tell.
We don't get to argue about what it means.
But it sure makes a lot of people mad.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Gail Collins funny:

Blumenthal’s opponent might turn out to be Linda McMahon, who formerly ran World Wrestling Entertainment with her husband, Vince. There are other, perhaps better, Republican candidates in the race, but I am rooting for McMahon for entertainment value. She used to be a central character in cable wrestling shows whose scripts had family members shrieking, betraying and, occasionally, slugging one another. One episode featured a villain who broke into the “palatial McMahon headquarters” while Linda was recovering from a neck injury that she had received when an aggrieved wrestler flipped her upside down and slammed her head onto the floor. “You are a rather aggressive beauty, aren’t you?” he breathed, before forcing a kiss upon her resistant lips and promising to break both her son’s legs.'

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Cheney stated publicly that he got clear and actionable intelligence and challenged Obama to publish the papers.

By his silence Obama agreed. And remember Pelosi knew about the whole thing from almost the very start.

Justice, I once researched the word. It was an interesting journey. There is an element of revenge in it.

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Today's politics are too boring I see.
Arguing the merits of torture, ehhh, no.

Hook 'em horns! v Roll Tide!
No.

How about more bad news for Republicans, 75% of retailers beat analyst expectations for Holiday sales this year.

A Swiss gentleman in St. Gallen has been fined $290,000 for speeding, 85 mph through a town where the speed limit was 55.

Winners and Losers from yesterday can't come soon enough...

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Elijah: sorry but I need to disagree.  Yes one can intellectualize any moral argument but one cannot argue any position of one’s choosing in good faith.  Bad faith moral arguments may be intellectually grounded in a primitive rule-based reasoning but, well, recall the definition of pornography.
 
As for you comparison of abortion and torture, I reject that more emphatically.  Opposition to abortion and support for torture are one and the same, motivated by the desire for control or vengeance.  I flatly reject the moral claims of the “pro-life” crowd because they passion for the sanctity of life is circumscribed by their one issue and falls to zero everywhere else.  If anti-abortionists similarly demanded good medical care and education and nutrition for children after birth I might take them more seriously, but they don’t so I don’t.  The only anti-abortionists I believe at all are lactating women, hormonally overpowered into passionate protectionist feelings toward babies, for clear evolutionary reasons.  Opposition to abortion comes from the same people who are pro-death-penalty, pro-torture, pro-American exceptionalism, anti-environment.
 
I think that whoever wrote that torture is revenge for 9/11 nailed it.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

elijah and Jake: Again I'll go back to "ask the experts" The people who do interrogations for a living have publicly stated that torture does not produce reliable information and that the best intelligence has been gleaned from conventional methods of interrogation.

I say listen to the people who study and practice whatever subject one wishes to debate, not Fox, not MSNBC, not CNN.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 7, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


It's not about being offensive. See that is what you don't get. Tolerance is what is important.


Not avoiding offending anyone.


That is where we differ.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


You have been banned - the honorable thing to do would be to leave.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler, I agree they should be banned. zook was banned, but comes back as 37th or moonbat or whatever.

But if they're here, they're here. A bunch of angry posts about living in mom's basement or in a psych ward or whatever. I'm not saying it for their sake. I don't care about insulting them. I'm saying it for my sake and I'm assuming the sake of others who find it just annoying to wade through. Flame wars are idiotic.

I'm assuming you're CF8/G+T. If so, I've told you all this before. Obviously you are far less offensive than your right wing counterparts, but in terms of pure annoyance, you're right up there.

Now you do contribute good stuff from time to time like the WWII convo from the other day. But flaming the trolls is just irritating. Now those guys certainly do deserve it, but the rest of us don't. If you can respond to them while being interesting, that's fine. But simple insults does nothing except complete the attempted hijack.

I've made this point numerous times. This is probably the last. I can skip past your stuff just as easily as I can skip past the other guys.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 7, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Correct.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

No offense taken shrink. Joke or not, you are absolutely right. I am a records clerk for the Dept. of the Army, and inclement weather has us running a skeleton crew today, so my usually dull job is straight boring today.

Noacoler, that’s the problem. We (both sides) associate our positions with morality. But they aren’t. An intelligent person can make a moral argument for either side of almost any issue. Jake isn't any more immoral for disagreeing with me on torture, than I am for disagreeing with him on abortion. (Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I remember you being anti-choice, right Jake?)
When we make these issues about morality, we put ourselves in a position where we can't just be right or wrong, but rather good or evil. And in doing so, we make our opponent into an enemy rather than our loyal opposition. It keeps good people who disagree from being friends. It keeps wise people who differ from compromising for the greater good of all. It's a plague on our politics. And on our society as a whole.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Alan Dershowitz is no more a liberal than Lyndon Larouche. He's a pro-Israel fanatic whose zeal overpowers and vanquishes whatever reasoning power he might have once had. I don't know any authentic liberal not disgusted with him.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

It's not "suddenly" a need to torture. Google Dershowitz + "torture warrant" from 2002.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

WE did not torture during WW2. We also prosecuted Japanese who had waterboarded Americans, because we considered it a war crime.

Posted by: drindl

>.>.>.>.

Do a little research...

The big difference is we wouldn't have put it in the paper.

"I see with some here that make me a torture loving nut, so be it. At least I live in reality."

Says the guy who gets his worldview from episodes of 24...

Posted by: DDAWD

I saw that show once. It was OK. Not great imho, but OK.

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Jake, the fact that it can be truth or lies renders the whole process useless. Sorting out what is true and what isn't is impossible without devoting tons of resources to it. By contrast, information gleaned by interrogation and interview techniques that do not include torture or coercion are far easier to sort out. A good poker-player can figure out over a long enough interview if his subject is lying. Behavioral analysts who have studied the science for years can do it far more quickly and accurately.
So to answer your question: No. Even with a warrant, I do not feel it would be useful to allow torture.
In my honest opinion, this willingness to torture that so many suddenly have, is not about being safe. It is about revenge for 9-11. They mostly feel it will give them a feeling of retribution for destroying 3000+ lives as well as our sense of invincibility. What people don't realize is that revenge is far more costly to the avenger, than it is to the victim. If we condone this act as a nation, we have yielded our moral authority. Our superiority. We can no longer claim to be that "shining city on the hill." We join the league of ordinary nations.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Elijah: I would save my breath if I were you.  You are trying to teach a dog to read.  Appealing to the morality of someone incapable of moral thought is a waste of time. 
 
Clinician Lawrence Kohlberg did pioneering work in a stage theory of moral development, recommended reading, but very depressing.  Large swaths of the adult population will never transcend a childish rule-based approach to right and wrong, reciprocity and human decency are forever beyond their grasp.  True moral geniuses are even rarer than mathematical and scientific ones, we get maybe one or two in a century. 
 
Much more history is made by moral morons.
 
Just read some of the posts below (I clearly don’t need to name names, now, do I); the efficacy of torture is trumpeted without recognition of its abhorrence.  For some people the only point of being alive is some vision of grim eternal persistence, survival and triumph without consideration of humanity.  Don’t bother trying to appeal to the humanity and decency of torture advocates, because they be not aboard.  Recognition of others’ humanity and acceptance of reciprocity are not universal, far from it.

And if "it doesn't work" makes no impression how far do uouvexpect to get with "it's morally wrong?"

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

WE did not torture during WW2. We also prosecuted Japanese who had waterboarded Americans, because we considered it a war crime.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"I see with some here that make me a torture loving nut, so be it. At least I live in reality."

Says the guy who gets his worldview from episodes of 24...

Posted by: DDAWD | January 7, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

URGENT TO TEAM OBAMA (special attention, John Brennan / Dennis Blair):

Underpants bomber tale stinks -- but this DOMESTIC TERORISM is silent and potentially deadly. Stop scapegoating and take down bureaucrat saboteurs and Dr. Strangeloves:

U.S. SILENTLY TORTURES AMERICANS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVES, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

What does Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan know about this?

• Regional Homeland Security- administered fusion centers use a nationwide microwave/laser electromagnetic radiation "directed energy" weapon system to silently torture, impair, subjugate unconstitutionally "targeted" Americans and their families -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight.

• Victims' own cell phones may be used to torture them.

• How a young FBI agent's "I believe you" gave victim the faith to go public.

See: http://Poynter.org ("Groups -- REPORTING" section); OR
http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 7, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

How about we agree that torture provides unreliable information (if it is a "lie") AND reliable information (if it is the truth)? Sorting that out can often be difficult. What about requiring something like "torture warrants" so that a judge has to sign off on the reasonableness, i.e. legitimate basis to think the terrorist has actionable intelligence, attempts to get that information via other means, or known exigent circumstances which require torture?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm not talking about some lower level lackey who probably knows very little. I've talking about the handful of high value suspects we actually waterboarded.

International 'law'? It's really a nebulous concept, an ugly vague patchwork of treaties that are casually interpreted as one generally wishes (like judges, you can fish around and find what you want).

But OK, so the Founders were heinous bastards by our current mores. What about the guys that fought WW2?

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

elijah,

Wow, you really do have a lot of free time at work. Say, you aren't supposed to be watching the dials at a nuclear power plant are you? Do you drive a train? Draw bridge crew? Talmudic Studies group leader at Gitmo?

Disclaimer: This was an attempt at humor. No offense was intended, nor was any individual or group of posters intended to be the target of any offense real or imagined that may be attributed to this post.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler is BANNED poster Seattle Top / GoldAndTanzanite / Chris Fox. Our gracious host, Mr. Cillizza, asked us (at 11:46 AM) that we ignore or shame him for repeatedly coming back after being banned.

If anyone else has any questions about anything I've posted (including "monkey" in a QUESTION that I asked to someone who called Bush "chimper"), please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Let me say this Jake: for me, just me, the rightness and wrongness of torture is not a utilitarian issue. It isn't about what "good" can come from it. For me, finding an "upside" to torture is akin to finding an "upside" to rape or even molestation; in that even if there is one, it cant possibly be good enough to justify such a horrible act.
That said I will now try to argue this as if there could be a justifying upside.
Yes you might get them to give up their knowledge about upcoming attacks, locations of enemy positions, and whatever else you want. However, you can also get them to tell you what you want to hear, even if it isn’t true. Things like "yes Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11." Or "yes he does have WMD's". Or worse they could give you information of an attack that won’t happen, just to get the torture to stop, causing attention to be diverted from what could be a real attack. Julius Caesar regularly sent spies into Pompeii’s camp with false information that would be extracted by torture setting up a decoy, which allowed him the element of surprise. Torture provides information. It does not provide credible or reliable information.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

fasm7700:

Will you, at least, agree to more than one hour of C-SPAN coverage putting the public option back in the bill? And, by "let[ting] the chips fall where they may" if that leads to Lieberman and Nelson (or others) joining to permanently filibuster the final bill, that's what you think REAL Democrats are ready to campaign on?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"the opposition are generally completely retarded"

Please people, I know you are not trying to be mean, but please, try to stop putting down people with developmental disabilities and mental illness by comparing them to Republicans. Everyday I work with wonderful people who have Schizophrenia and or/mental retardation. They are often as kind, gentle and generally harmless as you can imagine.
Sure there are exceptions, I'll bet there are some really great Republicans too. But the name calling is supposed to be a thing of the past here.

Disclaimer: This was an attempt at humor. No offense was intended, nor was any individual or group of posters intended to be the target of any offense real or imagined that may be attributed to this post. The Fix blog is not responsible for either this post or the Washington Post. Anyone who takes their party affiliation so seriously that they are offended when it is criticized are not retarded, nor mentally ill, but they may need to cheer up. This is an election year!

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

great post, bsimon.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: it's impossible to read this blog without skipping over posts by JakeD, 37thand0street, and Moonbat. They all appear to be going out of their way be offensive and provocative, and even when they appear to be engaged in debate their posts are dumb.

A day or two ago JakeD said that Obama isn't a citizen and called him a monkey. Why isn't that worth a ban? Why is it OK for 37th to flood the place with the same post over and over?

The noise level is WAY too high here.

I look forward to posts by Elijah, broadwayjoe, ceflynline, and a few others. Trolls should be banned but it appears that we have a streak of ideological favoritism operating here.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 7, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I mentioned a long time ago that Democrats are an indisciplined and unruly bunch. Their independence of thought causes them to be selfish and fragmented. Democrats need to unite now to redeem this situation. We also have to stop placating the Nelsons and Liebermans. Let us recognize them for what they really are. Put the public option back into the Healthcare Bill now and let the chips fall where they may. That way we will regain the respect of the average American and build some trust for the future.

Posted by: fasm7700 | January 7, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

My last post was to "elijah24". If you would like to continue the debate, or have any other questions of me, please do so.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

That's all I ask in return : )

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"And yes, we DO get real intelligence from our 'torture'."


The White House says Capt Underpants provided actionable intelligence. This apparently did not require torture & he is still eligible to stand trial, as he should, and spend his life withering away until death in a cold, lonely prison cell. Some have speculated that the actionable intelligence he provided led directly to the recent airstrikes in Yemen that allegedly took out several key leaders of al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

Talk about having our cake and eating it too: treating criminals according to the rule of law and internationally agreed upon standards, and thus not exposing ourselves to cries of hypocrasy that further inspire our enemies & their potential recruits, while gaining useful information with which we can take out leaders of terrorist groups overseas. What's not to like?

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 7, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

DDawd and Drindle, I appreciate your advice. Sincerely I do. And when Jake is disrespectful or rude, or hateful, I will treat him accordingly. But when he works and plays well with others, I will too. I will not be the one who makes him, or anybody else, feel justified in thinking that our side is the problem. I will treat anyone with the respect that their behavior warrants.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd is right, Elijah. He's said some really heinous things. I tend to scroll past too unless it's unintionally funny, which it is often enough when it isn't being sick.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

If it prevents the deaths of millions of Americans, I'm fine with it. I am no "racist" though.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"People will say anything to get torture to stop ..." including the TRUTH about future planned terrorist attacks.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Let it be noted that those were also days in which slavery was ok and witches were to be burned alive.
What was seen as humane then and now are rightly two very different things.
The defining line of what is considered torture may have moved, but the founders were against torture by the definition they held.

Also, not for nothing, but just because the victims are not in danger of dying, doesn’t mean they are in no medical danger. Kalid Sheik Mohammed (sp?) has shown several lingering symptoms of oxygen deprivation.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Elijah, I literally skip over jaked's posts, so I have no idea what he says. But in the past he has been by far the most racist poster on here. He does things like write out Barack HUSSEIN Obama (his caps, not mine) as well as constantly bring up birth certificate crap. Has also referred to interracial dating as deviant behavior, joked about the assassination of Obama, wished for the death of other posters, and all sorts of incredibly offensive stuff. (he'll deny it, but it's up to you to choose who to believe) That's why I skip over his posts and why most people on here won't engage with him. I don't mind debating the merits of my positions, (in fact I like it a lot) but at least on this page, the opposition are generally completely retarded. In my experience, you don't get real debate with jake or zook, so I don't try.

If your experience is different, then have at it. Your stuff is good readin' so I don't consider it clutter (as opposed to one former regular)

I guess I'm just trying to provide you some context as to why people are telling you to ignore this person. Take it as you will.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 7, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

People will say anything to get torture to stop. But I won't waste my time talking to torture fans.

instead, 2010:

"Then there is the issue of money. The RNC spent 90 million dollars this year. What did they get for their money? Two governorships and no Representatives. This is a bad dollar to win ratio for any party.

The NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) has only 4.3 million on hand and a debt of 2 million. They have barely enough to support one campaign let alone the 40 or more they need to be able to reclaim the House. The DCCC on the other hand has 15.3 million, with a debt of 2.6. This allows them to play a hell of a lot of defense as well as some offense in the coming cycle."

And Michael Steele, their hapless fundraiser, is too busy making speeches for personal gain to pay much attention.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of inciting violence, yesterday evening Michael Savage compared America to a "grand old elephant that has been gut shot," mortally wounded, struggling on its two front legs, dragging its body, bleeding internally...guess who he said shot America in the guts, standing by waiting for it to die...Barak Obama.

This is not from some blog, I was actually listening to The Savage Nation (it is better than say, pulling finger nails out with pliers). The right wing's leaders are going to get more federal building people killed before this is over.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

You guys can pretend that our early Presidents were as soft as we are overall, but even a cursory look back shows that to be mistaken, to put it mildly.

I see with some here that make me a torture loving nut, so be it. At least I live in reality. These bad guys were and are bad regardless of our mild actions. Just because we think it should be different won't matter to them one whit.

The will continue to cut off heads, drill out elbows and knees, you know, things everyone would agree is 'real' torture, and pretend we're just as bad. While they fly planes into buildings.

And yes, we DO get real intelligence from our 'torture'.

Elijah, I agree 100% with you that we do need to discuss these things even if we disagree, and that no one is right all the time. Except me :D

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

For most of recorded history, capital punishments were often deliberately painful as well. Severe historical penalties include the breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, or scaphism. All of these were outlawed by 1791 as "cruel and unusual punishment". So, I'm not talking about torturing anyone like that (obviously, if you kill the terrorist, that's one sure way to not get actionable intelligence from him ; )

OTOH not until 1910 was cadena temporal, which mandated "hard and painful labor," shackling for the duration of incarceration, and permanent civil disabilities declared "cruel and unusual". By comparison, waterboarding (where there is ZERO medical danger to the terrorist actually drowning) is fine by me.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

'Just hours after Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), who is running for governor in Michigan, began politicizing the event. Hoekstra baselessly claimed President Obama had not paid enough attention to Yemen — the base of Abdulmutallab’s radical affiliations — and even tried to raise campaign funds off the incident.

Last night on Fox News, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the failed terror attack was 'good for Hoekstra.'

Yes, R's are rooting for the terrorists -- and praying for another attack so they can raise money off it. I shudder at the bloodthirstiness of it.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"I thought more Republic Party of No comrades were resigning than Democratic Party members?"


While true, the Repub retirements are old news, from several months back. The Dem resignments are new & thus newsworthy & perhaps even a sign of a trend.

In that light, it is reasonable for him to also point out the drop in support according to Gallup, as in item 1 today. In that blurb the fix also explains that Repub support is even lower. Nevertheless, his conclusion is valid:

"That trend among independents ... is a major potential trouble spot for Democrats looking to minimize their losses in this year's midterm election."

Absolutely. Dems need to enthuse not onlyt he base, but the swing voters too. They may get help if the GOP continues to teabag themselves.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 7, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Technically it's my boss's time. I have a depressingly boring job that lends me a ton of time to waste on here. (hence the lack of comments after 4:00pm.)

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

You are too good hearted, elijah. But you will discover you can spend your whole day presenting lucid arguments and it will change not a thing -- you will keep hearing the same nonsense over and over, ad infinitum. But it's your time, son.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

'I thought more Republic Party of No comrades were resigning than Democratic Party members?"

You don't understand, Will, that numbers in the Beltway have magical properties, all of which work to the advantage of Republicans.

..and why any of you want to talk to a guy who salivates at the idea of torture is beyond me.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Because, Drindle, this is what we should all be doing. Both sides of any debate are fraught with the danger of hypocrisy. Neither side is right all of the time. If I could know for certain on what issues I have taken the wrong side, I would change my mind. I would like to think Jake would too. Unfortunately, there is no way to know for certain, so all we have is discussion and debate. And though I may never convince Jake to switch sides, as long as he is willing to debate respectfully with me I have a responsibility to any and all who are reading this hoping to learn something they didn’t know; to engage him in that debate with equal respect. And hopefully with equal research and preparation. Isn't this exactly what we want to see our elected officials to do? Cut the petty BS and debate the issues? How can we demand that of them, if we throw our hands up and walk away when it gets tough with other citizens?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Ct's premier pollster:

"Public Policy Polling has Blumenthal up by 30 points over any of the Republican contenders -- all of whom were leading Dodd.

Even Republicans like Blumenthal. "It would take an epic collapse for him not to be Connecticut's next Senator," PPP says. So who is this golden boy attorney general who has remained popular wildly popular for over a decade by hanging out in the AG's office? David Plotz explains -- in a profile from 2000, when people were already wondering when Blumenthal would finally get his long-overdue crack at the Senate."

http://www.slate.com/id/89649/

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Yes -- even LEFTIST Alan Dershowitz is "ok" with torture -- I will be back with examples of what our Founding Fathers did NOT consider "torture" or even cruel and unusual punishment.

mark_in_austin (you really need to retire and enjoy life):

Like I said, the President can legally force the Congress to meet, but he cannot force them to act. He can state the reason for his calling them into session and place before them and the nation his request. Congress would still retain the authority as an independent branch of government to act or not act on the President's request, or to transact other business if it so wishes.

Twenty-seven sessions of Congress have been convened by Presidents in the history of Congress. President John Adams was the first President to call the Congress into special session in 1797 over suspending relations with France. The last President to convene Congress was Truman who did so to urge enactment of his domestic legislative agenda expanding New Deal programs. Truman's call for a special session was done in a direct political context -- he actually issued his intention to do so from the Democratic Convention platform -- Congress' failure to pass the domestic bills in that special session led to Truman's 1948 campaign slogan, the "Do-Nothing 80th Congress."

When the special session of Congress called by the President convenes, it does so on the date and at the time he stipulates in his proclamation. The leaders of both bodies are formally notified. On the designated day, the presiding officer of each chamber calls the body into order "pursuant to the Constitution and to the proclamation of the President of the United States." The Clerk of the chamber will then read the President's proclamation to the assembled Members.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I thought more Republic Party of No comrades were resigning than Democratic Party members?

Or did I miss something where, proportionally, it's even worse for the Whig Party than their "news" lets on?

Posted by: WillSeattle | January 7, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

(cont.)

Even if all of those 27 times were while Congress was in recess, that's not a requirement given the literal reading of Article II. There's no controlling court case that I could find either way, but think of it this way: Obama wants to get a healthcare reform bill on his desk and, for whatever reason, Congress stays in session but refuses to take up healthcare.

Assuming arguendo that he is legally President, I don't see why he can't force them all into one room and have the riot act read to them (rinse and repeat) until they get him a bill. I proposed the exact same thing before we invaded Iraq. Of course, he starts ticking them off like that, and they could just as easily cut off all funding for the Executive branch, and he will be walking up Pennsylvania Avenue on foot the next time ; )

While the Constitution always granted Congress the authority to meet on a different day without the need to pass an amendment, you are right that § 2 of the Twentieth Amendment "tidied up" the Constitutional text by paralleling the original provision requiring that the Congress meet at least once a year in December, and changing it to January 3 (unless again changed by law). Although the original Constitution allowed Congress to change its annual meeting date by statute, this change eliminated any reference to a requirement in the Constitution that a lame duck Congress meet in the period between the election of a new Congress and its taking office.

Let me know what you think.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Why do you waste your time, elijah?

This is typical of the hypocrisy which has characterized the health 'debate'

"One of the most vociferous opponents of a government-run health insurance plan has been Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO), who has in the past called the legislation that the House of Representatives passed — which would offer a public insurance plan — “a trillion dollar government takeover of health care” and indicative of a “radical liberal agenda that threatens our freedom.” After breaking his ankle Christmas morning and receiving health care, Coffman gleefully told the Denver Post that the health care system”works” — without acknowledging that he is the beneficiary of a large government-run program funded by taxpayers:

Coffman broke his ankle Christmas morning while jogging at Meadow Hills Golf Course with his dog Buckley. The congressman hit an unknown object buried under the snow and fell.

“I successfully tested our health care system,” he said, with a laugh. “It works.” Coffman said he was lucky that his house backs up to the golf course, but getting home was extremely painful. And he said he found it ironic that while limping home, a neighbor stopped to ask about the health care debate in Washington. Coffman and his wife, Cynthia, rushed to an urgent-care center in a strip mall where X-rays showed he had, for the first time in his 54 years, broken a bone. He received a temporary cast and drugs for the pain, and he ponied up his $30 co-pay.

Coffman is part of the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan, which covers millions of federal employees, including every conservative legislator who is against offering a public insurance plan to the rest of America’s citizens. As Mary Winter of Politics Daily points out, Coffman’s bill would have been far higher if he were uninsured like 46 million other Americans."

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

This is a very complex situation overall. There is a saying, 'don't paint the devil on the wall', and I think the media tendency is to do just that. For fear of missing something, the media are hyper-reactive to every event, every possible portent (and then go on Howie's Sunday show to do their mea culpas).

The Dorgan story is, indeed, a knacker's blow to the D.s, but Dodd has at least given them more than a fighting chance to hold CT.

There is a larger story here, if one can get above the race minutiae: 1) The D.s reached their high-water mark during the last two cycles. One way or another, the balance has to even out a bit. Nota bene, I said 'a bit';

2) There is no reliable evidence so far that the R.s have improved their 'brand' (detestable term) or its standing. Will a portion of the electorate vote Republican out of anger at the Dems.? Probably. Will their be a tsunami? Unlikely, unless the D.s do something very foolish (NOT an impossibility).

The blow-by-blow HCR-saga has shown that D.s are every bit as fractious, as venal, as detestable, as self-interested, as beholden to special interests as the R.s are/were and equally unsuited in their present form to governing. But since the two-party system is the de facto rule so far in the US, the increasingly frustrated public has no choice.

The entire business reminds me of a cartoon of a crowd at a tennis match I once saw as a boy: the entire group's heads first turned in one direction, then the other, back-and forth until they became dizzy.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | January 7, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Whichever you like. But 2 things: 1. I'm not sure Blumenthal will win. Only that he has a better chance than Dodd. And 2. I dont care if it is terrorists, pirates, or Moores. The question of our conduct, and the judgement of it that Jefferson and Adams would render, is not about who is our enemy. It is about who we are. It is a very simple question: Is it ever ok to torture? Yes or no?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Thanks for finally answering my question. Do you want to discuss how Thomas Jefferson or John Adams would have handled terrorists (known as "pirates" back then? Or, maybe back on topic: why are you so sure that Blumenthal will win? Here are just SOME of the the hurdles he has: the need to take positions on federal issues, running a competitive and targeted campaign for the first time in two decades, and withstanding a deep dig into his record as Connecticut's top cop.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Jake, I will have to go back to work, but I think the coflict with Article I Sec. 5 and also with the term as announced in the 20thA and the Congressional right to fix it by law would leave the Prez only able to call a Special during recess or adjournment.

This is interesting to me [and you] so I will read whatever you post later. If this has ever been before the Spremes I simply missed it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 7, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

For fans of Orwell, it's interesting to note the constant attempts of the right to revise history:

'Last month, conservatives attempted to politicize the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas day by complaining that President Obama waited three days before publicly addressing it. “The President waits 72 hours before we hear from him, and it’s over 72 hours from the time of the incident to the time that the President spoke today,” said Karl Rove on Dec. 28, not noting that his old boss waited six days before commenting on the 2001 attempted shoe bombing.

But conservatives are now claiming that he waited 10 days to respond. On CNN’s Larry King Live last night, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani claimed that Obama responded “10 days too late“:

GIULIANI: I think the president has to make a major correction in the way he is dealing with terrorism because I think he has mishandled the situation. First of all, it was 10 days too late. This is something you react to immediately, not 10 days later after your vacation. The president of the United States, when there is a potential massive attack on this country, which is what this guy was going to do, should have been on top of this immediately, not 10 days later, 11 days later, 12 days later.

When King pointed out that “President Bush took six days once in a similar incident,” Giuliani responded that “six days is less than 10″ and that he believed “that six days was before the September 11th attack.” King then clarified that “Bush waited six days on the shoe bomber,” to which Giuliani responded, “that’s correct.”

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING:

Ken Salazar will not run for gov of Colorado ... will back Denver Mayor Hickenlooper.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Cilizza

why don't you just post a link to drivl's homepage and cut out the middleman. You could then simply take the week off with no perceived difference to your posters.

I think this sort of parasite has instances in nature. The host is usually killed by the invective of the pest.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Have you given any more thought to an "equal protection / due process" legal battle against Obamacare?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

@elijah - Moonbat is one of the alter egos of a previously banned poster (king_of_zouk). He used it as an epithet for another poster and now posts pretending that's what a leftist thinks like. Just ignore it.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 7, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

I don't see any requirement that Congress be in recess at the time.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

9-11 works as an effective demarcation point as it was when our world changed. Air travel was grounded for the better part of a week. There have been a host of changes since then aimed at increasing security. Both at the point of attack and aimed at improving coordination. We can argue about the effectiveness and merit of these, but their aim was to build a system and it broke down. In view of emerging information, there were chances to stop the undie bomber.

For my part, I am surprised that there has not been a successful terrorist strike in the U.S. since 9/11. My guess is that air travel is sufficiently hardened, then mass transit is to be targeted. 7/7 in Spain. The London Underground bombings. We can be grateful than individuals in immigrant and religious minority communities have stepped forward with warnings. This is a significant advantage that the U.S. possesses. We don't have alienated immigrant communities, certainly not to the extent that is common in Europe.

I put the Fort Hood incident as an unfortunately all too common incident in the United States. The Va Tech shooter. The Columbine shooters. Generally a lone, alienated male with guns. Not a coordinated attack.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 7, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Moonbat, when you claim to be a leftist, would you mind to add the word "extremist" to that title? I don't want people to confuse my way of thinking, for yours. Thanks.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Art. II, Sec. 3: "... he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper ..."

Lincoln called Congress into special session on July 4, 1861. Truman was the last President to exercise this power. There's no "guarantee" that Congress would actually work on Obamacare, but he could theoretically keep calling them back into session everytime they tried to adjourn until they passed it.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I keep telling everyone "The pendulum swings" and it will continue to do so, left, right, tick, tock.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 7, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

We've been tracking the race in VA-05, where seven Republican candidates are lining up in hopes of challenging top target Rep. Tom Perriello (D).

In the latest development there, Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher of 2008 presidential campaign fame is endorsing Laurence Verga.

Wurzelbacher called Verga "a true American that truly understands the importance of the Constitution, and will follow it." They will campaign together this weekend.

As we have reported, Verga also was lauded by conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham.

In AL-02, Rick Barber announced his candidacy in the Republican primary, challenging the NRCC candidate Martha Roby.

Barber, who calls himself a "conservative Tea Party Patriot," also announced he has hired Yates Walker, who served as a regional director of the Hoffman campaign in NY-23.

"There are a lot of parallels between Doug Hoffman and Rick Barber," Walker said in a release put out by the Barber campaign. '

In PA-06, the race is heating up to replace Rep. Jim Gerlach (R), who is retiring to run for governor.

A TPM reader tipped us off to the fight between NRCC favorite Steve Welch and state Rep. Curt Schroder, a conservative."

"There are a lot of parallels between Doug Hoffman and Rick Barber," -- yeah, like Barber is going to lose too.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Interesting idea, Jake. He would have to call that during a recess, would he not?

Still, he could not call committees or conferees to meet in public and enforce it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 7, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

The premise to which I refer is that there was not another attack.
You are correct that I did not think that we would be safe. Where you are wrong is in you claim that in fact our assumtion of danger would not prove accurate.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I am not allowed to insult myself? All us moonbats need to be proud of our incompetent leftism. Our lack of any ideas. Our utter failure in policy. The graft and bribery in our methods. Our string of broken promises. Our casual attitude toward American death. It is what makes us leftists. It is all we have.

Well that and all your money for the next hundred years.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"StreetCorner posted:

Obama BREAKING HIS COMMITMENT TO TELEVISION HEALTH CARE TALKS"
-----
A large portion of them WERE televised on CSPAN, did you miss them?

Posted by: JRM2 | January 7, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

To get technical about it, under the Constitution, the President COULD call a joint special session which would make it very public indeed.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

exactly right, elijah.

teaaggers having a convention -- this will be a clown show. hope someone records it all! the utubes should be precious:

"As we've reported, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the keynoter for the Feb. 4-6 event, and Rep. Michele Bachmann will be the highlight luncheon speaker.

But we took a look at the Tea Party Nation's lineup of participants and some of them are quite interesting.

Among them is the Ten Commandments Judge Roy Moore, who also is running for governor of Alabama.

Speakers include World Net Daily's Joseph Farah and Fox News Contributor Angela McGlowan.

Missing from the list are members of Congress besides Bachmann and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), which is not surprising since the tea party movement is growing in part because of anti-establishment sentiment."

And this is Good News for Democrats.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"If he had thereafter gone around the world apologizing for America, "arresting" Nazis rather than killing them, telling them they had the right to remain silent rather than waging war, then we could all blame him.

Posted by: JakeD "
---------------
After GW the image of America in the international arena was badly damaged for actions taken by his administration. There is an overwhelming consensus on this matter. Call it what you may but there is validity to using diplomacy.

Now look Jake, we arrest people in the course of combat for many reasons, it has been done throughout history, this is not unique to the current administration. Trying terrorists in a court of law is also not unique, in fact, it sheds sunlight on the perpetrators wrongdoings for all to see to ensure justice has been served and takes away their rational for committing the act. A military tribunal does not accomplish this and in fact can damage the perception of justice being served.

This war on terror is not one dimensional. A terrorist group splinters and devolves into criminality when their "cause" begins to deteriorate.

The current administration has nearly tripled (?) the troops in Afghanistan and greatly increased the Predator Drone program which has been responsible for killing over half the terrorists on the CIA's most-wanted list in the first 8 months of Obama's term, so, you can't make the argument that we are "just arresting" them.

To all out there who think Obama is "soft on terrorism" try NOT listening to Fox, MSNBC, CNN or the others who are trying to reinforce what you already believe for the sake of ratings. Try reading from the experts, military advisors, counterterrorism experts, they will all tell you that Obama is doing just fine in the field of National Security.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 7, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 (I will only ask this one more time):

There's no "premise" for you to dispute; remembering back to the day after 9/11, did you think to yourself: "Self, don't worry, there won't be another terrorist attack on (or over) our soil for eight more years?" It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. Here, I will go first: no.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

StreetCorner posted:

Obama BREAKING HIS COMMITMENT TO TELEVISION HEALTH CARE TALKS
...

Do you think he was LYING THEN ???
-----------------------------------
Yes. Of course he was. No President can make a congressional work session public. Nominees encourage the ridiculous expectations of the American people that they will rule by fiat. Presidents have great latitude in foreign policy, but even there they cannot make the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hold a public work session, thanks to our Constitution, long may it live.
--------------------------------
Of course, those of us who knew he could not keep such a pledge if even one Committee Chair or Ranking Member opposed it dismissed it as campaign garbage.
Some persons believed him and are disappointed, others now call him a liar. That is a fair response, if you ever took it seriously. It is a correct response, literally.
But it is not worth our attention, now that we know it will never happen under the Constitution.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 7, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

3. And most importantly, why does Bush get a pass on 9-11? Would President Gore, under similar circumstances be allowed by your side to say that he kept us safe, if the biggest, bloodiest terrorist attack in our nation’s history happened on his watch? why does the clock on his presidency not start, in regards to national security, until the day after the biggest failure of national security ever recorded? If Gilbert Arenas tells the judge and David Stern that he hasn’t brandished a weapon since that night when he did, are they gonna give him a citizenship award? I don't think so.
I don't think George W. Bush caused 9-11. I don't think that any president CAUSES terrorism. But if he is to take credit for keeping us safe since 9-11, he also has to take responsibility for not stopping 9-11.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Moonbat:

Your post is the type of "bad behavior" that our gracious host was referring to as well.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman's career over:

The new poll of Connecticut by Public Policy Polling (D) finds that independent Sen. Joe Lieberman's approval rating is absolutely in the dumps after his actions in the health care debate, with him having antagonized every group imaginable by both weakening progressive efforts and then voting for the actual bill.

Lieberman's overall approval rating is only 25%, with 67% disapproval. Democrats disapprove of him by 14%-81%, Republicans by 39%-48%, and independents by 32%-61%. Only 19% approve of his actions on the health care bill.

"Joe Lieberman isn't popular enough with the Democrats or the Republicans to receive their nomination for the Senate in 2012," said PPP president Dean Debnam, in the polling memo. "And since the independents don't like him much these days either it's hard to see how he'll be around for another term."

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Well like I said, I thought I had answered it, but if you want a more nuanced response, here goes:
1. I dispute your premise. Drindle is right about the shoe bomber, which happened on Bush's watch. The DC sniper was also on his watch.
2. As I said, correlation is not the same as causation. I concede that there were no successful foreign terrorist attacks on our soil, but there were quite a few qualifiers in that sentence. And I do not grant that it the lack of the above mentioned attack can be linked to the war in Iraq. Certainly there is no empirical link.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

It's been much better lately.

Aka. There is no one left to challenge my idiotic tidle wave of imbecility

the mutual admiration society of the left lives on.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic, also from Gallup:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conservatives-Finish-2009-No-1-Ideological-Group.aspx

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

So you Dems blaming Bush for 9-11, two questions:

What did Sandy Burgle?

Then Pearl Harbor WAS FDRs' fault?

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I am not the one who has ever been banned here.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Drindl said

"Shaming won't work for people who have none, so ignoring is the only course."

So true.
Cosign Farlingtonblade.
And NomoStew, I heart you too.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Do you blame FDR for the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor? If he had thereafter gone around the world apologizing for America, "arresting" Nazis rather than killing them, telling them they had the right to remain silent rather than waging war, then we could all blame him.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Apparently I stutter, but real long stutters :)

Apparently I stutter, but real long stutters :)

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Ha! Thanks, Blade. I have a feeling that there are more than a few on here who don’t share your affection for the awesomeness of me! (I realize that sarcasm doesn’t always translate in print, so for the record, that "the awesomeness of me" remark was a joke)

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"This is one of those bizarro-world statements typical of teabaggers, denying the existence of both 9/11 and the shoe bomber. Just weird.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 11:25 AM | "
-----
Not to mention the anthrax attacks.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 7, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

In this one elijah:

"Undesirable conduct may be forced on the republic in dealing with an unscrupulous enemy."

What does he mean by 'undesirable conduct'? Surely not shooting enemy soldiers in combat.

Btw, great screen name. I just finished 'Caves of Steel' and 'Robots of Dawn', Asimovs great detective of the future: Elijah Bailey.

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

In this one elijah:

"Undesirable conduct may be forced on the republic in dealing with an unscrupulous enemy."

What does he mean by 'undesirable conduct'? Surely not shooting enemy soldiers in combat.

Btw, great screen name. I just finished 'Caves of Steel' and 'Robots of Dawn', Asimovs great detective of the future: Elijah Bailey.

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

And I'm wondering why the hell 9/11 doesn't count. It's not like this was the first time ever in the history of the world there was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists. NSA Rice even went so far as to admit she ignored the intelligence saying that OBL was planning an attack in the US.

The world didn't change on 9/11. There were terrorists before than too. The world changed eight months earlier when we inaugurated an administration that decided to turn a blind eye to terrorism until it became politically expedient to respond to the threat.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 7, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

I've never posted a single "racist screed" (although I think your post is the type of "bad behavior" that our gracious host was referring to in the first place ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Who will pinOchiO (bama) blame his latest flub on today?

Call up another bus.

The buck doesn't stop here.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Did you even remotely think that no terrorist attack on (or over) our soil for eight years was even possible on 9/12/01?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the effort, Chris C. Although there was really only one person who felt he had to mindlessly respond to the trolls every single time. Without him around, it's musch easier to ignore the racist screeds of zook and jaked.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 7, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

The GOP was already shattered when Steele won (on, something like the 9th ballot). If they can get a better fund-raiser in there, why not?!

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for trying, Chris. It's been much better lately anyway, except when mobbed by Drudges -- Droogs?

Shaming won't work for people who have none, so ignoring is the only course.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm shocked that you have time to comment here, CC, given how busy of a day you must have had yesterday. I'm privately amused at the game of trying to figure out who is Zouk or Chris Fox.

My favorite new commenter: elijah. Thanks for joining us.

As long as Jake is splitting hairs (none since 2001, conveniently ignoring the shoe bomber), I will point that there has been no terrorist attack on American soil since 2008. The undie bomber was on international territory when he attempted to have a party in his pants. If Fort Hood counts, then so do the Washington snipers. Q.E.D.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 7, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I thought I did answer it. Am I missing one?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Steele was hired to be fired.

Some will say he was a casualty of the tea bag revolutionaries.

Some will say it is because he is responsible for the Republican's abysmal fund raising performance. (Karl Rove, who never supported Steele in the first place, predicted this outcome. I saw him on Fox the week Steele was hired. Rove said with a smirk, he wondered whether Steele would be able to raise the money required to mount a national level Republican comeback.)

I think they shoved him onto the RNC pinnacle (in the wake of the Barak the Magic Negro scandal) to preside over its predictable post-electoral disaster and chaos. Now that they expect to win again, the money is wanting to flow, the party is organizing around its right wing and Steele will be gone...soon.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"
-Mark Twain

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

So, what does he mean by "Undesirable conduct"?

I read a lot of history, and source documents. Not these particular ones but enough to get a feel of the people. I respectfully (and hopefully) encourge others to do the same.

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

And, combating stem cell research, don't forget that.

Mr. Cillizza:

Thanks.

elijah24:

On 9/10, I was concerned because I had read the Hart-Rudman Report outlining those very types of threats. I would be glad to theorize as to what Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would say -- especially given what is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" now -- just as soon as you answer my question to you.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"the only way we as a community can truly stop it is by a) ignoring them and/or b) shaming them into better behavior."


Put another way, someone once warned me not to get into an argument with a fool, in order to not be mistaken for one.

Or something like that.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 7, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

He says "retaliation becomes an act of benevolence." I can see how you could take your meaning from it (much as I can see how people would take from the bible that certain, seemingly benign sins like wearing clothing of 2 threads, is a death-worthy offense. But the retaliation he mentions is to be taken out on the enemy, not on the prisoners.
What is even more troubling to me is that people still fiercely advocate torture even though it is a proven fact that information yielded by torture notoriously lacks credibility. Even if you could ethically justify the idea of torture for security purposes, what justification is left when that utilitarian value is gone? All that is left is bloodlust. Is that really what we want our enemies to see in us? Is it what we want our friends and those who are undecided to see?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Michael Steele, political entertainer.

From Political Wire (and CC's Facebook widget):

"I'm telling them and I'm looking them in the eye and say I've had enough of it. If you don't want me in the job, fire me. But until then, shut up. Get with the program or get out of the way."

-- RNC Chairman Michael Steele, in an ABC News Radio interview today, to a group of prominent Republicans who have blasted him over his leadership.

http://politicalwire.com/

Posted by: mnteng | January 7, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

There was a successful terrorist attack on American soil while a Republican administration was focused on combatting -- pornography and cutting taxes for the rich.

That's the relevant fact.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Folks,

Just wanted to let you know that I am well aware that some of the people we have banned for bad behavior are back under different names.

I have checked with our IT people and aside from banning people by username AND IP address there isn't much else we can do.

If someone is committed to commenting -- and disrupting -- the only way we as a community can truly stop it is by a) ignoring them and/or b) shaming them into better behavior.

I continue to be amazed by the fact that these people, who profess to hate me and the blog so virulently, go to such lengths to ensure they can keep returning to the blog.

Thanks to everyone who is working hard to abide by the rules and make the comments section a worthwhile endeavor.

Thanks,
Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | January 7, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

He isn't. He talks about retaliation even though it is assumed we are already at war (or why prisoners?)

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

SINCE 2001, by definition, does not include 2001 (breaking news: I don't blame FDR for Pearl Harbor either ; )

BTW: not all Dems are retiring "voluntarily" e.g.
Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

He was advocating combat, not torture. Let's not take him out of context here.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"Undesirable conduct may be forced on the republic in dealing with an unscrupulous enemy."

"What is atrocious as an example becomes a duty to repress by retaliation."

"When a uniform exercise of kindness to prisoners on our part has been returned by as uniform severity on the part of our enemies,... it is high time, by other lessons, to teach respect to the dictates of humanity; in such a case, retaliation becomes an act of benevolence."

Thomas Jefferson.

Btw, Reid (the shoe bomber) happened on Bush's watch.

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

"Obama better not tout his healthcare reform in the State of the Union address, because it will just be "another lie""
==
I am not happy with where the health-care plan has gone. I will be irate if we end up with something like the senate bill.
That said, a bill, even a bad one isn't nothing. Eugene Robinson made a good point in his column last week or the week before: for all of its flaws, passing a bill will declare, legislatively, that as a right of citizenship in the United States, everyone deserves the medical treatment that they need. It will set a precedent that in this most basic way, we are all truly created equal. That our right to live; to exist, is not contingent upon wealth.
That matters. For that reason (and probably only that reason) it does deserve a mention in the State of the Union.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

'No "proof" of course except the fact that there was no terrorist attack on our soil since 2001 until when Obama took over. Did you even remotely think that was possible on 9/12/01?'

This is one of those bizarro-world statements typical of teabaggers, denying the existence of both 9/11 and the shoe bomber. Just weird.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

These trends are more proof that Americans are completely disserved by our brainless, "horse-race" journalism. The vastness of American political ignorance is appalling.

We really want to turn to the people who scorn the rule of law, wrecked the economy with deficit spending in GOOD times and de-regulation of inherently speculative derivatives, who can't figure out why America ranks outside the 1st world in health care results despite spending nearly twice as much as anyone, and who wasted hundreds of billions (not to mention other costs) on a war in the wrong country?

We really want to turn on the party that miraculously prevented a depression and has unemployment going back down two years faster than Reagan managed, and at a peak lower than his (and in a much worse crisis)? We really don't want a first-world health care system?

I find myself unable to imagine why rightists even want power. They do understand that their policies are disastrous for America, don't they? They do understand that they're the ones who seem to want an all-powerful national leader (as long as it's a rightist leader, of course), given that they don't want their leaders bound by the rule of law? They do understand that they're the ones who invented government on credit card, and still stand ready to punish anyone who even dreams about using sensible taxation to prevent charging our bills to our children and grandchildren? And don't give this former Ford Republican any of that junk about "liberal" spending. Nobody has ever spent more wildly than neo-cons.

Anybody who celebrates that kind of victory has no idea why this nation was founded, why it has thrived, why the rest of the world used to look up to us - and why there are a lot of former Republicans who can't imagine ever going back.

Posted by: NomoStew | January 7, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Liberals on this blog don't get it that a Michigan democrat dropping out of a a race because he can't raise money, at the same time ND is virtually assured to change parties, while dems in general sink like a stone, is the same as some 80 percent repub district rep retiring.

I was looking for the health care debate on C-Span today. I heard it would be transparent with all parties considered. Couldn't find it.

Also couldn't find the middle class tax cut, the energy policy, the foreign policy successes, the jobs promised. Where is Obama hiding all this stuff?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Jake on 9-10-2001, I didn't think 9-11 was possible. The impossible is only impossible until it happens.
The problems with your logic are many. 1 is that you only count attacks on our soil. There were other attacks on our allies. And I don't know if your subtle (or not) implication that the reason for the Christmas bombing attempt was the fault of President Obama was intentional of not. Either way it was incorrect.
Another problem is that correlation is not the same as causation. Correlation is the only reason I don't flat-out deny that the war had anything to do with protecting us. The possibility exists that the two issues are related, but it is at best a remote possibility.
I honestly believe that the war in Iraq, in concert with our denial of habeas corpus, torture, and the sudden allowance of racial profiling against middle-eastern people; is nothing short of surrender to the terrorists. Their desire is to change us. To make us more like them. Hateful and intolerant of those unlike us. Nationalistic and tribal. Because of them, we became willing to do anything, including the sacrifice of our founding principals to be safe. What would Thomas Jefferson and John Adams say?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Democrats have been ineffective and mishandled healthcare reform; used bribery and discrimination to get 60 votes. All they want is "something, anything" they can call healthcare reform. This is B.S., and Americans deserve better than this.
Obama better not tout his healthcare reform in the State of the Union address, because it will just be "another lie" to Americans, and he'll be boo'd.
Americans have been very demonstrative about what they want: lower premiums, ability to buy healthcare across state lines; tort reform; reduce core healthcare costs.
We did not ask him to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to cover more people.
That's downright irresponsible and we're going to hold his feet to the fire.

Posted by: ohioan | January 7, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

How do you beat liberals in the voting booth?

Easy. Tout their accomplishments.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 7, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

DEMS, TEAM OBAMA: Re-take the high ground by restoring the rule of law in America. Take down the American Gestapo's high-tech torture matrix:

U.S. SILENTLY TORTURES AMERICANS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVES, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Regional Homeland Security- administered fusion centers use a nationwide microwave/laser electromagnetic radiation "directed energy" weapon system to silently torture, impair, subjugate unconstitutionally "targeted" Americans and their families -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight.

• Victims' own cell phones may be used to torture them.

• How a young FBI agent's "I believe you" gave victim the faith to go public.

See: http://Poynter.org ("Groups -- REPORTING" section); OR
http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 7, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

Take a look at the latest Cook Report to see how few of the GOP seats are competitive vs. Dems.

elijah24:

No "proof" of course except the fact that there was no terrorist attack on our soil since 2001 until when Obama took over. Did you even remotely think that was possible on 9/12/01?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

You are too modest, elijah. My thanks to you too.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I appreciate you saying that Yard, but you don't have to thank me. Most people do something to serve their country. That was just my part.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

"Steve Benen takes issue with the media characterization that "Democrats are dropping like flies":

In the House, 14 GOP incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Does this mean Republicans are "dropping like flies"?

In the Senate, six Republican incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while two Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Is this evidence of a mass Democratic exodus?"

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

More good news for American workers, which, of course, is bad news for Republicans.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/07/business/AP-US-Economy.html?_r=1

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

This Must Be Good News for Republicans...
since everything is:

Yesterday on Fox News, RNC chair Michael Steele said that if he wasn’t currently leading the Republican Party, he’d join the ranks of the far right tea party protesters. “As I like to tell people — long before there was this big push on tea parties — if I wasn’t doing this job, I’d be out there with the tea partiers,” he said. This afternoon, Fox’s Neil Cavuto hosted Quincy, IL Tea Party co-founder Steve McQueen and asked him whether Steele would be welcome. “Not quite, Neil,” McQueen replied:

CAVUTO: Retired Army Sergeant First Class and tea party activist Steve McQueen saying, “Not so fast Mr. Steele.” He joins me right now. Steve, you would say “not quite,” right?

MCQUEEN: Not quite, Neil. Actually the Tea Party is, I liken that to an army of Davids which I am only one. I do confer with Tea Party organizations all over the country so I feel confident that I understand what the movement’s about and as I understand it right now, the GOP is currently on probation with the American people and obviously you can’t be on probation and probably be a member of the Tea Parties at the same time.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

"They are both beholden to the Mil-Ind Complex, not to the voters."

That was awhile ago. Now the Medical Industrial complex runs the American political show (and we are about to grow bigger and bigger, heh, heh, heh). But as an economic engine, health care manufacture and consumption beats weapons, or disposable consumer junk.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

elijah24, thank you for serving your country; and for the very level and balanced tone of your postings!

Posted by: yard80197 | January 7, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

re#5: the Dixie Chicks get death threats and professional ostarsization for saying "we're ashamed the President..." no name calling, no racial slurs, and the conservative media drives a campaign that caused the death threats. Yet a GOP politician can say this cr&p and get a wrist slap? How about the Georgia rep last year calling Obama "uppity"? and let's not forget good ole Chip's wonderful CD, "Barack the magic..."
yet CC has warned a poster about calling tea baggers "swinish racists", which many of their signs and rallying crys clearly indicate...
the double standards and hypocrisy is astounding in it's size and depth. The polling companys feed the media and the media feeds the polling companys, to the detriment of the voting public who get only talking points and vitriol, not facts or reasons.

Posted by: katem1 | January 7, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

The Dems are retiring anyone that will, intentionally - anti-incumbent fervor is running high and a new guy can run as an outsider, without being tarred by the Dem Congress's actions to date.

Very slick, party of non-slickness.

And those who think nothing has been accomplished by our actions in Iraq are non informed of what's actually happening/happened in that part of the world. Bush, and also Condi, will be considered a visionary, many years later.

Posted by: Obaama | January 7, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure why the fact that Democrats are almost 10 points ahead of Republicans in popularity is bad news for Democrats. Seems to me that the fact that support for Rs has dropped even further and faster than that for Ds this year might actually be bad news for Rs.

But hey, I don't live in the Beltway, where numbers apparently have different meanings.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

demlicans, republicrats it DOES NOT matter. They are both beholden to the Mil-Ind Complex, not to the voters. Time you guys stopped getting knots in your underwaer about throwing mud at the opposite party, because the politicains love this type of discord among the voters. Thus while voters are distracted slinging mud at each other, the politicians are busy stuffing their pockets and those of their patrons in big business. Last election the only candidate who talked sense was Ron Paul. But one man can do little to counter Congress and the Senate. So unless we get involved, this political failure will continue. Your elected politicians love the status quo.

Posted by: yard80197 | January 7, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

This place is going to get pretty boring when they take away Jake's computer.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 7, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Here's part 4,786 in our continuing series entitled: "Why politicians shouldn't use Twitter." In Minnesota, a Republican running for an open state Senate seat apparently tweeted back in May that President Obama was a "Power Hungry Arrogant Black Man." Later, according to a report from Minnesota Public Radio, the same candidate sought to link Democrats to pedophilia. Um, not smart."

Did you just notice? They do this all the time -- they think using the latest gadget to spew juvenalia is the coolest thing ever.

You ought to do a regular series called 'Idiotic Rightwing Tweets"

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Jake, it is not a fact at all that the war in Iraq prevented anything. There is absolutely no proof that our national security was improved in anyway by that war. It is at best speculation based on almost nothing substantial.
I also think you misread my post. I said I was NOT offended by the politics.
37th, He didn’t "release" anyone from Gitmo. They are being charged, tried and moved. Not freed.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

We'll see who is right.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Jake's logic is flawed, as usual.

If the GOP nominates teabagger-approved candidates, enough moderate Repubs will defect, just like in NY-23. The reason is that in districts like NY-23, the Dem nominee will be a moderate, not a liberal, despite the insistance of fringies like Jake to call all Dems liberals.

Therefore, I urge the GOP to nominate as many teabagger-approved candidates as possible.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 7, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Machiavelli was wrong. There is no issue with bringing politics into war because war is a manifestation of politics, just as terrorism is a form of politics. Politics can be brutal, ineffably subtle and everything in between. Politics is the process by which power is transacted between people. The Clintons even called electoral politics a contact sport, a euphemism for a game involving violence.

That said, Republicans looking forward to the deaths of American soldiers and cheerily celebrating the political consequences of death is odious, disgusting,

"Troop deaths are going to SKY ROCKET and the Dems run the show now...Bye Bye Democrats, LMAO!" etc.

If Democrats ever celebrated a terror attack, failed or otherwise, or troop deaths, simply because they could be blamed on Republicans then they were equally contemptible.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Jake thinks he's going to singlehandedly swing the CT election. That is today's Unintentionally Hilarious Post.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

" think you are missing the fact that taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq prevented another terrorist attack on U.S. soil."

Utter garbage. The invasion was nothing but the old joke: Hey Charlie, what are you doing?
I'm looking for a $5 bill I lost on Fifth Street.
But you're on Fourth Street.
I know, but the light is better over here.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 7, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

ON the C-SPAN - Obama BREAKING HIS COMMITMENT TO TELEVISION HEALTH CARE TALKS

How many campaign promises has Obama broken by now ???

Do you think he was LYING THEN ??? OR JUST DECIDED TO BREAK HIS PROMISES NOW ???

Someone should make a list outline how much of a FRAUD OBAMA HAS BEEN.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


I think it is really bad to politicize national security issues.


I seriously am upset with Obama releasing terrorists from Gitmo - Obama CERTAINLY IS NOT motivated by a desire to make the country safer -


Rather, Obama has politically motivations - he wants to prove that Bush was overreacting - and Obama wants to avoid embarrassments from losing motions in court.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

shrink2:

I guess that you, and Charles, would have a point if GWB hadn't been blamed for deaths while he was President. Where is Mother Sheehan when you need her?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Well, elijah24, you have every right to be offended bit I think you are missing the fact that taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq prevented another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. We will, unfortunately, be attacked much more now.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Look over on the right (to CC's Facebook repeater) for the politization of the war. A Republican named Jeff Crow is looking forward to Obama being blamed for troop deaths. I'd like to co-sign Charles Evans response.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

37th, I am one of those men who's life was on the line in Iraq. From 23 March 2006-13 March 2007, I was in Anbar Province. I am not at all offended that war is a political issue. It is political. Any issue, on which the candidates have opposing plans, is a political issue.
I feel (and so do many of my fellow servicemen an women) that President Bush disrespected our willingness to sacrifice for our country, by sending us into an unnecessary (and frankly unjustified) war in Iraq, while neglecting the war we felt WAS necessary in Afghanistan, and in doing so caused us to fail in that mission.
I also think that if politicizing a war is disgraceful, it is far more disgraceful to politicize a terrorist attack the way the GOP did in the 2008 election in which the main argument in favor of any of the Republican candidates was, in the words of then-Senator Biden: "a noun, a verb and 9-11."
At what point will we stop demanding a standard of our political opposition, to which we don't hold our own candidates?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Comments on something I know about ... the Colorado forth. The Markey is not naive, she voted against the House healthcare bill. She did vote for cap and trade but she will get a chance to revote that. She is well financed. A lot depends on the Republican candidate. Musgrave was very unpopular as very conservative Republican. Her biggest problem may be the Liberal Base who voted for Nader rather than Gore who would of been the greatest thing ever for the environment.

As for my review of the Senate races I am hard pressed to identify more than a net of five Republican pickups in that body. I see North Dakota, Nevada, and Arkansas. I see possibilities in Colorado, Illinois and Pennsylvania. I see a chance for the Democrats to pick up New Hampshire and Missouri. Florida could become competitive in Rubio wins the primary.

Posted by: bradcpa | January 7, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

No 37th, I'm not saying one way or the other. I'm saying both sides of any debate should question their point of view. Should compare themselves to others who have tried their way of thinking, and look at how it worked out for them. Mark Twain said it best (so i will now quote him to the best of my memory) "Any fool can learn from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of the fool."
Jake, I know you aren't an extremist (you at least stop short of that line) I was just curious how introspective you have been.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

ON #1 - the partisan identification of America

I believe the "Iraqi War Fatigue" had alot to do with a short blib in party identification for the Republicans -


I don't believe that issue would create permanent changes in party identifications.

I have to point out that the democrats were "playing politics" with the Iraqi War the whole time - first by voting for the war, then never missing an opportunity to slam Bush for the war.

The democrats used the Iraqi War issue as much as they could for electorial advantage - never once caring about the fighting men and women who had their lives on the line in Iraq.


That is the truth - pretty sick.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Not the slightest bit serious, obviously.

Except for one thing...the American evangelicals disavow their role in Uganda, but I go with the New York Times,

"What makes this even worse is that three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” gays and lesbians have been widely discredited in the United States, helped feed this hatred. Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer gave a series of talks in Uganda last March to thousands of police officers, teachers and politicians in which, according to participants and audio recordings, they claimed that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.

Now the three Americans are saying they had no intention of provoking the anger that, just one month later, led to the introduction of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009. You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested."

Lets get back on topic. The Gallup results would be a big deal if people were heading out to vote next week. But there are many months ahead of us and the economy's performance will pretty much rule the roost. To put it differently, I don't think Reagan would have beaten Carter if it weren't for stagflation. In the early eighties 10% inflation was considered a good number.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Maybe conservatives need to go through something like the experience we had with Ralph Nader in 2000. People proudly voted their principals. Rather than fall in line and vote for a candidate of the less green Democratic Party, they went with the ultimate green giant...and lost. And in doing so, they blew the chance to have probably the most environmentally friendly president we would have ever had, and instead gave the presidency to the most environmentally apathetic president we have ever had. Maybe these tea-baggers need a similar experience.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


The demographics of the countries are different - and the economies are different -


You make it sound like a "liberal political philosophy" produces economic prosperity.


First, I can assure you that it does not, it is far more likely to produce economic stagnation.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

elijah23:

The only dumb question is the one not asked. I always think about the direction in which I want to take our country, but I do not question whether it is a good idea. I don't want to bring back slavery, for goodness sake.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Elijah@834 -- it isn't just "the other 59.3%" the TEA party holds in contempt. You have to include the 80% of the Republicans they hold in contempt, too.

It's mighty lonely out there in their hard-hearted, hard-headed little groups scattered across the land. Still, they like each other, so they've got that going for them.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 7, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Lemegethistraight, shrink: You think horse sex has something to do with liberalism, and that’s bad (I would agree to its being bad), but it’s good for Uganda to commit genocide against homosexuals? BTW, for the record, even the American Evangelicals, you mentioned have condemned this bill.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

I don't want to come off as a wiseacre either, but look what happens when libs take over...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/8444134.stm

In Uganda on the other hand, conservatives have worked with American evangelicals to make homosexual behavior a capital offense.

On the other hand, they could get a little more Progressive, shall we say, about taking care of their children,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8441813.stm

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

I should clarify: when I say "socialistic" I mean nations with more socialistic policies, not nations like the old USSR, that are entirely socialist.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse


On #2 the Connecticut race


This guy Richard Blumenthal has been benefitting from a name-recognition confusion with Sidney Blumenthal -

Richard Blumenthal is not the panacea that the democrats believe - he is a BORING CANDIDATE.


2010 is going to be a national election - how people feel about Obama is going to be a major factor.


If Obama does jam the health care bill down America's throat, there will be a reaction - the seniors do not want it - and the Republicans will remind the seniors over and over that the democrats have cut $500 Billion from Medicare.

We will have to see - however the same forces which dragged down Chris Dodd will affect Blumenthal -

You have to remember people last year voted for TRANSPARENCY AND BIPARTISANSHIP - two promises that Obama has chosen to BREAK.

America is ready for a CHANGE ALREADY.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

I'm going to ask you a question, Jake. I don't want it to come off as rude, or insulting, but I worry that it will. But I'm not being a smarta**. I really want to know: Our nation is one of the most conservative in the first world. to find nations more conservative than ours, you almost have to look at places like Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Places where the average lifespan is shorter, health is worse, quality of life is far worse, and education is a joke. And thats if you are a man. Allah save you if you arent. Almost every major study says that people who live in more liberal, and even socialistic countries than ours, have a higher quality of life, a longer, healthier lifespan, and better education. Do you ever think about the direction in which you want to take our country and question whether it is a good idea?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Chris:


Why does your time stamp indicate that you posted TONIGHT ?


By Chris Cillizza | January 7, 2010; 8:50 PM ET

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 7, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

I am stunned by Al Sharpton's condemnation not only of Gilbert Arenas, but of the AA community in general in not being more forceful or better led against gun violence.

"I also feel a keen sense of guilt that black leaders have not raised our voices more dramatically. If the assailants in these incidents had been white, we would have been marching, but because this is same-race behavior, we shake our heads, say a few words and allow it to continue."

Wow. This is change I can believe in. I know, wrong thread, but it is at least as topical as which poster is moving to what state, or whether Republicans should call Democrats pedophiles. There, I hooked it in.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Do you really think, Dede Scozafava was the problem in the NY-23? Dude, she would have won. It might have been close, but she almost certainly would have won. By morons like Sister Sarah supporting a right-wing crazy, in a district that is not quite as crimson as Tuscaloosa (or Pasadena tonight I hope) your party gave mine a seat. The problem isn’t RINO's. The problem is that your side is convinced that the whole world must think with one brain. As a member of the party that tends to benefit from that mistake, thanks. But As a person who is an American before I am a Democrat, I would like both parties to be strong and relevant so that they can be a check on each others power. So yours needs to accept that we don't all have to think the same way.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Thanks. You are over-estimating that other 59.3% (for instance, I and most members of the TEA Party, am to the RIGHT of today's Republican Party, for instance). The low turnout on the Dem side will do the rest of the job.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

I knew what you meant.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Jake, I suck at math, so maybe im just figuring this wrong. But if only 40.7% of the population calls themselves republicans, and the GOP chooses candidates who look on the other 59.3% of the country with contempt, how exactly are Republicans going to win these elections?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

ninate = nominate (darn Spellchecker)

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

elijah24:

Hopefully, Republicans learned their lesson in NY-23 and don't ninate RINOs anymore. If they nominate conservatives, they will win. That's not "counting chickens" but simply stating the facts.

AndyR3:

We will be moving back right after Election Day ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

If Jake moves to CT I predict that things will get much worse for CT.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 7, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Jake: "Don't count your chickens before they hatch."

The same thing could be said for you as well. Polls show the deomcrats are coming back down to earth but that the GOP isn't gaining any ground. In general, independents are acting like independents right now. The problem for the GOP is that if they want to attract these Indies then they need to nominate Moderate candidates in places like Ohio, Kentucky, Florida etc. However, the Tea Party activists are driving the GOP agenda right now which is going to end up with people like Rubio in FL, Paul in KY, and Perry in TX. If that happens then the losses that the democrats could face will not materialize, period.

Also you are moving to CT at the best time of the year, but beware of November thats when it starts snowing and doesn't stop until April.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 7, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

I'm not the one expecting a big win in this years elections.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

If the GOP panders to the tea-baggers, their come-back will be stalled. The tea-parties are strong within the base, but they are repulsive to Independents and moderates. Even many moderate Republicans would prefer a blue-dog Democrat than an anti-change-of-any-kind fringe candidate. You’ll see last year's NY congressional race repeated all over the country.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

"... Republicans still lag behind in the race for support. In 2009, just under 41 percent (40.7) called themselves Republican, a far cry from 2004 when that number stood at 45 percent."

Which is why the GOP and TEA Party need to agree on conservative candidates for the best shot at taking liberals out. If the GOP insists on going with liberal Republicans, expect huge numbers to switch to third-party candidates. 40.7% plus 10% from the TEA Party movement will win every time.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

You won't Jake, but enough will. Dodd’s retirement is bad news for Dems, but only because we are losing a seasoned veteran. Electorally, this is a windfall. Of course the GOP will win some seats. It would be silly to think we could take such a huge lead in both houses in 2008, and not give some of that back in 2010. The only people who are getting excited about it are the media who want a story to write, and the Republicans who desperately need a reason to smile, as their party falls into a civil war after getting destroyed in back to back elections. Dems are doing fine. We need to stay committed to the plan that put us in power in the first place. When those policies start to show positive results, the electoral results will show too.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 7, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Oh, really, parkerfl1? That's why no Democrat running for Congress in 2006 even mentioned Bush's name? Talk about a double standard. I know you only post once per thread to advertise your blog, but it would be nice if you stuck around sometime here and actually defend your assertions.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

The 2010 races are a local phenomenon, not a national referendum on the party or the president.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | January 7, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

My wife and I are moving to CT on May 17th, and we will NOT be voting for Blumenthal. It's going to get much worse for the Democrats before it gets better.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 6:25 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company