Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama to make 'robust effort' on climate change in 2010

1. President Obama's decision to travel to Copenhagen -- he addressed a plenary session at the global meeting on climate change in the wee hours of the morning -- amid increasingly fractious negotiations regarding his health care bill is meant to send a signal of his commitment to the issue, according to a senior administration official briefed on the trip. "This continues the president's leadership on this issue both at home and abroad," said the source, adding that a "robust effort" will be made to pass his cap and trade bill through the Senate next year. That proclamation won't sit well with the moderate Democrats in the Senate who have already tied themselves into knots over the health care bill and dread the prospect of another controversial legislative fight -- this one coming in an election year. Even worse off are the vulnerable House Democrats who were pressured earlier this year to vote for cap and trade only to watch it get buried behind health care in the Senate. If the administration moves forward on a climate change push in the Senate, the House vote will be back on the top of the minds of many voters. If the Senate ignores the bill, those House members will have gone out on a political limb with absolutely nothing to show for it. ALSO READ/WATCH: The Obama speech -- video and transcript.

2. For all the hand-wringing surrounding Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's decision to hold the health care bill hostage until all vestige of a public option was removed, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's (D) ongoing reluctance to back the measure due to the abortion language in it is potentially more troublesome for the long term health of the bill. In a statement released by his office Thursday, Nelson praised the inclusion of new teen pregnancy initiatives and adoption tax credits but made clear that he remains unsatisfied with the overall bill. "These are valuable improvements that will make a positive difference and promote life," Nelson said. "But as it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient." The problem for the White House is that unlike Lieberman, whose opposition to the bill was -- to give him the benefit of the doubt -- on policy grounds, Nelson's hesitation is on moral ones. "There isn't any real way to move away from your principle on abortion," Nelson told the Post's Paul Kane in an interview last week. Given the White House's eagerness (desperation?) to pass the bill through the Senate before Christmas, a compromise with Nelson seems inevitable. But, if Nelson is placated on the abortion language it will be treated as another finger in the eye of an already ornery Democratic base who is already threatening full rebellion.

3. Political handicapper Charlie Cook throws House Democrats a line in his National Journal column today, noting that only 40 Democratic-held seats currently rate as genuinely competitive -- a small-ish playing field that would require Republicans to run the table in order to take back the majority. The tipping point for House Democrats will come if 10-12 more seats that are currently seen as safely in their hands suddenly become vulnerable whether through retirement or other circumstances. Who could move onto Cook's competitive list? Reps. Loretta Sanchez (Calif.), John Salazar (Colo.) and Leonard Boswell (Iowa) all have real challengers and long-serving members like Alan Mollohan (W.Va.) and Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) sit in Republican-leaning districts.

4. New Quinnipiac University polling in Pennsylvania suggests state Attorney General Tom Corbett (R) has a strong chance to deliver the state back into GOP control after eight years of Gov. Ed Rendell (D). Corbett leads Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato (D) 45 percent to 30 percent and holds a 43 percent to 33 percent edge over state Auditor Jack Wagner (D). Corbett also holds a solid 38 percent to 12 percent edge over Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) in the Republican primary. The Democratic race is wide open with Onorato in the lead with just 14 percent while nearly six in ten voters (59 percent) said they have yet to pick a candidate. Republicans appear to be in strong shape to pick up open seats not only in Pennsylvania but also Michigan and are very competitive in Ohio and Wisconsin -- critical governorships heading into a redistricting where those Rust Belt States are expected to lose seats in the nationwide sorting.

5. Republican media consultant Mark McKinnon offers his rankings of the 2012 GOP field in a new piece in the Daily Beast. His number one? Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney because, according to McKinnon, he fits the Republican tendency of "handing the baton to the candidate who has patiently waited his or her turn in line." We agree. Today, Romney is the only potential candidate in the field who offers the complete package: a national fundraising network, a detailed set of policy prescriptions, a coterie of staff and consultants and the know-how gained from his failed run for the office in 2008. No one else in the field can currently match Romney on all of those fronts though Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and South Dakota Sen. John Thune have potential in that regard and both have a more fresh-faced appeal than Romney. The rest of McKinnon's top five: former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Pawlenty, Thune and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. ALSO READ: The Fix's latest Friday Line on the most influential Republicans in the party.

6. Days after a Rasmussen Research poll showed Gov. Charlie Crist and former Florida state House speaker Marco Rubio tied in the Sunshine State primary, a new survey conducted by John Zogby for Associated Industries, a pro-business group, showed Crist ahead 45 percent to 36 percent. Those numbers while likely greeted with relief by the Crist forces reinforce the growing sense that the once insurmountable lead the governor held in the race is gone for good. For those predicting Crist's certain defeat, remember that the Florida primary is late -- August 24 -- and there is plenty of time for the governor to recover from his current swoon.

7. Former Connecticut Democratic Party chair Ed Marcus told local television news anchor Dennis House that Sen. Chris Dodd (D) should step aside "for the good of the party" in an interview set to air this weekend. "Chris has had Obama in for him, Biden in for him, a lot of TV ads and they haven't moved the numbers," said Marcus. "Rightfully or wrongfully the perception within the voting public in Connecticut is just negative toward Chris." The Dodd campaign answered back -- aggressively. Campaign manager Jay Howser responded "Ed who" when contacted by House for comment, adding: "it's embarrassing for Ed Marcus that he's still holding a grudge against Senator Dodd based his own ineptitude as state party chair nearly a decade ago." WOW. (Marcus, who chaired the party from 1992 to 2000, has ties to the other senator from Connecticut too as Joe Lieberman began his political career with an upset of Ed Marcus in a 1970 state Senate race.) While Dodd may dismiss Marcus as nothing more than a malcontent, the fact that Democrats are talking openly about Dodd and retirement isn't a good sign for the incumbent. Once that Pandora's box is open, it's impossible to shut it.

8. Luke Byars, former state director for South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint (R), has signed on to manage Rep. Gresham Barrett's 2010 gubernatorial bid. Byars is a South Carolina native who has worked in a number of positions in state party politics including as chair of the South Carolina GOP and the Palmetto State campaign -- such as it was -- for Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential campaign. "There is no one I would rather have running my campaign than Luke Byars," Barrett said in a release announcing the move. Barrett is one of four Republicans running to replace Gov. Mark Sanford and is considered, along with state Attorney General Henry McMaster as a frontrunner for the nod.

9. Give yourself an early Christmas present. Sign up to get the "Morning Fix" in your email inbox every day. Just sign up here -- it's that easy. (We'll be starting it up once we all get back from the holidays so start looking for it in your inbox in the early days of 2010.)

10. Ever wonder why people hold/shoot guns sideways? Us too. Turns out, according to Slate magazine, it all goes back to "Menace II Society" in which the "sidegrip" first became popular. Apparently, the sidegrip is all show, however. "It's extremely difficult to properly use the top-mounted sight on a handgun that is turned sideways," writes Slate's Brian Palmer. "Not that this matters much to the average street criminal." Repeat after us: Thank God for Slate.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 18, 2009; 6:36 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The political dangers of passing a health care bill
Next: Democratic incumbents beware!

Comments

Obama’s “meaningful” work in Copenhagen

Watch for his handlers to proclaim it the greatest thing since sliced bread. Others are asking, “where’s the beef?” Literally.

From BBC News:

So the result was a political commitment not a treaty one.

The words sound fine enough. “We emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change.”

And: “We shall, recognising the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2C, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term co-operative action to combat climate change.”

But where’s the beef? That apparently has to be added to this sandwich later.

The Obama administration chose the weekend before Christmas, with Americans wrapped up in the holidays and the Senate occupied with its dead-of-night “Let’s Make a Deal” or “The Price is Right”- take your pick, to release 12 Gitmo detainees back to their home countries.Throw in the largest snowstorm on the east coast in history, in December, and you have Chicago style politics at their best.

Two of the detainees are being returned to Somalia, a country we don’t even recognize. And Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia has requested the President to release it’s latest report from the DIA on the recidivism of released detainees.

More spin; more often. That should have been his catch phrase instead of “Yes We Can.”

Posted by: leapin | December 21, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

FAITH = That evolution is real is beyond any dispute, period. Evolution applies not only to human descent from other primates but to every scale in the cosmos from the Planck length to supergalaxies.

Posted by: JakeD | December 21, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

The "religion" of science SHALL NOT be questioned!

==

I know you intended this as just another infantile whine but I'm going to respond anyway, not to dignify your ignorance but because the idea that science is just another article of faith is a widespread one, and it's galling.

It's really kind of a shame that the language of prudent scientific caution -- theory, hypothesis, confidence interval -- overlaps with the language of vulgar parlance. Because scientists are hesitant to use absolutist language like "proof" they leave open the possibility of people who don't understand science, and don't want to, to insist that there remains room not just for reasonable alternatives, but for truly irrational and completely idiotic ones.

For example, evolution. That evolution is real is beyond any dispute, period. Evolution applies not only to human descent from other primates but to every scale in the cosmos from the Planck length to supergalaxies. Yet there are undecided aspects to the model for life on Earth .. punctuated equillibrium, for example.

Dishonest and ignorant people latch on to these uncertainties to insist that there remains a role for aboriginal creation myths, which there isn't.

True science is based on falsification (see Popper, Karl) and evidence, not on popularity or "taking sides." Religion is not only uninterested in physical evidence but regards itself as "above" such ideas as evidence or logic (especially logic). Nobody has ever seen the Great Pumpkin in action, nobody has ever observes any supernatural effect, nobody has ever seen a "miracle." These are Sunday School fables and belong in prescientific aboriginal societies, not in any educated discussion.

Science is in no way a religion, there is no room in it for faith. And supernatural thinking is the stuff of mental hospitals.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

the CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is 36%. Because the oceans absorb more CO2 than the atmosphere, ice core measures of increase are more dramatic. The volume of the less absorbent atmosphere is far greater, as well.

==

Unless one compares like with like, old ice cores with new ones.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris Fox, according to

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

the CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is 36%. Because the oceans absorb more CO2 than the atmosphere, ice core measures of increase are more dramatic. The volume of the less absorbent atmosphere is far greater, as well.

I think that explains the difference in ice core and atmospheric measures.

None of this is by way of disagreeing about the issue that humans can affect. That issue is carbon emissions, from previously sequestered carbon, into the atmosphere, caused by human activity. For shorthand, I include the destruction of forests, removing a CO2 sink, as part of that activity, as well.

My original criticism of the banal politics [of a pledge to cap temperature rise to +2C] stands. We have no way to actually assure such a result, even if all are on board.

We COULD assure a reduction in carbon emissions from previously sequestered carbon, caused by human activity, if most of the world agrees. That is all we COULD do. I am among those who think we SHOULD do that.

I am also among those who think the move away from coal and oil to wind, solar, but also to nukes and natural gas and biodiesel will have a measurable effect on reducing carbon emissions and be an economic and national security blessing, as well. I am among those who think commercial airliners are doomed to a minor role, sooner or later, and the "later" may be only two generations hence. Thus I favor the gradual building of regional rail transit, and the further integration of the North American economies, over time. A truly far sighted exec at SWA might actually invest in high speed rail to assure his company's exit strategy from rhe demise of regional commercial airline service.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 20, 2009 8:29 AM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

The "religion" of science SHALL NOT be questioned!

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

New York and Chicago used to be covered with glaciers hundreds of feet thick.

Let's have an international treaty which will return temperatures to that pre-industrial time.

Anyone could choose any time in history and say that was "normal"

==

(sigh)

this is the best you have? some relativist twaddle? who gets to decide?

pathetic. really.

Look, child, there have been major changes in climate in the past, and there have been greenhoused eras when the whole world was a fetid moist swamp. And yes there have been ice ages (at least you're not pulling some 6431 year old earth BS, thanks for that smidgeon.

But changes between vastly differing climates historically have taken place over tens of thousands of years, giving life time to adapt through natural selection.

That doesn't work very well when the same changes happen in a single century. When great changes happen too fast, life suffers. Ours too.

You're really way way over your head here. Go back to redstate and save yourself further embarressment.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 19, 2009 2:53 AM | Report abuse

The ped lurks on.

What kind of life is that?

Are you that desperate for attention?

Posted by: snowbama | December 19, 2009 1:37 AM | Report abuse

New York and Chicago used to be covered with glaciers hundreds of feet thick.


Let's have an international treaty which will return temperatures to that pre-industrial time.


Anyone could choose any time in history and say that was "normal"


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 19, 2009 1:36 AM | Report abuse

That is just the point - the Earth came out of the "little ice age" in the 19th century - gradually warming BEFORE the industrial era -

So where is the base line ???


The answer is there is no base line, the Earth has been warming up and cooling on its own for millions of years.


800 years ago it was warmer than it is now.


The targets referred to in Copenhagen actually make no scientific sense.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 19, 2009 1:23 AM | Report abuse

If there was no was Ice Age or even Little Ice Age, that would certainly impact "climate change" modeling.

==

And if turtles traded their shells for feathers and their forelimbs for wings, they'd be birds.

The earth is heating up as a result of human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. You have made it plain that you are a scientific illiterate so your opinion on the reality of climate change is utterly without value.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 19, 2009 12:57 AM | Report abuse

"As I look back on my life, I am proud that I never resisted any impulses from nature. Like every other human in history who yielded to aggressive or territorial impulses, I never had occasion to regret."

"As I look back on my life, I am so glad that I drank alcohol and smoked cigarettes. Hacking up black phlegm every morning, making emergency stops at convenience stores when I ran out, these were enriching and rewarding experiences that more than compensated for being unable to climb stairs without getting dizzy and living a paltry few more years."

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 19, 2009 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Hey, 37th, why don't you find somewhere else to surf? Your comments are not only stupid (we're used to that here) but they're not even interestingly or provocatively so, they're just stupid and nothing more.

Just buzz off. Go back to redstate or freerepublic and brag to the girls with the swastika tats that you had the "libs" in fits.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 19, 2009 12:49 AM | Report abuse

What happened? Did the developing countries actually believe that they would have a free ride, as the scientists had told them ?


Those pesky scientists, they will tell you anything to get a consensus.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 19, 2009 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Massachusetts has no problem enabling alcohol and its drinkers, this I know.

But you can't send anything in the mail that has words (pictures are fine) making any reference to alcohol. The comic rationale has to do with enforcing the law against shipping untaxed alcohol.

Tax evaders are sly devils though, they know what they are doing, they would probably just ship wine with lots of pictures and no words. If someone really wanted to send someone a bottle of wine, they could probably do it.

It sounds crazy (I know, no one would ever do this it is just a hypothetical possibility, a worst case scenario), but what if...you could, in theory, put a bottle in a package without any word(s) on the box that intimated, "There is a bottle of wine in this box."

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 10:49 PM | Report abuse

If there was no was Ice Age or even Little Ice Age, that would certainly impact "climate change" modeling.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Yeah like dirt-stupid creationist nonsense has anything to do with climate change.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Mind your own business, Jake, you don't control this blog.

Why don't you write a few dozen more love letters to Our Gracious Host and offer more of those lurid favors that keep you exempt from the posting rules?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 9:43 PM | Report abuse

The last half-dozen posts by benjaminsp were not about "politics" either. At least my posts questioning climate change / science in general were on Topic # 1.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Is the mothership linking here again?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Ok, so can we have D.C. try Obama's solution and cut CO2 emissions by 80%? What? That's the goal right? They should set an example and save the CO2 for heating for hospitals.

I mean, since this is the plan, and the goal isn't for everyone to freeze to death; Congress can show the way for CO2 free living in sub-freezing temperatures.

Or is the goal for most of America to freeze to death; I guess I didn't get the details on Obama's plan.

Posted by: gekkobear1 | December 18, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

So, you are an old lady and you want to recycle, you know, help the climate, all that. She gets boxes from the Quaker meeting do-gooders (not kidding), she loads gifts and goes to the post office and The Law comes down on her. Justice you know. That box still has a picture of wine falling into a glass. But each and every prohibited word is covered with a little sticker.

People make fun of Sharia.

==

And in the gym they have separate hot tubs and steam rooms for men and women.

Didn't know that MA had a law prohibiting depiction of alcohol. That's just weird.

I bet cigarettes get no prohibition.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Who cares about politics when we can be treated to a throwback to the Dark Ages explaining science?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 9:27 PM | Report abuse

So much for benjaminsp "want[ing] to post in a group where people discuss the chess game of politics, the strategies, positions, strength and weaknesses of the political parties and what moves would benefit each group."

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

America is full of religious people who, if they were allowed, would kill the unbelievers for fun and profit.

This is why we take politics so seriously.

==

Holding up torches flickering on the kicking legs of rows of people hanging from lampposts, the sound of hymns filling the midnight air.

And now they have a champion, a sicko bimbo from Wassila.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Since I am a godless atheist non-believer let me try the absolutely worst thing any Catholic (maybe others) can say:

I DENOUNCE THE HOLY TRINITY

If I denounce God or Jesus I can still be saved, but since I denouncing the Holy Trinity I will be in (UGH UGH CAN'T SAY IT - H*LL) for eternity.

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Cap and trade is a fraud, not a proper way to address climate change. Special interest groups will benefit as they will or have from each of Obama's main initiatives so far.

==

Ah, so "market forces" only work when it comes to getting people to buy crap they don't need. Gotcha.

Better to roast alive than distort the marketplace!

==

Obama and Reid will very likely find a way to buy Nelson's vote. Chris is right, they are desperate to pass a health care bill. Their egos seem more important to them than passing true health care reform for the people of this country.

==

Nelson's objection is frivolous. The bill stinks on ice but Nelson's opposition has nothing to do with that.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Interesting to see the game theory play out in Copenhagen


The Chinese come in - knowing that climate change is silly, that the global temperature data has been faked.


So a few weeks ago, the Chinese said no deal, then later they put forth an offer.


I think it was to feel Obama out - first to see if Obama would be honest with them - second to see what he was all about.


So Obama comes in, demanding a deal "today." The Chinese were basically playing a game of chicken - to this demand of Obama's the Chinese have no idea how to respond.


First, they expected Obama to be honest, which he wasn't. Then as a fall-back they expected Obama to not ask for a binding accord.


NOW the Chinese are left wondering - WHAT IS OBAMA UP TO??

Why would Obama want to sucker the Chinese into a commitment which is based on fake data and cooked science???


Somehow, the Chinese must have concluded that Obama is looking to get them into a commitment which they will stick to, and that America will never adhere to.

To the Chinese, Obama must have come off as extremely untrustworthy.


This is just speculation - however the Chinese must be confused by the complete lack of caution in the wake of the climategate scandal.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 18, 2009 9:13 PM | Report abuse

marxist trotskyist lenninist stalinist communist socialist evolutionist lesbian gay transvestite bisexual metrosexual public option universal health care President Obama George Bush Cheney Rumsfeld

I have no idea what the BAD word I used was???

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Cap and trade is a fraud, not a proper way to address climate change. Special interest groups will benefit as they will or have from each of Obama's main initiatives so far.

Obama and Reid will very likely find a way to buy Nelson's vote. Chris is right, they are desperate to pass a health care bill. Their egos seem more important to them than passing true health care reform for the people of this country.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | December 18, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

"a snug and cozy home for the ugliest racism on the Net"

You keep that up and I'll post some links to things that will scar your cloud (I think that is the new way to say consciousness, but I am old).

Of course, The Internets is not the disease, it is a mirror.
Ok, I'll skip the Homily.

You want to hear something funny? My 87yo mother sent a box of stuff for Xmas to us and because she lives in Massachusetts, she had to put opaque stickers over all the references to alcohol on the box.

So, you are an old lady and you want to recycle, you know, help the climate, all that. She gets boxes from the Quaker meeting do-gooders (not kidding), she loads gifts and goes to the post office and The Law comes down on her. Justice you know. That box still has a picture of wine falling into a glass. But each and every prohibited word is covered with a little sticker.

People make fun of Sharia.

America is full of religious people who, if they were allowed, would kill the unbelievers for fun and profit.

This is why we take politics so seriously.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

penis vagina breast masturbate evolution hitler stalin trotsky mao gang of 6 7 8 musolini genghis kahn

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

you mean shịt and fụck?

reminds me of Col. Kurtz' last words in "Apocalypse Now" before Capt. Williard takes a machete to him.

Yeah, block naughty words but make the blog a snug and cozy home for the ugliest racism on the Net.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

However in my last long post

MENTAL MASTERBATION

did go through!

GO FIGURE!

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

I tried

SH*T and H*LL

and one of them was rejected

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

The leftist loons like al franken are such angry losers they have sent themselves to the end of the unemployment line.

The crazies on this site are certainly from the franken wing of the lunatic fringe.

Clowns. Losers. Crumbs. The country is laughing.

Posted by: snowbama | December 18, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you "pray" to "God" to sneeze you an admirer into existence, Jake? Then you could have someone to dignify all your "questions" with "answers."

An' "in a civil manner" too.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

@benjamin: there was probably a subphrase or something in your post, not a block by WaPo. When you're blocked you get an "Invalid Request" page.

Some words are blocked for good reason, like niggger (the word that they REALLY want to use when they call Obama a Marxist, Communist or (heh heh heh) a Fascist. And no, they don't understand that Fascist is the opposite of Communist, not a synonym (I'm not joking)).

For some reason certain swear words you can hear on television are blocked here. Welcome to kindergarten.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

You cool with Copernicus, Jake? Or is the jury still out on whether the Earth is the center of the universe?

After all, it's not as "FOR CERTAIN" as yesterday's "Survivor."

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Never mind.

I will try again.

If the next post works dsiregard my last post

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

I just had a post blocked.

It said that Chris has to approve MY posts now?

What did I say or do wrong?

Its tragic and unbelievable that my posts are BLOCKED by Chris Cillizza while JakeD and other trolls keep on posting hateful drivel.

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Do you believe in ghosts, Jake? In seances? In the peril of walking under ladders or treading on sidewalk cracks? In the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy,

Or only in God?

And supernatural erosion?

Any explanation for the CMBR? For the size of the cosmos, limited to the speed of light?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

if you are going to rule out the possibility of any supernatural causes, of course the evidence leads you in only one direction. But if you aren't going to rule out supernatural causes, then there's a logical answer for every question imaginable:

==

Oh. My. God.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Here, Jake, read this.

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

Note the corroboration from many different disciplines and see how it stacks up next to your ridiculous epistemological argument.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Anyone ELSE interested in this debate, which is relevant to Topics #1-10 BTW, just let me know.

Borrowing from Mike Riddle, writing for the YEC apologetics ministry "Answers in Genesis" who does teach at a Bible college, documents that radioactive decay rates have not been constant, and thus he uses that fact to challenge the validity of scientifically-accepted radiometric methods. For instance, a new rock sample from the formed in the lava dome from Mount St. Helens in 1986 was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly-formed rock gave varying ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years. These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified. In another example from Mount Ngauruhoe (located on the North Island of New Zealand, one of the country’s most active volcanoes). Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The scientifically-determined "ages" of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old. There are explanations for everything.

First of all, the world before The Flood could have been much more lush with a greater abundance of life -- even though there had never been any rain -- than we have today. That would certainly impact the measurements, don't you think? Second, if you are going to rule out the possibility of any supernatural causes, of course the evidence leads you in only one direction. But if you aren't going to rule out supernatural causes, then there's a logical answer for every question imaginable:

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C14c.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Fossils

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Palin's leg, Jake.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Not even bible colleges tell their desperate minions that radioactive decay rates change over historical time.

They stick to arguments like "yeeoo gonna let DARR-win maka monkey outa yeeoo?"

Simply amazing. Simply amazing.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I never said "two months ago".

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

ASSUMING THAT TODAY'S DECAY RATES ARE THE SAME AS 6,431 YEARS AGO

==

If you could find a way to market your ignorance you would be as rich as Bill Gates.

You are stunningly ignorant, jaw-droppingly so, simply amazing.

It explains a lot.

If the laws of nuclear physics were volatile how could the sun have shone constantly enough for life to evolve?

Oh, that's right, you believe that some invisible spirit sneezed everything into existence two months ago.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Radiometric dating (often called Radioactive dating) is a technique used to purportedly date materials, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates -- ASSUMING THAT TODAY'S DECAY RATES ARE THE SAME AS 6,431 YEARS AGO -- if anyone else wants to discuss why that's not a proper assumption, just let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Chris, thanx for the ice data. I had been wading through this stuff and found different numbers than you.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

Is this a trustworthy source?

Also - I am gone for the evening but will look in tomorrow.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2009 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Fossils, Radioactive dating, Nucleic acids do not tell us FOR SURE what happened 6,431 years ago -- I am using "for sure" as in the videotaped record of what was broadcast on Survivor last night -- no one but God (in your case, therefore, that means no one at all) knows FOR SURE.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

If CRU can't even get temp. data right for the past 150 years, how can you expect ANYONE to know for sure what happened 6,431 years ago?

==

Well you conservatives have such poor memories that you can't even remember who got us into Afghanistan or who screwed up the economy so I wouldn't presume to believe that you understand anything about how science works.

You know, fossils? Radioactive dating? Nucleic acids?

Stick to humping Palin's leg, Jake.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Sorry mark but your suggestion is simply numerically absurd. Didn't mean to attack but I had a surge of aghastness. Polar ice is much more important to cooling then ocean surface, and ocean surface is not going to increase that much anyway.

There was earlier talk about increasing CO2 leading to increase plant growth, particularly algal, and this acting as a biological sink, but that effect, if it exists at all, is completely swamped by other effects. And it had more potential than increased ocean surface.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

You are JUST NOW figuring out that he is unnecessarily combative?! LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

If CRU can't even get temp. data right for the past 150 years, how can you expect ANYONE to know for sure what happened 6,431 years ago?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you are unnecessarily combative. I was wondering about very long term effects of a thinner Antarctic cap but no FL, but not in any way suggesting that global warming as we are discussing it in the 21st Century would self correct.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I have read that atmospheric CO2 is up 30% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, not 300%. I will look for a scholarly link, if what you posted was not a misprint. Also, if it was not a misprint, please post a link and we can compare.

==

ice core samples from ~1850: 110 PPM

current: around 380 PPM

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

That's assuming arguendo that CRU and NASA temp. data is even correct any more.

==

says the guy who believes in "supernatural erosion"

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

We agree that CO2 is THE issue. So why is it not honest and transparent to simply set atmospheric CO2 goals?

I have read that atmospheric CO2 is up 30% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, not 300%. I will look for a scholarly link, if what you posted was not a misprint. Also, if it was not a misprint, please post a link and we can compare.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

I mean, really, mark.

The increase of reflective aqueous surface is going to be very minor, land is only 30% of the earth's surface anyway, the increase in ocean surface will be devastating to human habitation and coastal ecosystems, but relatively small compared to the vastness of the oceans. Number one.

And number two, the supremely vital polar ice, the global coolant, is disappearing more or less completely. There will BE no arctic ice for much of the year, and Antarctica will be bare.

Your idea makes about as much sense as addressing global warming by banning bathroom nightlights.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

That's assuming arguendo that CRU and NASA temp. data is even correct any more. Jumping from Topic # 1 to # 10:

Mr. Cillizza should have posted a disclaimer that The Washington Post Company OWNS Slate.com. Not sure if everyone else knew that, but I just found that out today.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Is it possible that immediately after losing land mass to coastal inundation that the increased reflectivity of the expanded seas will lead to cooling?

==

Oh for god's sake do the math, would you?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Chris - got other questions for you.

I know oceans are more reflective than land masses. What is the comparative reflectivity of ice cap and ocean?

Is it possible that immediately after losing land mass to coastal inundation that the increased reflectivity of the expanded seas will lead to cooling?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

With water covering most of the earth's surface there is no way we can change it.

To put it in the simplest terms possible: the warming of the earth is the result of human reintroduction of petroleum-sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. The amount of water in the ecosystem is constant, it's the [CO2] that human activity has increased, by about 300%.

Methane is a reactive gas that in the presence of O2 and with the assist of the occasional UV photon will not hang around long. There is a nonbiological sink for methane, and the one biological sink for CO2, plant growth, is another front of human attack. And yes I know that oceanic plants do about nine times as much CO2 removal as terrestrial.

The bacteria that produce methane live mostly in bovine stomachs. We ranch cattle all over the world for meat.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Chris Fox:

There is nothing we can do on a global scale to affect the water vapor cycle. One might think of catalyzing large-scale precipitation, but the latent heat released from all that condensation might cause serious fluctuations in the weather patterns (read:
hurricanes, cyclones). The greenhouse effect from CO2 (and methane) will result in warmer air that can carry more water vapor, resulting in a kind of positive feedback loop - I think that is what you meant when you said the water vapor heating effect is a function of CO2 (and methane, I add).

A molecule of methane can trap 20 times as much heat as a molecule of CO2. Right?

Methane is up 250% since the industrial revolution began, but CO2 is far more prevalent. However, warming leads to methane release from the thawed tundra - way beyond cow farts.

So how does what you said, Chris in any way contradict my position that goals should be stated in terms of CO2, only? We are not touching anything else in my lifetime, are we? What other variable do you think anyone is talking about? I would like to know if I have missed it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

benjaminsp:

Maybe tomorrow you will answer the QUESTIONS I've asked you : )

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

What's wrong with Gov. Palin being still and listening for God's prompting?

==

Simple. God is a fable and belief in God is a personal crutch.

Newsflash: we are a secular nation, not a Middle Eastern religious pseudo-state.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Back on Topic # 5 (but, indirectly, others as well):

Tea party outpolls Democratic, Republican parties -- will anger fuel 2010 elections?

http://latimesblogs.latimes...

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

benjaminsp:

No skin off my nose, but here are the QUESTIONS I've asked you (from a different thread yesterday):

1) What's wrong with Gov. Palin being still and listening for God's prompting?

2) Are you aware that George Washington and Abe Lincoln did the same?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/howard-dean-rises-again.html

You also did NOT answer AntonioSosa's questions on that thread you did reference:

"benjaminsp, you wrote 'let's hope for the best'?!!!

[3)] How can we expect 'the best' from a Marxist scam like Obamacare?

[4)] I guess you have have not heard that Robert Creamer, a CONVICTED FELON and Obama’s ACORN associate, outlined the guidelines for the Obamacare SCAM in his 2007 book, 'Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win.'"?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Meant to say METHANE comes from cow farts.

Never made mistakes like that when I had to hunt and peck, now that I type in that irritating machine-gun clatter it's like I have a Stegosaurus-type second brain that precaches.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Come on, mark.

CO2 comes from cow farts, mostly.

Water vapor is not so important by itself, it becomes important when the [CO2] is elevated.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The three most important heat trapping gases in the atmosphere are water vapor, CO2, and methane, in that order. If the politicians of the world had settled on a CO2 number as a goal, it might have had some credibility. But since they cannot control water vapor, and will not control methane by any currently known means, the commitment to limit global warming to +2C is, well, silly.

We do what we can. A goal stated that must be based in part on doing what we cannot is rhetorical pablum [IMHO].

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Palin is such a disorganized airhead she will probably forget to show up, or deny ever agreeing to speak.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

Re: a "hero", you are aware that Gov. Palin is the keynote speaker at the TEA Party convention on February 6, 2010, right?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

@koolkat: you left out the Corvette

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

3] Some Ron Paul voters and libertarian conservatives
are currently making common cause with Tea People.
In fact, the libertarian conservatives and social conservatives are not natural allies, on issues of personal liberty.

==

You are making a common mistake, presuming that these various groups are thinking logically and rationally. That they will be troubled by contradictions. You're wrong about that.

Their rejection of logic isn't something anyone needs to document, it's in everything they believe. If anything they're defiant in their irrationality. See Palin, Sarah and talk of "elitists" who are, you know, educated into spinelessness.

Teabaggers and libertarians are unlikely to note the contradictions you do, all that matters to them is that their allies are nutty. Ron Paul is nutty, social conservatives are nutty, they share a lot of hates, and that's what it's all about.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

benjamin -- don't be bullied by Jake's demands that you answer his questions. Most of us have fallen for that at one time or another.

As a little background, JakeD has claimed to be (this is a composite) a 77-year-old Korean War vet and Stanford Law graduate (cum laude) who nevertheless takes the monthly food basket from his church. He also allegedly has a child (grandchild?) at the US Coast Guard Academy in New London, CT, and has threatened to move from California to CT just to vote against Sen. Dodd.

He is also a birther and possibly the biggest Sarah Palin fan in existence.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

benjaminsp, welcome. GJJ's remarks were temperate and thoughtful. I would add three points.

1] In modern American history, TR began the most successful third party. He was perhaps our greatest president after Lincoln [IMHO, anyway], and he was a media sensation. But he did not win the presidency as a Progressive. There is no focal point or "hero" for Tea People to rally around as a third party.

2] The Rs could sing the Tea song to pander to Tea voters. That would likely to place them squarely on the horns of the dilemma bsimon1 suggested earlier:
appeal to the far right, but lose the right center. It will be interesting to watch the TX governor's race in this light.

3] Some Ron Paul voters and libertarian conservatives
are currently making common cause with Tea People.
In fact, the libertarian conservatives and social conservatives are not natural allies, on issues of personal liberty. I doubt that the common goal of a "smaller federal footprint" will bind them through races
in many places, regardless of the economic outlook preceding the next wave of elections. Where they continue to join cause, they will be able to fashion the R candidate of their choice, however. That is because the two groups, social conservatives and libertarian conservatives, are the "base" of the R Party. Small business owners [the local COC leaders], once the base, no longer call the shots, although they probably are still the majority of the donor pool. Again, the Perry v. KBH race in TX may reveal quite a bit.

Just my two bits, if you will have them.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"That said, no matter what the topic, if what you want is nothing but thoughtful and polite discussion, you're not going to find it anywhere on the Internet."

Internets to you!

Whilst I was running in the snow (proof positive global warming is a hoax), I thought of the 20th century, the analog era. I used to cross great waters on boats and fly through the air in small aircraft with piston engines.

On the "radio" there was a dial called squelch. If you wanted to get rid of noise, you turned up the squelch, but if you did, you could miss a distant but crucial transmission. Anti-spam software is like that.

Anyone who thinks they can "get on" or "Go to" the Internets and not have squelch software built into their brain is late to the party. You ignore everyone but your favorite posters, you will lose amazing though rare insights. You read everything, you won't learn anything.

Also, people who think hectoring will improve other peoples' behavior did not grow up going to Mass five mornings a week.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"This week I'd like to know whether other fans of Chris, left or right, think independent voters are being turned off or on by the teabaggers, if they think the teabagger will run candidates for election as a third party, how a teabagger party would affect the elections of 2010 and 2012 etc, etc. "

As Gold says, try coming here sometime when you see that the posters calling themselves JakeD and zouk aren't here. They are both unemployed, so they have all the itme in the world [as you can see by how often they post] and the only reason they are here is to be nasty to other posters, or in joke's case, talk about his crush on sarah palin or some bizarre conspiracy theory or another. Unfortunately, Chris Cilizza will not remove them, so they generally come on at some point and drive everyone else away.

But every once in a while, neither are here, and you will find some interesting discussions then.

As to teabaggers, I think they will have an impact, yes. They have the support of the entire rightwing media structure -- AM radio, cable TV, Drudge, etc-- and a good deal of the MSM, as you see by often how they are puffed here.

They will also have the financial support of industry for their willingness to vote against their own interests, and they will have the CFG and other far-right orgs. So they will be players.

The most important thing they will contribute is in primary contests, where they will drag the incumbent so far radically right that they will lose the swing voters and hence the election.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to GJonahJameson and GoldAndTanzanite for very helpful comments.

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone remember why we went to war in Iraq? Not the WMD charade, the real reason.

==

Cheney wanted to steal the oil.

Wolfowitz / Perle / Feith / Abrahms wanted to carry out Netanyahu's shopping list so Israeli settlers could continue to steal land and thumb their racist noses at the Muslim world.

Bush wanted to wear his flightsuit, and remind us whatta tough li'l monkey he is.

What did I leave out?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

1) I apologize for hitting the submit button twice posting my last message

2) Jake submitted a post just after mine where he claimed he asked me "questions" yesterday and that I did not show him the courtesy of replying to his "questions"

The facts:

a) In my post I stated that Barack Hussein Obama was President of all the people of the United States.

b) JakeD posted a "statement" not a question:

____________________________________________

benjaminsp:

Barack Hussein Obama is NOT the President of the United States if he wasn't born in Hawai'i.
____________________________________________

c) Chris Cillizza posted the following to JakeD

_________________________________________

Jaked -- stop with the birther stuff. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the post.
___________________________________________

d) JakeD then argued with Chris

________________________________________

Mr. Cillizza:

YOU were the one who claimed that Obama is "President" (third full sentence above), and I was also addressing benjaminsp's post of 6:02 PM.
____________________________________________

I stand by what I said in my post, and will not discuss insane topics with conspiracy theorists. JakeD never even asked me one question.

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

benjaminsp: I assure you I say this not to insult, but you are making the same mistake so many other amateur political analysts make -- judging the mindset of an entire group of people based on the behavior of a few of its loudest members. You can often find insightful discussion among members of this forum if a thread manages to exist for a decent length of time without being yanked off topic by certain posters who know who they are. And even then, once you begin to recognize the screennames of the people whose posts tend to be light on content and heavy on rage, it gets pretty easy to figure out which posts you should read and which posts you should just scroll past.

That said, no matter what the topic, if what you want is nothing but thoughtful and polite discussion, you're not going to find it anywhere on the Internet.

To answer your question: I suspect that the Tea Party crowd will not have as big an impact on the 2010 elections as it would like to think it will, because it will not have the capacity for fundraising that the more conventional Republican Party has, nor will its campaigns be as polished. Generally, when people say they want that sort of independent, outside-the-beltway candidate, they're lying. I could see Tea Party candidates playing spoiler for Republicans in some races -- either by running as third-party candidates after losing the primary, or by winning the primary and then being unprepared to take on the Democratic candidate -- but those will be the exception and not the rule. And even then, if enough disenfranchised liberals don't come out to vote, the Tea Party crowd might just even the odds rather than tip them in the Dems' favor.

We saw Doug Hoffman have a big impact in the NY-23 race, but he's only one guy who was able to draw the support of a lot of people who wanted to be able to say, "Hey, I supported a conservative who wasn't a Republican!" Put out a bunch of candidates all calling for that kind of "Look, it's about conservatism, not party loyalty, I swear!" endorsement, and it will get watered down.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 18, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Sniff, snifff,

Smells like...Victory!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BH1Y920091218?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=


Can anyone remember why we went to war in Iraq? Not the WMD charade, the real reason.

It must be beyond horrible to have had a son or daughter who died or was maimed there, or is still at risk...all for nothing...apart from Republican vanity.

Republicans laugh about Democrats' inability to do anything apart from not being Bush/Cheney.

For me, that is accomplishment enough. Anything progressive would be astonishing, but it isn't like we should expect our electeds to fix everything; the American people run the country after all, not the elected officials. We are what we are.

Democrats are disorganized and ineffective. They are often corrupt and incompetent, just like Republicans. But invading countries because we'll feel better is not in the Democratic mind set.

Not being Republican and never voting Republican is important. It is something to be proud of.

Never forget the prime-time Republican product placement: Shock and Awe. No doubt it was supposed to teach the rag heads an object lesson, it was a make-over of the morning of the twin towers, how sick is that?

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

benjaminsp:

I asked you questions on your post yesterday, but still haven't gotten your answers. You don't have to post all day long, but no one is going to answers all of your questions if you refuse to return the same courtesy.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

ZOUK:

What they are cheering for the 10.0% "unemployment" rate, down from 10.2%. What they are missing, of course, is the REAL unemployment number is at 17.5%!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009

This all ties into Topic #1: How much will "cap and trade" cost, and how many more jobs will be lost in the process? I guess that really is not so important when you have another agenda to push though. We were shedding 500k jobs a month and the silence from the MSM was deafening. I remember the month that "only" 90k jobs were ADDED during the Bush Administration and you would have thought that we were headed into a second great depression right then and there. Obama presided over a month that lost 16k jobs, and it was like he single-handedly won WWII.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

esterday and today I posted long posts that did not get very many responses. I attributed that to the length of my comment and the idea that people don't want to read a long article, never mind answer it.

I then tried a short political joke which wasn't really commented on as well.

I may be paranoid, but I am feeling this is a closed group of people who are sparing with each other and the comments are a kind of put-down camaraderie of people who know each other a long time.

==

Try posting again on some rare day when JakeD and zouk aren't here, you'll have a very different experience.

When the two trolls are here the whole blog is basically about them, it's like trying to carry on a conversation in front of the stage of a rock concert.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I was under the impression this was a group where people discuss politics.

I may have silly ideas but I'd like to share them with those who read Chris's column. I am posting here because I think "The Fix" is one of the best columns on DC Politics.

I can only post for a limited time each day and am not able to stay on the web and carry on a conversation.

Yesterday and today I posted long posts that did not get very many responses. I attributed that to the length of my comment and the idea that people don't want to read a long article, never mind answer it.

I then tried a short political joke which wasn't really commented on as well.

I may be paranoid, but I am feeling this is a closed group of people who are sparing with each other and the comments are a kind of put-down camaraderie of people who know each other a long time.

I want to post in a group where people discuss the chess game of politics, the strategies, positions, strength and weaknesses of the political parties and what moves would benefit each group.

I see people in this group insulting each others intelligence, insulting the President and other politicians and just plain mentally masturbating on each other.

As the President says, we CAN disagree without being disagreeable.

I would like to find a few political discussion groups where I can leave one or two posts a day, and come back again the next day and find responses from one or two people. I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of my ideas from whichever political standpoint they are part of.

This week I'd like to know whether other fans of Chris, left or right, think independent voters are being turned off or on by the teabaggers, if they think the teabagger will run candidates for election as a third party, how a teabagger party would affect the elections of 2010 and 2012 etc, etc. Next week, my mind may be contemplating something else.

I read some of the posts here and feel a lot of you are passing the time away in general banter, regurgitating ideological platitudes, putting each other down, and screaming I'm smarter than you because my ideology is right and yours is wrong.

Are there any people here who want to seriously discuss the political game?

I may be wrong about this group, and I apologize if I am. However in this post I am writing how I feel, no matter how paranoid or neurotic it is.

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I was under the impression this was a group where people discuss politics.

I may have silly ideas but I'd like to share them with those who read Chris's column. I am posting here because I think "The Fix" is one of the best columns on DC Politics.

I can only post for a limited time each day and am not able to stay on the web and carry on a conversation.

Yesterday and today I posted long posts that did not get very many responses. I attributed that to the length of my comment and the idea that people don't want to read a long article, never mind answer it.

I then tried a short political joke which wasn't really commented on as well.

I may be paranoid, but I am feeling this is a closed group of people who are sparing with each other and the comments are a kind of put-down camaraderie of people who know each other a long time.

I want to post in a group where people discuss the chess game of politics, the strategies, positions, strength and weaknesses of the political parties and what moves would benefit each group.

I see people in this group insulting each others intelligence, insulting the President and other politicians and just plain mentally masturbating on each other.

As the President says, we CAN disagree without being disagreeable.

I would like to find a few political discussion groups where I can leave one or two posts a day, and come back again the next day and find responses from one or two people. I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of my ideas from whichever political standpoint they are part of.

This week I'd like to know whether other fans of Chris, left or right, think independent voters are being turned off or on by the teabaggers, if they think the teabagger will run candidates for election as a third party, how a teabagger party would affect the elections of 2010 and 2012 etc, etc. Next week, my mind may be contemplating something else.

I read some of the posts here and feel a lot of you are passing the time away in general banter, regurgitating ideological platitudes, putting each other down, and screaming I'm smarter than you because my ideology is right and yours is wrong.

Are there any people here who want to seriously discuss the political game?

I may be wrong about this group, and I apologize if I am. However in this post I am writing how I feel, no matter how paranoid or neurotic it is.

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

When the CCCP comes roaring back to economic life, perhaps they will let you personally set the price of milk.

but then what would barry do all day?

more likely, you will be one of the first ignorant loudmouths they throw naked into the snow to fend for yourself for the first time ever.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

OK, from now on, whenever I discuss The One

==

You don't come here to "discuss" anything, you only come here to fling poo.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

the decline of the unemployment rate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Not sure if you B+ students get this but 10% is considered worse than 8% even though it is technically a decline. someone ought to tell barry.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Does the stim, the decline of the unemployment rate, and the aquisition of a canine not count?

==

Dude, you are trying to reason with people who believe that cutting taxes increases government revenue.

They still believe that cutting taxes on people who aren't making money will fix the economy. They believe in market forces and thinking money. Save your breath.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

squandered......within two years of assuming office

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

See, barry is good at something. It only took Him less than one year to squander His advantage and fall to the lowest rated present ident in modern history. now that takes a special talent.

He is also well known for squandering all the money in the treasury, not only for this year but for decades to come. He is a wonder. His greatest feat by far though is turning a slight recession into a gargantuan almost depression with His meddling. His worst case scenrio was 8% unemployment. He is even worse than He thought He'd be.

and for that, He has my RESPECT.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

ZOUK:

I know, for a fact, that they don't want us to capitalize ALL of the letters in his middle name though ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Does the stim, the decline of the unemployment rate, and the aquisition of a canine not count?

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Pavlov was the guy. The dogs name was Bellinda. (I have no idea if thats true) C'mon guys lets not get into name calling.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

OK, from now on, whenever I discuss The One, I will only refer to Him in capital letters, after all, anyOne Who can walk on water deserves some sort of recognition.

On your end, when He finally accomplishes something, can you let me know?

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

have a biscuit Pavlov!

God is Great.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Were you ok with it when people said things like this about GWB?

==

A president gets the respect accorded his office by virtue of title, but that can be squandered, and within two years of assuming office Bush had managed to do that. The guy who intoned "Bring 'em own!" and did "Mission Accomplised" and the cute li'l WMD skit in the Oval Office no longer deserved the respect we accord presidents.

Obama has done nothing of that magnitude. I'm very unhappy with his presidency but he hasn't gotten us into any new wars yet just to feel like a bigshot.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Let it go gold. If Chris wants him gone, he can handle it. You're just gonna get yourself p!ssed off for no good reason.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"Gov." Palin isn't brave, she's reckless. And since she went from being a governor to being a public figure who'll spread her legs for anyone with some cash or a camera her opinion isn't relevant to anyone but a teabagger.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm not calling foul. I'm making a request. And it's one that would benefit you far more than it does me. When you refer to him with disrespect, while making a legitimate argument against something he has done or said; your point is diminished by the fact that you clearly have no respect for him in the first place. To use Sec. Clintons words "if he walked on water, you'd complain that he can't swim". By referring to him with the proper respect, your argument comes off as loyal descent (loyal to your country, not to him), and carries weight. Otherwise, how are you any different than the crazy people that you lament? It's up to you, but one last time, I will ask in the interest of high minded debate for those of us who are interested in it, please respect the office.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

If he wasn't even born in Hawai'i, then barry hussein obama jr. deserves JAIL not respect.

==

You've been told by Chris Cillizza to quit this birther sh*t. Nobody expects a cringing racist to find the equanimity to handle having a black president but you don't need to hijack every thread with the same stupid dodge. Quit it.

And oh, grow the hell up.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 18, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

2010 Vote All Democrats Out of Congress.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | December 18, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

For the record, my last half-dozen posts were prompted by someone else bringing up the subject (they are nonetheless directly relevant to Topics # 1 and 2, somewhat less to Topic # 5 only because Gov. Palin is the only one brave enough to even broach the subject ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

You're calling "FOUL!" on this but nothing else on the entire thread?! Thank God you AREN'T the ref ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

If he wasn't even born in Hawai'i, then barry hussein obama jr. deserves JAIL not respect.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Again, you dont have to respect the man, but whatever you think of him, you are disrespecting the office and by extention our country. Say what you want about him, but please call him by his proper name and capitalize it.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Bush was the Decider, don't you remember?

barry is anything but.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

It is the utmost American value that RESPECT must be earned.

As the Smiths used to sing:

"you just haven't earned it yet, barry".

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Were you ok with it when people said things like this about GWB?

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

he is the dually elected President of the United States.

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

indeed, you voted for a competent, frugal, effective, centrist that would bring change.

instead you got the dual.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

We ARE respecting the OFFICE OF PRESIDENT by pointing out a USURPER!!!

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I do indeed respect the old office known as President.

the current holder is entitled to his own seal and title:

Present ident

when and if he ever does anything Presidential, I may come around.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

wasn't the last international global warming conference snowed out as well?

delicious irony in the face of idiocy.

God has a sense of humor I see. Liberals do not.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, could I ask you a favor? Say what you want about the president. If you feel he is incompetent, stupid even a bad person, that’s fine. If you honestly believe that he was born in Kenya, it is your right to make that claim. But rightly or wrongly, he is the dually elected President of the United States. If you don’t respect him, would you please respect the office? Calling him "barry" with a lower-case "b" is disrespectful of the office as well as the man. And by that virtue, it is also disrespectful of our country. I would never forbid anyone to speak their mind, no matter how passionately i oppose their opinion, but I do request that you respect the office please.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

ZOUK:

(from CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry)

Copenhagen (CNN) – In an ironic twist, a Washington snowstorm is forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, to make an early departure from the global warming summit here in Denmark.

Pelosi told CNN that military officials leading her Congressional delegation have urged the 21 lawmakers to leave Copenhagen several hours earlier than scheduled on Saturday.

The Speaker said she has agreed to the new travel plan so that lawmakers can get back to Washington before much of the expected storm wallops the nation's capital.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"hollered at by delusional and-or irrationally angry people is such an important part of my job"

et tu GJ?
I know exactly what you mean.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

the globe has warmed so much we are about to get two feet of snow. this is pretty early for DC.

Just another nail in the coffin of the laughingstock al gore.

and his waterboy barry.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Well said, shrink2.

I can never seem to muster the energy necessary to be as offended as some people are by comments posted on the Internets. Maybe it's because getting hollered at by delusional and-or irrationally angry people is such an important part of my job.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 18, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

NEW Friday Line (not good news for Democratic incumbents)!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/friday-senate-line-democratic.html

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I am behind today. That is interesting, I feel like I could have written that piece. And of course, bsimon and drindl's positions are mirrored exactly by Krugman.

We are so cutting edge we bleed.

I have a solid critique of Krugman's column in mind, of course, but it is more interesting to critique Brook's. This is my whole world. I can't think of anything more important in politics than this bill. Like Brooks says, I go back and forth between thinking it will do more harm than good to the only party that has the capacity to fix anything, versus thinking it has to pass or too many people will die etc. before an actual improvement to our crazy quilt system becomes possible. It gives me the pain of an ice cream headache. There is no way to know what to do, but it is so incredibly important.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

I thought that global "warming" was going to bring snow to even the tropics ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"You really think that an hominem "gullible sheeple flock of teabagging fools" (or it's liberal counter-part) is an acceptable debate tool?"!
==
I dont think its a particularly effective tool, but I certainly don't think its offensive. I dont see anything in there about pedophilia, or racism. If I'm the ref (Hey wait a minute! How did I become the ref?) I'm keeping the yellow flag in my pocket. Let 'em play!

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

You don't get any snow there?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Jake posted:

P.S. to mark_in_austin:

Have you heard of the accidents / jams / larger carbon footprint caused by LED traffic lights back East that do not put out heat like regular ol' lights to melt the ice away from them?
-----------------------
I had not. SD and Austin can use the LED traffic controls without fear, for now, correct?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

I didn't even know you had a sense of humor

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

Most of the loons here would say that is the only sense I have.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

For the first time ever ZOUK, you made me laugh. Please don't take this personally, but I didn't even know you had a sense of humor.
I don't mean humor like the queen of mean, Maureen Dowd, I mean humor like silly funny.
It is a good thing.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to mark_in_austin:

Have you heard of the accidents / jams / larger carbon footprint caused by LED traffic lights back East that do not put out heat like regular ol' lights to melt the ice away from them?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

shrink - there is a short period in the day right after Ms. moonbat has exhausted all her firedoglake and Kos cut and pastes, when she has to come up with a single idea on her own (cue the crickets) and right before the ped CF8 arrives with the snark hour.

Try to squeeze in there.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

shrink, thanx for yesterday's posts on UHC and if you saw David Brooks' column this morning I think you would have approved.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

in re: incisive analysis

Sorry Mark reading way down there I see you tried, thank you. How do you stand the blog culture? You seem so...mature.

If you are a Dad, I'll bet you raised great kids.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

He's too busy fantasizing.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

(since French nuclear power AND Joan of Arc was brought up earlier, trying to tie this into Topic #5, so work with me):

Not that we need French advice or role models, but you could do worse than Saint Joan -- yes, I know that she claimed to have seen visions from a "non-existent" God, so that's an automatic disqualification for most liberals -- however, the parallels are striking: a peasant girl born in rural France, she led the nation's army to several important victories during the Hundred Years' War. As a patriot and the daughter of commoners, she was seen as one prototype of the low-born volunteers (the soldats de l'an II) who had victoriously fought for revolutionary France in 1802 and as such could be claimed by the Republicans (no pun intended). She was also burned at the stake, with her ashes dumped into the Seine, much like the Dems and MSM are trying to do. All their talk about feminism is cheap ; )

Therefore (in a round about way) Gov. Palin would gain lots of credibility if she added nuclear power plants to her "Drill, Baby, Drill!" mantra. Think of it as diversifying the energy portfolio. I'm not sure that we are ready for her to dress in men's clothes though ...

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Well I've been gone almost a whole day and
I return to see...everything is the same.

Whew, glad I didn't miss anything like political insights or incisive analysis.
________________________

"Suffice it to say I don't see anything on here that would hurt my feelings, were i on the recieving end."

Elijah, I don't think you are thin skinned enough for this crowd. We wear our feelings on our sleeves and personalize every little thing. I once attacked the Republican party as having become a safe haven for bigots and some guy just blew a gasket. It was if I'd smacked his kid in the face.

Another time, I made a completely lame joke about Chris Cillizza who had described Mark Sanford's psychotic press conference about his "love affair". CC called it "compelling", whereas I thought it grotesque (I was thinking of the guy's 2 boys). I said if I were Mrs. Fix, I might ask him about what it was about Sanford's rant he thought was compelling. That was it. Well he got right on here and told me I'd better leave the pop psychology to Dr. Phil...or else. I apologized for ever being born and, so far anyway, I have not been banned, whatever that means.

You gotta get hurt and retaliate, no matter how unintended, oblique, abstract or minimal the insult might seem; you must take it to heart, enrage yourself and most of all: never forgive and never forget, it is the culture of the blogosphere.

Joking aside, anyone who thinks Sunnis and Shiites are going to get along in Iraq hasn't spent much time on their respective websites. They call each other the vilest names in oaths that remind one of the old Scandinavian tradition of denunciation.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry guys, i was off doing some work. Can you believe that crap? My boss thinks my job should take priority over posting on The Fix. Crazy, huh?
I dont see any hostility on here yet that goes beyond the acceptable level. Then again, the acceptable level is relative. Suffice it to say I don't see anything on here that would hurt my feelings, were i on the recieving end.

Posted by: elijah24"

Give it up, man. zook/37+0/etc. isn't capable of having an actual discussion or debating a topic. That's why he's resigned to posting snarky one-liners or trying to convince us how he's smarter than everyone. He's done that for at least a year.

In all the time I've been on here, I have yet to see him respond to a single point anyone has ever made.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I get 5 bucks everytime ms. moonbat says something stupid.

I am very wealthy.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

The beautiful German wife is off shopping. the two perfect kids went ice skating. No plane yet. the villa is rented for the holidays. but you forgot my Porsche in your envy. and the twice monthly trips. I just got back from seeing Memphis on Broadway. good show.

do you really think that no one on this blog has a life? not everyone can be as lonely, miserable and creepy as CF8 and the queen of the moonbats. who do you think is paying your welfare checks?

I understand why Libs are obsessed with personality and situation, having no policy legs to stand on, but making assumptions about anon bloggers only makes you all seem loonier than we know you are.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

ZOUK:

Are you paid to post here? I know that I am not (but if you how to, please let me know ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

You really think that an hominem "gullible sheeple flock of teabagging fools" (or it's liberal counter-part) is an acceptable debate tool?!

mark_in_austin:

Let's begin the switch over right now to 90% of our electricity generated from nukes, just like France does currently.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

ATTENTION ROSYLN MAZER, OFFICE OF DNI:

Taking bets from covert humint agents and operatives as to when Chris Cillizza and WaPo will awaken to the realization that powerful forces appear to be expending much time and (taxpayer?) resources on ideologically-motivated spamming of political blogs in America...

...apparently intended to drive away non-operative readers with a 24/7 barrage of cyber-effluvia -- as exemplified by the postings of Zouk, JakeD, drindl, and other other noms de psy op that comprise the WaPo/Politico/NYT blog "task force."

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA", "OBAMA UNAWARE; U.S. DOES TORTURE..."

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 18, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

IQ plunges again. Ooops. I keep forgetting never listen to a liberals promise not to mess everything up with their fumbling and bumbling.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

More with the boat fantasies. Where's the plane and the villa? And the Scandanavian model wife and two perfect aryan kids? Folks, here's a guy who knows how to dream.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Good ideas all, Mark, glad that you didn't mention oil shale, the damage it does to groundwater far surpasses any good that comes of it. Plus, it's still oil.

"Once it does not matter to the USA, and more broadly, to the west, whether or not Iran closes Hormuz to shipping, or whether or not Russia chokes off the pipelines, we deal from a position of strength."

And we will hear a lot less about bombin Iran too, because oil/ Hormuz is really what that's all about, ala Iraq.

Moving inland, yup. Too late to stop that. Already too late for some islands.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

wow the moonbat leaves and the average IQ immediately soars.

Mark - that would involve those in command getting off their knees praying to the green God and opening their eyes and ears.

when certain "solutions" are preordained, the answer is the same old failure chanting.

I just bought a big boat with gas gobbling engines which I hope will not be perpetually tied to the dock because of some green ideal which is not economically feasible.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

re: #1. Without the Chinese buy-in to monitoring there is no "global" commitment to reduce CO2 %s in the atmosphere.

The less grand scheme, the one that has an environmental concern element while concentrating on American national and economic security, moves us from "dirty" to "cleaner" energy sources and away from dependency on the Middle East and Venezuela and Nigeria and Russia.

Wind. Natural gas. Nukes. Solar. Efficiency. Conservation. Biodiesel. Hybrid cars. Diesel-electric trucks [using the 100+ year old technology that drives freight trains]. LED lamps. Flourescent lamps. We can probably make jobs here with a concerted effort. Use the TARP repayments not to hide the deficit, a la the Speaker, but as a revolving loan fund direct to small business.

And preplanning for moving inland, probably.

Once it does not matter to the USA, and more broadly, to the west, whether or not Iran closes Hormuz to shipping, or whether or not Russia chokes off the pipelines, we deal from a position of strength.

I am not proposing opening ANWAR, or massive oil drilling, because there is not enough cheap-to-drill oil available to make a difference and because oil is dirty. I am proposing cleaner, and easily attainable, interim energy sources like thorium based nuke plants and wind turbines. If carbon sequestration becomes manageable [there are some good ideas out there, but clean coal is still a pipedream] than we might be able to use our enormous coal reserves and sell the technology to the Chinese coal powered state. Except they would steal it first.

Some good can come out of the unwillingness of other players to be reasonable if we seize our opportunities.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Loud and Dumb is having trouble with the button again.

Even the simplest things are a stretch for this cretin.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Sorry guys, i was off doing some work. Can you believe that crap? My boss thinks my job should take priority over posting on The Fix. Crazy, huh?
I dont see any hostility on here yet that goes beyond the acceptable level. Then again, the acceptable level is relative. Suffice it to say I don't see anything on here that would hurt my feelings, were i on the recieving end.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

thanks Jake for running off the moonbat, if you actually beleive it's gone.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

You were saying something about "pointless hostility"?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

If Stupak and Nelson had the IQ of Forest Gump, they just might accept this substitute amendment to the Health Care bill to answer their concerns on abortion.

Total Ban on Federally Funded Abortions for all MEDICARE Patients.


Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

GJonahJameson: You have to understand Jake. He takes everything Sarah Palin says or does at 100 percent face value. We attribute to his advanced age and dwindling grip on reality.

Some political consultants counting on a big payday would be mighty disappointed if "family and god" were it. But we know that's nonsensical. They will take Palin for millions (she won't care because she's already taking her gullible sheeple flock of teabagging fools for millions).

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

GJonahJameson: You have to understand Jake. He takes everything Sarah Palin says or does at 100 percent face value. We attribute to his advanced age and dwindling grip on reality.

Some political consultants counting on a big payday would be mighty disappointed if "family and god" were it. But we know that's nonsensical. They will take Palin for millions (she won't care because she's already taking her gullible sheeple flock of teabagging fools for millions).

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

After we have been told time and time again how many countries were behind the climate change treaty, it is ASTONISHING how many countries want practically all the sacrifice to come from the West.


AND they want the West to pay them.


The European Union, or whatever it calls itself now, is seriously off-track - and it is simply looking for purpose. This is not the right way to go.

The climate models have been proven to be flawed time and time again.


How they can continue with this theory is unbelievable.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 18, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Not to put too fine a point on it, JakeD, but if I don't believe Sarah Palin (or any other successful politician, for that matter) when she says the only consultants on her political decisions are her family and God, why would I be more apt to believe it when she writes it in a book?

I mean, I'm not saying she (or any other successful politician for that matter) doesn't take those things into account at all, but even a candidate running for township trustee consults some local "in the know" folks and potential constituents on whether to run before going to the board of elections to pick up a candidacy petition.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 18, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

let's see -- 5 obnoxious posts from joke in a row.

bye!

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

When George Washington took the oath as first President of the United States on April 30, 1789, he added this four-word prayer of his own: "So help me God" (Obama did the same with his purported oath ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

When a pious minister told Abraham Lincoln that he "hoped the Lord is on our side," the President is reported to have said: "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

AMEN!!!

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"The FINAL decision will be God's."

Yes, that's definitely what need for president -- Joan of Arc.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Topic #1 (assuming arguendo he is legally President), shouldn't Obama being doing more to reduce HIS OWN carbon footprint?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236632/Your-commuter-carriage-awaits-The-Queen-catches-train-journey-Sandringham-Christmas.html

American taxpayers spend over $2 BILLION to run the White House and fly Obama all over the world.

http://theintrepid.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-much-does-it-cost-to-operate-white.html

Assuming we really are out of the recession, it still wouldn't be a bad idea to show some frugality -- he couldn't have scheduled the Copenhagen speech for the same trip as his Nobel lecture -- better yet, video conferencing?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Back onto Topic #2 (above):

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/12/on-call-with-bloggers-axelrod.html#comments

Obama advisor, David Axelrod, was asked whether his recent "insane" remark re: DEMOCRAT Howard Dean's position also applied to DEMOCRAT Ben Nelson's willingness to scuttle the entire bill. "I'm not professionally qualified to judge insanity and maybe I should have used a different word". LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I take it you haven't read "Going Rogue" either? The FINAL decision will be God's.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, no successful politician uses family and prayer to make political decisions. They only use those things as excuses to rationalize those decisions later. They don't admit it, of course, but it's one of those happy little unspoken things that most voters cheerfully ignore because we know they all do it and it's never going to change unless our society evolves into a South Park-esque dystopian "Science be praised!" kind of thing. And I think we all hope sea otters never represent a serious threat to our survival.

Like every other politician who knows how to win an election, Sarah Palin will bring on consultants and analysts and all manner of other advisers before she makes her decision on whether to run for president. Her family and Jesus will not be the only ones she consults. I suspect we all know that.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 18, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

AceMcNumbnuts is off the meds i see, typing furiously. Yawn, this board is a waste now.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Please let me know if you see any post of mine that you consider "hostile". That is not my intent (but, as you pointed out earlier, typewritten words can sometime convey the wrong emotion). I look forward to debating other threads with you.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

When your attempt at recreating the Congress of Vienna with a third-rate cast of extras turns into a shambles, when the data with which you have tried to terrify the world is daily exposed as ever more phoney, when the blatant greed and self-interest of the participants has become obvious to all beholders, when those pesky polar bears just keep increasing and multiplying – what do you do?


Copenhagen: India and China have taken a united stand and walked out of the climate summit as Copenhagen talks fail. Tensions prevailed at the climate talks at Copenhagen today, as Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and China premier Wen Jiabao walked out of the summit along with their respective delegations, as talks failed.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

No deal. Not even a fig leaf. That seemed to be the implication of President Obama's much-anticipated speech at the Copenhagen climate summit. (Snip) As Obama and the others talked, White House officials told reporters that the president had ripped up his schedule for the day -- supposedly the last day of the conference -- and was attempting to rescue the troubled negotiations. He apparently did not succeed.


In this new era, this qualifies as an unmistakable B+.

Can you imagine the grade inflation if this clown ever actually accomplished something. anything?

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"How can the most offensive of persons be so easily offended by others?"

Ace McNumbnuts talks about himself incessantly. What a strange creature.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

This young President does not have a good track record for jetting off to a Scandanavian city to try to effect a last minute change - think Olympic Committee.
It is breathtaking for me to think of how the stakes are different between the two. One was to lobby that the Olympics 8 year later would take place in a particular city of his preference. The other is to change the course in potentially saving the world from destructive climate changes - wow

Posted by: Tom1 | December 18, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

GJonahJameson:

I think the "mechanism" will be the same one already being made fun of on this very thread: her family and prayer.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Well Im not. I will ignore the pointless hostility. Join me if you will.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

Gov. Palin's maiden name is "Heath" (you would know that, and how she's going to win 2012, if you had read her book ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I know margaret, all that sugar and kisses and luv for republicans..

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

What's the difference? It's almost CF8 time anyway.

the other moonbat thinks she has the sole right to insult others and cries like a baby crocodile when it is offended.

How can the most offensive of persons be so easily offended by others?

Same way the most dim witted, loud and dumb can accuse others of idiocy.

Must be a liberal thing.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

he's incapable, elijah. he is incontinent.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Ace McNumbnuts: "all talk no action. no one is buying swampland any more."

For someone who rants and raves about one-liners, most of your posts are cut-and-paste jobs, followed by a one-liner.

Typical rightwingnut hypocrite. That's Ace McNumbnuts.

Palin/McNumbnuts 2012!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Thats true Jake, but I was anti-choice too at one time. Like me most of those kids see abortion as a black and white issue. Either you want to kill babies or you want to protect them. Also like me, many if not most of them will realize that it isn't that simple, and the pro-choice position will start to make a lot of sense.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I think most people not especially invested in either loving her or hating her have the impression that Sarah Palin as a presidential candidate in 2012 is anything but a sure thing. The most likely scenario is that Palin tests the waters in these intervening years to see what looks more promising in 2012: her chances of winning the presidency or her chances of being a top-tier (in terms of name recognition, at least) conservative pundit. For most savvy politicians, that would mean focusing on one's negatives and seeing whether they appear to disqualify one's chances of being voted into office -- right?

For Palin, though, that usual process might be altered by the narrative being spun by her supporters -- and, to some extent, Palin herself -- that her negatives are positives. Anytime she's made to look bad by the media or other politicians, Palin doesn't just go the "Well, you're totally wrong, and here's why" route -- she adds in an "and you're a big stupid meanie for doing it" to rally her supporters and set herself up as an innocent victim in the character assassination game played by all the jerks against her. At the same time, there's a bustling narrative among her supporters, which I've spotted a few times on this blog, that people who criticize Palin are only doing it because they're scared of her.

If these attitudes continue into 2012 and Palin and her supporters continue to spin her negatives as positives, what mechanism does she use to decide whether she stands a chance as a presidential contender or whether she's best off in the punditry world? It'll be interesting to see.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 18, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

drindl, @9:30 -- I am full up to here with the Right Wing Breakfast Special. In fact, I feel a little sicky-poo.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 18, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

MerrillFrank:

Obama didn't finish his term as U.S. Senator either.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

President Obama stepped onto the global stage in Copenhagen, but his lackluster speech failed to inspire delegates scrambling to salvage something from the global trade talks. From the U.K.’s Guardian: “We have charted our course, we have made our commitments and we will do what we say,” Obama said. But in the absence of any evidence of that commitment, the words rang hollow


Barry redux

all talk no action. no one is buying swampland any more.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

So Zouk, why dont those of us who are here right now, all agree not to fall into that trap. Lets ignore the snarky one-liners from either side, and stay as much on topic as we can.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

God willing, I won't die before then ; )

Seriously, though, you are forgetting that an increasing number of young voters are pro-life now. As the younger generations age, get married, have actual responsibilities, they get more conservative too.

Gallenod (and mark_in_austin):

WaPo story by Ben Pershing -- let me know if you need the link.

"One day after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she wouldn't help President Obama round up votes to support his troop surge in Afghanistan, an offer of assistance came forth from an unlikely source -- House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

"I think the president has made a responsible decision with regard to our plan to succeed in Afghanistan, and I will work to make sure that our troops get everything they need in order to succeed," Boehner said at his regular press briefing Thursday, after being asked about the Speaker's remarks.

Pelosi, who has expressed personal misgivings about the wisdom of sending more troops to Afghanistan, made clear Wednesday that many members of her caucus felt the same way about the war and that she had promised not to "ever ask them to vote for it" again. With a supplemental appropriation of at least $30 billion necessary next year to pay for the added troops, a significant bloc of Democratic opposition in the House means that the funding will have to pass with GOP support."

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

elijah: Ace McNumbnuts is unable to control himself. That's why he has multiple screen names, so he can post even more gibberish.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I wonder where Chris Cilliza is this morning. We were having a civil, on topic coversation, then some rude loudmouth comes in and calls us all names -- hello, Chris?

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I was a liberal at 15. then I grew up.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

As far as Willard Mitt Romney goes. As Mass. gov He signed a reasonable health care bill quite similar to the house bill. Employer mandate, exchanges etc. He later ran away from it on the presidential campaign trail to court favor with the wing-nuts. At least he finished his term unlike that "lets go to Hawaii where I hate the native population use a magic marker on my visor" women. His dad was a more sensible person.

I take it that Bill-O did not hear anyone ask for the MFer Iced Tea.

"Wednesday on Fox News, host Bill O’Reilly praised First Lady Michelle Obama, whom he had met at the White House holiday party the previous evening. “The President and First Lady were very gracious to me,”

Posted by: MerrillFrank | December 18, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, but you know what happens to 15 year olds? they turn 18 and go to college and see the world outside of their community and church. At this point a lot of them become liberals, or at least moderates.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"That's not the "best shot" for REPUBLICANS because the base will simply stay home or go rogue."


And there's the rub. Either enthuse the tea baggers & alienate swing voters, or promote moderate, rational policy that attracts swing voters, but alienates the reactionaries. That's why the GOP is struggling: they're damned if they do & damned if they don't. Who won Scozzofava v Hoffman?

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 18, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

consider the environement here. the stooges have driven off all intelligence. In the morning we have the cut and paste moonbat, offering up her brand of hate, envy, spite and nastiness. In the afternoon, we get the snarky, lonely pitiful pedant. sprinkle in a littel Loud and dumb one liner insults and voila, you have the fix.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

The global warming meltdown is underway. The solar conspiracy must be stopped. Up with Copenhagen.
It is curious how an attorney, expert in Constitutional Law proposes the acceptance of an incomplete document, that will be completed at a later date by people appointed and not responsible to the voters or tax payers.

Posted by: RayOne | December 18, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"Jake, if that’s true; the GOP might as well hang it up. You can't win without your base, but you definitely can’t win without the middle. The biggest demographic in your loyal base is 65+. And the people in that group are dying. The biggest age demo in the Democratic Party is between 24-35. Most of them are staying loyal as they age out of the demo, and they are growing. At this rate, Republicans will be extinct in a few years. In national politics, they are already limited to the plains and the old confederacy. Your party is almost entirely a regional party."

At age 77, Jake is exhibit A for this. Of course, at age 15, zouk serves as a counterweight.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

'At this rate, Republicans will be extinct in a few years. In national politics, they are already limited to the plains and the old confederacy. Your party is almost entirely a regional party.'

exactly, elijah. going the way of the dodo.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Is is stooges day off here on the blog? Make that day on, all day, minute by minute. funny thing about our stooges though, despite posting thousands of words every hour, they never say anything interesting or intelligent.

Where's Mo?

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

crap zouk, you were doing so well. making well thought out remarks and arguements. I EVEN AGREED WITH YOU AT ONE POINT. then you had to go pull out this BS. I guess nothing lasts forever.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Fun, benjamin, could be.

As usual, Ezra has the best summation of health policy:

"Would public insurance be better? It would. I’d be happier arguing for it right now. But that’s not the choice before us. The people this bill will affect aren’t facing divergent futures with public and private insurance. They’re facing divergent futures with private insurance or no insurance. Regulated insurance or unregulated insurance. Exchanges that pool their bargaining power and spreads their risk and a world in which they’re on their own. And people are being awfully cavalier in the abstract about a decision that virtually always comes out the same way when people have the good fortune to make it.

"This is not a great bill. But the status quo is very, very bad. The cost controls may be insufficient, but in the status quo, they simply don’t exist. Private insurance isn’t optimal, but it’s better than the total absence of coverage."

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

In 8 statements about politics, CC made 0 that were positive for Democrats

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

Are you suggesting he make something up?

how's this:

Democrats have only missed every self-imposed deadline they set this year - indicating a deep respect for thought and consideration.

Or this:

Democrats have spent more than anyone ever in the history of mankind - indicating a long term faith in the american way.

Or this:

Democrats have indicated that despite bowing, scraping and surrendering wherever possible, they still think that everyone respects them. This shows a good beleif in man's humanity to others in this season of faith.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Jake, if that’s true; the GOP might as well hang it up. You can't win without your base, but you definitely can’t win without the middle. The biggest demographic in your loyal base is 65+. And the people in that group are dying. The biggest age demo in the Democratic Party is between 24-35. Most of them are staying loyal as they age out of the demo, and they are growing. At this rate, Republicans will be extinct in a few years. In national politics, they are already limited to the plains and the old confederacy. Your party is almost entirely a regional party.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

This is just bizarre and unstable behavior:

"Sarah Palin released a statement yesterday announcing that she and husband Todd have cut their Hawaiian vacation short, after some controversy over a McCain campaign visor Palin wore with former running mate John McCain's name blacked out with a Sharpie.

After TMZ posted pictures of Palin wearing the visor, some speculation arose that this was another indication that Palin and McCain have been on bad terms since the campaign. Palin insisted that the visor was simply an attempt to "be incognito" on her trip.

Now, it seems, the controversy has caused Palin to end her Hawaii vacation early. In a statement, Palin said:

Todd and I have since cut our vacation short because the incognito attempts didn't work and fellow vacationers were bothered for the two days we spent in the sun. So much for trying to go incognito."

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"Quit their jobs and run around the country whining about how mean people are?"

What jobs? Teabaggers don't have jobs. At least, not jobs that require actual work or even one's presence at the job site.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

One far fetched scenario for 2010 and 2012.

Scozzafava-ing of RINOs (moderate Republicans)will be widespread.

2010:

In Florida, Crist will win by very slight margin. Florida being Florida will have many voter irregularities and Rubio will say Crist rigged the election. He will join the Tea Baggers and run a third party campaign. The Republican vote will be divided just like in NY 23 and the Democrats will win.

In the Senate and the House, (I'm crossing my fingers on this) 1/3 to 1/2 of all contests will have a third party candidates. At tea bagger rallies the press will begin focusing on unexcusable signs and posters (example: calling for the lynching of members of Congress and the President). Republican Candidates will mistakenly move to the ultra right to secure the Republican base and try to outdo their Tea Bagger opponents. Talk of conspiracy theories, killing grandma, killing babies, death camps, birth certificates etc. will move Independents to the Democrats. In all seats where the Teabaggers run candidates, the Democrats will win.

Factoring in this scenario on one side and on the other the jobless rate, the housing market, anger at incombents and "buyers regret" of a black man in the White House (giving lectures to white school girls, hypnotizing them, and making them his servants) I predict the Dems will pick up two seats in the Senate and lose 10 or 20 House seats.

Another far out scenario for 2012:

Mitt Romney will win a close contest with Sarah Palin. The teabaggers will be angered by ANY criticism of her candidacy by other Republican Presidential candidates. Efforts to smooth over hard feelings will fail. Palin will join the teabaggers and run for President under their banner.

Unfortunately I can not see Palin picking Glen Beck on the ticket. No one can be that stupid.

Palin will call Obama a Communist, Socialist, Fascist Nazi leading the country to totalitarianism. She will say that all opponents of the Democrats will be put into death camps. Most of her time, however, will be attacking Mitt Romney and the Republicans. Mitt and the Republicans, again, will mistakenly move to the ultra right to secure their base.

Results

Obama wins the biggest landslide since Johnson and Goldwater. The Democrats will win 10 more seats in the senate and 40 more in the house.

Let's hope

I know less about the State races than DC ones. My prediction is that as 2009 showed, Americans are angry at all incumbents and there will be a lot of changes in 2010. If the economy is better, there are more jobs, and we get the housing and foreclosure problem fixed, it will be a good year for Democrats in 2012 for Governors too.

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

One far fetched scenario for 2010 and 2012.

Scozzafava-ing of RINOs (moderate Republicans)will be widespread.

2010:

In Florida, Crist will win by very slight margin. Florida being Florida will have many voter irregularities and Rubio will say Crist rigged the election. He will join the Tea Baggers and run a third party campaign. The Republican vote will be divided just like in NY 23 and the Democrats will win.

In the Senate and the House, (I'm crossing my fingers on this) 1/3 to 1/2 of all contests will have a third party candidates. At tea bagger rallies the press will begin focusing on unexcusable signs and posters (example: calling for the lynching of members of Congress and the President). Republican Candidates will mistakenly move to the ultra right to secure the Republican base and try to outdo their Tea Bagger opponents. Talk of conspiracy theories, killing grandma, killing babies, death camps, birth certificates etc. will move Independents to the Democrats. In all seats where the Teabaggers run candidates, the Democrats will win.

Factoring in this scenario on one side and on the other the jobless rate, the housing market, anger at incombents and "buyers regret" of a black man in the White House (giving lectures to white school girls, hypnotizing them, and making them his servants) I predict the Dems will pick up two seats in the Senate and lose 10 or 20 House seats.

Another far out scenario for 2012:

Mitt Romney will win a close contest with Sarah Palin. The teabaggers will be angered by ANY criticism of her candidacy by other Republican Presidential candidates. Efforts to smooth over hard feelings will fail. Palin will join the teabaggers and run for President under their banner.

Unfortunately I can not see Palin picking Glen Beck on the ticket. No one can be that stupid.

Palin will call Obama a Communist, Socialist, Fascist Nazi leading the country to totalitarianism. She will say that all opponents of the Democrats will be put into death camps. Most of her time, however, will be attacking Mitt Romney and the Republicans. Mitt and the Republicans, again, will mistakenly move to the ultra right to secure their base.

Results

Obama wins the biggest landslide since Johnson and Goldwater. The Democrats will win 10 more seats in the senate and 40 more in the house.

Let's hope

I know less about the State races than DC ones. My prediction is that as 2009 showed, Americans are angry at all incumbents and there will be a lot of changes in 2010. If the economy is better, there are more jobs, and we get the housing and foreclosure problem fixed, it will be a good year for Democrats in 2012 for Governors too.

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 18, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

'That's not the "best shot" for REPUBLICANS because the base will simply stay home or go rogue.'

Quit their jobs and run around the country whining about how mean people are?

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Is it Groundhog Day?

Barry heads overseas, bowing and scraping and apologizing and offering all sorts of American concessions. the expectation is that he will get everything he wants simply with his charm.

the reality is that he gets nothing but laughed at behind his back.

Again. and Again.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 18, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"Palin said her children encouraged her to leave office, in part because they were upset at seeing their little brother, 14-month-old Trig, who has Down syndrome, "mocked and ridiculed by some pretty mean-spirited adults." She said her decision was based on prayer and talking with her family."

Oh please, I don't want to hear her endless junior high school girl whining. 'Those meanies!' She couldn't stand the heat and she got out of the kitchen, that's all. She hasn't got what it takes. Her kids are undoubtedly more mature than she is.

Gee, I wish I could quit my job because my kids want me to. But we are not all pampered princesses who can afford to throw tantrums.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

That's not the "best shot" for REPUBLICANS because the base will simply stay home or go rogue.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Actually, that Palin/(fill in the blank) GOP ticket makes sense for the VP candidate. After all they get to be POTUS without having to do any of the heavy lifting to get elected to that office.

"A good point guard, here's what she does. She drives through a full-court press, protecting the ball, keeping her head up because she needs to keep her eye on the basket, and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so the team can win. That's what I'm doing. I'm passing the ball. I know when it's time to pass the ball for victory."

Palin said her children encouraged her to leave office, in part because they were upset at seeing their little brother, 14-month-old Trig, who has Down syndrome, "mocked and ridiculed by some pretty mean-spirited adults." She said her decision was based on prayer and talking with her family.

"I polled the most important people in my life, my kids, where the count was unanimous," she said. "Well, in response to asking, 'Hey, you want me to make a positive difference and fight for all our children's future from outside the governor's office?' It was four yeses and one 'Hell, yeah!' And the 'Hell, yeah' sealed it."

Palin closed her remarks by invoking a quote that she attributed to Gen. Douglas MacArthur: "We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction."

When the going gets tough she gets gone, either that or she is taking advice from Pogo

Posted by: dont_remember | December 18, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

This is funny. Nobody eviserates a winger like another winger:

"Wednesday on Fox News, host Bill O’Reilly praised First Lady Michelle Obama, whom he had met at the White House holiday party the previous evening. “The President and First Lady were very gracious to me,” he said, adding that he was “impressed” with Michelle Obama. “She’s charismatic, articulate, and beautiful,” O’Reilly said of the First Lady. Last night on Fox, when right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham teased O’Reilly for “gushing” over Michelle Obama, O’Reilly called her a “blind ideologue“:

INGRAHAM: I’m gushing over your gushing last night about the Christmas party. I’m still trying to get over that.

O’REILLY: Wait, a minute. I’m going to call you — I’m calling you out on this. [...] I thought she was very nice at the party. [...] You are a blind ideologue who even if somebody’s nice to you, won’t admit it because you’re talking about a Kool-aid drinker. [...] You have an IV attached to your arm on the Kool-aid."

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

"The best shot they have at taking down Obama is a united assault."

The best shot they have at beating Obama for the next Presidential term is to offer a viable alternative that will attract swing voters. If S?P is on the ticket, you lose swing voters. And speaking of HRC, S?P faces a similar challenge, if we assume she'll run (an enormous assumption, in my opinion): that being that she has high name recognition, including very high negatives. A candidate with low name recognition, like Pawlenty, for instance, has an easier time because they can construct the narrative in a way that is positive for them. Or, looking at the 2008 race, a guy like Giuliani had high name recognition & generally positive approval/opinion ratings. For S?P, there is almost nobody who doesn't already have a strong opinion about her. Many of those with a strong negative opinion about her question her knowledge of the issues, her ability to learn the issues, and her seriousness at making tough decisions. HRC was in the Senate, demonstrating a strong grasp of policy to establish credentials to be President. What is S?P doing to address people's legitimate questions about her suitability for office? Zippo. Good luck with that.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 18, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

koolkat, he only has two subjects: birther nonsense and palinpuffs. and all the time in the world. oh, i forgot racism and telling women how to live their lives.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Gallenod (and mark_in_austin):

I await your "consistency" then when the Democrats next oppose troop funding requests by the first female Commander-in-Chief who actually has a son in combat.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

JakeD doesn't get it. Or more accurately, refuses to admit it.

None of these people will run as veep nominee with Sarah Palin.

Are we going to be subjected to thousands of posts over the next three years about this? Knowing Jaked, probably.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"That's some nice Christmas gift to the troops, don't you think? That republicans in congress are ready to just blow them off, deny them needed supplies, all for a political game? How do you think they feel being pawns?"
-drindle
==
Those of us who are paying attention, and are not brainwashed to think Dems hate us, and the GOP has our back, are pretty upset. Then again, those of us who fit that description, are not particularly surprised either.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Do I think it can win? No. Not without something catastrophic happening.
Do I think it could be the Republican ticket? Sure. I can imagine that scenario.
Mitt Romney wants to be the president. Thus far his only public service credentials are as an incredibly unpopular 1-term governor of an incredibly blue state, and when he tried to win the senate, Edward Kennedy (RIP) administered a globetrotteresque beat-down.
Vice President of the United States is a pretty good line on a resume. If he thinks it will provide him a spring-board to the big chair, I could see him accepting it.
While im at it I could see the reverse of that ticket for mostly similar reasons.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

To fix corrupted link to Sen. Al Franken, below (funny how those things happen):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "OBAMA WRONG, UNAWARE; U.S. DOES TORTURE -- ITS OWN CITIZENS"

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 18, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Romney, while a slimy guy who has managed to outsource more jobs than probably anyone in the country, is not a bumpkin. Therefore, there is no way he would run on the same ticket as someone who is. He wouldn't humiliate himself in the business community that way, by teaming up with a ditz.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I share Galenod's 11AM sentiments and I am consistent in this, as those who read my posts when BHO and HRC voted against funding in Iraq will recall. That vote failed, and BHO and HRC knew it would, having waited until the end of the roll call to vote. Similar empty posturing is at foot here. But for McC and LG to engage in it is maddening.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

That's some nice Christmas gift to the troops, don't you think? That republicans in congress are ready to just blow them off, deny them needed supplies, all for a political game? How do you think they feel being pawns?

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Well said, gallenod

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

FRANKEN'S JOE BLOW...

Props to Al Franken for putting the shecket to toady Joe Lieberman.

Finally, a senator with behtzim. Darn it, people LIKE him!


PERSONAL TO AL -- Please read lead story here, ASAP:

http:NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "OBAMA WRONG, UNAWARE; U.S. DOES TORTURE..."

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 18, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

You see, republicans are so intent on foisting the will of their insurance industry masters on the country, that it's no biggie to sacrifice our troops, is it? Your, uh, 'principles' are showing, dear...

'Senate Republicans failed early Friday in their bid to filibuster a massive Pentagon bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unusual move designed to delay President Obama's health-care legislation.

On a 63 to 33 vote, Democrats cleared a key hurdle that should allow them to approve the must-pass military spending bill Saturday and return to the health-care debate. After years of criticizing Democrats for not supporting the troops, just three Republicans supported the military funding."

For shame. Republican chickenhawks won't support our troops away at war.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Do you think a Palin-Romney ticket is impossble?

bsimon1:

Laugh now, but you may not be laughing on Election Day 2012. I agree with Mr. Cillizza thatI think Romney is doing everything he can to emerge (or solidify himself as) the establishment candidate. It's clear to us, at least, that the race will likely turn into she and one other candidate -- ala Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008. The "other" candidate in 2012 will almost certainly be the person who the party establishment rallies behind out of undue fear that Palin as the nominee could drag down the ticket across the country.

All that being said, I think that Palin should reach out to Romney (or Pawlenty, Jindal, Perry, whomever that "other" candidate will be -- she knows them all from the RGA -- have one of those real "come to Jesus" talks). The best shot they have at taking down Obama is a united assault.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Jake, voting against a bill because you believe it is the wrong thing to do is not the same as voting to prolong debate on a bill simply to stall other, unrelated legislation.

And, while the Democrats had the votes to fillibuster any Defense authorization even during the height of the Bush administration, they did not play that card with troops lives on the line. They would have been deservedly excoriated poltically, as those Republicans who voted against cloture should be now for trying to use our troops as a speed bump.

Posted by: Gallenod | December 18, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

bsimon: LOL indeed.

It's funny because it "seems" so reasonable -- two leading Republicans teaming up -- but to anyone with the slightest, and I mean slightest, knowledge of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, it is the most ludicrous thing anyone could imagine.

Not that the Republicans could be hijacked by teabaggers and nominate Palin, but that Mitt Romney, more than any other GOP hopeful, would so debase himself as to run as her second banana.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Gallenod:

Maybe we should start with an easier question for you. Have you ever watched "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" or Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just a Bill"?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Blarg (last time I will ask):

Your 9:01 AM post mocked the thread for only presenting positive news for Republicans, so will you please tell us all about the positive piece of news for the Democrats that you think Mr. Cillizza missed today?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Palin-Romney. That's what we call a "laugh line."

Especially when someone says it with a straight face.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

"Palin-Romney"

LOL

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 18, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Man, if Republicans can go ape-shat over made up nonsense in the health care debate, one can only imagine how they will behave when there are legitimate concerns on the effect of climate change law on various energy industries and the people in their employ.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

reason5 writes
"I do indeed follow Jesus in faith in the word of God. I'm very proud of that. He is certainly ever present in my life and I could never, like Nelson, support abortion. I believe life is precious and Obama and the liberals will just have to compromise against their base or the healthcare bill is dead."


The Jesus Christ that's in the New Testament talked a great deal about caring for the poor, about doing well by the least among us. Yet when it comes to politics, Christians seem to focus solely on abortion. I don't get it. Tens of thousands of people in our country die early deaths due to inadequate healthcare. The Jesus I was raised to believe in cared about all those people. Why don't modern Christians?

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 18, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

The good news for Democrats today is that Sarah Palin remains among the most popular Republican party leaders.

Rinse and repeat daily.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Reason 5, in spite of my opposition to your position on choice, I respect your conviction on this issue. I respect Nelson's too, if they really are HIS convictions and not The Family telling him what to do. But if it is really about abortion, why not bring a bill to the floor to outlaw abortion? Why does that never happen? Why instead does your side try to back-door anti-choice legislation into bills that have nothing to do with abortion? If it matters that deeply to Nelson, he had 6 years with a "pro-life" president, and republican house and senate to introduce such a bill. I would like to hear an answer from an anti-choicer. I have my belief, but I'd like to hear the other side.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Palin-Romney. Care to answer my question now?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 10:43 AM | Report abuse

"Drindl, do you fear people who have real strong beliefs?"

Only if they are fanatics, when they are often dangerous. Suicide bombers have real strong beliefs, don't they?

It is not an attack to say that Nelson belongs to an extremely controversial and secretive organization with no ties to any church except itself. The further you get into it, the creepier it gets. if it quacks like a cult....

I don't fear you -- for what? I just won't have your belief system shoved down my throat. Mr. Nelson ought to understand that there is a Constitutional separation between church and state, and he is treading perilously close to violating that.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Mark_in_Austin writes:
"Whatever your view on the matter, Brooks' shorthand list will give you ammo for your side of the debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?hp
----------------
So I will add this to the shrink-Brooks conclusion:
the nation may require more pain before a consensus for reform emerges."


Thanks for the Brooks link. I weight the pros & cons he outlines a little differently. Given MiA's final note & Brook's point about nobody taking on healthcare reform if it doesn't pass now, I would reach a different conclusion than Brooks: I would vote yes. Pass the reform, then tweak it as necessary. If it doesn't pass now, nothing will be done for probably 10 more years.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 18, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

reason5:

Thank you. I think that mark_in_austin is still trying to get you to join his little discussion group; please email him.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

"Gallenod:

You are aware that a vote against cloture is not an actual fillibuster, right?"

It's the hypocrisy, stupid. The willingness to play childish political games and use the armed forces as pawns.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Palin-Romney? Not gonna happen. No establishment Republican from the business wing of the party would ever sign on as Palin's running mate, and most especially not Romney.

The 2012 Republican primary contest is going to be a fascinating battle. We're seeing a pretty good preview of it with Crist and Rubio in Florida. How that revolt against the establishment turns out may be a good indicator of will happen for Republicans in 2012.

Posted by: Gallenod | December 18, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Blarg:

Please tell us all about the positive piece of news for the Democrats that you think Mr. Cillizza missed today. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

As far as Ben Nelson standing his ground on his belief and the comments from drindl. Drindl, do you fear people who have real strong beliefs? If so, why? I am a devout follower of Jesus as a Christian. I believe that life is an important issue and maybe Ben Nelson truly believes that as well. That personal attack against Nelson sounds alot like what Obama said in the campaign is "the same, old and tired politics of the past." Why do you engage in the same, old & tired politics of the past drindl? Why do you fear people who have real convictions? I'll give you a real answer. I do indeed follow Jesus in faith in the word of God. I'm very proud of that. He is certainly ever present in my life and I could never, like Nelson, support abortion. I believe life is precious and Obama and the liberals will just have to compromise against their base or the healthcare bill is dead.

As far as cap & trade, that's going to be a gift for House Republicans. Those democrat's in conservative districts who voted for this bill will be held accountable in 2010. They will also have to answer for voting for healthcare. Especially if neither are passed, or passed as they are even, they still voted for the original bill to toe the party line.

Posted by: reason5 | December 18, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Elijah, I will give you an example. What does the R party stand for? What are their policy objectives?

Got you stumped, right? You and everyone else. What do they want? Tax cuts. That's about it. That really sums it up.

They say they want fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction, right? So how will they achieve this with tax cuts, which entail, you know, cutting revenues? This is an incoherent message, because these are conflicting principles.

So that means they must want to cut spending, right? Well, not really. Like whenever the Democrats wanted to cut Medicare Advantage, wherein a private company is subsidized by taxpayers to deliver the same services as Medicare but for 20% more, you'd think they'd jump at the chance. But no! They scream bloody murder.

They want to keep subsidizing the private sector with public money, because these corporations are their campaign contributors. Your taxpayer dollars are their private slush fund.

And then they want to privatize Social Security--but that, as we already know, will cost close to a trillion to make that change, with vast sums needed for administrative/transistion costs.

All they really have is an incoherent jumble of jingles and platitudes. Luckily for them, their supporters are quite gullible and credulous. But at this point, most of the country can see through it.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Blarg?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Drindle, y'know what the problem with print is? I couldnt type a smirk when i wrote "politely" I think you and I mostly agree, but we are wording our point differently. I know nothing is easy, and I am very optimistic. The president had impossibly high expectations placed on him (mostly by himself). Some people honestly thought, and otheres claim to think; that all the changes he stood for, would be in place by January 21. Instead he is smartly taking on a few things at a time. Focusing all the attention of his administration on the stim and Gitmo, then on health-care, and Afghanistan.
I think in 2 and a half years we are gonna look back and say "holy crap, a lot is different than it was 4 years ago!" But it doesn't happen over-night. And while we work on it, we are gonna have good weeks and bad weeks, at least publicly. Right now, we haven't had a good headline in a while, and we may not for a little while longer. I'm ok with that, because I don't worry about the short term. particularly this early in the term. I'm just acknowledging that we havent had a big win lately.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

IS CAP AND TRADE A HUGE PONZI SCHEME TO PROFIT BY POLLUTING?
JESSE VENTURA GOT ME TO THINKING...

Yes, THAT Jesse Ventura. The former Minnesota governor ranks as one of the few skeptical inquirers now working in major media -- a former Navy Seal who's hardly naive about the machinations of the bureaucracy.

He describes himself as a friend and admirer of Al Gore -- and now says he believes Gore, along with a legion of politicians and diplomats, are being naively duped by those who have constructed a global apparatus by which to profit from legitimate concerns over climate change.

His new program, pejoratively entitled "Conspiracy Theory," nonetheless opened my eyes to possibilities that have gone largely unexplored in mainstream media. The episode repeats next Wednesday night at 9 p.m. ET. on the cable/satellite network TruTV. ( http://www.trutv.com/jesse ). Despite of its liberal use of scary music and overly dramatic editing effects, this journalist highly recommends this series.

These days, Jesse makes more sense than most of the politicians whose comings and goings are discussed here. Could he become a skeptical populist alternative to Sarah Palin?

***

SECRET MULTI-AGENCY FED PROGRAM SILENTLY TORTURES, IMPAIRS, SUBJUGATES U.S. CITIZENS WITH MICROWAVE/LASER RADIATION WEAPONS AND LOCAL 'COMMUNITY WATCH' VIGILANTISM, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

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

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 18, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Gallenod:

You are aware that a vote against cloture is not an actual fillibuster, right? At least they didn't vote AGAINST the actual bill, like Obama and Clinton did as Senators. You were equally outraged back then, I take it?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

I am smiling, elijah, even as we speak. Verily I was smiling as I write the other post. This is politics. Everyone boos the ump.

Jake never 'politely' does anything, which is why I seldom read anything he posts.

There is a consistent Things Looking Great for Republicans/Democrats in Trouble tone to this blog, as there is to most Beltway CW. I call it as I see it.

And sorry, I don't think things are so bad at all. Nobody ever said any of this would be easy, and we have against the vast combined wealth of several global industries and the Republican echo chamber that is our MSM. Still, we will have a health care bill and other things which we want.

And no matter how badly we do, we have as opponents a hapless, incompetent and increasingly loony cult of clowns as our opponents, who for the most part have no ideas, no message, and no clue.

Cheer up.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

I've thought that as well, which is why I suggested that Palin approach Romney about the VP spot sooner rather than later.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Drindle, I don't know if you've noticed, but as Jake so politely points out, things aren't going so well for us right now.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Blarg:

Cite to even ONE positive piece of news for the Democrats then. It's not Mr. Cillizza's fault there is none.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

elijah24 writes
"I disagree with your assessment of #5. I think he's telling you they have 5 serious contenders for the nomination. I didnt hear him say any of them were "good candidates"."


People overlook that. All 5 have a tough road to winning the GOP nomination; in pursuit of that, Romney is probably in the lead at this point, primarily due to having done it before. Huckabee is similarly experienced & thus is more prepared than Thune or Pawlenty.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 18, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Don't be like that Drindle. You offered your opinion. I offered mine. Nobody asked any of us to be here. Yet here we are. Smile. It makes the day go faster.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 9:42 AM | Report abuse

IS MAN COOKING THE ATMOSPHERE WITH MICROWAVES AND LASERS?

Ever wonder why none of the climatologists seem to factor in the effects of electromagnetic radiation -- the proliferation of cell towers, satellites and even the HAARP antenna array in Alaska and classified microwave and laser "directed energy weapons, which appear to be far more advanced and operational than lawmakers may know?

All of this man-generated energy emitted into the atmosphere surely must contribute to global warming -- but nary a word from the scientists about humankind's irradition of the environment.

Could THIS be one of the reasons why?

http://nowpublic.com/world/obama-wrong-unaware-u-s-does-torture-its-own-citizens

***

ATTENTION NATIONAL ACLU: YOUR BLOG IS BEING CENSORED.

DOES TEAM OBAMA KNOW THAT BUREAUCRATS CENSOR THE NET?

This journalist is unable access or post to the blog sections of ACLU.org. Repeated attempts to post a comment over several days have been unsuccessful.

Words, indeed, must be a powerful force -- why else would operatives of the U.S. government, working out of their cubicles at some 70 "fusion centers" around the nation, apparently take such extreme measures to censor the telecommunications of American citizens...

...via real-time internet surveillance and the insertion of "spoofed" or faked web pages, what the spooks call a "man in the middle attack," that allows censors to intercept, alter, or delete comments to political web sites.

Where are the protectors of our constitutional rights? Taking campaign contributions from the giant telecommunications companies that cooperate in the repression of freedom of speech and the constitutional right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures?

http://nowpublic.com/world/how-u-s-spy-ops-censor-web-political-speech
OR: NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 18, 2009 9:42 AM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Or, Obama's approval rating continues to drop (no President has ever been re-elected with less than 47% approval rating ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

"Ever wonder why people hold/shoot guns sideways?"

They do? I've been hunting quite a few times, I never noticed it. Of course, I never went with Dick Cheney.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, elijah. I didn't realize that we aren't allowed to criticize CC's biases. I guess I'll just leave this blog where I've posted for over 3 years. Have fun hanging out with JakeD.

Admittedly, some of my summaries were a bit unfair. But I believe my point stands: In 8 statements about politics, CC made 0 that were positive for Democrats. Even in the reporting of facts, he put in specific phrases about how the Democrats are weak and unhappy and vulnerable. It's the same every week. He always talks about how the Republicans are making a comeback, about how the Democrats are in disarray. Even if there's a grain of truth there, the constant drumbeat of the Republican Rising gets tiresome.

Posted by: Blarg | December 18, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Here are some scenerios in which Palin has a chance of EVER being president of the United States:
>President Obama trades California and New York to Canada in exchange for Brian Addams and Anne Murry
>All states of the former Confederacy have their electoral vote total trippled
>the 250,000,000 most liberal Americans die of a pandemic that only effects people who are not friggin crazy.
>The rapture happens and she was totally wrong on who would be taken.

Uber-Conservatives, I hope this helps. Let me know if you need any other ideas.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Nobody asked you, elijah.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Here are the 33 a-holes, I mean distinguished Republican senators, who voted against cloture:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Good questions.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Wow! WE hit the jackpot today.

For breakfast we got a TPawPuff, a ThunePie, a PalinTart,
a HuckMuffin and a MittyPop.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

"It's extremely difficult to properly use the top-mounted sight on a handgun that is turned sideways"


Clearly such people are not schooled in The Force.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 18, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

"Fair and balanced!"
==
I dont know how "fair and balanced" it is, but I am as liberal as anyone I know, and i don't disagree with hardly any of this. I disagree with your assessment of #5. I think he's telling you they have 5 serious contenders for the nomination. I didnt hear him say any of them were "good candidates". The part about Sen. Dodd is just news. CC didnt insert any opinion into it. Marcus is a Democratic voice, particularly in Dodd's home state of Connecticut. His opinion is news. It's not good news for Dodd, whom I really like, but it is news.
Not to kiss up to the host, but I would not read this blog if I didn't like and respect him. I certainly wouldnt take the time to comment on it. Do you waste your time commenting on George Will's collumn too? I don't. I know what I'm gonna get with Will. If you don't wanna respect CC, why not read someone else?

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 9:27 AM | Report abuse

LOL Palin/Romney. Here are some other equally possible tickets JakeD can think about voting for in 2012:

Palin/Man in the Moon
Palin/Tiger Woods
Palin/Easter Bunny
Palin/Admiral Stockdale
Palin/Levi Johnston

Hey Jake, I was passing out food bags at a local pantry yesterday and of course I thought about how well a distinguished Stanford Law cum laude grad like yourself would fit in the line of poor souls waiting for their food.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2009 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Perfect, blarg! Now I don't have to read the column!

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Gallenod:

Which Republican(s) fillibustered the Defense bill?

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Jake, but the only impact Sarah Palin will have on the Republican Party if she runs for President will result in a large crater. She is simply too divisive to appeal to the independents and moderates a Republican candidate must have to win.

And if you want to talk about hypocrasy, let us consider the spectacle of Republicans fillibustering a Defense bill while we have troops in two combat zones for the sole purpose of delaying a vote on health care. If the Democrats had tried that stunt while in the minority the Republicans would have screamed "Treason!" in every microphone they could find (as Bob Gates, a Republican, pointed out in writing to Senator McConnell).

On an unrelated note, is it possible to believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and a woman's choice without believing that the Federal government is require to subsidize it, or other procedures (elective plastic surgery comes to mind) that are used as a convenience to support lifestyle choices (or poor decisions). There are situations (rape victims, for example) where no one should force a woman to carry a fetus to term when it was violently forced upon her. But an abortion to terminate an accidental pregnancy because birth control failed? That's not a Federal problem. If there are enough people that want it, the public insurance market will provide it as a separate option outside the Federal pool.

The Dems should let Nelson have his day and pass the health bill, if only so I won't have to watch the Republicans compromise themselves any more than they already have by including American servicemen in combat as a collateral damage in their War On Obama.

(I try to stay on an even keel in here, but one thing guaranteed to infuriate me is politicians screwing with troops in the field for political purposes.)

Posted by: Gallenod | December 18, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

1. Obama screwed up climate change legislation. Democrats dread a legislative fight, especially the vulnerable ones.
2. The White House is desperate to pass healthcare legislation. They're going to stick a finger in the eye of liberal Democrats.
3. Here's how the Democrats might lose Congress.
4. Republicans will win Pennsylvania.
5. Republicans have several great candidates for 2012.
6. News about Republicans.
7. Dodd should retire. This is bad for the Democrats.
8. News about Republicans.
9-10. Fluff.

Fair and balanced!

Posted by: Blarg | December 18, 2009 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Ben Nelson is a wild card, partly because he is a member of the C Street Family, whose members have a 'covenant' with Jesus and with their leader, Douglas Coe. What I have heard is that he is not allowed to deviate from the leader's wishes:

Fellowship leader Doug Coe is described as preaching a leadership model, and a personal commitment to Jesus Christ, comparable to the blind devotion that Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Pol Pot demanded from their followers.

In one videotaped 1989 lecture series, Coe said, "Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler were three men. Think of the immense power these three men had...But they bound themselves together in an agreement...Two years before they moved into Poland, these three men had...systematically a plan drawn out...to annihilate the entire Polish population and destroy by numbers every single house...every single building in Warsaw and then to start on the rest of Poland."

Coe adds that it worked; they killed six and a half million "Polish people." Though he calls Nazis "these enemies of ours," he compares their commitment to Jesus' demands: "Jesus said, ‘You have to put me before other people. And you have to put me before yourself.' Hitler, that was the demand to be in the Nazi party. You have to put the Nazi party and its objectives ahead of your own life and ahead of other people."[19][20]

Coe also compares Jesus' teachings with the Red Guard during the Chinese Cultural Revolution:

I’ve seen pictures of young men in the Red Guard of China...they would bring in this young man’s mother and father, lay her on the table with a basket on the end, he would take an axe and cut her head off....They have to put the purposes of the Red Guard ahead of the mother-father-brother-sister -- their own life! That was a covenant. A pledge. That was what Jesus said."

This is all very weird and disturbing stuff, and it's much bigger than this. I don't really hesitate to call this a cult.

Whether Nelson is free to make up his own mind is an interesting question. I seriously doubt that he is.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Item #3: As a conservative independent, I do not see 2010 shaping up like 1994 since there is no unity in the R ranks nor is there a central theme or narrative. Like it or not Grindrich did have R under a central narrative (i.e., Contact w/ America) in 1994 campaign as did the D in 2006 (we are not R) and 2008 (we are not Bush). While the large and looming deficits are precariously threatening our economy in the shadows (depends on which economist you read), R are hard pressed to make the case they will do anything about it given their past history. D who used this issue somewhat in both 2006 and 2008 also have little creditability on this issue. I think a good Carney race to watch to judge the potential level of discontent with D in power is Leonard Boswell race. This man knows how to win and he is as good as they get in terms of being a scraper (I would not want to get into a knife fight with him). If R take this seat, it would show a great level of discontent with D party among independent and swing voters. Unfortunately, we in Iowa will have to witness the disheartening campaign of both Boswell and his opponent. Of course there is always watching corn grow or taking in the flavorful smells of Iowa’s animal agriculture.

Posted by: sliowa1 | December 18, 2009 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Jake, I agree with you and Chris about not being able to move away from principal, however at some point pragmatism has to rule the day. Ben Nelson is a Democrat. He knows that his party is never going to give in to his way of thinking on abortion. He also knows that there is nothing in this bill that moves the line on abortion to the left. He is grandstanding to endear himself to the pro-lifers in the bible belt. And if he is successful in putting his anti-choice language into the bill, he will kill the bill for sure. He knows that there is no way that this bill gets through with his language on it. the question is, does he want a bill at all?

Posted by: elijah24 | December 18, 2009 8:00 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

I can agree with that. Where we continue to disagree is who can be that political "savior". Allow me to quote from the link above.

...it's impossible to argue about Palin's influence. She can draw big crowds, sell tons of books and command the biggest media stages -- it doesn't get much bigger than "Oprah" and Barbara Walters. Whether they admit it or not, every establishment Republican wonders regularly about what Palin has planned for 2010 and 2012 and worries about what impact what she will do has on the party. We dubbed Palin the "prime mover" in Republican party politics many moons ago -- she acts, others react -- and we are sticking by it. (Previous ranking: 1)

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 7:45 AM | Report abuse

re: #2 - I asked "shrink" to rate the SB on balance yesterday and he did, in several posts. I think Brooks lines up the pros and the cons this morning in a single column. He comes to the same conclusion as "shrink".

Whatever your view on the matter, Brooks' shorthand list will give you ammo for your side of the debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?hp
-----------------
This blog is devoted to the "game" of politics, not the merits of policy, and I respect that. So without regard to policy considerations, I have to think that failure to pass a bill would be a mortal indictment of D leadership on domestic policy. Passage by 59 Ds and 2 Rs would
not be much better for Ds, and would presage the unraveling of the plan after some near term election.
----------------
So I will add this to the shrink-Brooks conclusion:
the nation may require more pain before a consensus for reform emerges. The failure of the Ds in this does not require belief that the Rs have become the saviors of health care.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2009 7:36 AM | Report abuse

Air Force One should be grounded due to its carbon footprint --talk about HYPOCRISY -- you might as well start working on your next "The political dangers of passing a cap and tax bill". We don't even know for sure if global warming can be stopped. How about we start with making sure CRU and NASA temp data is actually correct? Funny also how all this deficit spending and job loss is just fine with the MSM when the Democrats are in power. How much will "cap and trade" cost and how many more jobs will be lost? I guess that really is not so important when you have another agenda to push though. We were shedding 500k jobs a month and the silence was deafening. I remember the month only 90k jobs were added during the Bush administration and you would have thought we were headed into a second great depression. Obama presided over a month that lost 16k jobs and it was like he won World war 2.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 7:33 AM | Report abuse

"There isn't any real way to move away from your principle on abortion".

AMEN!!!

This is also why Romney had trouble in the GOP primary. That being said, I would vote for Palin-Romney.

Posted by: JakeD | December 18, 2009 7:19 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company