Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: Can California Be Competitive (Again) in 2010?



Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina are running for governor and Senate, respectively, in California. AP photos by Craig Ruttle and Paul Sakuma

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina's decision to open an exploratory committee to weigh a possible challenge to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in 2010 creates the possibility that Golden State Republicans may well field their most competitive statewide ticket in more than a decade next November.

If, as expected, Fiorina runs against Boxer, she could well headline a ticket with former eBay CEO Meg Whitman who is regarded as the Republican gubernatorial frontrunner -- giving the GOP two prominent businesswomen with the sort of personal wealth that will allow them to be competitive statewide.

"This will be the strongest [Republican] ticket since 1994," predicted Rob Stutzman, a California Republican consultant advising Whitman's bid. "Two strong Republican women is definitely a fresh take for voters."

In 1994, Republicans had Gov. Pete Wilson (R) run successfully for second term, which ensured sixteen straight years of GOP control of the governorship, and then Rep. Michael Huffington use his personal wealth to nearly pull off a massive upset of Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Republicans have struggled mightily to stay competitive in the nation's most populous state in recent years. The party holds just 18 of the state's 53(!) congressional districts, two of the eight statewide offices (governor and state insurance commissioner) and President Obama won the state by 24 points in 2008.

And, according to recent party registration figures, Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state by more than two million; there were 7.6 million registered Democrats to 5.3 million registered Republicans as of May 4.

Even Republicans' greatest success story in recent years -- the ouster of Gov. Gray Davis and the election (and reelection) of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) -- is due far more to the Governator's star power than to the relative strength of the California GOP. (Schwarzenegger's candidacy, while seeming to revive a dormant entity, ultimately glossed over broader structural problems with the state party.)

But, recent polling conducted by Research 2000 for the liberal Daily Kos blog suggests that Republicans may have an opening -- particularly in the race for governor.

Whitman ran six points behind state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) and was in a dead heat with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D). Boxer held a much wider 52 percent to 31 percent edge over Fiorina.

To be sure, this dream scenario for Republicans is far from a sure thing. Whitman faces a serious primary challenge from state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former Rep. Tom Campbell and remains an untested and unproven first-time candidate.

And, while Fiorina has significant personal wealth, she also has substantial baggage from her time at the head of Hewlett-Packard, a post she was forced out of in 2005.

"Fiorina is weak because of her failed tenure at Hewlett-Packard," said Bill Carrick, a longtime Democratic media consultant based in California. "Whitman is potentially more serious because of her money and a better business record."

Given the electoral doldrums in which California Republicans currently find themselves, competitiveness in major statewide races is a worthy goal. Both Fiorina and Whitman should be able to parlay their personal wealth and unique profiles to position themselves as credible alternatives to their Democratic rivals.

It's a start.

Wednesday's Fix Picks:

1. Adam Nagourney documents the rise of Democrats in the West.
2. New NBC/WSJ poll casts doubt on health care reform.
3. St. Pete Times comes out in favor of Sen. Bill Young.
4. A look at the most overlooked man in the New Jersey governor's race.
5. Religion's detente against Harry Potter.

More Health Care Ads!: The Independent Women's Forum, a conservative third-party group, is dropping more than $2 million on television ads in nine states that warn of the dangers of the so-called public option. The ad, which features a testimonial from a South Carolina woman, makes the case that a "government-run health care plan" could force people off of their current insurance and suggests that 300,000 American women diagnosed with breast cancer might have died if President Obama's plan had been in place. The ads began running Tuesday night in Nebraska, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, Alaska and Colorado -- all states represented by a senator who has wavered somewhat on support for the Obama plan.

Biden Hits Florida: Vice President Joe Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan will make a stop at a middle school in Orlando today as part of the Obama administration's ongoing efforts to sell the American people on the benefits of the economic stimulus plan passed earlier this year. An administration official estimates that 26,000 jobs on Florida's education system have been saved thanks to the economic stimulus plan, a factoid you are dang near certain to hear from Biden too. And, lest you think a visit to Florida was chosen at random, remember there are no random events in politics at this level. Florida has been at the crux of the fight for the presidency in the last three national elections and that isn't likely to change; Orlando also happens to be in the heart of the I-4 corridor, the critical sweep of cities in central Florida that are regarded as the swing bloc within the state.

Kennedy a No-Go in Illinois: Merchandise Mart CEO Chris Kennedy has decided not to run for any office in 2010, ending months of speculation that he would be a candidate for Senate. "In the end, I did not want to have to leave the state in order to serve it," wrote Kennedy in a letter to supporters. "I realize that I would rather be a good husband and a good father than a good Washington politician." Kennedy, who is the son of former New York Sen. Robert Kennedy, was widely expected to run for Senate earlier this year but slowed his consideration when national Democrats courted state Attorney General Lisa Madigan. After Madigan bowed out, Kennedy seemed far less interested in running for the Senate and, reportedly, considered a run for the governor's mansion. With Kennedy officially out of the Senate race, state Treasurer Lexi Giannoulias is the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination although Cheryle Jackson, the president of the Chicago Urban League, is also running. Rep. Mark Kirk is the heavy favorite to be the Republican nominee.

A Republican Candidate in Colorado?: Some national Republicans believe their long hunt for a credible challenger to appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) may soon be over as former lieutenant governor Jane Norton is reportedly considering a race in 2010. Norton served in the state's number two slot from 2002 to 2006 and is currently the executive director of the Denver Police Foundation. (Norton chose not to run to succeed Gov. Bill Owens in 2006.) Norton, whose brother-in-law is Republican poobah Charlie Black, would likely be the frontrunner should she run, as neither Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier nor Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck have distinguished themselves to date. Former representative Bob Beauprez is also reportedly considering a run for Senate but his once rising star has been badly tarnished thanks to his non-competitive 2006 bid for governor.

Some Novak Reading: The passing of conservative columnist and reporter Bob Novak on Tuesday produced several terrific obituaries of his decidedly interesting life. Make sure to read the Post, Politico and New York Times obits. (The Post also has selected Novak columns featured.) It's worth reading David Broder's reflections on Novak too. And, if you haven't already read it, go buy Novak's memoir -- "Prince of Darkness" -- immediately. It is a must-read for any political junkie.

Palin, Romney, Huckabee Tied in 2012 Poll: In a new Marist poll, former governors Sarah Palin (Alaska), Mike Huckabee (Ark.) and Mitt Romney (Mass.) are in a statistical dead heat atop the 2012 Republican presidential field. Romney takes 21 percent in the survey to 20 percent for Palin and 19 percent for Huckabee. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), who took 10 percent, was the only other prospective 2012 candidate in double digits in the poll. Palin remains a deeply divisive figure with nearly three quarters of Republicans (73 percent) seeing her in a favorable light while just 36 percent of independents and 11 percent of Democrats say the same. That lack of support among independents and Democrats shows when Palin is matched up against President Obama; the incumbent holds a 56 percent to 33 percent lead over the former Alaska governor in the Marist data.

Say What?: "Absolutely nothing has changed." Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius downplays the abandonment of the public option storyline in a speech Tuesday.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 19, 2009; 5:33 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 1,000 Words
Next: Morning Fix: The Mystique of Misinformation

Comments

Posted by: JakeD | August 24, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Where do I sign up to help these women defeat the do nothing representation of CA. This myth that HP wasn;t an amazingly successful company under Ms. Fiorina is such a lie. She is smart, works hard, has huge business experience, and hsa her mind in the right place... she actually has created jobs.

So what has Boxer EVER done except act self-important to a General who actually has served his country. She is a self-important hack who has left behind her constituent interests... and that my friends is when it is time to go.

Go Carly. I'll work for you as soon as you build an organization.

Posted by: CARealist | August 24, 2009 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Well, GOP governors have such a splendid record in CA, why wouldn't anyone want another?

Posted by: nodebris | August 24, 2009 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Darryl ISSA?

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

UMMMMM... Fiorina... Fiorina... Isn't she the blunderbustle who almost drove HP into the ground? And now she wants to take a leadership role CA? We don't need Carly to drive CA into the ground... further!
Come on! We've had enough of Arnie and his ilk thanks to good old Darryl.

Posted by: willsCA | August 21, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic (something very few of the posters here seem capable of doing)

==

I believe you've issued this scold four times in one day. I don't see especially significant topic drift, and even pretty broad drift is par for the course. These comments are places where people talk politics. The nominal topic has thousands of connections to other political issues, some obviously germane and some less so. It's part of the process.

Boards where topic drift is suppressed quickly become boring. There's only so much one can say about the CA races, and once everyone's made any contribution all that remains is to chime in and support one view or another. Nobody wants to read that.

Where it becomes a problem is the frequent random inserts of completely unrelated posts, like k_o_z's endless copy-pastes from right-wing screeds online. But that's over.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 20, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Special call-out of thanks to FairlingtonBlade and mark_in_austin.

Count me in too.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 20, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The only chink in the California Democratic armor will be Dianne Feinstein when she is comes up for reelection again. I think most Californians are tired of her "go along, get along" attitude with the Republicans. THINK ABOUT IT; she really can't do anything but throw a good party. She has not stood up for one Democratic principle.

Posted by: nwsjnky1 | August 20, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

The California vote in 2010 could be even more interesting if the dual initiatives to end the prohibition of marijuana make it to the ballot. Course, no pol is going to support for these initiatives. But, it could cause large numbers of young/new voters to cast ballots. And, their more liberal social attitudes could really shake up the mix. (Think thousands of UC Santa Cruz students go to the polls.)

Posted by: mibster | August 20, 2009 10:43 AM | Report abuse

L'man and angriest dog, don't blame Boxer for Enron's screwing of California. That took time to expose. It was ENRON'S fault, not Boxer's. The same as it isn't Obama's fault that health care reform is mired down -- it is the GOP's fault, lying, rabble-rousing buggers.

Every time I think of what those greedy grabbing, unethical, free market creeps at Enron put California through it makes me want BIGGER government. Only good regulation, oversight with TEETH and prosecutors willing to dig save us from that happening everywhere, every day.
The credit card industry is doing pretty much the same thing still -- luring people into debt (admittedly, they come willingly) and then squeezing 30% from them - effectively negating any chance of ever being debt free. And then they moan when the whole system crashes. The system crashes because the way they do business kills the golden goose.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 20, 2009 8:30 AM | Report abuse

To hogsmile, on topic:

If those state agencies were "run like a business," they'd be expected to turn as much profit as possible for shareholders while providing as little service as possible and remunerating the executives lavishly but the employees who do the actual work as skimpily as possible in pay and benefits. In other words, loot the public coffers in order to rip off the taxpayers even more.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 20, 2009 6:49 AM | Report abuse

If these two women truly are going to run for governor I would like to see some grey hair of wisdom on thier heads instead store brought blond hair...

Posted by: edmundsingleton1 | August 20, 2009 5:09 AM | Report abuse


"her Achilles Heel is the Enron ripoff of California during Bush's 1rst term"

curious where you made that up from. Boxer was very vocal about the Enron rip off, I emailed her with Houston Chronicle stories about it at the time and she chaired an investigative commitee into Enron co-ordinated with Henry Waxman in the House. Where in the world did you hear otherwise, fantasyland?

Posted by: leichtman
======================================

like I said, they did not shut off the electricity to Alabama... it was California they shut down and destroyed. And hearings? Well after the rationing and blackouts, and based on investigative reporting and amounting to nothing ever came of it and the "traders" moved to London and worked for AIG-FP.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 20, 2009 1:40 AM | Report abuse

Back on topic (something very few of the posters here seem capable of doing): one point about Whitman (and her candidacy for California Governor): visiting California recently afforded me an opportunity to glimpse her electioneering, perhaps even get a sense of her coming campaign. One promise she made that immediately raised an eyebrow was her promise to "run California like a business".

How old!

How hackneyed!

How ridiculous!

And very foolish. California's government can't possibly be run like a business (any more than an alligator can be enticed to fly), not even along business lines in many situations; state, city, and county law enforcement doesn't work that way; the Department of Corrections doesn't work that way; Cal-OSHA and Cal-Trans don't work that way.

It's a different beast altogether.

Republicans who claim otherwise are either fooling themselves or trying to blow smoke up my you-know-what.

If she actually wins the prize (I put her realistic odds of pulling that rabbit out of her hat at 10%) and arrives in Sacramento (near where I used to live) still spewing this sort of vapid junk (meaning that she actually believes it), she soon will paint herself into a corner from which she will never emerge.

Posted by: hogsmile | August 20, 2009 12:18 AM | Report abuse

"DDAWD, I'll never look at my dining table the same way again."

Honestly, my parents' dining table is much smarter than that woman.

Haha, Colbert is hilarious. He's debating a dining room table.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 11:36 PM | Report abuse

"I still believe the proper construction is "detente with", not "detente against"."

Yeah, I was thinking about that. Detente against struck me as an oxymoron.

Glad to see you're on board with the pact. I think we had a very successful day 1.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD, I'll never look at my dining table the same way again.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 11:18 PM | Report abuse

"California will never re-cover until the people have control."

And here I thought CA suffered from runaway referenda.

bb, I have thought about your request at 9:10P. I will comply with it.

Ira, I think you should, as well. There are enough conservative voices here who are worth engaging, like reason5, and bhoomes and others [sometimes me] that we should be able to conduct this without "thoughtus interruptus" [thanx, margaretmeyers, for that one].

I still believe the proper construction is "detente with", not "detente against". G'night, y'all.


Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 19, 2009 11:16 PM | Report abuse

"@DDAWD - Gore was in the Senate; Kemp was in the House. Still possible to have cordial relations, though.

Cheers! [My new sign-off]"

Smacks forehead.

Just saw the footage of Barney Frank giving the smackdown to the protester who made the Hitler reference. Loved it.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 11:10 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD - Gore was in the Senate; Kemp was in the House. Still possible to have cordial relations, though.

Cheers! [My new sign-off]

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 19, 2009 10:53 PM | Report abuse

"California will never re-cover until the people have control.
Move out of State while you still can,
or stay and suffer?"

I'm actually considering moving there the next time I move. I visited the Berkeley area and I really liked it. I am a little worried about the economy there, though. It won't be for a few years, though, so let's see if things pick up.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 10:40 PM | Report abuse

"Kemp also was exceedingly well-read, and while I didn't agree with his supply-side position, at least I could respect that he'd thought about it a lot and that he was sincere.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker"

I guess my best memory of Kemp is the debate between him and Al Gore in 1996. I remember it being really wonky and really civil. I'd never heard so many numbers in a debate. Supposedly the two were close when they were colleagues in the Senate. It was quite a stark contrast to 1992 when the Gore and Quayle debate was a lot more heated and a lot more personal.

And THAT was a huuuge contrast between Quayle and Bentsen where Qualye just seemed dazed and confused.

It was cool to see all of those debates on CSPAN the night before Palin v Biden. I missed the Bush v Ferraro one, though.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 10:33 PM | Report abuse

What possible relevance does ex-Gov. Sarah Palin's travails during the 2008 campaign (and since) have on a Fiorina (R) - Boxer (D) U.S. Senate race (last time I looked, Palin isn't even eligible to vote in California beyond casting an Alaska absentee ballot from her hotel suite)?

The answer, of course, is: none whatsoever.

No relevance whatsoever.

So why post it here?

Can it!

Stay on point or take it elsewhere ....... .

Posted by: hogsmile | August 19, 2009 10:01 PM | Report abuse

"too many illegals, too many teachers, too many unions." Have you forgotten any other steretotpical boogeymen?

How about wanting good government services but not having the cajones to expect residents to actually pay for them. How about a disfuctional state government that is more interested in constant referendums rather then common sense governance. How about ending the run away cost of housing because of an attitude that there are no more homes that will ever be built in the state. How about ending Prop 13 and putting realistic property taxes on your overpriced homes rather than taxing homes 75% less than most other states.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Survival of California is a fairy tale...it will remain n a cesspool graft and corruption too because of the Government is controlled by the NEA and other unions.

==

Oh jesus

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Probably not.... Too many illegal aliens would have to be deported first. Then State of California would have to stop stealing the citizen's money through destructive confiscatory tax legislation, thereby establishing a climate for people people and business to thrive again, instead of the crime and drug trade we have now. There is also the problem of totally corrupt polititians including Boxer and Pelosi.
Survival of California is a fairy tale...it will remain n a cesspool graft and corruption too because of the Government is controlled by the NEA and other unions. No, California will never re-cover until the people have control.
Move out of State while you still can,
or stay and suffer?

Posted by: USDefender | August 19, 2009 9:32 PM | Report abuse

G&T: Greaaaaat catch. To be honest, I had not done a Gregory Charles Royal/Palin search for awhile.

I didn't know about his lawsuit against Phalin and I had forgotten about her purging of the black state employees. It speaks volumes Palin has never pushed back on any the Royal-related reporting. And of course the MSM won't touch it since it doesn't fit their false Mary Tyler Moore depiction of her.

Maybe this space can follow up with some investigative reporti- Naaaaaah.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 19, 2009 9:24 PM | Report abuse

"her Achilles Heel is the Enron ripoff of California during Bush's 1rst term"

curious where you made that up from. Boxer was very vocal about the Enron rip off, I emailed her with Houston Chronicle stories about it at the time and she chaired an investigative commitee into Enron co-ordinated with Henry Waxman in the House. Where in the world did you hear otherwise, fantasyland?

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 9:23 PM | Report abuse

the only way that Rs like Arnold can win elections in Ca is to morph into Ds in their campaigns. They become progressive on the environment, choice, gay rights and social justice; snooker 25% of the Ca D voters to vote for them and then secretly tell the southern Ca R voters I really don't mean any of that. Its a formula that seems to work and Jerry Brown better be ready for that type of campaign, b/c Whittman will have $50 million to spend to get out that faux message.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

anyway, back to politics although I prefer jello wrestling, I'd think Boxer would come in with an exceptional overlay of the Land as it relates to D.C.. I think her Achilles Heel is the Enron ripoff of California during Bush's 1rst term. She was absent on that one. You can not do to Alabama what the repugs did to California. But you can if you have a Senator like Boxer.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 19, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

@Lman: it was a sucker play to begin with, just like with the stimulus packages when BHO reached out again and again but got 0 GOP votes. Reid has to get tough and implement the nuclear option to end the filibuster (invented in the Dixiecrat era to block civil right sbills) and start pushing through BHO's agenda.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 19, 2009 9:13 PM | Report abuse

@Jake - My count has you posting 20% of the total posts in the thread. If we include responses, you've taken up roughly half of the blog today. I regret my personal role in the whole governor's matter. You seem to have taken the events of yesterday as encouragement to convert the comments section into your own playground. I won't be responding to you directly in the future as it fills up space. I don't want you banned. I want you to be ignored.

@everyone else - I would urge you to not respond to Jake's provocations. He is determined to destroy this forum. Unless, of course, you care to spend your days feeding a troll. I had hoped that yesterday's events might be a warning shot. Instead it was an encouragement.

As always, I remain yours respectfully,

The Fairlington Blade

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 19, 2009 9:10 PM | Report abuse

since we are all opening up I should note I was one of the several JakeDshadow's... way back when. I was hoping Chris would resurrect as a nemesis shadow nutty thing. It was fun to pivot off a true believer.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 19, 2009 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Why is all this 'birther' nonsense here?

The topic is California politics, specifically whether the Republican Party can rise like Lazarus from the dead (if California can remain afloat long enough for such a miracle to happen, my particular take on the issue).

Birthers, go away! You're an embarrassment (at best), ridiculous cranks (at worst).

Posted by: hogsmile | August 19, 2009 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey BWJ, look at what your search terms brought me to:

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/07/gregory-charles-royal-palin-juneteenth.html

Reading a few paragraphs on this site felt REALLY creepy. So defensive!

Do you wonder?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Kemp also was exceedingly well-read, and while I didn't agree with his supply-side position, at least I could respect that he'd thought about it a lot and that he was sincere.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 9:07 PM | Report abuse

interesting side show about Sarah. Bottom line, who cares, she will be a blip in the history books just like William Miller.

A few minutes ago I heard Paul Begalla tell Campbell Brown that the Senate has accepted 100 Republican Amendments to the D healthcare bill. OK maybe only 90, and have zero to show for it.

His suggestion: not one more comma, not one more paragraph from any R without a commitment to vote for the bill. Dah, really? What are these Senators thinking. They give away the store to Rs who have and likely never had any intention of supporting any healthcare bill unless they write it. That is precisely what Senator Kyle said today when he said Rs should not vote for any healthcare bill even if it includes co ops and is fully funded. Their it is, proof that the R party has decided to be complete obstructionist to any healthcare reform. Perhaps chris could post that Kyle statement tomorrow for discussion here.

That comment needs to be put into a DNC commercial. The D base is beginning to get angry with our party giving away the store with nothing to show for it from R Senators. I would go one step further than Begalla and say we have already accepted your R amendments to the bill, now either vote for it or we will move on September 15 and pass it through reconciliation without you. I am guessing that is the sentiment of most D activists right now.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

I'd never lower Jack Kemp to the same rung as Palin.

==

Kemp had a certain element of greatness, something nobody would ever say about Palin, other than of course as a troll.

Kemp was a champion of racial tolerance, bucking the GOP of his time.

But he was also a firm believer in supply side and free markets.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

just read on Sludge that Palin's code name in the McCain campaign was Tiddlywinks... what's up with that? Wink wink, nudge, nudge...

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 19, 2009 9:03 PM | Report abuse

William Bennett-style "thought experiment":

What happens if Sarah-cuda changes her, er, policy (as reported by Charley James) and meets up with Gregory Charles Royal (Google his name and "Palin") again before 2012.

Will she give Mr. Royal another chance. And if she does, how will her "base" deal it?
Anyway, I'm with Fix: Palin in 2012.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 19, 2009 9:02 PM | Report abuse

margaretmyers
They did this with Dole previously, let him have a victory lap.

I'd never lower Jack Kemp to the same rung as Palin.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse

What amazed me about McCain adding Palin to the ballot was how shockingly low he was willing to set the bar -- put an almost nobody from almost nowhere on a national ballot to get some traction -- and hope it lasted? I feel the GOP knew it was not their year and let the "prominent older guy with no future" have the nomination, reserving the reputationz of the other candidates for a better year. They did this with Dole previously, let him have a victory lap.

I notice that this Palin divorce thing is dying on the branch. Really, I cannot see it happening. I think they complete each other, which makes it a good marriage no matter how much you loathe them. And neither one of them would be willing to admit a mistake or failing. She really is the female George Bush. Anyway, like Toomey, she'll stick to easy appearances in frienedly venues while she churns out "Fun wiith Todd and Sarah" (big type, wide margins) in time for the Christmas book market.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 19, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe
Unless Sarah-cuda does something totally insane--which is possible--she will be the GOP nominee in 2012 and we should do everything we can to help her.

I see Palin melting down before then like Joe McCarthy (who, incidentally, was never a tail-gunner, so please don't call him one). Only question is, who will be Palin's Murrow?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 8:30 PM | Report abuse

fizzy1
I seem to recall that Ms. Fiorina was also of the opinion, last Fall, that the "fundamentals of the economy were strong." Could come back to bite her, 'ya think?

Thanks for that reminder, fizzy! Does anyone know whether Meg Whitman has publicly declared anything comparably inane?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to chrisfox8:

Remember that I never said McCain would win -- I said that Obama would not be sworn in as President on January 20, 2009, and he wasn't -- just ask JRM2.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

After her completely deplorable tenure at HP it's a riot to think of Fiorina running for office.

"I'll run my Senate office like I ran my company."

(pause)

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 8:25 PM | Report abuse

If Gov. Palin is nominated, she will beat pResident Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

@BWJ: ¡gracias! Es muy bien ser vuelta otra vez.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

the movers and shakers in the GOP will never choose her as the nominee.

==

You're assuming two things, both of which are suspect

(1) the GOP M&S's will act rationally and in their self-interest

(2) they would rather win elections than back down a millimeter from their ideological extremity

There has been no indication of either. I think they'll nominate her, appealing to the base as always. It's all they know.

Doubt it? Look at Mitch McConnell's face and get back to me.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Bienvenido de vuelta. Adios.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 19, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Don't you worry, little dear. I'm golfing tomorrow.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

"Unless Sarah-cuda does something totally insane--which is possible--she will be the GOP nominee in 2012 and we should do everything we can to help her.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | "
-----
I think she'll do a Ross Perot, the movers and shakers in the GOP will never choose her as the nominee. Besides, going independent would fit in with her mavericky style.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 19, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Well BWJ, my money is on her doing something totally insane. She is, after all, a troll on the GOP. Failing to get attention, she will go wilder and wilder until someone bites. Witness the forum.

She's bound to have noticed that there hasn't been a Palin 2012 post for two weeks and go bloody nuts.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

@G&T: If that happens, wonder whether Fox News will give the GOP convention disruptions 24/7 coverage as they've given the teabaggers and the town hall thugs.

Unless Sarah-cuda does something totally insane--which is possible--she will be the GOP nominee in 2012 and we should do everything we can to help her.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 19, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Because you know you can't deny it. Now, we just have to see if Mr. Cillizza follows though with his ban.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD: you were totally right. This is much more fun.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

I actually want her to stay afloat since she can't win the GE against BHO, and if she doesn't win the GOP primary her "supporters" will disrupt the process big time.

==

That would be a lot of fun. Watch them red-faced with Rage, disrupting a REPUBLICAN convention. That would rock.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Kinda ironic though: "I concluded long ago that when you unearth a troll, you boot him. When he comes back on another email account, you boot him again."

Posted by: chrisfox8 / GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 5:16 PM

What will our "gracious host" do now?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Jeezus -- is Joke a robot? He's on this blog continuously now, like 24/7.

==

http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/pgupkey.htm

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

think we have a serious Palin meltdown or three between now and then. If not in the next two months. Seems to be her specialty.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite
__________
I actually want her to stay afloat since she can't win the GE against BHO, and if she doesn't win the GOP primary her "supporters" will disrupt the process big time. Any chance of Fix doing a seventh Palin-in-2012 post?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 19, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD and broadwayjoe know it's you too ("Zorro" is "fox" in Spanish).

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Jeezus -- is Joke a robot? He's on this blog continuously now, like 24/7.

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Kos's analysis was two fold: 1. he is about 60 percent approval not 47 or whatver Fox and Drudge are pusging today and 2. any drop off in support is due to loss of GOP support.

==

Palin is losing GOP support too!

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

GoldAndTanzanite:

Who's the "liar" now? Just give it up, chrisfox8. It's time to use your "dissectingtable" e-mail address.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Come 2012, her supporters--the same Yahoos and mentals that are disrupting the health care town hall meetings and who wasted their time teabagging or searching for the [non-existent] BHO long form birth certificate--will DEMAND she be the GOP nominee...or else.

==

I think we have a serious Palin meltdown or three between now and then. If not in the next two months. Seems to be her specialty.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

I agree, DD. In fact, Kos's analysis was two fold: 1. he is about 60 percent approval not 47 or whatver Fox and Drudge are pusging today and 2. any drop off in support is due to loss of GOP support. In other words, the loss of folks who wouldn't vote for him under ANY circumstances unless he first got a Michael Jackson skin-bleach job.

56-33 is about right. BHO's Dems, Obamacans, Indies, young people, the hip and the hep--the O Nation coalition--against Sarah-cuda's hoodlums, mentals, white supremacists, and domestic terrorists. Yep.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 19, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, DD: 53-47. The BHO-Sarah-cuda poll got me excited.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 19, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I am totally rooting for Phalin. (Fix, more "Phalin in 2012" posts, please.)

Come 2012, her supporters--the same Yahoos and mentals that are disrupting the health care town hall meetings and who wasted their time teabagging or searching for the [non-existent] BHO long form birth certificate--will DEMAND she be the GOP nominee...or else.

If they don't nominate her, watch out. Those thugs and hooligans will go ballistic. Can't wait. Go Sarah-cuda! 33 percent or bust.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 19, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Fix:

I seem to recall that Ms. Fiorina was also of the opinion, last Fall, that the "fundamentals of the economy were strong." Could come back to bite her, 'ya think?

Posted by: fizzy1 | August 19, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame that the 2008 election wasn't held when McCain had the lead over Obama as well (like right after that Saddleback Civil Forum ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

"56 to 33!

It's kinda significant that Phalin, the favorite by far to win the GOP primary in 2012, would get electorally wiped off the map by President Barack H. Obama if the election were held today. Remember BHO beat McCain 53 to 67. "

I don't think Obama won by double digits (nor do I think that our population adds up to 120%)

But Obama's popularity hasn't dropped all that much. Yeah, the press will pick out the polls that do have him going down, but they fail to provide context (how did he do before in the same poll?) His numbers in aggregate have gone down somewhat, but we're still taking about an immensely popular president.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Unless you also get to "Fall Back" with the end of Daylight Savings Time too ...

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Thank God the election wasn't held today (or, wait, would that mean that the polls have already closed on the East Coast, leaving the MIDWEST and West Coast to vote in Palin?).

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Fix, you buried what should have been your lead item about Fix favorite Mrs. Sarah Heath Palin:

"...when Palin is matched up against President Obama; the incumbent holds a 56 percent to 33 percent lead over the former Alaska governor in the Marist data."

56 to 33!

It's kinda significant that Phalin, the favorite by far to win the GOP primary in 2012, would get electorally wiped off the map by President Barack H. Obama if the election were held today. Remember BHO beat McCain 53 to 67.

This goes to show that all the cherry picked "approval" polls fronted by Drudge and this space that allegedly show BHO's support sinking is just GOP background noise. When BHO is matched against a real person like Phalin, it's no contest. Don't believe polls based on 200 cold calls to land phones in the middle of the workday.

Just t'aint so.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 19, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

Not only "presiding" ("in charge of the United States Senate"), but if she had wanted to "really get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom".

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 7:01 PM | Report abuse

HRC would be 69. Not too old, but after Obama? It will really depend on what she does as SecState.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm much happier with her "writing" a book (140 characters at a time) than running Alaska--let alone presiding over the Senate.

==

I'd be a lot happier with that hotel room OD on the other thread.

Palin's entry into our politics felt like it does when your dog dies. Just an all around rotten lousy gray terrible sensation.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm much happier with her "writing" a book (140 characters at a time) than running Alaska--let alone presiding over the Senate.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Not so sure of that. After Obama's second term will be a bit of a letdown. Biden is a non-starter for 2016. Maybe a new VP in 2012 would help....

==

I would think 2016 would be HRC's moment.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Two or three more presidential losses, mininum."

Not so sure of that. After Obama's second term will be a bit of a letdown. Biden is a non-starter for 2016. Maybe a new VP in 2012 would help....

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

"But witness Sarah Palin's weird near-daily eruptions -- about imaginary death panels and the like -- and reflect on what the summer would be like if she were serving as vice president of the United States.

I don't know about you, but I'm feeling much better about everything."


Me too.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"I'm just glad they lost. Read what Eugene Robinson had to see a few columns ago about this summer."

Loved it. Unfortunately, the Fix is about the only part of WaPo.com that seems to be working for me.

Fortunately, he's syndicated.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20090818/ai_n32454903/

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

It will happen. Just a matter of how long.

==

Two or three more presidential losses, mininum

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Time to use "dissectingtable" e-mail address.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse


I think McCain could have picked up more of the center with a more moderate tack after the convention, than he would have lost on the right.

In a normal year, more right-wingers might have stayed home, but don't underestimate the hatred conservatives have for Hawaiians.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"His pick of Palin alienated the center eventually. Behind in the polls, his campaign got more and more desperate. His handling of the bailout was a gimmick he might not have had to resort to if he had been closer in the polls.

So, if he had picked Lieberman or Ridge, for example, and maintained a more civil campaign, he might not have gone into free-fall. I'm not saying he would have won, but it would have been closer.

Posted by: mikeinmidland"

I think the Republicans kind of need to rebuild the way a bad baseball team needs to rebuild. It's like having a losing team with a great 50 home run hitting player who eats up a lot of salary. It's hard to get rid of the player and doing so will certainly cost you wins in the short term, but the tradeoffs you made might lead to more success. In any case, you can't just let this superstar hit fifty home runs for a 60 win team.

The Republicans have their base. As far as voting blocs go, it's a superstar. Make no question about it. It's what put Bush over the top. However, catering to this base is preventing them from moving towards the center and getting any real electoral success. They need to start jettisoning their more fringe elements. Sure it's painful and sure it will be costly in the short term, but in the long term it will pay off as the forays into centricity will start turning into reliable voting demographics.

It will happen. Just a matter of how long.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

So, if he had picked Lieberman or Ridge, for example, and maintained a more civil campaign, he might not have gone into free-fall. I'm not saying he would have won, but it would have been closer.

==

Remains to be seen. So many of the votes he did get came from far right types who would not have turned out for a pro-choice VP as they did for Palin.

I'm just glad they lost. Read what Eugene Robinson had to see a few columns ago about this summer.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

@goldandtanzanite: say hello to Don Diego de la Vega when you see him. ;) Bienvenido de vuelta, hermano.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 19, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

"You stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis,"

----
I don't think we should increase health care to the Nazis. Period!

Posted by: JRM2 | August 19, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Welcome back, chrisfox8.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"who cares?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite "

Stop. This is what I mean by not being helpful. Just ignore him. He's going to try and try and bait you. Look at it as a challenge to just shut up and let him bait. Nothing infuriates a troll more than being ignored.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you DDAWD, but I think it was somewhat of a snowball effect. The post-convention letdown, as you say, is inevitable.

His pick of Palin alienated the center eventually. Behind in the polls, his campaign got more and more desperate. His handling of the bailout was a gimmick he might not have had to resort to if he had been closer in the polls.

So, if he had picked Lieberman or Ridge, for example, and maintained a more civil campaign, he might not have gone into free-fall. I'm not saying he would have won, but it would have been closer.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

who cares?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

For the record, my wife and I would still vote for former governors Sarah Palin (Alaska), Mike Huckabee (Ark.) or Mitt Romney (Mass.) rather than pResident Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD: I think everyone would agree that Obama has given the GOP a lot more seats at the table than the Dems got from 2002-2006. No one in the "sensible center" is going to complain about a lack of bipartisanship on HIS side.

I think he had to try. And he has tried. If something workable comes out of the Senate Healthcare Subcommittee, great. Otherwise, let's move ahead."

And you know, let's not paint all Republicans with the same brush. I was listening to NPR a month ago and they had on two Republican congressmen who were talking about this. No talk of rationing or socialism or death panels. They were talking about cost control, co-ops, and reimbursement formulas. I'm not sure how accurate their points are since it was pretty wonkish, but they were making reasonable, measured points.

And Obama SHOULD listen to these kinds of people.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

No one of these things would have been damning, but getting slammed with all four was just too much of a shock to the system and McCain never really found a solution to even keep his head above water much less realistically compete with what had become a juggernaut of a campaign on the Obama side.

==

Not to mention that McCain brought no substance to the table. It was all attack and imagery and rang hollow as a Communist mural. That weird thing about earmarks. The crazy campaign suspension. The anger, the infirmity, the patriotic schmalz.

After the glow wore off Palin was just more evidence of the unsoundness of his judgment, and the evidence continued to pour in.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"Not a chance. He was already sinking, Palin gave him a two-week boost, then he started sinking again. Palin turned out to be dangerously unhinged and only the truly irresponsible wanted a fundamentalist nutjob in reach of nuclear weapons.

Voters recognized early that McCain was damaged goods. He never had a chance.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite "

I've never seen someone plummet like that in the polls before. I think what happened was that several things occurred at once to have McCain drop 15 points in two weeks.

First, McCain was coming off a high from the RNConvention. Every election, the convention provides a boost to the party. However, that boost always undergoes a natural decay. The downward slope is the baseline that the other events are superimposed on.

Second, McCain and Obama started debating. Us Dems were in love with the guy already, but Obama had kept a relatively low profile between the primaries and the convention. However, after the convention, Obama hit the trail hard. Also, the debates provided the guy with exposure. People just really got to know Obama and what he was about and liked him. The pundits were quick to declare McCain the winner, but poll after poll said that people liked Obama more.

Third, Palin started doing interviews. People knew who she was, but they didn't know HER. Once she started doing the interviews, people got to see that she clearly was over her head and unfit for the office she was running for.

Fourth, the Lehman Bros crash. A lot of people say this was the sole cause of McCain's plummet, but this was only one of many factors. You just don't see this kind of drop in the polls from one cause.
These four things together led to McCain's demise.

No one of these things would have been damning, but getting slammed with all four was just too much of a shock to the system and McCain never really found a solution to even keep his head above water much less realistically compete with what had become a juggernaut of a campaign on the Obama side.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Code Pinksters, where are you?!

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget, guys. jaked is trying to inflame here. Don't take the bait. Ignore, ignore, ignore.

==

Calling Afghanistan "Obama's War" was a clear demand to be corrected. Good on everyone who left the sh|t on the floor where it was shat.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

ceflyinline:

Are you sure that Gen. Sherman was not being considered for the 1884 Republican nomination? I would love a link to your source.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: I think everyone would agree that Obama has given the GOP a lot more seats at the table than the Dems got from 2002-2006. No one in the "sensible center" is going to complain about a lack of bipartisanship on HIS side.

I think he had to try. And he has tried. If something workable comes out of the Senate Healthcare Subcommittee, great. Otherwise, let's move ahead.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget, guys. jaked is trying to inflame here. Don't take the bait. Ignore, ignore, ignore.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

And oh, HDTV didn't help McCain at *all*

My GOD. He looked AWFUL.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I think that's why we got McCain in 2008. If he hadn't felt the need to play to the base with his VP pick, he might have won.

==

Not a chance. He was already sinking, Palin gave him a two-week boost, then he started sinking again. Palin turned out to be dangerously unhinged and only the truly irresponsible wanted a fundamentalist nutjob in reach of nuclear weapons.

Voters recognized early that McCain was damaged goods. He never had a chance.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

You may be right about moderate Republicans. I think that's why we got McCain in 2008. If he hadn't felt the need to play to the base with his VP pick, he might have won. (OK, he also would have had to avoid that fly-to-Washington-to-save-the-country BS).

I actually voted for McCain in the Michigan primary in 2000. In part because I liked his straight talk, but more because I thought GWB was being a real snake in SC.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

"At this point, I feel that it is more important to get a good bill out than to have "bipartisan cover.""

The only reason people care about bipartisanship is because they feel that partisan politics are preventing things from being accomplished. Bipartisanship is simply a means to an end. If the end can be accomplished through different means, then I don't see people getting worked up about it.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of LBJ (and the 2012 Presidential Election, plus the new Marist polling that Mr. Cillizza brought up):

When will Obama's War get back on the WaPo front pages -- like it was for GWB -- and will that impede his chance at re-election or force him to NOT run again like LBJ? As of today, 10 a.m. EDT, at least 708 members of the U.S. military have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Of those, the military reports 536 were killed by hostile action. Code Pinksters, where are you?!

Outside the Afghan region, the Defense Department also reports 69 more members of the U.S. military died in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Of those, three were the result of hostile action. The military lists other locations as Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba; Djibouti; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Jordan; Kenya; Kyrgyzstan; Philippines; Seychelles; Sudan; Tajikistan; Turkey; and Yemen.

There were also four CIA officer deaths and one military civilian death.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Oops. LBJ actually said something like "I will not seek, nor will I accept, the nomination of my party..."

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

cflynline:

Bozo the Clown actually became a weatherman on the Today Show. Maybe you were think of Bonzo?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"mikeinmidland, the moderates need to take back the Republican Party, otherwise they'll eventually go the way of the Whigs.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker "

They will. The old guard party leaders such as Limbaugh, Palin, Steele, Gingrich might not like it, but the moderates are going to be the ones who will have electoral success and whether the old guard like it or not, it's going to be the people in power who are going to set the tenor of the party, not the cheerleaders. The cheerleaders have power now since the Republicans have no power otherwise, but as more and more moderates take power, the party will go in their direction, not the other way.

While I don't really want to see Republicans in power, I'll take it if it means that the voices of Gingrich et. al. are tuned out.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Someone was suggesting a write-in of Bozo for VP under Alan Keyes. That's what I was referring to.

But I was quoting LBJ in 1968.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse


I believe the Dems are planning to avoid the filibuster rules on the healthcare debate, by using budget reconciliation. They truly do not need any GOP votes to get this through. At this point, I feel that it is more important to get a good bill out than to have "bipartisan cover."

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland, the moderates need to take back the Republican Party, otherwise they'll eventually go the way of the Whigs.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

" "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." --Bozo the Clown Posted by: mikeinmidland"

Not so, Bozo HAS run for president.

(That quote is actually Sherman, whom no one was looking to to run.)

Posted by: ceflynline | August 19, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Bush 41 was a moderate. He called Reaganism "voodoo economics" in the 1980 primaries. Then he joined the ticket to unify the party. He liberated Kuwait but declined to occupy Iraq. A man of principle, apparently the last in his family.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for bipartisanship as a means of getting things done. However, when bipartisanship becomes a hindrance to getting things done, then throw it out. The Republicans under Bush had no problem with this. Besides, this issue is far too important to fuçk around with like the Republicans have been doing.

==

I think the Democrats should go nuclear on healthcare. Do away with the 60% filibuster thing and just steamroller over the opposition. It's not as though they have an alternative or are open to any kind of discussion.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

"It looks like (I hope) the lines have former to the point where Obama can properly step in and begin pushing Democrats to form up and march on a real health care plan, probably with public option, because the Republicans have thrown themselves out of the real debate"

Well, the Republicans are still a real part of the debate. When the press is complicit in amplifying all of their outlandish claims, they are always going to be a part.

The thing is that Obama has a louder voice and a higher platform. He needs to use it. Bush was not afraid to challenge the morality and patriotism of people who disagreed with him in the slightest. Now obviously Obama shouldn't go that far, but he can really push his point and throw the Republicans out of the debate.

I'm all for bipartisanship as a means of getting things done. However, when bipartisanship becomes a hindrance to getting things done, then throw it out. The Republicans under Bush had no problem with this. Besides, this issue is far too important to fuçk around with like the Republicans have been doing.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Or, as a long-time GOP friend has lamented, "I didn't leave the Republican Party. It's left me."

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

O.K., reason5, what about Spears/Diddy vs. Obama/Biden?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland, Once upon a time in California there was a Republican Senator named Thomas Kuchel who was moderate enough to carry his state at the same time that Democrats Pat Brown and Claire Engle were Governor and Senator, respectively. Like Olympia Snowe and to a lesser extent Susan Collins of Maine, he was berated as a RINO, and lost narrowly in the '68 primary to the rabid Max Rafferty, who then lost in the general election to Democrat Alan Cranston. Likewise, Kuchel's mentor, Goody Knight, was a moderate who jousted for power against right-wing publisher Bill Knowland (Oakland Tribune), who was either so crazy or had such a huge skeleton in his closet that he eventually offed himself. So, yes, moderate Republicans have long had a place in California politics.

Nowadays, right-wingers are trying to drive their moderates out with the dread epithet of RINO; in the case of Arlen Specter they actually succeeded (recall that in 2004 the right-wing Rick Santorum actually campaigned in the Republican primary for his fellow-Keystone Stater, instead of for Pat Toomey).

At this rate, the GOP will wind up deep but narrow, which is a losing formula. What they need in order to win is more moderate candidates who can capture genuine independent (not to be confused with American Independent Party, ahem!) and crossover votes.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

"And to blame the troll on those who respond to him really isn't fair. What motivates the outrage is actually a desirable human quality"

Well, the troll is committing one sin. The guy who takes up a whole bunch of space with mindless insults is committing another. While the heart might be in the right place, it's really not helping. Hence, the appeal to reason. Yeah, it's hard to let the racism and lies go unchallenged, but just know that it's not helping the situation. You gotta use your head as well as your heart. Just like anaphylaxis is your body trying to do the right thing, but doing a whole lot of damage as a result, the guy who was banned was perhaps trying to do the right thing, but made it a whole lot worse. The motivation is a desirable quality, but the irrationality isn't. You think all those people who voted for Bush are a bunch of misanthropes? No. They were just irrational and didn't use their damn skulls. As far as I'm concerned, having your heart in the right place doesn't excuse idiotic behavior. You've got an organ with a lot more synaptic connections than the heart. Use it.

Anyways, I just figured if we had this conversation on here, people would listen and get the picture and we could just ignore the guy and not have to bring this up again. If not, well, I tried. I'm sick of trying. If it's so important to give jaked the attention he craves, then have at it.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

I concur that Palin's popularity will continue to decline overall, as she tries to maintain the support of the far right.

Palin is not so much a candidate for president as she is a placeholder. The far right were frustrated by the nomination of McCain and elated at his pick of Palin to mollify them. It does not matter to them that she is not competant, as long as she mouths the words they want to hear.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"But Obama needs to take control of the debate the way that he did with the stimulus package. Complete with public option. I'm glad there's been a lot of pushback and Obama's backpedaling on statements on abandoning the public option can only be considered a good thing. The liberal wing looks like it's finally going to start making some more noise. Posted by: DDAWD "

It looks like (I hope) the lines have former to the point where Obama can properly step in and begin pushing Democrats to form up and march on a real health care plan, probably with public option, because the Republicans have thrown themselves out of the real debate, that is what will such a health care package contain, by jioning hands and singing Nombyegod" There is so little possibility of his getting more than Collins, Snowe, and maybe a few lame ducks with consciences to side with him, and that is so apparent to just about every voter with a stray thought that he can now write off the Republicans and go for broke.

If he gets Health Care up and running by January, every Democratic candidate across the nation can run on "My opponent wants to take away your health care." and probably make it stick. An up and running health care system, and just a little more of the same on the economy and the Republicans get to run against hope. If smart commercial writers can find old Tom Terrific cartoons, they can use Crabby Appleton to Recommend various Republicans, especially Boehner, Kyl, McConnell and let us Boomers who grew up knowing that Crabby Appleton, "I'm rotten to the core" stands for more hope than your average Republican.

Posted by: ceflynline | August 19, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Palin remains a deeply divisive figure with nearly three quarters of Republicans (73 percent) seeing her in a favorable light while just 36 percent of independents and 11 percent of Democrats say the same. That lack of support among independents and Democrats shows when Palin is matched up against President Obama; the incumbent holds a 56 percent to 33 percent lead over the former Alaska governor

==

By 2012 it'll be a lot lower than that, too. Palin has segued already to a new career, as a Shameless Liar. Someone as dishonest as she's been in the healthcare debate can't possibly be scrupulous in other behavior, and I hope she gets caught at something and ends up in the penitentiary. Let's see the GOP run a felon.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

NP, agreed that Maria helped with the perception that Arnold was a moderate. But I think he really is, in many ways. Note his very low profile in the 2004 elections.

To finish my thought on the Senate Health care sub-sub group--Since Olympia Snowe (RINO-Maine) is presumably one of the few R's that will actually vote for it, the committee is more like 4-2.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Jake D, if Palin wins the GOP nomination I don't know who I will vote for. I do not consider her to be a competent CEO. Besides that, the question is a hypothetical. I am suggesting that I am going to support Tim Pawlenty in 2012.

Mark-in-austin: I appreciate your answer. That makes sense.

Posted by: reason5 | August 19, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

So are you suggesting that the guy who got banned just lacked the capacity to control outrage over an internet troll?

==

Not to be evasive but you would have to take that up with him. Like I said, I have a lot of experience with this stuff and I concluded long ago that when you unearth a troll, you boot him. When he comes back on another email account, you boot him again.

And to blame the troll on those who respond to him really isn't fair. What motivates the outrage is actually a desirable human quality, one of the "better angels of our nature." I personally find it *very* hard to let a lie go unchallenged, and so do a lot of people.

If I were running this forum, which I'm not, this JakeD character would have been gone based on what I've seen in this thread and the one before, the "Comments on Comments" discussion. When he goaded someone who said he was leaving for posting again, I would have nuked his accesses. No hesitation, no question. And no remorse, nor hand-wringing about censorship, freedom of speech, or unfairness. They can do too much damage.

Anyway I don't want to turn this into a metadiscussion and I apologize for getting into this at all. If you want to talk further then append at yahoo dot com to my moniker.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Any bets on the identities of high-profile folks whose secret Swiss UBS bank accounts are going to be revealed?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

The Finance Committee is 14 to 11 Democrat.
The Subcommittee on Health Care is 11 to 8.

The 3 on 3 group is ad-hoc.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

mikeimidland, I think Arnold was also helped by being married into the Kennedy clan. As was recently pointed out following Eunice Shriver's recent death, blood's thicker than water, so she turned out to campaign for her son-in-law, irrespective of political party affiliation.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"Much though I would like to believe this to be true, experience speaks plainly that it isn't. The idea that people always think and act rationally and soberly is little more than a conceit."

So are you suggesting that the guy who got banned just lacked the capacity to control outrage over an internet troll?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Arnold is definitely a moderate, and NP may well be right that he only got elected because he didn't have to pass through a primary first. Re-election was of course a different story--at that point he was running on his record.

It is a truism, and emblematic of the partisan divides in this country, that a moderate politician can seldom get elected from most states, despite many that are competitive battleground states. I guess "battleground" is the operative word.

I don't think *this* Republican has much chance at winning the Governorship, but given recent history, I think *a* Republican can get elected.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD can someone please explain why the Committee on Finance is made up of 3 Dem chairmen and 3 Rs. I understand the concept of bipartisanship but do not why Ds can not make it clear that elections have consequences. I recall Rs literally locking Committee Room doors when they were in charge. Apparently Ds have gone to the other extreme trying to accomodate R Senators. Sen John Kyle stated on Monday that he will not vote for a bill even one that provides co-opts and even if Ds pay for the bill 100%. So why bother with these folks? As I recall Grassley made a public comment last week about how the Ds plan will kill grandma. Does this sound like R Senators have any intent to vote for ANY healthcare bill that they don't write in its entirety?
Again: Elections Have Consequences.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

@shrink2 - Check the other thread. CC had time to review the comments and KoZ got the boot

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 19, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Surely no one cares, but I lurked around a bunch of political site comment sections today (yes, much more relentlessly stupid than here!)and with spread fingers over one eye came back here and...I see no koz.

I quit yesterday bc I thought it was an outrage to ban, as if for rational reasons, one nasty, misanthropic "internet addict" and not the other two.

I thought CC just wanted to make a safe place for the birthers. More hits or something.

Is koz banned, or is he just out for the day?

Posted by: shrink2 | August 19, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

We are thinking human beings. We should be able to have that little bit of self control and consideration for others to just ignore the prick. If we do that, we don't need a moderator.

==

Much though I would like to believe this to be true, experience speaks plainly that it isn't. The idea that people always think and act rationally and soberly is little more than a conceit.

It was one of the greatest disappointments of my life to learn that even geniuses are subject to racial prejudice. Smart people get fat, people who eat healthy and have exemplary hygiene still get sick.

An Internet troll has cultivated the ability to get others' goat. They do it by sarcasm and mockery, they do it by goading and baiting, and most of all they lie their freakin' heads off, as this one does. And that is the weakness of decent people; we do not tolerate lies, and feel compelled to correct them. So the troll keeps lying, keeps getting responses.

And when you call them on lying they start whining about "ad hominen." Dime a dozen.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Let's try it again, this time with commas in the needed locations:

Arnold Schwarzenegger never would've won California's governorship had he not been running in a free-for-all, instead of the party-primary system, owing to the Grey Davis recall.

In 2010 the normal system reverts, and whoever wins the Republican Party primary won't stand a chance against the Democratic nominee, not given California's demographics.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"I lost my patience with unmoderated forums a long time ago. Any forum where politics is under discussion needs to be moderated and its trolls expelled, otherwise they dominate it. Ignoring only works with 100% cooperation and you can never get that. When I've moderated boards (the old days, message boards, threaded things where posters can start threads) I'd give one warning, then the boot."

Well, there are few enough of us here that we can moderate ourselves. The guy that was banned just refused to do this. If you go and read the comment section on the banning itself, you'll see that quite a few people thought that he shouldn't have been the only one banned, but that he should have been banned. This is because he took a mild annoyance and turned it into a huge aggravation. We are thinking human beings. We should be able to have that little bit of self control and consideration for others to just ignore the prick. If we do that, we don't need a moderator.

The guy who was banned said he was on board, but never followed through. I don't know if he just had a lot of steam or what, but let's hope you things are different now.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse


From the mission statement of the Independent Women's Forum:

Our mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy.

The ad sounds sympathetic to health care reform, targeting really only the public option. And yet the IWF is clearly in favor of "limited government" and therefore presumably against the other reforms which would regulate the insurance industry.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Arnold Schwarzenegger never would've won California's governorship had he not been running in a free-for-all instead of the party-primary system owing to the Grey Davis recall.

In 2010 the normal system reverts, and whoever wins the Republican Party primary won't stand a chance against the Democratic nominee, not given California's demographics.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Newly-filed legislation would impose mandatory penalties against parties and attorneys who initiate frivolous lawsuits in federal courts."

The bill would amend federal civil procedure rules that currently leave the imposition of penalties to the discretion of judges.

Prevention Act of 2009, S. 603, introduced by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, would amend the Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, striking language that gives judges discretion in imposing sanctions under the rule and replacing it with language that makes those sanctions mandatory.

"The bill would also add language stating that possible sanctions could consist of, among other things, "reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred as a result of the violation, directives of a non-monetary nature or an order to pay penalty into court or to a party."

so please sir if you are not interested in litigating in Texas, please file your frivolous complaint in the 9th Circuit. We will then want to send a copy to Senator Charles Grassley's office.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I thought it would be better with one troll banned but, alas, we have seen the thread degraded once again by the one who's name we shall never speak.

Posted by: jasperanselm | August 19, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD you are right.

I was attempting to engage a rational discussion about the breast cancer ads by this woman's forum. Sounds to me like they are using women with breast cancer as a pawn to lie and manipulate public opinion. I find that to be as low as you can get."

fivethirtyeight.com states this in an interesting way. They are pulling out the smear tactics that are normally reserved for a candidate in an election and applying it to a policy debate. I'm not sure if this has been done in a widespread manner like this before. It works because all you have to do is give people a reason not to like it. It's much easier to get people to reject than to accept. Normal, well meaning, but people who aren't the most knowledgeable are having genuine concerns about things like death panels and rationing.

If the Republicans are going to treat this like an election, I think Obama should do so as well. Come out swinging and paint the Republicans as out of touch. Sure they will scream about Obama not being bipartisan, but no one will give a second thought to bipartisanship if they have a good health care plan going.

The cost to Obama is too great to let this fail. The Republicans know it and that's why they are pulling out all the stops. This is a game to them and the suffering of real Americans really is of no concern. Obama needs to treat this like a campaign and pull out all the stops himself.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Goes for everyone else on the board. Just ignore him. We all KNOW he's racist swine. Let's not waste space reiterating it. I'm really starting to lose my patience.

==

Can't say I blame you. The guy really sticks out here, as in "does not fit."

I lost my patience with unmoderated forums a long time ago. Any forum where politics is under discussion needs to be moderated and its trolls expelled, otherwise they dominate it. Ignoring only works with 100% cooperation and you can never get that. When I've moderated boards (the old days, message boards, threaded things where posters can start threads) I'd give one warning, then the boot.

With this guy the boot would have come without the warning. Birth certificate nonsense? No more evidence needed.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

I will take "technically correct" any day of the week. In addition, if I ever get legal standing (i.e. some federal action Obama, or more likely his "Attorney General", takes impacts me personally), you'd better believe I will be filing a legal challenge.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD you are right.

I was attempting to engage a rational discussion about the breast cancer ads by this woman's forum. Sounds to me like they are using women with breast cancer as a pawn to lie and manipulate public opinion. I find that to be as low as you can get.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

If Quo Warranto's such a silver bullet, then why the delay?

Probably because if it's filed and they inevitably lose, then they'll have nothing left to complain about. They can't have that, now can they?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Nosy_parker, MikeinMidland, leichtman, come and join our cold shoulder, ok? Let's just keep the birther discussion a monologue, ok? He only hijacks the thread if we let him.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

That sounds like another ad hominem personal attack.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Being "technically correct" is not the same as being right. Sometimes it's the opposite.

leichtman mentions Texas multiple times in this thread alone. Harping on him to answer the question is not a search for information, but a diversionary tactic, by which his question remains unanswered.

Similarly, debating the finer points of quo warranto in California is meaningless if no such quo warranto has been filed. There is no complainant. There is no respondent.

There is only misdirection and foolishness.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

(assuming it even exists)

excuse me sir what are you suggesting by that surly remark? Do you understand what the legal term slander means? If you can not be civil sir I strongly suggest you find another forum.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"Based on that line of alleged reasoning about Obama and Biden I would say this conclusion is inescapable.

What pity Chris Cillizza didn't honor the expressed wishes of a majority of posters here.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite"

Not sure if you are new or a lurker like Cheopsys was, but let's just try to ignore this guy. One of the most annoying things about the guy who got banned recently was that he just lacked the self-control to ignore him. It's too bad, because he was otherwise very interesting.

So please, please, please. Just don't respond to him.

Goes for everyone else on the board. Just ignore him. We all KNOW he's racist swine. Let's not waste space reiterating it. I'm really starting to lose my patience.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I do not care

I also know

I've never filed one

I don't plan

I don't have

==

Reminds me of the last episode of "The Prisoner."

"I! I! I!"

"I! I! I!"

"I! I! I!"

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, SLAPP suits are designed to stifle a party's rightful freedom of speech. The only effective defense against them is to invoke the First Amendment; anything else is lowering oneself to the complainant's level.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Nope, Nosy_Parker -- keep trying though -- here's a helpful hint:
California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 803-811.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

1. Complainant files quo warranto.
2. Obama proffers birth certificate he's already supplied.
3. Burden of proof is on complainant to disprove respondent's proffer.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

leichtman:

You have never posted here that you have "always voted proudly as a Texan".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS337&q=leichtman+%22always+voted+proudly+as+a+Texan%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Regardless, I do not care to see your Harris County voter registration card (assuming it even exists). I also know about frivolous lawsuits, but I've never filed one, and I don't plan on doing so now (I don't have legal standing for such a lawsuit yet). See how easy it is to answer simple questions?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"I hope Whitman wins, I think she would also make a great President." That figures. Let someone in charge of the Treasury who knows how to sell to the HIGHEST bidder. We already had 8 years of that in the Bush years: Blackwater, KBR, Halliburton. I prefer taking the lowest bid myself.

Posted by: optimyst | August 19, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

jakeD curious if you know anything about slap suits or frivolous lawsuits. In Texas there are civil procedures against a lawyer filing frivolous lawsuits so I would strongly urge you and your whackjob friends to litigate under Texas Rules of Procedure and face the music.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

jakeD you are an idiot plain and simple.

==

Based on that line of alleged reasoning about Obama and Biden I would say this conclusion is inescapable.

What pity Chris Cillizza didn't honor the expressed wishes of a majority of posters here.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Insufficiency.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

jakeD you are an idiot plain and simple. Exactly what is it about my stating that I am a native Houstonian, born here, went to lawschool here and who has always voted proudly as a Texan do you not understand? .We own a timeshare in Cornado, do you have any idea sir where that is, but no I do not live in Ca I have now told you that at least twice today if you would bother to read. We bought a home in Austin where we will be retiring in the next few years if we can afford healthcare. Want to ask me 3 more times where I vote' I am sure you will. Would you care to see my Harris County voter registration card? Try reading. Its something really basic they required at my lawschool.

Some of us here are trying to discuss life and death issues like why there are still healthcare plans that currently do not provide annual mamograms and how the uninsurred are currently unable to pay for mamograms out of pocket much less have money for chemo. Some of us who are here think that is a tad bit more important then discussing your constant ego driven posts.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

aPparently some pEople think that referring to oBama as the pResident is equivalent to a qUo wArranto.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

BTW: the "Quo Warranto" discussion is not off-topic (especially using mikeinmidland's "logic" re: Barney Frank below). Anytime that Mr. Cillizza mentions "President" Obama (three times alone in this thread -- whether someone else brings it up is irrelevant -- I will also note that "Vice President" Biden was mentioned, and if Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, then Biden is legally ACTING, not Vice, President), my post about "Quo Warranto" is directly on point.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

It's just a common courtesy in civil debate.

==

Sounds like yer basic childish pout to me.

In any online forum I've ever been in since 1996 the great majority of posts, questions included, go unanswered.

And I believe this is the first time in 13 years I've seen anyone whine about it.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Nosy_Parker:

On what grounds?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Gold:

It's just a common courtesy in civil debate.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Jake
There hasn't even been a "quo warranto" action filed against Obama yet.

Because if there is, it'll just be tossed out.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I cannot answer your latest questions.

the fact remains that you my previously-asked question to you is pending -- until you do so, I will not be answering any of your questions

==

Wow.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

leichtman:

You never answered my question, so I cannot answer your latest questions. Thinking about retiring in San Diego, and saying that you live in Houston and Austin, does not preclude living (and, more importantly re: topic, voting) in California -- maybe I should have asked that instead, but the fact remains that you my previously-asked question to you is pending -- until you do so, I will not be answering any of your questions, same as for DDAWD and koolkat_1960.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, alas our current system isn't always adequate even for those who DO have health insurance. Insurers can cap the $ amount of coverage, refuse to approve treatments, drop people for pre-existing condition(s), etc., etc. Didn't Obama's own mother have to wage battles to get her health insurance provider to get treatments for her ovarian cancer covered?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! There hasn't even been a "quo warranto" action filed against Obama yet.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama did meet the burden of proof. It's now up to the complainants to disprove his legal documentation, and they haven't come up with anything.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

as for the scare ad by this women's forum lying about the healthcare plan as refusing to treat breast cancer my simple response is:

guess how many of the 47 million uninsurred can not currently afford to pay out of pocket for a mamogram, and how many insurred plans currently do not provide mamograms as part of their coverage?
Likely millions. And how many of the millions of uninsurred women with breast cancer are currently doing without chemo?

How dispicable of this woman's group to imply that our current healthcare system is adequately taking care of this gap in diagnosis much less treatment and using women with breast cancer as a sick plot to deceive the public one more time. Have they no shame?

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Quo warranto is not a "criminal" or regular "civil" matter, and the RESPONDENT Obama (as the elected official) has the burden of proving he was born in Hawaii; it is not up to the plaintiff / complainant to disprove any such proffer. Nice tries though.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

It would be best to lead by example & ignore said nonsense rather than responding & thus encouraging the production of additional nonsense. Thanks in advance.

==

You got it.

Good luck with that, though, I've never seen it work.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"Please don't waste readers' time with such plain nonsense."

It would be best to lead by example & ignore said nonsense rather than responding & thus encouraging the production of additional nonsense. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 19, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Look up "Quo Warranto" and let me know if the challenged elected official has the burden of proof or not.

==

Which word in "innocent until proven guilty" are you having trouble with?

The idea that a man could be elected Senator and then elected president (!) without his eligibility for either position having been properly established is simply ridiculous. Please don't waste readers' time with such plain nonsense.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

1. Complainant files complaint, with charges.
2. Respondent proffers response countering complainant's claim.
3. Burden of proof is on complainant to disprove respondent's proffer.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

This birth certificate stuff is for aging rednecks and black helicopter conspiracy nuts. It has NO place in a real discussion. Anyone who even entertains the possibility of it having any basis belongs under psychiatric care.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 19, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Nosy_Parker:

Look up "Quo Warranto" and let me know if the challenged elected official has the burden of proof or not.

Some of you didn't learn the lesson from yesterday's thread. Enough said.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Can California become competitive again? It's the wrong question to ask. Having fled California myself (just ahead of the deluge), my view of the State's prospects is hardly sanguine. Salvation is unlikely given its systemic problems, including (but not limited to):

- an "initiative" system gone haywire, one that allows special interests outside California to directly meddle in state governance. The Initiative Process allows special interests to bypass the State Legislature and place absurd, expensive, and often socially divisive propositions directly on the ballot;

- a State Constitution that makes it virtually impossible to enact an annual budget without the legislature first fighting a major war with itself;

- Proposition 13's (a 1978 ballot initiative capping property tax rates and severely limiting annual property tax increases) inclusion of commercial property makes balancing the State budget an impossibility. Even so, a majority of voters consistently endorse an extreme anti-tax position by refusing to modify Proposition 13 to exclude commercial property;

- California is simply too big. Its legal boundaries were drawn in 1846, when it was mostly wild-land, its population -- minuscule. The two centuries of growth that transformed it into an economic powerhouse also rendered it too big and too diverse to govern effectively. One solution would be to split the mega-state into three, even four (and give the far north-eastern desert tip to Idaho, where it belongs). Problem is, the mega cities of the Southland dominate the State Assembly. Their representatives will not allow any sub-division. And any change in California's boundaries (and the addition of new states) requires Congressional approval -- hardly likely as a loose confederation of small, low-population states dominates the U.S. Senate. Why should Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, North and South Dakota, and Montana (to name just a few) permit California's enormous population to acquire 4-6 additional Senate seats?

And these just scratch the surface. They render the question of who might be the best successor to Governor Schwarzeneggar moot because the ship of state itself cannot be steered.

Responsibility for systemic reform ultimately resides with the electorate but most voters seem oblivious to risk and deaf to reason. As a result, there is no political will anywhere else in the system to cut what amounts to a Gordian Knot.

California's probable fate going forward is a collapse into fiscal insolvency -- probably within the next five years -- dragging the rest of the U.S. down with it.

Posted by: hogsmile | August 19, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

That Carly Fiorina has rarely bothered to vote should finish her race before it begins.

Posted by: CarolAnne1 | August 19, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

FUSION CENTER SECRETS REVEALED?

• A running case history -- how government warrantless surveillance "fusion centers" administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security apparently are being misused as a pretext to harass and censor, via telecommunications.

Before you curse your computer...

...scroll to the bottom of this ACLU "Freedom Blog" thread.

http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary-ok-not-government-mandate

Is DHS Secretary Napolitano aware -- or is there insubordination in the ranks?

The ethos seems to be: Whatever they can get away with...

I will know that the Constitution has been restored as the law of the land when I can stop writing these posts.

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

***

BOB DYLAN'S 'W.W.I.' (WALKING WITHOUT ID): THE JOHN LENNON TREATMENT?

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 19, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Alan Keyes was on the ballot in only California, Florida, and Colorado. One wonders what would be the point of voting for someone who cannot win the electoral college, and denying that vote to McCain/Palin. Perhaps only to claim to be "not a racist."

Of course, the grand plan could be to assure a Palin 2012 run. Or perhaps a secret hope that she would divorce Todd if she lost the VP bid. The mind boggles at the possibilities.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

mtcooley, don't forget that Jake has also endlessly tried to claim that the burden of proof re Obama's birth certificate is on Obama, not the challengers, even though as a (supposed retired) lawyer he'd have known otherwise. Yet he repeatedly tries to con gullible folks with his bullying.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

>>Anyone who voted for American Independent Alan Keyes for president in 2008, also voted for Brian Rohrbough for VP, not Republican Sarah Palin. No ticket splitting allowed

Well that's an interesting thought Mike. Instead of Build a Bear maybe we should start a market for a Build a Ticket.

Posted by: mtcooley | August 19, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

That sounds like a personal attack to me.

==

Anyone who refers to himself as a "registered independent" clearly hasn't much of an acquaintance with honesty since this designation is internally contradicting and cannot refer to a real political status.

In short, it's an unclever lie.

Posted by: Cheopys1 | August 19, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

There was an Op-Ed yesterday suggesting that the best thing for Obama to do about the "death panel" misinformation was to ignore it. That to refute it is to give it increased exposure if not legitimacy.

That's one argument. The other side says that to effectively refute it is to dispel the false rumor and at the same time to diminish the standing of the source.

I take the latter view. There is no need to shout or call names, but misinformation should not go uncorrected.

==

This is a tough one. Republicans have for decades exploited the power of the compelling lie and its ability to always outrace a mundane truth. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) would publish insinuations about his opponent, hints that he was gay or something; the insinuations would go on the front page, the eventual retraction buried in the back of the paper.

What's really frightening is the degree to which respect for truth has diminished with the ascendancy of the far right. They of course have no reservations about lying, lying out of reflex, and even exposure as lies doesn't seem to help much. People seem actually to admire a successful liar.

Posted by: Cheopys1 | August 19, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

That sounds like a personal attack to me.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Now, now, bsimon, don't feel so bad. After all, I copied Jake's omission of Grey Davis in listing California's former Govs.

There's a lesson in this for us, though, namely not to trust Jake to be accurate and complete when data won't bolster his point unless he diddles them.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

R.I.P Don Hewitt

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"sfgate IS the Chron's website. It's the Examiner that's irrelevant and vestigial."

Put me down for 2 mistakes. Watch for the hat trick by end of business.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 19, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, sfgate IS the Chron's website. It's the Examiner that's irrelevant and vestigial.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." --Bozo the Clown

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone who voted for Alan Keyes for President probably wrote in Bozo the Clown for VP, just to balance the ticket with some responsible leadership."

Bwahahahahahahah!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 19, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who voted for American Independent Alan Keyes for president in 2008, also voted for Brian Rohrbough for VP, not Republican Sarah Palin. No ticket splitting allowed.

==

Anyone who voted for Alan Keyes for President probably wrote in Bozo the Clown for VP, just to balance the ticket with some responsible leadership.

Posted by: Cheopys1 | August 19, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Whoops! My mistake in thinking Chronicle while quoting Gate. Who woulda thunk it - a city that still has two relevant papers?

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 19, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

The Chronic says Fiorina will have to prove she's not a lightweight looking to drop into big-name politics on a whim:

"Assemblyman Chuck Devore, R-Irvine, a declared candidate for Boxer's seat, released a statement Tuesday criticizing Fiorina for being "silent on all of California's major political battles for the last decade" and lambasting her for failing to vote in nearly three-fourths of elections in her home county since 2000. He added that that he has "never missed an election." "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/19/MNOD19A845.DTL


What will CA GOP primary voters think of her alleged inactivity as a voter? A forgivable offense, or the sign of a dilletante?

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 19, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

reason5, late in the day yesterday I answered your question about TX - but if you missed it: we have open primaries although on primary day we must choose but one. The special election to replace KBH will be an all comers donnybrook with the top two in a runoff, assuming no one tops 50% initially.

I apologize to everyone but reason5 for an off-topic reply.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 19, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who voted for American Independent Alan Keyes for president in 2008, also voted for Brian Rohrbough for VP, not Republican Sarah Palin. No ticket splitting allowed.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

if you read about the so called Independent Ca registrations you will likely be sorely disappointed when you realize they are not mainstream voters like those you might find in New Hampshire.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

leichtman: I was looking for the level of AI registration. My disappointment was that it was lumped into "other." I'm not a Californian, so my interest in these two races is purely theoretical (like CC's). But I am happy to know that the electoral college is pretty well locked in.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

For the record, Gov. Palin is in the discussion because one of the topics Mr. Cillizza brought up is the Marist poll.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

There was an Op-Ed yesterday suggesting that the best thing for Obama to do about the "death panel" misinformation was to ignore it. That to refute it is to give it increased exposure if not legitimacy.

That's one argument. The other side says that to effectively refute it is to dispel the false rumor and at the same time to diminish the standing of the source.

I take the latter view. There is no need to shout or call names, but misinformation should not go uncorrected.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Why is Palin even in the discussion? She's finished in politics.

Posted by: Cheopys1 | August 19, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

why in the world would you be dissappointed in a 14 % point advantage? We would be thrilled here in Texas if we had a mere 4% points.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

these are the numbers from the latest Marist polls but we are sure that jakeD will shake his fist at them and claim that it is a left wing conspiracy:


"a new Marist poll showed Tuesday"

Only 33% of registered voters would go for Palin compared to Obama’s 56%, with 11% undecided.

Obama would pull in 92% of Democrats and Palin would get 73% of Republicans.

The President would clean Palin’s clock among amost all voting groups.

Independents would go 49% to 34% for Obama, according to the poll of 854 registered voters with a margin of error of 3.5%.

Men went for Obama 54% to 36% and women by a wider margin: 58% to 30%. "


Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

I was disappointed that California listed only Dem (44.6%), Rep (31.1%), Other (4.4%) and Declined to State (20%). I was hoping to find the registration of American Independent in California.

But thanks to our favorite San Diegan, I now know that "Declined to State" + American Independent" = 21%. Therefore American Independent = 21-20 = 1%.

That's useful. However, I doubt very much that AI registered voters are part of the "swing" vote. But then again, at 1%, who cares?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"Can someone please tell joked that no one cases what he is registered as? "

The best way to do that is to just ignore him. Cmon. He wants attention. Don't give it to him. And he'll try and bait you into doing it. Just don't respond. At least for the sake of my not having to scroll through pages of nonsense.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

reason5:

Can you answer my question?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Can someone please tell joked that no one cases what he is registered as? Here in Virginia there is no party registration, so using joked's "logic," there are no republicans in Virginia.

Don't be gutless, joked, just say you're a strong republican and move on. or are you one of those old people who keeps repeating himself?

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 19, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"reason5:

Who will you vote for if it's Palin/Pawlenty vs. Obama/Biden in 2012?"

reason5, what if it's Obama/Biden vs.

Seacrest/Abdul?

Gosselin/Gosselin?

Hilton/Spears?

Favre/Brady?

Octomom/Carrot Top?

They're all as equally likely to be the GOP ticket as "Palin/Pawlenty."

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 19, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

You claim to be a lawyer but seem to have a severe reading problem.


Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

"By the way, leichtman, do you live in California (I asked you first)?"

did you bother to read my 12:52 post?

You claim to be a lawyer but seem to have a sever reading problem.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

1900 was the final year of the 19th century, not the 1st year of the 20th. The 20th century began on 1 Jan 1901, just as the 21st century began on 1 Jan 2001.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

here is one link to Carly's quote

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/09/MNG6C46T0M1.DTL

Bashing skilled American workers appears to be the key strategy of the so- called Computer Systems Policy Project -- a handful of influential business leaders such as Fiorina who want to head off any opposition from U.S. lawmakers questioning the wisdom of exporting American jobs.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/17/EDGGO50R3R1.DTL#ixzz0OeTyolSn

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

reason5:

Who will you vote for if it's Palin/Pawlenty vs. Obama/Biden in 2012?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Never mind, I just saw that it was "DDAWD" who asked: "So how common is it for California to have a Republican governor anyways? I know a lot of blue states like to go red in the mansion from time to time. Is it like that in CA or is Schwarzenegger a once in a lifetime guy?"

I'm not answering his questions.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I guess I question the suggesstion that Whitman is the best candidate for Gov. Steve Poizner has actually won a statewide race in Cali. for Insurance commissioner. He faced a tough primary & a tough GE against a former Lt. Gov. His business credentials are also very impressive. Why is Whitman a better candidate than a very wealthy & proven vote getter? Poizner also seems to have the backing of many conservatives in the state. Campbell is running strong now on grassroots, but when the campaign becomes hard hitting I doubt he can keep pace with Whitman nor Poizner due to money. It seems that many R's are still undecided on the GOP primary. This race is still shaping up and will be contested until the end. On the Democratic side, the race is still shaping up as well. Newsome is formitable and will run a great effort I'm certain. This democratic primary will also be nationalized with Newsome. I'm not certain as to whom that favors in a Democratic primary. Will Obama endorse? Will Feinstein endorse anyone? This governor's race should be a doozy until the end of the GE!

It's a great thing for Dems. that Giannoulias has the Democratic field to himself. On the Republican side, US Rep. Kirk is leading Giannoulias 42%-39% in the last poll I saw. That's a close race, but it gives Kirk a shot which is the first time in a long, long time a Republican has a shot to win a Senate seat in Ill. I wonder if the natural Democratic lean in this state will come to the front. Although, Kirk is a proven vote getter in a Democratic congressional district...plus he voted for Cap & Trade. It's a race going here in Ill.

Great news for Republicans that Former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton is looking to run for the US Senate seat in Colorodo. Norton can beat Bennett, and will beat him if she runs. McGinnis is also in a great spot to be the new governor. It looks to be a big Republican revival in Colorodo.

Democrats have to be happy that Sarah Palin is leading the conservative field at this point. As a Republican, I won't be supporting Palin at all. I am supporting Tim Pawlenty. His popularity ratings in Minn. is 53%, by the way.

Posted by: reason5 | August 19, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I have a feeling Davis considers himself an "EX-Governor". Still, there's not much more to be wrung out of this, so I'll desist. Back to work!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 19, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"Why eliminate the (arguably most relevant) latest 8½ years?"


In some quarters it is considered best practice to ignore data that does not support the point you're trying to make.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 19, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Nosy_Parker:

I eliminated the REPUBLICAN who was serving on January 1, 1900 too (or the count would have been 1 more for both parties). He was the last 19th Century Governor.

By the way, leichtman, do you live in California (I asked you first)?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Only God knows the true Christians.

==

Then let "him" speak for himself

(silence)

(silence)

(silence)

Posted by: Cheopys1 | August 19, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"Whitman ran six points behind state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) and was in a dead heat with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D). Boxer held a much wider 52 percent to 31 percent edge over Fiorina."


Reminds me of the polling showing HRC & Giulianni in a tight race for President.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 19, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

You ask Davis then whether he considers himself a 20th or 21st Century Governor.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Why eliminate the (arguably most relevant) latest 8½ years?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I gather jakeD that you fully agree with Carly's quotes about economic policies, her pro choice stand and her wonderful management skills at HPQ. By the way have you ever been to an HPQ shareholders' meeting?

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse


Gray Davis was inaugurated Jan. 4, 1999, and therefore was definitely a 20th century governor of California.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc:

"No. Chance."? Except for that polling data that Mr. Cillizza posted on this very thread, right?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

@Jake - Gray Davis was elected in 1998. 20th century, my friend.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 19, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"" In 2004, Carly Fiorina gave a speech in which she said, “there is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore.”"

Do you have the whole speech available at a link? This looks suspiciously like something that's taken out of context.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"COUNTENANCING A DANGEROUS CLIMATE..."

TO: "drindl" @ 12:32 p.m.

Neither you nor the Raw Story dispatch quoted Petro's acknowledgment in response to Rachel Maddow's questioning that the Secret Service could simply have "expanded the perimeter" to prevent anyone with a weapon from going anywhere near the building where POTUS was speaking.

As some Raw Story readers noted in the comments section, George W. Bush's security detail often kept protesters penned off in Orwellian "free speech zones."

Why hasn't the mainstream media covered this aspect of the story? Why is it left to Raw Story working off a Rachel Maddow interview?

And why wouldn't the Secret Service announce a policy change to prevent such menacing gun displays at presidential appearances? By their inaction, they are countenancing a dangerous climate.

Somebody has fallen down on the job here. Why, and how?

Rahm should be fuming. Attention must be paid.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/18/guns-atmosphere-danger-obama/

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 19, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Nosy_Parker:

Gov. Davis's term was 21st Century -- I stated "20th Century" which is why I excluded him from that count -- you changed the timeframe to (arguably more relevant) "the past half-century" which means 50 years from today. Any more questions?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Neither one has a chance. Blacks will vote 95% Dem, Hispanics (who are growing in numbers) 80%. Disaffected whites who might back a Republican are leaving the state. No. Chance.

Posted by: gbooksdc | August 19, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

It IS every corporation's right to send jobs overseas. Whether it is a good idea for the company is debatable. That it's not a good idea for a future politician is pretty clear.

Sometimes pro-business types forget that campaign contributions are not votes.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"You betcha, dawd, Can i call you dawg? I like that name. Look, the 'free market' doesn't like racism."

Sure. The name is almost a random collection of letters that kind of sounded like something. It has absolutely no reference to my name or location or anything. Just a reflection of whatever was in my subconscious at the time. So feel free to call me whatever.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Oops, we BOTH forgot Grey Davis! Yes, he counts.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

I didn't forget anyone.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I like to hear Carly defend her idea that sending american jobs overseas is a really good idea, and every corporation's right. With all this unemployment, I'm sure people will respond to it very warmly.

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Nosy_Parker:

THREE Democrats (although, does Davis count since he got recalled?).

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

@Jake - You forgot Gray Davis, who won in 1998.

With regards to my earlier post, I would revise that to state that it is untrue that Obama (or anyone else) wants to take away end of life decisions. Rather, the provisions in the House bill were to make sure that seniors' decisions be taken while they are well.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 19, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"life" = "like" (darn Spellchecker ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

More relevantly, in the past half-century California has had 2 Democratic governors (Brown père et fils) for a total of 16 years, as compared to 4 Republicans (Reagan, Deukmejian, Wilson and Schwarzenegger). However, the Democrats have a strong chance in November 2010.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 19, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

leichtman:

Too bad you weren't out here when Newsom's words ("Whether you life it or not") were on every TV and radio.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

by the way jakeD we know exactly what that whack job California Independent party is all about, it calls for the dismantling of the US government, so don't act naive as though its some kind of main stream group b/c we all know better.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Jake I pray that your party nominates Ms. Fiorina. She definitely will be well financed with her 50 million dollar golden parachute from HPQ while her company's stock value lanuished at $15/share; its now at $44 now that she is gone. Ever been to a HPQ sharehholder meeting jakeD? I have not missed one.

These are some of her famous quotes you better get used to hearing:

"she stated that Palin lacks the experience to run a major company like Hewlett Packard"

Fiorina didn’t bother to vote in 13 of the last 18 elections.

Fiorina was a high-profile supporter of the financial bailout

Hewlett-Packard under Fiorina set up an office in Dubai to sell electronic contraband to Iran

– During her time as CEO, Fiorina was an outspoken defender of Hewlett-Packard’s offshoring, referring to it as “right-shoring.”

and the one quote that I am sure every California will be watching from Carly:

" In 2004, Carly Fiorina gave a speech in which she said, “there is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore.”


I can't wait until Carly watches her own words show up on every California televsion set and watch you cringe.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Jake. Your 1248 post was cogent. Keep it up.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 19, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Cheopys1:

See my comment at 12:22. The American Independent Party is a portion of the "other" listed there. Not to be confused with "independents" who make up the 20% not registered with a party in California.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

For the entire 20th Century, California only had three (3) Governors who were Democrats: Culbert Olson (1939-1943), Edmund Gerald "Pat" Brown, Sr. (1959-1967), and Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr. (1975-1983). Compared to 14 Republicans (Gage, Pardee, Gillett, Johnson, Stephens, Richardson, Young, Rolph Jr., Merriam, Warren, Knight, Reagan, Deukmejian, and Wilson).

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

How insurance companies are packing town hall meetings to scream down reform:

"At least one major insurer is urging its employees to participate in tea parties.

Last week, UnitedHealth Group--the second largest health insurance company in the country--sent out a letter to its employees urging them to call UHG's United for Health Reform Advocacy Hotline to speak with an advocacy specialist about health care reform. The advocacy specialist, according to the letter, is there to help UHG employees write personalized messages to elected officials, and to arm them with talking points to use at local events in order to better oppose the public health insurance option.

TPM has obtained the letter, which you can read here, but a UHG advocacy specialist was not willing to provide TPM with a copy.

However, a source who's insured by UHG--and who also obtained the letter--called the hotline on Tuesday and says the company directed him to an events list hosted by the right wing America's Independent Party, and suggested he attend an anti-health care reform tea party sponsored by religious fundamentalist Dave Daubenmire, scheduled for today outside the office of Blue Dog Rep. Zack Space (D-OH)."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/major-health-insurance-company-urges-employees-to-attend-tea-parties.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

"Obama DOES want to take end-of-life decisions away from seniors; he even said his own grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect the “sustainable model” for health care.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 12:38 PM"

Oh, for the love of... Jake, the lady was terminally ill with cancer. Just HOW did the hip replacement improve her life? All it did was to put her through more surgery, i.e., more pain in the long run. If anything, the extra medical intervention could possibly have SHORTENED her life.

More than 20 years ago, when my mother passed into a coma and there was no chance of any brain function, my father asked that my brother and I make the decision as to whether to keep her on life support, as he was not emotionally capable of doing so and she did not have a living will. My brother would have opted for the life support, but deferred to me when I told him (truthfully) that she had discussed this with me many times in the past. I personally followed what I knew to be her wishes and signed papers asking that life support be discontinued. Let me add, my conscience is 100% clear on this, as are those of both my brother and father.

Also, not all of us on this forum are Christians. When you claim to speak for the One in whom YOU believe, you should know that not only do you not speak for me, you literally turn me AWAY from your brand of faith.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | August 19, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I am registered Independent.

==

"Registered" means that you are affiliated with a political party. "Independent" means you are not affiliated with a political party.

None of your many posts here make much sense but this one is just plain whacko.

Posted by: Cheopys1 | August 19, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

You betcha, dawd, Can i call you dawg? I like that name. Look, the 'free market' doesn't like racism."

"Already, twenty companies have agreed to pull advertisements from Glenn Beck's television show, within weeks of the Fox host calling Obama "a racist" and saying the president "has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture."

Now, Farmers Insurance can be added to that list, a Farmers spokesperson confirms to POLITICO.

"We advertise on Fox News Channel which places our ads in the Network programming, and we ceased placing on Glenn Beck a week ago," said the spokesperson. "

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Nobody cares what you are, joked.

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Cmon, guys. We were doing well. Don't let one guy ruin it. Just ignore.

It would be nice to see him banned, but we can police ourselves too.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

leichtman:

I am registered Independent.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

lets see jakeD, someone mentions a legal issue and you are a lawyer. We discuss California politics and you live in California. You just don't get it, no one believes anything you post. Lets discuss healthcare so you can next inform us you are a neurosurgeon. I m a lawyer and proudly live in Houston and Austin. Looking to buy a home in San Diego for retirement but you have an inflated sense of home values, and have been a volunteer for Boxer the last 2 elections in the San Diego campaign office on Front Street.

You mention that Republicans have won state elections in Ca. Wilson and Arnold are pro choice, pro environment, and tolerate gay rights. You should be livid with your R party and not bragging about it which who be branded as socialists here in my beloved Texas. Whether you like her or not and again no one much cares, her fire brand politcis is liked in California. Incidnetally the rest of the country laughs at your initiative system of governance and Prop 13 which has put your public school in the toilet and moved Ca from one of the best,to the bottom. You can yell about your high taxes but as mark can attest your property taxes, which woefully underfunds your collapsing school system cost 25 per cent of what we pay for our local property taxes here in Texas. Your vocal legislative minority has devistated not only your education system but has dropped your state's bond rating to junk status. Right now your state politically has become ungovernable. Should make you proud.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

thank you, margaret.

As it says in the Bible, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

True Christians are not judgmental. So that tells us something about what Joked is NOT.

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

@drindl - Just point out that it's a lie, that's sufficient. Perhaps Jake would care to explain why a Republican senator has sponsored such counseling.

And while we're at it, what the heck that has to do with Down syndrome. One of my sons (the one with autism) classmates has Down syndrome and they're both in a federally sponsored program. Republicans, of course, wanted to shut down the Department of Education and terminate such programs.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 19, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Of course there's a "chance" -- did you miss the latest polling that Mr. Cillizza posted on this very thread -- on what planet do you spend most of your time?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Health-care reform is certainly on-topic, and particularly any refutation of misinformation at a town hall meeting. Thanks, drindl, for the quote.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

As many have pointed out, our current healthcare system is built on rationing -- taking insurance coverage away from people when they get sick. Most common practice there is. Insurance company employees get bonuses for it.

"Singer: I suppose people are reasonably worried about the idea that their doctor may say to them, “This is something that’s good, but you can’t get it. You can’t afford it.” But, of course, we have a health care system where there’s 45 million uninsured Americans who can’t get it. There’s also people on Medicare and Medicaid who know they can’t get everything because they have quite high co-pays they can’t afford. So we’re already rationing health care and in a way that I think is not the best way because it means there are really effective treatments that could make a big difference to people and they can’t afford it. And we should change that."

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/19/prof-health-care-rationing-not-as-scary-as-it-sounds/

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

Only God knows the true Christians.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I repeat, no chance for either of them in California.

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Is the topic "Barney Frank" now?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"Dems are now planning to push through Obamacare without ANY Republican support."


Sometimes that's how it works in a majority-rules democracy. I'd rather see the GOP contributing to the ideas pool, but it seems they're content to be the party of no and gamble that there's voter backlash against the Dems. I still think they're going to get burned playing that game.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 19, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Got to love posts from Jaked stating the opinion of all "true Christians." May I point out the error in your post, sir:

you presume that everyone agrees on what a true Christian is,
you presume that we all know who the true Christians are,
and you presume to speak for true Christians.

Fie, sir, I say Fie! This irritates me no end, and I say to my brethern who are insulted by your audacity "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for they may still admire Harry and Neo as Christ-like figures and not damage their bona fides as Christians."

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 19, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Barney Frank is great. Really shot down some of the idiot protestors at his town hall. Give 'em hell, Barney!

"While Frank attempted to respond to all questions, he gave up when one woman compared health care proposals favored by Frank and President Obama to policies of Nazi Germany.

"When you ask me that question, I'm going to revert to my ethnic heritage and ask you a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time?" Frank asked.

"You stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis," he said, adding such behavior demonstrated the strength of First Amendment guarantees of what he called "contemptible" free speech.

"Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table," Frank said to the woman. "I have no interest in doing it."

Despite the disruptions, the meeting covered many of the issues of the health care debate, with Frank shooting down rumors that a House health care bill would mandate free insurance coverage for illegal immigrants.

He read from the section of the bill that excludes payments for that purpose, and when another questioner referred to a different section guaranteeing nondiscrimination, Frank pointed out that the first section he read superseded that language."

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Aprogressiveindependent:

I'm a conservative (registered American Independent), but I still think Whitman wins against Newsom. As the latest poll shows, she is dead even with him.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"Obama DOES want to take end-of-life decisions away from seniors;"

I beleive that posting outright lies is against the policiy of this board; what do you think, folks?

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

The best chance a Republican would have to win an election for governor of California would be if they nominate a moderate, seemingly competent candidate or a popular movie star and the Democrats choose someone who seems too old or too liberal. There are many independents in this state and strong party affliation seems relatively weak.

Palin's high approval rating among Republicans is but an example of how out of touch most party members are with mainstream Americans. An Obama/Palin presidential contest in 2012 would be the 1964 presidential election deja vu, Obama winning by at least twenty percentage points, regardless of the economy or if any true semblance of health care reform is enacted in a first term.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | August 19, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I agree with dawd. There is no excuse for the outright lies and propaganda the Rs are spewing. It is disgusting and disgraceful.

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Obama DOES want to take end-of-life decisions away from seniors; he even said his own grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect the “sustainable model” for health care.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

BB -- I lived the first half of my life in CA and I still have many friends and family there. I don't think either Fiorina or Whatman has a ghost of a chance.

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic, "Absolutely nothing has changed" except the Dems are now planning to push through Obamacare without ANY Republican support. Did Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just get thrown under the bus?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Interesting thing about the health care poll that Chris C linked to above.

One of the questions actually had a paragraph describing Obama's position on health care. It was identified as Obama's position. Approval was much higher when the plan was posed that was as opposed to just "Obama's plan"

I know we're taking a civil tone and all today, but it's just disgusting what the Republicans have done with the debate. Even this morning, I got an email from Gingrich saying how Obama wants to take end-of-life decisions away from seniors. (at least he didn't refer to them as Death Panels)

But Obama needs to take control of the debate the way that he did with the stimulus package. Complete with public option. I'm glad there's been a lot of pushback and Obama's backpedaling on statements on abandoning the public option can only be considered a good thing. The liberal wing looks like it's finally going to start making some more noise.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

hey scrivener, thanks for the link!

I think this is worth mentioning, in terms of what these people are doing to the 'brand' of the R party, and how this might play out in 2010. Major R politicians are defending these nuts, and I think many people will react quite negatively to that. I hope that Fiorina and Whitman get questioned relentlessly about their positions on this. Calfornia is not much of a gun-loving state.

"As many as 12 people openly carrying guns showed up at President Barack Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Phoenix, Arizona, on Monday, adding to concerns about the recent trend of private citizens bringing weapons to presidential appearances.

Those people are “creating an atmosphere that could be dangerous to the president,” a former Secret Service agent told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Monday night.

Joseph Petro, author of Standing Next to History, a memoir of life in the Secret Service, told viewers of The Rachel Maddow Show that these types of incidents were not something the Secret Service typically encountered — until now.

And Petro laid some of the blame with the politicians and pundits who have whipped parts of the public into a frenzy over health care reform. “I would argue that the vitriolic political rhetoric we’re hearing from seemingly responsible people is stimulating a lot of these foolish stunts,” Petro said.

Bringing guns to political rallies “could incite or encourage one of those individuals at the [political] fringe [into] doing something dangerous or perhaps violent against the president,” he said. “Maybe the politicians should look at lowering some of the rhetoric to try to create a more positive atmosphere.”

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Harry Potter is not "of this world" --he's a fictional character. And at least in that fantasy world he is fighting evil.

People like Rush Limbaugh are in this world. They are the ones confusing Christians with their selfish, me-first messages.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

What makes you think that Maryland wants them back?

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

My guess is that Republicans take the governor's mansion and Dems keep the Senate.

California suffers from two problems. Government by referendum and badly gerrymandered districts. The latter will hopefully be solved. There are very fancy computer algorithms out there designed to deliver safe districts. My vote would be for a system with a few design rules. Compact districts (defined as geographic area divided by district circumference). Keep neighborhoods or cities together. For many people, your general election vote has already been cast for you.

With regards to referendums, California has programs mandated by the voters who then refuse to mandate taxes to pay for them. Didn't Arnold champion a bill requiring public funding for physical education before he was governor? I expect my repres

With regards to wreaking havoc, those who micromanage the district tend to be Republicans. Evidently, they believe in States rights exclusively (if you don't live in a State, you don't get self-government). I'd say make a federally controlled district that does not encompass residences (or only a few) and retrocess the remainder of the District to Maryland.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 19, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Recent registration data from California:

Date Dem Rep Other Declined

May 4, 2009 44.6% 31.1% 4.4% 20.0%
Oct. 24, 2005 42.7% 34.8% 4.5% 18.1%
Sept. 22, 2003 43.7% 35.3% 5.0% 16.0%
Oct. 4, 1993 49.0% 37.1% 3.6% 10.4%

Looks like The increase in "Declined to state" is at the expense of Republicans. No increase in "Other" which would include Green, Communist, American Independent, and others.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Someone asked how common it is for California to have a Republican Governor: 22 of 38 have been GOP.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

As for any alleged "détente", Harry Potter is definitely NOT a Christ-like figure, any more than Neo from the Matrix was (any true Christian knows that). The band KISS was "popular" once upon a time, too, but Christians are warned: "Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you might prove what is acceptable, and pleasing to God."

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

GordonsGirl writes
"At times, the CA GOP has been its own worst enemy, rarely more so than the primary defeat of Richard Riordan. This leftie would have voted for Riordan over Davis, but LA's former mayor didn't pass the state GOP's social conservative threshold. Instead, they ran a candidate too conservative to win over CA's strong center."

This is a trend worth watching nationwide. For example, in PA you have Toomey as the likely GOP Senate nominee. Will he gain any traction among moderates - whomever wins the Specter/Sestak primary? This year in VA McDonnell is trying to recast himself as a moderate, while Deeds is trying to remind voters of McDonnell's more hardline past - will moderates believe McDonnell has softened over time? The national GOP is still RINO hunting, with the exception of a couple senate recruits. Will that strategy work next year? I have my doubts.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 19, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Re: Sebelius. Obviously the comments over the weekend about the public option were "trial balloons." Now there is reaction from the left in support of the public option, so the administration isn't carrying all the water on that one.

Subtlety in politics is something we're going to have to get used to again, after 8 years of "if yer not fer us, yer agin us."

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Well first of all, leichtman, I will not resort to personal attacks against anyone here in my posts. Second, I live in California (do you?) and will not vote for Boxer regardless of her environemental positions. From the local article I linked to:

"[Boxer] won't have the former president to kick around anymore. On the flip side, Obama will not be atop the ticket to boost Democratic turnout. And the type of bare-knuckle campaigning Boxer has embraced in the past against male opponents may be trickier to pull off against Fiorina. (Republican state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore has already entered the Senate race but likely would be overwhelmed by Fiorina's fundraising advantage.)

At a more fundamental level, political analysts say Fiorina almost certainly would be a more formidable challenger than Boxer has faced before.

The senator "has been somewhat fortunate in the past in drawing candidates who are ... often too conservative" for California's left-of-center electorate, said Bruce Cain, director of the UC Washington Center. "That has allowed her to win her races without a great deal of trouble."

That's my "point" (and, it is also completely irrelevant whether "California is already ungovernable" since Boxer wrecks her chaos in the District of Columbia). Keep in mind also that the swing vote is 21% of registered voters here in California who are either American Independent or "Decline to State". Fiorina could definitely win in 2010.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Approval ratings are not the same as votes, obviously. The 50+% of Californians who do not approve of Boxer constist of both those who think she is too liberal and those who think she's too conservative. Only one of those groups will vote for the Republican.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Well, to answer my own question, the two predecessors to Gray Davis were Republicans.

Think Californians might just be clamoring for a governor whose name they can spell?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

BAD PUBLICITY ABOUT GUN-TOTING CIVILIANS AT PRESIDENTIAL EVENTS:

MAJOR PERSONNEL CHANGES COMING AT U.S. SECRET SERVICE?

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/18/guns-atmosphere-danger-obama/

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 19, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

If the GOP is to prevail in CA, they need to move to the center. One often-over-looked aspect of my home state is that as liberal as a few areas may be (SF, west/central LA), it is also a hot bed of strong right-wing GOP conservatism: Rohrabacher, Issa, Lungren, Dornan, to name a few.

In fact, much of the state is decidedly in the middle. Schwarzenegger won because partly due to his centrist politics - which appealed to independents and some Dems - but mostly his star power (and Davis' lack of same).

At times, the CA GOP has been its own worst enemy, rarely more so than the primary defeat of Richard Riordan. This leftie would have voted for Riordan over Davis, but LA's former mayor didn't pass the state GOP's social conservative threshold. Instead, they ran a candidate too conservative to win over CA's strong center.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | August 19, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

So how common is it for California to have a Republican governor anyways? I know a lot of blue states like to go red in the mansion from time to time. Is it like that in CA or is Schwarzenegger a once in a lifetime guy?

Also, could this be considered a wave election going in favor of the Dems? The California economy isn't doing all that hot and people might just be looking to something that isn't the same party as the sitting gov.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

your point?

Senator Boxer has also been outspent in her last 2 election cycles by more than 2:1 and has still won handily. Her environmental record in California is well respected by Californians, even though jakeD you come here to trash her. We know the routine, its really getting old. Your opinions don't count for much in California.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

With regard to Illinois, the state Treasurer's name is actually ALexi Giannoulias.

Posted by: MikeK3 | August 19, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

According to local polling data, Sen. Boxer rarely gets approval ratings above 50 percent:

"Boxer could face re-election fight of her career against Fiorina"

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_13095441?nclick_check=1

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, thank you, Chris Cilizza, for saving the comments section!

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

CC, I also appreciate the troll-free environment. Thanks.

On topic, can't see Fiorina or Whitman achieving much except lightening their bankbooks. I imagine they're OK with that though so have at it.

Had a toast last night to the Prince of Darkness; I didn't often agree with him but he was an exceedingly smart and proficient debater of the points of view he supported.
The endless left/right debate is lessened by his passing.

Posted by: jasperanselm | August 19, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

The Marist Poll cited by Mr. Cillizza (Palin, Romney, Huckabee Tied in 2012 Poll) is worthy of your attention.

Older, better educated, wealthier, male voters prefer Romney. Younger, less affluent, less educated and female voters do not. I would have thought Romney would be more firmly established in this early polling.

One can almost sense that Huckabee is thinking he can win IA and SC while conceding Romney NH. Ms. Palin will likely continue to diminish as a factor after she moves to MT with the minor children, although her fans seem faithful. Pawlenty is starting from nowhere according to the poll.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | August 19, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

chris and others have written off Corzine because of his low poll numbers and local corruption issues that have zero to do with Corzine. Not so fast, his opponent Christie is apparently a tool of Karl Rove and has real ethics issues tied directly to him:

"So, let's recap: First, new details emerged on Karl Rove orchestrating Christie's candidacy while he was still a US Attorney, which prompted CREW to file a complaint with the Office of the Special Counsel to see if Christie violated the Hatch Act. Next, it's revealed that Christie failed to disclose a $46,000 loan to his top deputy as required by federal and state ethics regulations. Then, it's revealed that he also failed to report the loan income on his tax returns. The final kick in the pants -- and a painful one -- is Christie's successor being under investigation for improperly involving himself in the political sphere in support of his former boss."

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Carly Fiorina running for office? This is the same woman who said, as CEO of HP, that Americans aren't entitled to have jobs. Here's the same woman who ran HP into the ground before Mark Hurd took over. Bad new, California. Self-serving candidates should be shown the door and given the boot. Enough said.

Posted by: cricket35 | August 19, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Okay folks, you know who Barbara Boxer is. She's popular. So do you really think someone like Fiorina -- polar opposite, has a chance? I don't. What has she got going for her, that she destroyed Hewlitt Packard?

Wow, she could do the same for Calfornia! Great credentials. Puhleeeze. No way.

and Meg Whitman. Uh, California like telegenic. Look at present government. Meg, honey, give up.

Posted by: drindl | August 19, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

All,

Wanted to say thanks for the on topic debate today in the comments section. Hopefully we are moving in the right direction.

Thanks,
Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | August 19, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I have been a compaq/hpq shareholder since the first day they started to operate. Carly Fiorini drove that company's stock to a 10 year low during her brief tenure and shareholders were furious with her management especially her ill conceived and overpriced purchase of Digital. California is already ungovernable with their propositions; she would only add to their utter chaos.

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Chris - Good take on IL-Sen. With one nitpicking exception. It's "Alexi" Giannoulias. Looking forward to your coverage of the race!

Posted by: pirahtiri1 | August 19, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

sorry this is off subject but as a local tax payer I was furious to read this morning how the Texas GOP plans to trash the image of my City of Houston and totally waste our precious tax dollars. As a party of SO CALLED economic conservatives it amazes me that we constantly hear from Cornyn and Hutchinson how we can not afford to pay for minor nusances like paying for healthcare but yet they have no problem whatsoever in bleeding our local city services by wasting 800 hours of city employee's time for this nonsense. Hopefully others here will join me in demanding that John Cornyn and Hutchinson be ordered to reimburse the City of Houston taxpayers:

"Last week, the National Republican Senatorial Committee — a national political group chaired by Sen. John Cornyn and dedicated to electing Republicans to the U.S. Senate — made a far-reaching request for e-mails, calendars, correspondence and travel records from the mayor's office covering the entire period of his 5½ years in office.
Early estimates indicate the request will require as many as 800 hours for city employees to compile tens of thousands of pages, city officials said."

Posted by: leichtman | August 19, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Seventy percent of Republicans are thinking about SP, MR, MH, and NG? The GOP has become the history channel. Appropriate, since they seem to insist on being toast in the immediate future.

So what are Jesse Ventura and Ross Perot doing these days?

Posted by: ceflynline | August 19, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland writes
"It will help the party there. As someone said it might flip a congressional seat or two, even if neither woman wins."

I'd like to hear more from on-the-ground californians. The state of the state is worse now than when they removed Gray Davis from office. Arne couldn't get anything done as a conservative & switched to being a moderate. He still couldn't get anything done; my sources say because of two things: 1) the budget being so fouled up by ballot initiatives and 2) the requirement for supermajorities to pass budgets in the Lege. If Whitman/Fiorina/Poizner start talking the same old GOP talk about cutting taxes & shrinking gov't, is that a product that will sell in CA? Or will the voter pendulum swing back to the Dems?

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 19, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"I've never understood why people think that a CEO will make a good politician, especially a legislative representative. The skill set is completely different. Mark Warner did a pretty good job in VA, but we shall see how well he does in the senate. Posted by: AndyR3"

And Fiorina's well known inability to work in the HP environment suggests that in the Senate she will just run around being misunderstood and complaining about it, (The b word here would have been SO much more descriptive) Still,her amazing way with people and making "friends" out of neutrals suggests that in the more than a year between now and the election gives her all the time in the world to make lots more friends for Barbara Boxer.
Her ability to pretty much wreck as well thought of company as HP says about as much about her talents as anything.

HP, of course, survived by dumping her.

Posted by: ceflynline | August 19, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse


I don't know enough about Whitman or Fiorina to say whether they'd be any good in these jobs. I'd concur that the CEO personality fits better with guv than senator, but then (some) female CEO's have a more team-oriented style which could lend itself to the legislative process.

The real point here isn't whether these two will win, or even be good. It is a sign of some resurgence in the GOP if wealthy CEOs are willing to put in the time and money required to make a run at public office in heavily Democratic California.

It will help the party there. As someone said it might flip a congressional seat or two, even if neither woman wins.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 19, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

What happened to the 'brand' talk? I ask because the CA Gov is a, shall we say, flamboyant personality - has he impacted his party's 'brand' in that state? If so, is it a positive or a negative? Or can Whitman/Fiorina successfully make the case that their experience in business makes them more suitable than entertainers for political office?

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 19, 2009 9:42 AM | Report abuse

columbiaheights, are you in CA or from CA?

From here I have always thought Boxer to be a legislative lightweight. It is not polite to call a woman a "heavyweight", but let us just say that CA's senior Senator seems to be a mainstay in the USS. She and Boxer form a contrast. I also thought this about MA and never could take Kerry seriously as a prez candidate except in comparison with my former gov., who I supported for gov in '98, but who was not up to being prez.

I mention that contrast b/c I do not think having been CEO of a shopping website prepares one to be Prez even as well as having been a successful gov. of TX.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 19, 2009 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Many ebay sellers/former ebay sellers are very angry or disgusted at the way ebay has treated them, a process that started during her tenure. I wouldn't be surprised if they make themselves heard during the campaign.

Posted by: newageblues | August 19, 2009 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I hope Whitman wins, I think she would also make a great President. She ran eBay extremely well; she would be great to lead our nation. I also think Fiorina would be much better than Boxer. Boxer thinks it is okay to chastise a man who has served our country for more than 20 years because he called her ma'am. If I saw her I wouldn't even give her that, I would just call her babs.

Posted by: columbiaheights | August 19, 2009 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Fiorina?

Great. Just great.

Look what she did to HP.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | August 19, 2009 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Barbara Boxer isn't going anywhere...

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | August 19, 2009 8:22 AM | Report abuse

A SECRET MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATED ACTION PROGRAM IS SUBVERTING THE OBAMA AGENDA...

...MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE RULE OF LAW AT THE GRASSROOTS (AND OUTSIDE PRESIDENTIAL VENUES).

WHEN WILL TEAM OBAMA WAKE UP AND SMELL THE POLICE STATE THAT THEY ENABLE BY THEIR NAIVETE AND MISPLACED TRUST?


Health care reform rings hollow when secret federal programs work with co-opted local authorities to decimate the lives and livelihoods of many thousands of unjustly targeted American citizens and their entire families.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE DEPLOYMENT OF MICROWAVE / LASER RADIATION DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS...

...AND WHEN WILL YOU BAN THEIR USE ON U.S. CITIZENS?

...AND BAN THE WARRANTLESS GPS / CELL PHONE TRACKING OF INDIVIDUALS...

...THE ELECTRONIC BACKBONE OF AN AMERICAN GESTAPO...

...OPERATING ON YOUR WATCH.


http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA" ("stream" or "stories" list).

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 19, 2009 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Ddawd, you are anything but slow.

I took the St. Pete endorsement at face value, having no other knowledge of Young, and it seemed compelling. The most persuasive idea is that he is best placed to work with the remainder of the FL delegation, including Sen. Nelson [D], of any potential appointees. FL folks, is this true?

Should it not be "Potter's detente WITH..." as opposed to "detente AGAINST"?

The intermountain west is competitive if you do not count UT, ID, and WY. On balance, it is competitive, I will agree. Alan in Missoula?

My friends and family in CA are in coastal cities [SF, SJ, LA, SD] and in Silicon Valley. They say "Brown", for the most part.

I know that a growing component of the electorate in CA is inland, but I do not know a single CA from any inland city except Sacramento, and he is a Navy officer friend of my youngest daughter, so I do not know him well, although I once treated him to bbq
duck at Little China Cafe in Austin when he visited. Which is to say, my CA sources are skewed, I suspect.

I forgot: I have twice spoken with Pete Wilson on the phone in my life and donated to his bid for the R nomination, and the poster called JakeD says he is in SD and I have no reason to question him about his provenance. Thus I know two who "skew" in the other direction.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 19, 2009 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Having lived on the Left Coast for well over a decaded, I doubt that Whitman or Fiorina have a shot at winning themselves. What they might do is help attract enough Republicans to the poll to help swing one or two Congressional races.

Posted by: trep1 | August 19, 2009 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Commercial for the democratic party in California. "Greedy CEOs ruined Wall Street now they want to run California?" Then show a spot of how much these two women got paid over the time that they were CEOs. I would be willing to bet that the 100 million dollar bonuses they pulled in will make people take a second look.

I have never understood why people think that a CEO will make a good politician, especially a legislative representative. The skill set is completely different. Mark Warner did a pretty good job in VA, but we shall see how well he does in the senate.

Posted by: AndyR3 | August 19, 2009 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Mark In Austin

I'm a little slow. I get it now.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 19, 2009 6:24 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company