Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democrats maintain solid cash edge heading into 2010 midterms

1. The three Democratic campaign committees ended March with approximately $22 million more in the bank than their Republican counterparts, a financial edge that party strategists hope will insulate them from considerable losses in the coming midterm elections.

For the month of March, the Democratic National Committee ($13.5 million raised), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ($6 million) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ($9.8 million) collected just north of $29 million.

By contrast, the Republican National Committee ($11.6 million), National Republican Senatorial Committee ($5 million) and the National Republican Congressional Committee ($8) million brought in roughly $24 million for the month.

The widest cash on hand differential between committees was in the House where the DCCC ended March with $26 million in the bank as compared to just $10 million for the NRCC. The closest margin was in the Senate where the DSCC's $17 million on hand outpaced the NRSC's cash total by just $2 million.

As always, the release of the numbers were quickly followed by spin on what they meant for the midterms.

"House Democrats' grassroots individual donors are energized by passage of health insurance reform, while Republican Leader John Boehner and House Republicans are focused on shaking down Wall Street and K Street for campaign contributions," said a DCCC spokesperson.

NRSC communications director Brian Walsh penned a memo to reporters making clear that while his committee did trail Senate Democrats in cash on hand, it was by a far smaller margin than in cycles past. "Considering the Democrats control the White House and have 59 Senators, shouldn't the trend be going in the opposite direction, instead of so rapidly in the Republicans' direction?" Walsh asked.

The simple fact is that money matters hugely in campaign politics but it only matters to a point. The stronger the national wind is blowing in Democrats' face, the less their financial advantage will matter.

One needs only to go back to the 2006 election cycle where national Republicans went into the fall confident that their financial edge would allow them to beat back the growing anti-Bush/anti-GOP sentiment in the electorate. They were wrong -- losing 31 seats and the House majority with it.

Democrats are doing everything they can to build a financial firewall against which any Republican electoral wave will crash. But, recent history suggests that there are some waves that no wall can hold back. It's too soon, however, to accurately predict whether that wave is building in advance of November.

2. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is spending another $55,000 on a new television ad in the Hawaii special election, bringing their total investment in the seat to roughly $140,000, according to FEC records.

The latest DCCC commercial -- the committee's second in advance of the May 22 special election -- hits Honolulu City Councilman Charles Djou (R) for his opposition to a plan that "protected the jobs of 2,000 Hawaii teachers and staff." The ad's narrator urges viewers to check out Djou's "troubling record" on education at djoufacts.com.

The ad was produced by Democratic media consultant David Dixon. Dixon along with pollster Mark Mellman and Robby Mook, the DCCC's political director, are heading up the independent expenditure effort in Hawaii.

Djou is also up with a new ad that says national Democrats are attacking him because "I've always stood up to the old boy network and put Hawaii's interests first." Djou pivots in the ad to attack state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa (D) and former Rep. Ed Case (D) for backing tax increases and "wasteful government spending".

The National Republican Congressional Committee has yet to spend any money on the race and, in a briefing with reporters on Tuesday, NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas) did his best expectation-lowering about the contest; "I think it's really important that these are Democratic seats and drawn for Democrats," he reminded reporters.

Still, with polling that shows Djou ahead and with Democrats growing increasingly frustrated with the fact that neither Hanabusa nor Case have any intention of getting out of the race, the Hawaii special is shaping up as a golden opportunity for Republicans.

And, to quote Ric Flair, "to be the man, you have got to beat the man." Republicans need a win -- and soon -- to break House Democrats' streak of five straight contested special election victories.

3. New CNN polling shows that a majority of Americans expect President Obama to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens with someone of a liberal bent.

One in three said that Stevens' replacement will be "very liberal" while 28 percent said they expected someone who is "somewhat liberal" to fill the slot. Just 16 percent said they expected Obama to pick a person for the bench who is either somewhat (seven percent) or very (nine percent) conservative.

Asked what sort of person -- ideologically -- they would like Obama to pick, 25 percent said liberal, 37 percent said moderate and 36 percent said conservative. Those numbers generally mirror the public sentiment when CNN asked the same question about what sort of justice then President George W. Bush should select in October 2005. At that time, 24 percent said a liberal, 34 percent said a moderate and 37 percent said a conservative.

What the constancy in those numbers suggest is that who you think the president should pick is dependent on your own ideological leanings. The polling also suggests that most people expect Obama to replace Stevens, a liberal, with another liberal, which is, of course, what he will almost certainly do.

4. Maine state Senate President Libby Mitchell holds a 20-point lead in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, according to a poll conducted for her campaign.

Mitchell took 36 percent to 16 percent for state Attorney General Steve Rowe and 13 percent for two-time congressional candidate Pat McGowan in the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll. No other Democrat received double digit support.

Much of Mitchell's lead is attributable to being the best known candidate in the race. More than two thirds (68 percent) of voters recognize her name with 44 percent expressing a favorable view of her and just 10 percent voicing an unfavorable opinion. Rowe, by contrast, was recognized by just 40 percent of Democratic primary voters while 45 percent said they knew McGowan's name.

Mitchell, who has served in the state legislature since 1974, drew national headlines last month when she won the endorsement of former President Bill Clinton. Clinton appointed Mitchell to a post as chairwoman of the Federal Home Loan Bank in Boston.

An even dozen candidates -- five Democrats, seven Republicans -- are in the race to replace term limited Gov. John Baldacci (D) with the fields to be weeded out in June 8 primaries.

Both national parties believe Maine is winnable for them but until the primaries produce candidates, it's a very difficult race to handicap.

5. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) is, as we've written, taking a very different approach to his planned 2012 presidential campaign than the one he employed in his 2008 race.

The Associated Press' indispensable Glen Johnson penned a piece this week that captures the differences in Romney perfectly -- and must be read by any political junkie worthy of the name.

"Since losing his presidential bid in 2008, Romney has gone West Coast," writes Johnson. "It's part of a personal and political repositioning as he looks to avoid campaign trouble spots and reorder his life ahead of a second White House campaign in 2012."

Among the changes: Romney currently lives in La Jolla, Calif. although he and his wife, Ann, are in the process of buying a home in Massachusetts; he has eschewed the button-downed look for a more casual dress code; and, perhaps most importantly, he is no longer the do-everything-be-everywhere candidate of 2008.

When potential 2012 candidates rushed to get behind Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the special election last year in New York's 23rd district, Romney stayed out. (Hoffman lost.) When aspiring pols gathered in New Orleans recently for what was widely regarded as the first cattle call of the 2012 race, Romney skipped it.

By picking his spots, Romney is trying to distinguish himself from what looks to be a crowded Republican field for president. Freed from the burden of trying to introduce himself to wary voters -- a process that took up the better part of 2007 for Romney -- the former Massachusetts governor is laying in wait, doing enough to maintain his frontrunner status but not too much to risk overexposure.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 21, 2010; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  | Tags: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, George W. Bush, National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, United States Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Pennsylvania Senate ad wars begin
Next: Why Charlie Crist is no Joe Lieberman

Comments

Romney can't win because he voted for abortion before he didn't vote for abortion as governor of Massachusetts. Now who does that sound like with funding of the war? remember the RNC Convention?? "FLIP FLOP - FLIP FLOP!"
Romney's done!

Posted by: gr8bigguy | April 27, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

You know, it's interesting: All of these conservative bloggers write on here and other sites, and all they do is attack Democrats. It's almost as if they actually have ideas or the GOP has ideas. It's really pathetic that they can't see their party turns off and is evil towards hard working Americans. NOT everyone likes the GOP for different reasons. The GOP has not announced a single goddamned thing; NO IDEAS! It's as if they want the White House and both Chambes of Congress back to do what?? NOTHING. You tried your hand at Social Security and felt flat on your face and for an encore, dropped two wars in our lap that me and my wife have to fight in! To all Republicans, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it AND HAVE TO PERFORM FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. YOU HAD (8) YRS ALREADY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THREW YOU OUT OF OFFICE AND COINED THE PHRASE "DO-NOTHING" CONGRESS!!! You overreach once you re-assume, and you too, will get the backlash of the American people and the left's version of the teabaggers. You are no better then the current administration. At least Obama hasn't started any foreign wars. Also, we were attacked under Bush; not under Obama. Do you hear me?? We were attacked when a Republican president was in office!!!!!!!!! That will NEVER GO AWAY!

Posted by: gr8bigguy | April 27, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"The White House seems to grasp the challenge before them (er..us) in selling the health care law -- bringing on veteran Democratic operative Stephanie Cutter to run the messaging around the legislation -- but the Kaiser poll very clearly lays out the challenges facing the (i.e., our) party as November creeps closer" (parenthetical entries not in the original piece).

If reporters indicated their own party allegiance
It seems likely that folks would see immediately
What's included parenthetically in the quote, above,
And of its propagandistic appeal remain free.


Posted by: Gonzage1 | April 23, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

translation : the iPed was fired for personality conflicts. He is still sore and not in the way he usually is after the weekend. He is still under the illusion that he was underpaid and underappreciated. but really, what sort of productivity does an all day blogger and all around nasty wench provide?

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

@shrink2: I would dump the Microsoft stock immediately. Do it today. Let me give you the inside stop on MSFT: they're finished. Over. Any activity in their business is the heart-lung machine of installed base, people are "used to" running Windows and reluctant to switch. That model just got a knife in the ribs two weeks ago with the release of the iPad, which is a game-changer.

That's the short term. In the long term everything that drove their greatness is gone and in fact reversed. Creativity has been officially deprecated, it is unwelcome there. Steve Ballmer isn't a programmer, he's a businessman, in all the negative senses of the word and none of th positive ones. A few weeks ago they had a "news" item about software for getting the best rates off the power grid for electric cars ... a .. a *timer*. Like one uses for a *grow light*.

The imperative for Microsoft developers isn't solid work, it isn't creativity, it's uniformity and consistency now. They're playing it so safe that they're unable to adapt anymore. The Internet took them by surprise and now the shift from fishbowl desktops to handhelds has done the same; Windows Mobile is out of the running, and even though the new version is probably pretty good it isn't stellar and it would need to be supernova stellar to gain ground on iPhone, Android, and Blackberry.

Look at the Zune; compared to iPod it's like a TRS-80.

They'll coast for a few years, but I expect another round of layoffs like last year and much bigger this time because the whole laptop & netbook market that's their breaad and butter for Windows licenses is going to take a big hit as people switch to iPads.

In 1989 they were great, because they had insights in getting great work out of people, things like allowing uninterrupted work. Now they take the attitude that devs *should* be able to work despite any number of interruptions and devs spend half their day in recurring meetings. Microsoft is finished.

Posted by: Noacoler | April 21, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

like Oracle

yeah, or even my "safety" buy of msft, up almost 70% in 52 weeks, I never would have guessed that would happen.

But, just because of that, now I think I'll ditch it. But what to buy next...hmmmm, something unappreciated, ignored, hmmmm.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 21, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"dribl admires Chairman Mao. One a distinguished writer. the other a mass murderer. silly moonbat."

posted by: Comrade_Zero"


Obssessive post about me #4 today.
Just can't help yourself, can you?

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Widows and orphans stocks used to be bank stocks. I've owned, and lost money on, Wash Mutual, Bank of American, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, and I don't even remember. And did anyone see this coming--hell, no. And why? Because the risks in these stocks was invisible to its shareholders.

That is the regulation needed--make the risks visible, so we have a choice whether we want to take the risk. But, Wall Street knows something about us--they know if we knew the risk, we wouldn't buy. And then Wall Street isn't making money.

Now, I consider the safest part of my portfolio to be technology stocks, like Oracle.

That's irony when technology is safe and bank stocks are risky.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 21, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Broder, for chrissake. So what can you expect?

Posted by: drindl


dribl admires Chairman Mao. One a distinguished writer. the other a mass murderer. silly moonbat.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"A federal bankruptcy judge has authorized Washington Mutual Inc. shareholders to take legal action to force the company to hold a long overdue annual meeting."


Even if FinReg passes in roughly the form of the Dodd bill, there is still more to be done to return corporate control to shareholders.


Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, Zouk is also ignoring the fact that Obama raised over 400 million dollars for his campaign. He was popular enough with Americans across the board to raise an astounding amount of money. So, less than .25% of the money Obama raised came from GS and GS employees. Maybe if they had donated more they wouldn't be under investigation.

It's like all the complaints about his campaign donations from Fannie/Freddie. When you looked at it, you found that the much greater % of donations came not from the company, but from individuals who identified their Fannie/Freddie employment. The SC still lets individuals make camapign donations as we chose.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 21, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of innovative financing...

Now I've been a to a lot of bad meetings in my time, grim, depressing meetings, full of angry people. But this one might just be in a class by itself:

"WaMu Shareholders Can Pursue Annual Meeting"

By Asoociated Press
Published: April 21, 2010
at 1:26 p.m. ET

"WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) -- A federal bankruptcy judge has authorized Washington Mutual Inc. shareholders to take legal action to force the company to hold a long overdue annual meeting.

Ruling Wednesday on a motion by WMI's official committee of equity security holders, the judge said the automatic halt to litigation that applies to companies in bankruptcy cannot bar shareholders from exercising their corporate governance rights.

The shareholders want a Washington state judge to order WMI to hold an annual meeting so they can elect new board members. WMI hasn't held a shareholders meeting since April 2008, five months before the company filed for bankruptcy in the largest bank failure in U.S. history.

The shareholders say the failure to hold a meeting violates both Washington law and WMI's bylaws."

Posted by: shrink2 | April 21, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

The problem is Obama continues to do things which poison the political atmosphere. These false charges of racism are just the latest in the long string of inflamatory rhetoric from Obama and his people.


This is not Obama's mandate - this is not what he was elected to do.

Not only are the false charges VILE, they represent the CLEAR FRAUD in Obama's 2008 campaign.

Which is worse, the FRAUD AT GOLDMAN SACHS OR THE FRAUD IN OBAMA'S 2008 CAMPAIGN.

Goldmans Sachs misrepresented the securities to take money - Obama misrepresented himself to gain power.


THE MONEY SHOULD BE TAKEN FROM GOLDMAN SACHS.


THE POWER SHOULD BE TAKEN FROM OBAMA.

It is the SAME FRAUD -

It represents the SAME ATTITUDE - COMMIT FRAUD AND GET AWAY WITH IT.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 21, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"My beef is with Cillizza who seems to be lip synching the talking points "

He is a child of DC, the WaPo, and CW, the Cocoon-- admires Broder, for chrissake. So what can you expect?

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin writes
" the public thinks to tag judges with political labels while lawyers like labels that describe their decision making process. "Minimalist", "Incrementalist",
and "Activist" come to mind."


My beef is with Cillizza who seems to be lip synching the talking points without knowing what the words mean. He repeats the allegation that Obama is likely to appoint a liberal to replace Stevens, which seems to be a tenuous conclusion to which to leap. While both liberals and conservatives want and expect Obama to appoint an activist liberal to the court, his background & record implies he'll nominate an incremental, empathetic moderate instead.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

@drindl,

The R's are late to the party--maybe they looked at the polls and realized that the American people are outraged that Wall Street tanked our economy, our jobs, our portfolios, and our pensions. All because they want to be free to "innovate". Every time I see the word "innovate" and Wall Street in the same sentence, I want to vomit.

To be fair, Wall St has been a bipartisan corrupter. They have taken over our Congress like the snakes they are, and corrupted both R & D. These "wise men" of Wall Street are more like "wise guys".

My fear is that, even now, all this Congressional bipartisan enthusiasm is simply to pass laws which are too little, and definitely too late.

But something is better than nothing.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 21, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I know, 12 Bar - but Rs were determined to defeat regulation at the behest of Wall Street -- until they just like suddenly got religion. Something to do with Goldman Sachs, I expect, and the large amount of coverage this is getting, would have made the whole deal much more public than they wanted.

So McConnell and Boener have been hushed and we have a quick flip. Suddenly, they want to 'negotiate.' The question will be can Dems hold the line to keep them from weakening the bill.

"Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee who's been in financial reform talks with chairman Chris Dodd, tells TPMDC that an agreement is close at hand.

"We're very close to a deal and there will be a substantial number of Republicans that go along with it," Shelby said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he expects to bring the bill to the Senate floor at the end of this week or early next week.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), another financial reform negotiator who had dinner last night with Shelby, said today he expects all 100 senators to vote to begin debate on the bill. Corker guessed the final bill would be able to pass with 70 or 80 votes. "

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN
"OK, will do…as soon as you drop false charges of…Marxist, Socialist, Nazi, foreigner, Muslim, “death panels”, ‘endless bailouts’, healthcare apocalypse,…uh, never mind."


Heh, :D
Best response of the day for sure.

Only difference being, the "racism" charges are not "false". And thus we have the money edge, because voters know who the Teabaggers really are and what they really represent...
Everything that is ugly about humanity.

Dems will remain dominant in November, Obama will win re-election in 2012.

Posted by: captainkona | April 21, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

The problem is Obama continues to do things which poison the political atmosphere. These false charges of racism are just the latest in the long string of inflamatory rhetoric from Obama and his people.


This is not Obama's mandate - this is not what he was elected to do.

Not only are the false charges VILE, they represent the CLEAR FRAUD in Obama's 2008 campaign.

Which is worse, the FRAUD AT GOLDMAN SACHS OR THE FRAUD IN OBAMA'S 2008 CAMPAIGN.

Goldmans Sachs misrepresented the securities to take money - Obama misrepresented himself to gain power.


THE MONEY SHOULD BE TAKEN FROM GOLDMAN SACHS.


THE POWER SHOULD BE TAKEN FROM OBAMA.

It is the SAME FRAUD -

It represents the SAME ATTITUDE - COMMIT FRAUD AND GET AWAY WITH IT.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 21, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"There isn't a single person on this blog, conservative or liberal, who would defend the wild, wild west of unregulated derivatives."

Don't be silly. There are least two regulars here -- we all know who -- who would defend anything Wall Street does. And a lot of other yahoos in the world who listen to Rush limbaugh instead of reason.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 12:59 PM
----------------------
What I should have said--There is no sane person, conservative or liberal, who would defend the wild, ... Anyone who looks into the crazy world where investors can bet against the credit worthiness of firms, in which they have no financial interest, no underlying reason, other than just to make money. And then do everything they can, including floating rumors, to bring that firm down. And they can hide those transactions by placing them in London where the U.S. regulators can't look. That was rampant, to the tune of 63 trillion dollars.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 21, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse


The FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM have to be addressed -
Posted by: 37thand0street
----------------
OK, will do…as soon as you drop false charges of…Marxist, Socialist, Nazi, foreigner, Muslim, “death panels”, ‘endless bailouts’, healthcare apocalypse,…uh, never mind.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | April 21, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

How's that Republican brand-y stuff goin for ya? How's that's Repulican Risin? Not so much...


'Sen. John Ensign's re-election campaign took in just $50 in contributions, from one contributor, during the first quarter of 2010, according to FEC reports. The paltry take comes as more bad news for the scandal-tarred Nevada Republican, who would run for re-election in 2012.

Disclosure reports examined by TPMmuckraker show that Robert Donald, a Las Vegas retiree, was the sole contributor to the "Ensign for Senate" committee between January and March. Donald gave two separate $25 contributions.'

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

drindl your story about new regulations about derivatives is great news for Blanche Lincoln who was the spearhead for its likely passage and bolsters her Ark. re-election chances.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 21, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"There isn't a single person on this blog, conservative or liberal, who would defend the wild, wild west of unregulated derivatives."

Don't be silly. There are least two regulars here -- we all know who -- who would defend anything Wall Street does. And a lot of other yahoos in the world who listen to Rush limbaugh instead of reason.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

The FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM have to be addressed - and they have to be discussed until they stick to OBAMA.


OBAMA can not think that everytime he gets himself into political trouble, he is going to have his attack machine go out and start crying racist.


This is a severe defect that Obama has - not all black people - just Obama.


This goes directly to the FACT THAT OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE IN THE POSITION HE IS.


Any qualified person would not engage in this kind of behavior.


This is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT OBAMA PROMISED IN HIS CAMPAIGN - don't forget Obama is operating WAY OUTSIDE his mandate on this one.


And someone please tell Eugene Robinson too -


Eugene Robinson needs to start reading Martin Luther King.

This country did NOT elect Obama to start directing his attack machine to start leveling charges of racism all over the place.


Colbert King and Eugene Robinson - did they ever LISTEN to what Obama saying in 2008 - or did they just look at the color of his FACE ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 21, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to campaign finance, DON'T FORGET that the U S Chamber of Commerce has budgeted $50M to influence November's congressional elections. While they claim to be non-partisan it is a safe bet that ~95% will support Republicans.

For that matter, is there any doubt that CITIZENS UNITED is one of the Top Ten worst Supreme Court decisions in American history???

Posted by: rbdave | April 21, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to campaign finance, DON'T FORGET that the U S Chamber of Commerce has budgeted $50M to influence November's congressional elections. While they claim to be non-partisan it is a safe bet that ~95% will support Republicans.

For that matter, is there any doubt that CITIZENS UNITED is one of the Top Ten worst Supreme Court decisions in American history???

Posted by: rbdave | April 21, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

drindl wrote "The Senate Agriculture Committee today approved a derivatives regulation bill which will be merged with the banking committee's financial reform bill. The vote was 13 to 8.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) joined the committee's Democrats in voting yes on the bill, which was written by chairman Blanche Lincoln.
-------------------------------------
We should get down on our knees and pray for regulation over derivatives. There isn't a single person on this blog, conservative or liberal, who would defend the wild, wild west of unregulated derivatives. The only people who want that market to be unregulated are the Wall Street firms who make zillions on them.

A few decades ago, there were almost no derivatives, and what there was was regulated. Once deregulated, they metastasized like crazy and almost brought down the world's financial structure.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 21, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"Are they cloning drivl now? At least this guy HAD a job once.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero |"

Obsession post #2 of the day. He's showing restraint here!!

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

sorry zouk is was just a LIE on your part.
you stated deliberately that GS gave money
directly to Obama. Is it lawyering to point out that that was disinformation on your part and that individuals gave to Obam, NOT GS.
It is not splitting hairs to point out that
there is a 1907 law that prohbits what you accuse Obama of doing. There are millions of
individuals working for Corps, lawfirms and
accounting firms in this country who give across party lines, and their bd of directors and policy manuals specifically prohbit the kinds of corp contributions and even communications directly for a given candidate that you state GS did with Obama. Their employees on the other hand are free to contribute to whomever they want but that is far from a GS corp contribution that you deliberately misstated.
you knew that and deliberately lied, you can call it a SMALL LIE on your part if that makes you feel better.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 21, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Good news and good for Grassley:

"The Senate Agriculture Committee today approved a derivatives regulation bill which will be merged with the banking committee's financial reform bill. The vote was 13 to 8.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) joined the committee's Democrats in voting yes on the bill, which was written by chairman Blanche Lincoln.

Because derivatives often derive their value from commodities, they partially fall under the purview of the agriculture committee, which oversees the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

The largely unregulated trade of derivatives is considered a major contributor to the recent financial crisis. "

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Sean Penn, didn't he take his camera crew to NOLA after the flood to rescue people? the result was a boat full of himself with no room for victims. At the end of the day, he had to be rescued by professionals, limiting their ability to offer aid to those actually drowning.

Yeah, that Sean Penn. typical Liberal boob.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

the drivl tactics backfire for an employed loon (rare these days):

Fox News reports that Tea Partiers have taken the high road, not wanting middle school teacher Jason Levin to lose his job, but only to be subjected to humiliating liberal-style sensitivity training. Considering that this moonbat, who loudly denounces patriots as "racists, homophobes, and morons," apparently conducts his vile activities on the taxpayer's dime, you may feel differently.

Levin, a media lab teacher at Conestoga Middle School, was placed on leave last week pending the conclusion of an investigation by the Beaverton School District into whether he used school hours or computers to work on his anti-Tea Party website, and if his political activity was appropriate behavior for a teacher of 6th, 7th and 8th grade students.
He is also being investigated by his state's teachers licensing agency, which was inundated with complaints after his incendiary statements became front page news.
In recent weeks, Levin announced his intention to embarrass Tea Partiers by attending their rallies dressed as Adolf Hitler, carrying signs bearing racist, sexist and anti-gay epithets and acting as offensively as possible — anything, he said, short of throwing punches.
About what you would expect from a progressive infil-traitor. But there's more:

Levin called on his supporters to collect the Social Security numbers — among other personal identifying information — about as many Tea Party supporters as possible at the numerous rallies that took place last Thursday.
"The more data we can mine from the Tea Partiers, the more mayhem we can cause with it!!!!" he wrote.

Are they cloning drivl now? At least this guy HAD a job once.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Interesting to note:

the benefactors were Republicans.

they were white

they were rich

they had a strong sense of God

they did not need the government

they were everything liberals are not

Posted by: Comrade_Zero
----------
Wow, Coms...way to find that one example of one black man benefiting from Republican largesse...in your face, Bono, Bill Gates, and Sean Penn!

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | April 21, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

We can outspend the republicans,
remember 'democrats fight for the poor'
is only an empty slogan.

Go to obama.com and have your
credit card ready.
and thanks for the energy and effort
on controlling the internet blogs!

You are the change you've been waiting
for. and other nonsense.

thanks

Posted by: simonsays1 | April 21, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Please go to obama.com
and have a credit card ready.
We can buy usselves majority rule!!!

Posted by: simonsays1 | April 21, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

zouk caught in anothe BIG LIE verified by his
own post which read that PACS and INDIVIDUALS
employed by GS gave to Obama. Unaware or DELIBERATELY LYING he claims that GS(prohibited since 1907), not INDIVIDUALS working there gave to Obama. Big big difference.

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

Sorry, a BIG LIE is when you claim that government health care will result in savings.

your point is typical clinton type lawyer-eese "the meaning of the word 'is' is". I think most voters are willing to equate individuals and PACs with the corporation, despite the legal technicalities, as evidenced by the style of reporting in CNN's draft, NOT MINE.

If that is what you have to hang your hat on, you are in big trouble.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

So, it IS all about the money isn't it? And we now can thank the Supreme Court for allowing corporations to buy even more elections. It stinks!

Posted by: tdp2012 | April 21, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

He can't, terrorfied. He's got no other life than this.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Comrade Zero, I get it. You're Republican and crazy. You've made your point, now please shut up for the good of humanity.

Posted by: Terrorfied | April 21, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Financial reform is sure enough about competition as to who can satisfy the big banks the most. Incredibly, the Senate Majority Whip, Dick Durbin, is proposing an amendment to the Dodd bill which would place ceiling on interest rates for consumer loans at 36% - yes, 36%! He said that he picked an interest rate high enough that even the big banks could not argue with it. Yikes!

There is a great story about this at:

http://funks2.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/senator-richard-durbin-just-call-me-mr-perfect-36/

You may want to read this rather bizarre Durbin tale.

Posted by: FunkUniversity | April 21, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Corrupt Lib of the day. how do I know it's a Lib? Easy, the AP didn't put an R behind his name when reporting the criminal behavior.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero
--------------
I figured you'd note he is a minority...a sure sign that he ain't no Republican.
And before your spastic apoplectic response...yes, I saw the one black, one Cuban, and even the one 'Indian'. You know, the guy who doesn't know what 'volcano monitoring' could be or why we'd need it.
3...most impressive.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | April 21, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse


The FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM have to be addressed - and they have to be discussed until they stick to OBAMA.

OBAMA can not think that everytime he gets himself into political trouble, he is going to have his attack machine go out and start crying racist.

This is a severe defect that Obama has - not all black people - just Obama.

This goes directly to the FACT THAT OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE IN THE POSITION HE IS.

Any qualified person would not engage in this kind of behavior.


And someone please tell Eugene Robinson too -

Eugene Robinson needs to start reading Martin Luther King.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 21, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse


The FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM have to be addressed - and they have to be discussed until they stick to OBAMA.

OBAMA can not think that everytime he gets himself into political trouble, he is going to have his attack machine go out and start crying racist.

This is a severe defect that Obama has - not all black people - just Obama.

This goes directly to the FACT THAT OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE IN THE POSITION HE IS.

Any qualified person would not engage in this kind of behavior.


And someone please tell Eugene Robinson too -

Eugene Robinson needs to start reading Martin Luther King.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 21, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

A year ago the Tuohy family was preparing to say goodbye to Michael Oher. It was NFL draft week, and Oher was projected to go late in the first round. He was about to become a millionaire.

And for this family that had accepted him off the streets of Memphis and given him the means and the direction to realize his vast potential, the moment was bittersweet.

This is what he'd wanted and, therefore, what they wanted. But it also was the moment when they had to let go. Of course, he'd still be their adopted son, still be in their lives, but this draft day would be the day he no longer would be dependent on them
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Interesting to note:

the benefactors were Republicans.

they were white

they were rich

they had a strong sense of God

they did not need the government

they were everything liberals are not

There were two exceptional movies released last year. this one, starring Sandra bullock shows the result of individual effort and charity, republican style.

the other movie, Precious, shows the result of liberal policies in the character of the mother. Precious herself rises above and in the end assumes responsibility and refuses to go down the liberal road, despite the severe disadvantages.

If you have not seen these movies, they are now on DVR and are excellent. Precious is not for kids, but Blind Side is wonderful and will make you cry.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Am I clear?

Posted by: mark_in_austin

What it is to be a newspaper, or buying ads seems to me to have little to do with campaign contributions. How did corporate campaign contributions achieve First Amendment protection?

Were there cases before CU that established this "Right"? I guess I am asking, was CU a qualitative or a quantitative development in this regard?

Posted by: shrink2 | April 21, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

zouk caught in anothe BIG LIE verified by his
own post which read that PACS and INDIVIDUALS
employed by GS gave to Obama. Unaware or DELIBERATELY LYING he claims that GS(prohibited since 1907), not INDIVIDUALS working there gave to Obama. Big big difference. You were aware before your 11:27 am post that corporations are prohibited from making direct or in kind contributions to
candidates for national office, right? So which is it zouk/jake, are you deliberately lying or simply uninformed???????????????????????
Indivudals can give up to $2400 corporations
nada.


these were your EXACT words sir:

President Obama is nothing if not a clever operator. He accepts $994,795 in campaign contributions ""from Goldman Sachs"" -- then turns around.."

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 21, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

mark -- I don't know, could be, that also occurred to me. But then, a lot of folks in politics and law, who have had aides doing a lot of their stuff for a long time, don't have much grasp on technology. I have read this about Roberts, but I don't really know.

But -- the pace of technological change is certainly speeding up and more and more older people are having a hard time keeping up, which may make these privacy cases difficult for them to evaulate.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

The party names should be changed to labor and owners, then it would make sense and maybe the workers that support the owners would realize they are voting against they're own interests.

When a ceo rapes a company for personal gain and the workers are the victim, why would any person who works support that.

I say form form a new worker convervative party and keep the owners out if you want social and economic changes, but please stop supporting owners who screw the worker for their own personal gain.

This isn't your father's ceo stereo type anymore, these people don't create anything except a paper trail. It's time to take our country back

Posted by: David_FL | April 21, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

AP - Federal authorities raided a government-funded clinic run by the state Senate's majority leader, one day after New York's attorney general accused him of siphoning $14 million from it.

About a dozen FBI and IRS agents and investigators from the attorney general's office appeared Wednesday at the Soundview Healthcare Network in the Bronx, where a big canopy above the front door lists Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. as its president and CEO.

>>>

Corrupt Lib of the day. how do I know it's a Lib? Easy, the AP didn't put an R behind his name when reporting the criminal behavior.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Gallenod

"The Base doesn't win you the general election. The 8% of voters that keep zig-zagging back and forth between whichever party looks more appealing at the moment does...Obama vs Romney in 2012 it will likely look a lot like two chameleons engaged in a color-changing duel..."

Excellent post.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 21, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

drindl, not having read the exchange, I assume Roberts was asking counsel to distinguish between the two, if [s]he could. The employment law with regard to privacy of email on employer provided computers is pretty well established. The question could actually have been aimed at why messaging on an employer provided pager should be treated as having an expectation of privacy that the same email message sent on an employer provided netbook would not have.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 21, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Medved's second myth is that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This is the old zero-sum fallacy, which ignores that when two people engage in free exchange, both gain -- or they wouldn't have traded. It's what I call the double thank-you phenomenon. I understand why politicians and lawyers believe it: It's true in their world. But it's not true in business.

"If you believe that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, then you believe that creating wealth causes poverty, and you're an idiot," said Medved. "One of the things that I hate is this term 'obscene profits.' There are no obscene profits ... . (The current economic downturn shows) "that when the rich get poorer ... everybody gets poorer."


Obimbo is turning the entire country into a third world ghetto, just like his home country.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse
---------------------------

Wow, propagating an easily de-bunked conspiracy theory AND a play for Reaganomics! Do you ever get tired of being so SMART? I also think detractors of Reaganomics are idiots. Don't the idiots realize that the favorite past-time of rich people is showering their excess earnings down onto the poor? If the middle class didn't realize that, then at least they should have noticed that the recent economic downturn caused Wallstreet bankers to only reap barely millions of dollars in bonuses. Idiots!

Posted by: Terrorfied | April 21, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Just exactly who is on the GS gravy-train? don't ask the Libs, they lie all the time:

""According to figures dating to 1990, Goldman Sachs' PAC and employees have consistently contributed more money to Democratic rather than Republican candidates for federal office.

In the 2008 election, three out of every four dollars contributed by Goldman Sachs went to Democrats.

Since the 2008 election, FEC reports indicate that Goldman Sachs has contributed generously to Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee members. The two panels are responsible for oversight of the industry.""

Is anyone surprised that dodd and Fwank are sucking off the tit of financial graft? although I'm sure in Bawney's case, he'd prefer something more elongated to fellate.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

actully Sec of Defense Robert Gates stated when he accepted his position in 2009 that it would it be temporary and that he would leave
in Dec and return to Texas A&M. Sounds like
zouk is trying to now replace jake with his
disinformation campaign first about corp
contributions and now about our fine Sec of Defense.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 21, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/index.html

Poor moonbat finance whiz. Even the communist network finds you tiring.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"During oral arguments today in the case City of Ontario v. Quon, which considers whether police officers had an expectation of privacy in personal (and sexually explicit) text messages sent on pagers issued to them by the city, the justices of the Supreme Court at times seemed to struggle with the technology involved.

The first sign was about midway through the argument, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. - who is known to write out his opinions in long hand with pen and paper instead of a computer - asked what the difference was “between email and a pager?”

Oh, dear. this is going to be a loooong tenure.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

poor zouk, leichtman... must be bored, so bored. posting here every 4 minutes.

yawn. think i'll go kayaking again today. beautiful out on the Hudson yesterday.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Gallenod, I certainly agree that the base won't win you any elections. In fact, if you put too much effort into pleasing the base, you're pretty much screwed when the general election comes around -- though President Bush proved in 2004 that there are exceptions to that rule.

I'm sure Mitt Romney saw how successful President Obama's mass appeal made him, I'm just not sure he can make it work for him. Right now, it's a lot easier to come out of a Democratic primary looking like a moderate than it is to come out of a Republican primary looking like a moderate, at least at the national level. The Democratic base is spooked by candidates who appear too liberal, and thus will drift toward candidates who might not be as liberal as they'd like but can be expected to appeal to enough people to be successful. On the other hand, the Republican base is on the hunt for the most conservative candidate they can find. A moderate Republican has to veer harder to the right to get the nomination than a moderate Democrat has to veer to the left. Shoot, look at Obama; he was drifting toward the center even in the primary as he tried to out-maneuver Hillary Clinton, whom a lot of people saw as a polarizing figure (if not necessarily for her political alignment). Even if he remains above the fray, Romney can't start a drift to the center until after he's already set in stone as the nominee, and when he does start that drift, he's at greater risk of losing voters to whoever the Constitution or Conservative or whatever party puts on the ballot than Obama is to the Green Party.

I'm making assumptions here about voter attitudes based on my personal experiences, of course, so if any of those assumptions are wrong, I hope someone will take the time to correct me.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | April 21, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

leichtman1 to your comment at 11:09


You are going to have to go back and remember how the democrats used to treat Bush. Were you making any complaints then about that behavior?

Seriously, these comments from the democrats are ridiculous, silly and hypocritical.

The Republicans have treated Obama FAR BETTER than the democrats used to treat Bush.

So, the crap has to stop, it really doesn't.

The democrats PARADED AROUND saying they wanted to bring every together - and yet Obama has the MOST PARTISAN ADMINISTRATION EVER - never in history has it been this bad -

The False Charges of Racism have been going on for a month now - it is not sticking because the democrats are basically calling ALL WHITES RACIST.

Good luck with that one.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 21, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Looks like one state will not have Barry Soetero on the ballot next time around.

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

The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for reelection.

The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

Maybe some sort of "fake but accurate" Dan Rather mock up will do.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Obama’s National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones, chafed at the Gates memo. The first NYT article quoted him as saying, “On Iran, we are doing what we said we were going to do. The fact that we don’t announce publicly our entire strategy for the world to see doesn’t’ mean we don’t have a strategy that anticipates the full range of contingencies – we do.”

But that’s no answer. Gates said Obama’s policy was inadequate, not that he didn’t have one. But the fact that Gates so quickly downplayed the meaning of the memo indicates two things. First, that he doesn’t view the Iran policy disagreement to be a serious dispute with Obama, at least yet. Second, that he stands by the memo in a clear vote of no confidence in Obama’s closest advisors.


Gates is too old a Washington hand to believe that the leak of the memo would result in Obama revising his policy toward Iran. So what’s the point? Is it to contribute to the decision-making process, or to the history books?

Gates is writing for the record. And when Obama’s Iran policy is publicly recognized a failure, Gates – in his memoir – will go back to the memo he wrote and claim absolution.

During the early years of the Clinton presidency, CIA Director James Woolsey was routinely unable to get Clinton into a private meeting to discuss intelligence matters. Woolsey resigned in frustration. There is no reason to believe Gates has been that unwelcome in Obama’s councils. That may change as a result of this memo when those closest to Obama retaliate for what they will see as Gates’s disloyalty to them.

And before the end of the year, Gates may resign.

And so it begins. the utter incompetence of the Obimbo regime starts to force out those with a clear vision.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

at 11:27 zouk posted that Obama accepted
$994,795 from GS w/o posting a source for
his misinformation.

Are you uninformed or deliberatley lying?

"In 1907, Congress enacted legislation to prohibit corporations from "directly or indirectly" making contributions in federal elections"

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 21, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"Democrats are doing everything they can to build a financial i.u.d. against which no Republican seed will find purchase."
Eh? Eh?


Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | April 21, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Where were you Slick willie?

But since 2009 Americans have finally learned that our soldiers are sacrosanct and must not be smeared — as in Sen. Richard Durbin’s characterization of American military personnel as synonymous with Nazis, Stalinists, or Pol Pot’s murderers; as in the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s comparison of American troops to Saddam’s lethal jailers; as in Sen. John Kerry’s smear of our soldiers as acting in terrorist fashion. Evocation of Nazi or Brownshirt imagery particularly coarsens the public discourse; it demonizes opponents rather than engage them in real debate. So we can all concur now that Sen. John Glenn, Sen. Robert Byrd, and former vice president Al Gore spoke quite improperly when they compared their president’s governance to that of the Third Reich.

Our military officers deserve special consideration. No senator should ever again accuse a wartime theater commander of telling an untruth (“suspicion of disbelief”). Major newspapers should not extend discounts to pressure groups that defame our officers with cheap slurs such as “General Betray Us.” All that is dangerous rhetoric. Indeed, it risks undermining our noble bipartisan efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"Capitalism is alive and well," Medved said.

I'm also bugged when people argue that today's problems prove that capitalism "failed." What failed? We had a correction. A bubble popped. But from 1982 to now, the Dow rose from 800 to 11,000. Had it happened without the bubble, we'd say this is one of the great boom periods.

Medved added: "This is one of the biggest lies -- the idea that because of capitalism, we're all suffering. ... Poor people in America today, people who are officially in poverty, have a higher standard of living in terms of medical standards, in terms of the chances of going to college, in terms of the way people live, than middle-class people did 30 years ago. It's an extraordinary achievement of technology and of the profit sector."

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

corporations are specifically prohibited by federal law from making direct contributions to politicians for federal office, either directly or with in kind contributions.
curious how you can then claim $900,000
given directly by GS to the Obama candidacy?

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 21, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Medved's second myth is that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This is the old zero-sum fallacy, which ignores that when two people engage in free exchange, both gain -- or they wouldn't have traded. It's what I call the double thank-you phenomenon. I understand why politicians and lawyers believe it: It's true in their world. But it's not true in business.

"If you believe that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, then you believe that creating wealth causes poverty, and you're an idiot," said Medved. "One of the things that I hate is this term 'obscene profits.' There are no obscene profits ... . (The current economic downturn shows) "that when the rich get poorer ... everybody gets poorer."


Obimbo is turning the entire country into a third world ghetto, just like his home country.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a speech to the national convention of tea-party lawyer's Sarah Palin criticized Obama for his handling of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajokull. She also suggested that volcano's if they found there way into the hands of terrorist or rouge states could be s serious national security issue.

Palin suggested in a Q&A session that President Obama isn't doing enough to stop the Icelandic Volcano from disrupting European air travel. When asked about the situation in Europe the former governor replied: "Say he decided to use force on Eyjafjallajokull or decided really to come out and do whatever he could to support Air travel, which I would like him to do,"

When asked if Volcano's could form a threat to the united states she implied Obama's handling of the matter might just make things worse: "He hasn't come right out and threatened violence on Eyjafjallajokull. Who calls a shot like that? Who makes a decision like that? It's a disturbing trend."

Perhaps the most shocking revelation in her Q&A session came when she suggested failed states might weaponize volcano's: "What if Ahmadinejad obtains one of these monsters? That could be a serious threat, one which Obama has said nothing about.".

While knowledgeable experts and geologist laughed at the claims made by the former Governor, an unnamed source at the American Enterprise institute stated: "Several African nations have been connected to sales of weapons grade magma to both Iran and North Korea." He then added: "It's a real threat. If they manage to get a volcano, and then a fitting wind towards the West, we might all end up stuck on beaches coming summer, unable to return from our vacation destinations."

Finally Palin suggested she might be better equipped to handle a volcano then the president: "As Ash Clouds rear there heads and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Jonah: Regarding Romney, I agree that if has to tack Rightward much during the primaries is may come back to haunt him in the general. He's hoping to stay above the fray; doesn't mean he'll succeed in that.

But he has to have noted how successfully Obama managed to look appealing to a wide range of people, many of whom saw something in him that inspired them to project their own vision of what he was (even if he wasn't).

The Base doesn't win you the general election. The 8% of voters that keep zig-zagging back and forth between whichever party looks more appealing at the moment does.

If the election comes down to Obama vs Romney in 2012 it will likely look a lot like two chameleons engaged in a color-changing duel, with Obama sporting cooler colors and Romney trying not to get lit on fire by firebrands in his party's base.

Posted by: Gallenod | April 21, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

President Obama is nothing if not a clever operator. He accepts $994,795 in campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs -- then turns around when it's convenient and uses them as a model for why we need to heavily regulate the financial sector. He accepts the support of the gay community during the election cycle -- then turns around and delays the implementation of "don't ask, don't tell" for as long as humanly possible. He accepts the support of the Jewish community -- then turns around and attempts to force Israel to surrender to Iran and her terrorist allies.

Some people would call this two-faced. Chicagoans call this business as usual.

The tea party embodies that rage, and Obama isn't quite sure what to do about it. He tried to co-opt it, suggesting that tea partiers were truly the same disaffected Americans who had elected him: "The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they're frustrated."

Americans didn't buy that, largely because it's moronic. So Obama tried another tactic -- he had his lackeys label the tea partiers as a bunch of violent racists. First, he had black congressmen state, without any evidence to back them up, that tea partiers called them the n-word. Then he had the media pick up that meme and supplement it with the lie that tea partiers are violent criminals.

MSNBC has been the most vocal Obama brown-noser on this point, running segment after segment asking whether tea partiers are more or less morally bankrupt than Nazis. Matthew Perry (in the early "Friends" years) look-alike Rachel Maddow suggested that tea partiers wore "white hoods." Keith Olbermann, the slightly less masculine version of Maddow, called tea partiers "Tea Klux Klan" (because Tea sounds so much like Ku, get it? … well, at least Keith's cats thought that was funny).

It's not just MSNBC. Joe Klein of Time magazine says that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are "seditious." Bill Clinton -- a man who thought it was more important to nail Monica in the Oval Office than to nail Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan -- says that tea partiers are just like Timothy McVeigh.

There's only one problem: this isn't working either.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

The progressive left is really melting down. Wonder why that could be. They won the health care takeover. They won the stimulus. Their messiah won the Nobel Peace Prize. They have unchecked governmental power.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse
---------------

You're so right. Usually when I recieve a large sum of money I spend the aftermath alternating between crying in the shower and eating ice cream.

Posted by: Terrorfied | April 21, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Why don't\can't we just take away the printing of the candidates party affiliation, and not allow them to say what party they are a member of, and judge people by "the content of their character"?

Posted by: gjconely | April 21, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

CNBC reports that Pelogrini meeting with
govt attys that hedge fund intended to short
the funds in ABACUS not mentioned in their
complaint and claiming Paulson did not know of
GS short position. Seems like a possible contradiction where ACA claims they had no idea Paulson was going to short the fund. Did they have other disclosure obligations? Was
there GS collusion or is this SEC overreaching?
Pelogrini claims its impossible to say SEC did not know they intended to short their position. Either an impt development in the GS saga or good defense lawyering.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 21, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Crap, my post was so long that it got held, and I neglected to copy and paste it elsewhere in case such a thing were to happen.

Here's the abridged version: You can complain all you want about how terrible it is that candidates with a bunch of money can use it to get elected, but that's what candidates in the U.S. have been doing to get votes since our country was founded. Unless the candidate is your close friend or family member, he spent money to convince you to vote for him.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | April 21, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Not since the Grant administration has there been such open graft and corruption in Washington. Will Washington police itself? Not likely, the DOJ leads the charge in corruption. So who will protect the rest of the country from the Washington excesses, the states?

Posted by: rich15 | April 21, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

More racist, government-hating nutballs attacking cops - they seem especially fond of cutting gaslines.

"The Southern California homes of dozens of white supremacists were raided Tuesday as part of a probe into a string of potentially deadly booby trap attacks targeting police officers, authorities said.

Federal and local officers converged on 35 homes and took 16 people into custody in Riverside County for a variety of crimes, including weapons, narcotics and parole violations, Hemet police Capt. Dave Brown said.

None of the arrests were directly related to the booby trap attacks that have plagued the small Hemet Police Department since New Year's Eve.

"But we hope some (arrests) will lead us to our suspects," Brown said.

District Attorney Rod Pacheco said everyone arrested was connected to white supremacist groups.

"They are upset with our aggressive posture against all gangs," Pacheco said. "White supremacist gangs have been very violent, especially toward law enforcement."

Hemet police have been targeted at least three times. In one case, a ballistic device strapped to a fence at the gang unit compound sent a bullet within inches of an officer's face.

In another incident, someone rerouted a natural gas line at the compound, filling the building with flammable vapor.

Four city trucks were set ablaze, and an explosive device was attached to an unmarked police car after an officer went into a convenience store."

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehMl-CztpnA&feature=player_embedded

Of the small but growing number of conservative Hollywood celebs who are brave enough to speak out, Kelsey Grammer is certainly one of the most entertaining. Here's his pitch for the upcoming RightNetwork.com -- All That's Right With the World.

this is going to be good. A proper balance to MSDNC, but with viewers.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Politics is all about the money, not the policies. Perhaps the Whitehouse should recommend the Democrats spread the wealth around and make an $11 million donation to the Republicans to make it all fair. After all, getting elected to office is a right isn't it?

Posted by: tapdancer52 | April 21, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"Democrats maintain solid cash edge heading into 2010 midterms"

So obstructionism, tinfoil hat theories of a socialist take-over, and name-calling DON'T bring in the campaign dollars?? Maybe the teabaggers just need to yell louder and threaten more violence if they don't get their way.

Posted by: Terrorfied | April 21, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

To Drindl who said:
"the big bankers on Wall Street are mostly Democrats" 'this is too sad to even laugh it. another fox viewer no doubt, happily ensconced in his alternative universe.'

A quick search provided this:
"For both candidates, Wall Street's investment and banking sectors have become among their portliest cash cows, contributing $9.5 million to Obama and $5.3 million to McCain so far."

Read more at: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/06/30/2008-06-30_barack_obama_has_collected_nearly_twice_-2.html#ixzz0lkQaR8vG

Notice, that's wallstreet giving more to Obama not McCain, and it's not Fox news saying it. Guess you were wron'g in your assumption.

Posted by: LuthienKennedy | April 21, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Following up on the NYC Doorman's Strike, apparently catastrophe has been averted, and sophisticated New Yorkers will be spared the horrors of "sorting mail, screening visitors, hauling garbage out to the curb and operating elevators," --- things us idiot rubes in flyover country manage to do pretty well on our own.

William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection sees another opportunity to correct a social inequality here. Why do New Yorkers have doormen to do these menial tasks for them while the rest of America is forced to do it ourselves. By golly, we need Comprehensive Doorman Reform.

We could call such legislation The Apartment Protection and Affordable Door Person Act.

I see another advantage. Providing every American with a doorman would create jillions of jobs! We can write the law so that everyone over $250,000 a year is required to hire a doorman, and everyone else will have one provided by the Government. After all, if we're so rich we can afford to give everybody health care, everybody a college education, and have enough left over to bailout Wall Street and the unionized bureaucrats of New York, Illinois, and California... surely we can provide everyone in the USA with a doorman.

After all, according to the progressive left, a "right" is defined as "something someone else has that I want even if I haven't earned it," (e.g. health care coverage, tourism, same-sex marriage). Therefore, if enough people want personal doormen, it becomes a "right."

I'm going to name mine "Timmy."

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Financial regulation looking stronger every day:

"Big financial firms like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan generate billions of dollars each year as derivatives dealers. But, over the past several weeks, as Democrats’ have escalated their rhetoric and explicitly targeted Wall Street, the big banks have had trouble getting their message out on Capitol Hill. All the more so thanks to Friday’s SEC complaint accusing Goldman of fraud. “The banks’ credibility, their ability to influence this, is limited,” says one derivatives industry lawyer.

And so, instead of mostly making the pitch against regulation themselves, the big derivatives dealers are counting on their corporate clients to do a lot of heavy lifting for them.

That this conversation has yielded a well-coordinated trip so close to the endgame on financial reform is a sign of how much ground the banks have lost in such a short period of time.

The reason the recent developments are so remarkable is that all reforms tend to weaken as they get closer to passage, as legislators hash out compromises with powerful interests in order to secure a deal. Bizarrely, financial reform appears to be headed in the opposite direction. When it comes to derivatives, at least, the bill Senator Chris Dodd moved through his Banking Committee in March was significantly tougher than the bill the House passed in December. Then, last week, Lincoln shocked Wall Street by producing an even tougher bill than that. "
It's good news to terms of preventing what caused the last financial meltdown from happening again.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC3XxN0pdkg&feature=player_embedded

Special Ed Schultz confronts a dissident Democrat, and displays the progressive left's storied capacity for intelligent engagement.

The progressive left is really melting down. Wonder why that could be. They won the health care takeover. They won the stimulus. Their messiah won the Nobel Peace Prize. They have unchecked governmental power.

They don't seem to be too happy, though.

this is the drivl wing of the party. Way out there, angry, moronic, fundies.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I presume you meant to say you and OUR
POTUS. we are not to fond of posters
using language like cr** here, especially
considering you are new to this site.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 21, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Your government at work:

A new report released yesterday (.pdf) by Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) warns that Obama administration efforts to bailout homeowners through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) are ineffective and will not stem the sweeping tide of foreclosures.

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

Two senators said Tuesday it's time to consider ending a contract for a "virtual fence" along the U.S.-Mexico border, contending it doesn't stop illegal immigration. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., even suggested an old-fashioned, real fence may work better than the electronic one designed by Boeing Co. "We're counting on you to give us a direct assessment and take action to either terminate the contract or take from it what may work," Lieberman told Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Money is nothing. Look at the polls. The GOP leads in nearly every race. Harry Reid is down by double digits. Sorry Dungocraps, your corrupt bankster money can't buy this election. The people are coming after you and your "president."

Posted by: NowSwimBack | April 21, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

shrink, the decision was activist because it reached and answered a question that was not presented in the case.

The extent of 1st A. rights for corporations was a continuing focus of interest in legislatures and in courts, and the Supremes had spoken many times to specific issues regarding these state franchised legal fictions. The ACLU position and one that Justice Kennedy likes is that if a newspaper can be incorporated and retain its freedom of expression all corporations can do so, to the extent they can publish something that is akin to a newspaper, like an advertisement for their fave pols.

But that question was not in the case. It was ordered briefed on rehearing because activists wanted to judicially legislate. Am I clear?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 21, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

it's simple economics, something that clearly escapes Libs:

Wynn Resorts Chairman Steve Wynn told cable business network CNBC he was considering moving the company's corporate headquarters from Las Vegas to Macau. (Snip) "The governmental policies in the United States of America are a damper, a wet blanket," Wynn said in a separate interview aired today on Bloomberg Television. "They retard investment, they retard job formation, they retard the creation of a better life for the citizens in spite of the rhetoric of the president."

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"the big bankers on Wall Street are mostly Democrats "

this is too sad to even laugh it. another fox viewer no doubt, happily ensconced in his alternative universe.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Don't be surprised if Obama replaces retiring SC Justice Stevens with one of his close friends and like-minded racist white and America--hating soulmates, like Jerimiah Wright Jr.,or Louis Farrakhan.

Posted by: armpeg | April 21, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

that rare breed of blogger who knows how to spell and use proper grammar.


cilizza? No threat of that. don't worry. Strunk and White have left the building.

Just another typical Lib hypocrite:

Cornyn (R-Texas) says President Obama "demeaned himself and his office" by issuing "political attacks" against Cornyn and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for meeting with Wall Street executives. The Texas Republican said the president shouldn't attack GOP lawmakers for "doing what Rahm Emanuel did" -- a reference to the closed-door cocktail reception Wall Street investors and Democratic donors had with Emanuel, the White House chief of staff

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 21, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

The Dems have most of the money to donate because they have been taken care of during the last 15 months. They got most of the TARP money, Bailout money and the big bankers on Wall Street are mostly Democrats that stand to do well if the financial reform passes. Why should I be surprised?

Posted by: DL13 | April 21, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I have never wanted to believe that those who read the news rags would ever be swayed to vote for whoever "has the most cash". But unfortunately it has been an American truism. BUT a lot of things are no longer what they seem here in wonderland. Things are changing on the ground and those in lofty height may be surprised that it may not matter how much cash you have at all, it will be what you believe in… imagine that…

Posted by: GratefulEd1 | April 21, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

dotty adj 1: informal or slang terms for mentally irregular [syn: balmy, bananas, barmy, bats, batty, bonkers, buggy, crackers, nutty...

Posted by: shrink2 | April 21, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

That was my point, drindl. I think he can afford to go against AP style and use a colloquialism under the right circumstances without people claiming he's illiterate.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | April 21, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

And where did the Democrats get their huge cash lead over Republicans? Is it from commoners handing over $100 at a time? Or is it from Wall Street and the Teachers Union and everyone else who pays the most to the party in power to avoid any recourse after the election...just like every other year in the history of this nation?

Go figure...Democrats castigate the same folks they pander to and utilize for financing behind the scenes. And how is that any different than the corruption, deceit and fear-mongering which the Republican party utilizes to build upon and maintain its base?

In November, those who vote for Democrats or Republicans are those who vote for the ruin of this nation moving forward.

Posted by: TheFreeMan | April 21, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

He works for the Wapo, Jonah... it's a very priviliged and shall we say, 'elite' position. He ought to be able to spell.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I think shrink2 could be (pardon the awful pun) right on the money here. Money that could be flowing to official Republican fundraising groups is probably instead flowing to ostensibly independent conservative groups that appeal more to irrationally angry voters who don't want their money going to some sort of "official" government organization, even though it all basically ends up in the same place and is used for the same purposes. Thus the "irrational" part.

Mitt Romney may have a reputation for unease when it comes to taking sides on controversial issues within his own party, but his strategy of trying to stay above the fray might pay off for him. As Gallenod noted, if the base vote is split among multiple candidates, Romney can come out the winner in the end without having to get down in the mud too much. He can let the more rage-friendly candidates rip each other to shreds, then present himself as the "none of the above" candidate, which voters in general -- but especially Republicans -- just adore. I don't know, though, if that will let him run as a moderate to the degree Gallenod suggests; John McCain was effectively seen as the most moderate Republican candidate in 2008, but he still ended up veering way to the right during and shortly after the primary, only to have to attempt a desperate scramble back to the center for the general that didn't work out too well for him. If Romney has to do any noticeable scrambling, it'll hurt him; he's already got that "politician who'll say anything to get elected" air about him, and that will turn off both independents who've soured somewhat on President Obama and irrationally angry conservatives seeking a candidate who's perfect.

Finally, a note to Chris: I know it's AP style to spell out contractions and avoid slang, but the second half of Ric Flair's famous quote just looks silly as "you have got to beat the man." I assure you, you can write it as "you gotta beat the man" without losing any of your cred as that rare breed of blogger who knows how to spell and use proper grammar.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | April 21, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

I posted this story about DNC money advantage last week as evidence that Ds are down but certainly not out. 37th and zouk responded that it shows that Ds are despondent, using jake logic. Money proves nada-squat. Reid has a money advantage but not much more. Guiliani,
Phil Gramm, Tony Sanchez and Huffington had enormous cash advantages and fell flat on their keisters. Its all about message and authenticity. Money helps deliver the message but not much more.

I was amused to read how Santorum is now thinking big: he opted not to run against Spector but instead for POTUS. Can see it now the radicals run the Santorum/Bachman ticket in 2012.

zouk you have argued with me about R deficit spending but at least your hero Santorum knows better when he said: "Santorum now calls himself a "tea party person" who regrets that he and his colleagues voted for the 2003 Medicare prescription drug legislation 'without making sure it was paid for'"

It will be interesting to see how the Arizona racial profile legislation plays with Hispanic voters in Ca and Texas. I'm guessing that not even hispanic GOPers will look forward to random stops and frisks. It will play well in places like Phoenix, San Diego and Lubbock, but it will create a major stumbling block if Rs hope to ever garner more than 30% of the growing hispanic population.

Posted by: leichtman1 | April 21, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

"...Citizens United", because it was the single most activist decision I believe that I have ever read."

Well Mark, of course that is also what I've been saying since it happened, but every once in awhile, someone comes along and claims the court has been consistent on this for generations - corporate money is First Amendment protected speech.

Is there an historical digest of cases leading up to Citizens United? Sure I could go get all the cases cited in the majority opinion and look them up myself and yet, yet, I want someone else to do that. It seems important enough. Are you aware of anything like this?

Posted by: shrink2 | April 21, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

American voters now understand that big money means big corruption.

Dirty words today are War Chest, incumbent, nepotism, and cronyism torch passes.

The emperos have no clothes.

Posted by: dottydo | April 21, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"Roberts, who presented himself as an incrementalist, greatly disappointed me on "Citizens United", because it was the single most activist decision I believe that I have ever read."

Agreed. Part of the reason why the term 'conservative' no longer means anything. These people are radicals.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

It is a proven fact, them with the most cash, slings the most mud, and win's, you can understand the repubs concern, as this USED TO BE THEIR GAME.

Posted by: dv1236 | April 21, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Wait! I thought the Dems were going to get washed out of office by a huge wave of populist, Tea party anger at Obama and his "Socialist" agenda???????

Or maybe not.

Posted by: thebobbob | April 21, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

drindl, because the trial lawyers, the labor unions, the environmentalists, much of the high tech industry, George Soros, many financial traders, many individual manufacturers, many single cause proponents with cash or membership, the small farmers lobby, and godknowshowmany other players will favor the more liberal candidate in a given race and play the game.
Heck, one-third of MDs vote D and they are the most anti-tax group I know, with good cause. Unlike industry, they have no loopholes to crawl through. In fact, BradCPA and Optimyst will tell you that they are the biggest losers in deals sold to "lower their taxes".
My own broker, a CFG R, thinks he would have voted for TARP and ARRA, and would vote for the Dodd Bill.
-----------------------------------
We might predict more cash for conservatives if we believe the USCOC speaks for them but my guess is the floodgates will open raising every boat.
-----------------------------------
Bsimon, the public thinks to tag judges with political labels while lawyers like labels that describe their decision making process. "Minimalist", "Incrementalist",
and "Activist" come to mind. Thus I have no idea what the "public" wants, while I know I want incrementalists, who will not change the law without long history and science and procedural experience to back the change, because I want to be able to predict the effect of the law to my clients [a popular recent example from the Fed crim law: crack was thought to be different from coke when the sentencing guidelines were enacted; they were soon known as the same substance in different delivery form, the differing guidelines then became a constitutional issue]. I am guessing that no practicing lawyers want activists, for that reason. Roberts, who presented himself as an incrementalist, greatly disappointed me on "Citizens United", because it was the single most activist decision I believe that I have ever read.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 21, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I am with Chris on this one, even though there are some waves no wall can burn, it is too soon to predict a wave anyway.

As far as the money is concerned, it could be liberals have more money than conservatives, no, couldn't be...liberals are more generous?

How about, liberals are more optimistic about political donations "making a difference"?

None of the above. I think it is pretty obvious, the Republican money gap can be accounted for by vast amounts going to the conservative organizations that are not controlled by the Republican party, but which do control the party.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 21, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

ghendric writes
"Maybe we should start voting Libertarians in for a change and see what happens..."


If they didn't have a platform that included things like returning to the gold standard, perhaps they'd have a chance.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Why is it always about the money? Whoever has the most donations wins! What a load of crap... Maybe we should start voting Libertarians in for a change and see what happens...

Posted by: ghendric | April 21, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

"Teabagger Marco Rubio, who’s looking like a lock to win the Florida Republican primary against Charlie Crist, has some explaining to do:

Rubio billed the party for more than $100,000 during the two years he served as House speaker, according to credit card statements obtained by The Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times. The charges included repairs to the family minivan, grocery bills, plane tickets for his wife, and purchases from retailers ranging from a wine store near his home to Apple’s on-line store. Rubio also charged the party for dozens of meals during the annual lawmaking session in Tallahassee, even though he received taxpayer subsidies for his meals.

Rubio is now the target of an IRS investigation. I’m sure this will turn out fine, since the IRS isn’t part of the constitution, and James Madison believed that politicians can use their party American Express card to buy wine."

Watch teabaggers turn out to be even more corrupt than Republicans.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

"Says the mooch.
Good one.
Posted by: Moonbat "

Obsession post #1 of the day. Early for him.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

"a financial firewall which will block the Republican broadcast storm, preventing their attempt at a Denial of Service attack against the federal government."

Posted by: Blarg | April 21, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Why is it always about the money? Whoever has the most donations wins! What a load of crap... Maybe we should start voting Libertarians in for a change and see what happens...

Posted by: ghendric | April 21, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Why is it always about the money? Whoever has the most donations wins! What a load of crap... Maybe we should start voting Libertarians in for a change and see what happens...

Posted by: ghendric | April 21, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

most of the chronically unemployeds on here.........

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse


Says the mooch.

Good one.

Posted by: Moonbat | April 21, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Money can't buy the White House the kahones it needs to deal with a simmering, shocking government scandal that threatens to subvert the Obama agenda -- unless this cancer within is excised:

HOMELAND-RUN 'FUSION CENTERS' SILENTLY ASSAULT, TORTURE, IMPAIR, SUBJUGATE U.S. CITIZENS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVE WEAPON SYSTEM, FINANCIAL SABOTAGE, 'COMMUNITY WATCH' VIGILANTE DOMESTIC TERRORISM: VETERAN JOURNALIST

• "Mr. Obama, Tear Down Those Homeland Cellular Torture Towers!"

You cannot wait for a formal report from "Project Geneva." The multi-agency operatives running a covert fusion center Gestapo will not stand down unless they are forcefully and publicly TAKEN DOWN.

The attacks continue as the chain of command apparently is disrespected. Mr. President, you must act. Now.

And isn't mainstream media doing some digging on this?

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "U.S. Silently..." and "Gestapo USA..."

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 21, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

"a financial seawall against which any Republican storm will dash itself impotently"

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 21, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1, absolutely. Everyone tosses around words like liberal, moderate and conservative like we all agree on what they mean. In the meantime, each person mentally loads the words up with their own adjectives and verbs.

Liberal, moderate and conservative have become almost as meaningless as reporting on simplistic poll results.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 21, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

"a financial firewall against which any Republican sputtering flame will fizzle"

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

"However, the "Citizens United" - open - floodgates would likely show up in the funding of "independent" conservative and liberal and one-issue groups. "

Why would industry money go to liberal groups, Mark?

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

37th, I was implying, in my own joking way, that you are affiliated with the www.ow.ly posts.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 21, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

"Meanwhile, this mixed metaphor is good for a smile, "Democrats are doing everything they can to build a financial firewall against which any Republican electoral wave will crash." "

I was thinking the same. Perhaps seawall would be a good substitute. Floodwall? dike? Or end the metaphor with 'republican conflagration will burn out.'

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

This is fun -- more fractures!


"The Republican primary in the Kentucky Senate race is shaping up to be a proxy fight between the neoconservative wing of the Republican party and the more libertarian strands. Key neocons are backing Secretary of State Trey Grayson over conservative activist Rand Paul -- and attacking Paul by criticizing his father Ron Paul's (R-TX) stances on Iraq, 9/11 and Guantanamo Bay.

Rudy Giuliani endorsed Trey Grayson yesterday, boldly vilifying the opposition: "He [Grayson] is not part of the 'blame America first' crowd that wants to bestow the rights of U.S. citizens on terrorists and point fingers at America for somehow causing 9/11." Another big-name neoconservative endorsing Grayson is former Vice President Dick Cheney, who in his own endorsement spoke of Grayson's dedication to keeping Guantanamo open and upholding the surges in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

The democrats are still in power - so expect them to have a great deal of cash.

That is going to happen.


The Republicans are doing much better than what might have been expected last year - so again, what did you expect was going to happen ? The Republicans are still doing much much better with the electorate than anyone could have imagined last year.


Even the health care bill - the way it played out hands the Republicans an issue.


If the health care had not passed, the issue might have been dead - and the democrats would have had an easier time changing to other issues.

But NOW Obama is stuck with the health care bill.

Obama is dragged down by the Largest Tax Increase in American History - all this is a win for the Republicans.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 21, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Be sure to take a chicken with you next time you have surgery:

"I'm not quite sure what to make of this. A couple weeks ago our Eric Kleefeld came up with video showing Nevada Senate candidate Sue Lowden suggesting that "bartering" for medical care would be a good way to rein in spiraling health care costs.

I mocked her with the headline: "I bid three chickens for that MRI!" But I sort of figured she'd rethink that plan after her advisors sat her down for a moment and explained the concept of a cash economy or maybe if she found out what 'barter' meant. But it turns out that she was serious. Not just serious. She was actually thinking about payment in chickens too.

Yesterday she told a local news program: "I'm telling you that this works. You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor."

I'm always troubled by these moments when my sarcasm and snark is outpaced by the ugly reality"

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

so this is what a comment section looks like with only 1 corner response...

Posted by: katem1 | April 21, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

"Need a job? [yadda yadda] With the degree finding a job will be easy..."

And this is the advice I gave to a foster daughter, now married to a great guy, two kids in elementary school, bored in Spokane.
Two great things about America, you can always go back to school and you can always get a job in health care.

Meanwhile, this mixed metaphor is good for a smile, "Democrats are doing everything they can to build a financial firewall against which any Republican electoral wave will crash."

Posted by: shrink2 | April 21, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

parkerfl1 makes a potential point. The D fundraising does not reflect disillusionment. The R fundraising is pretty good, but considering the historic edge of Rs in this metric since about 1972 this may represent a shift.

However, the "Citizens United" - open - floodgates would likely show up in the funding of "independent" conservative and liberal and one-issue groups. Is anyone keeping score there? Is there even a way to keep score? CC dutifully reports "independent conservative" or "independent liberal" ads as they occur and are known to him, but is some watchdog monitoring the gross levels of spending by outside groups?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 21, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Rubio is as corrupt as the rest of his party:


"In a development that could change the dynamics in one of the most closely-watched races of the year, the Miami Herald reports that federal investigators have begun several probes into spending and tax records at the Florida Republican party -- including an investigation into the finances of Senate candidate Marco Rubio.

That investigation, run by the IRS, stems from an existing scandal surrounding the use of Florida GOP-issued American Express cards by elected officials and members of the party organization. The list of officials under investigation includes Rubio, and is essentially a search for evidence that could lead to future charges.

There is a second, criminal investigation into the state GOP underway. The Herald reports the FBI, IRS and U.S. attorney's office are investigating former state House Speaker Ray Sansom, who has already been indicted on state charges "that he stashed $6 million in the state budget for an airplane hangar for a friend and campaign donor," according to the paper.

In the separate Rubio probe, the IRS is digging into the tax records of former state party officials and elected Republicans -- including Rubio and former state GOP chair Jim Greer -- to "determine whether they misused their party credit cards for personal expenses," according to the Herald.

The party credit card has already been a hassle for Rubio. In February, Gov. Charlie Crist's campaign attacked Rubio over allegations that he used his Florida GOP-issued American Express to pay for thousands of dollars in personal expenses while he was state House Speaker.

The IRS investigation appears to cover those allegations, as the Herald reports:


At this stage of the IRS investigation, agents are looking at federal tax records, state financial disclosure forms and other documents to see whether Rubio, Greer and [former state GOP executive director Delmar] Johnson may have personally benefited from using their GOP American Express cards without reporting or paying taxes on additional income.

Should the IRS find anything amiss in the tax records, it could result in "a full-fledged criminal probe."

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Margaret

what do you mean by that?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 21, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

The Wall Street Journal reports today that the leading recepiants of camapaign contributions from the financial industry in 2010 are Charles Schumer, Kristen Gillibrand, Harry Reid and Chris Dodd.

How can they propose meaningful financial regulatory reform when they are taking big money from the industry that is affected?

Posted by: mwhoke | April 21, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Why would anyone give money to Rs, when all they are going to do with it is use it to take rich college kids to porn bars and expensive spas and 4 star hotels for Michael Steele?

margaret, 37 doesn't get up this early. most of the chronically unemployeds on here start around 11.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Romney's playing the Long Game, one that extends beyond the R primaries. He's already got name recognition. He's betting that there will be enough hard-core conservatives running in 2012 that they will split the base vote into small chunks between them, leaving him room to win some primaries with the votes of whoever else votes in the primaries. If it works out, he'll be far enough in front by the time the movement conservatives agree on an single standard-bearer that he can coast in to take the nomination.

It's really the only way he's going to win the R nomination, He's not beloved by the base, but they will tolerate him if he's the nominee because they loathe the current administration.

It may not work, particularly if the social conservatives and neo-cons rally behind a single candidate early on. But if it works then Romney can market himself as a moderate in the general election because there won't be any film of him palling around with the SRLC or Tea Party.

Posted by: Gallenod | April 21, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

"I cannot believe the Fix is giving Romney props for the savvy way he endorses candidates and his purposeful avoidance of the lime light."

Perhaps WMR is waiting for the party to implode, after which he can swoop in, gather up the pieces and do some of his Bain Capital magic on them.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"The polling also suggests that most people expect Obama to replace Stevens, a liberal, with another liberal, which is, of course, what he will almost certainly do."

I am curious about what criteria The Fix uses to identify a potential justice as a liberal, conservative or moderate. For instance, does the Fix categorize Justice Sotomayor as a liberal, moderate or conservative; and why?

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

I cannot believe the Fix is giving Romney props for the savvy way he endorses candidates and his purposeful avoidance of the lime light.

Romney's endorsements have been comically timid and have been backed by miniscule cash flow from Romney's PAC. The candidates he has backed are all clear leaders before his endorsement and they will owe Romney nothing if they get elected. And Romney has nothing to fear about over exposure. In the last few months he has clearly avoided forums that he anticipated might not go his way: the TEA Party sleep-over, the Conservative prayer meeting in DC, and the Southern Republican circle-back-slap in NoLa.

Like Gingrich, Romney is going to be too long on the shelf by 2012 to be thought of as a winning candidate, even by his own party.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 21, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse


"Democrats maintain solid cash edge heading into 2010 midterms" - the liberal/progressive POST

Unfortunately for the Democrats Chris it doesn't matter the "Democrat Brand" is shot.

Can't wait for some Chris Cilliza "stories" on the bad Democrat brand.......lol

Posted by: allenridge | April 21, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

This is a significant haul considering the Dems are supposed to be demoralized and the victims of an "enthusiasm gap" with the Tea Party-fueled GOP.

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | April 21, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

this election is about jobs and with the thirty million plus out of work, the dems will lose...

Posted by: DwightCollins | April 21, 2010 7:39 AM | Report abuse

thats because soros and the other commies want to insure that obamachange continues...

Posted by: DwightCollins | April 21, 2010 7:31 AM | Report abuse

Is 37th trolling for a new outfit?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 21, 2010 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Under Health Care Reform, If you do not have medical insurance you can be penalized, but now you can easily find health insurance for your family under $40 http://ow.ly/1AqF1

Posted by: gitaavil21 | April 21, 2010 6:35 AM | Report abuse

Need a job? With new Obama Health Care Plan, we are going to insure additional 33 Million people. There is going to be huge demand for Medical Assistants, Medical Billing, Medical Coding, Pharmacy Assistant & Pharmacy Technician across the nation. We can help you get a training during weekends and evenings and get a degree in few months. With the degree finding a job will be easy, contact for more information at http://ow.ly/1Aqw9 this is your chance

Posted by: UnaCarlin | April 21, 2010 6:24 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company