Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Poll shows Democrats slipping, Obama dismisses impact

1. President Obama is deep in preparation for his state of the union address tomorrow but new CNN/Opionion Research Corporation poll numbers suggest that a single speech won't heal what's ailing Democrats. Just 45 percent of the sample said that it was a good thing that Democrats control Congress while 48 percent said it was a bad for the country that Democrats were in power. Those numbers compare very unfavorably to a June 2009 CNN poll (50 percent good for country/41 percent bad for country) and even less well to a Dec. 2007 poll (53 percent good/37 percent bad). And, while the overall favorability numbers for the Democratic Party have fallen over the past few months in CNN data, the GOP favorability numbers have bumped up a bit. (Both sides are at rough parity today; the Democratic party has a 46 percent favorable/46 percent unfavorable rating while Republicans have a 44 percent favorable/45 percent unfavorable score.) Perhaps most startling data point in the CNN poll is that seven in ten adults said that it was a good thing for the country that Democrats no longer have 60 votes in the Senate after the party's special election loss in Massachusetts. The sentiment clearly expressed in the data is that people like the idea of checks and balances on the two parties. After the 2006 and 2008 elections saw Democrats sweep into the majority and then broaden it considerably, the coming midterm election -- if this poll and others like it are to be believed -- could well be a natural move back toward middle ground for many voters who sided with Democrats over the last two cycles. Obama, for his part, is publicly dismissive of the current surveys, arguing that there is more to governing than positive poll ratings: "I don't want to look back on my time here and say to myself all I was interested in was nurturing my own popularity," Obama said in an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer. As we have said before, Obama has the luxury of riding out the current poll dip as he won't stand before voters until November 2012. House and Senate Democrats up for reelection this fall won't be so lucky.

2. House Republicans are rejoicing about the rejuvenation of their political prospects in 2010 but the one thing that could well hold them back from maximizing the gains the political landscape suggests they can make is a lack of necessary funds. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to a source familiar with their financial standing, will report that it ended 2009 with $16.7 million in the bank after raising nearly $56 million in the last year including $3.8 million in the month of December. (The DCCC is also carrying $2 million in debt left over from the 2008 election cycle.) While the National Republican Congressional Committee isn't expected to release its year-end numbers until later this week, at the end of November the committee had collected $33 million for the year and kept just $4.3 in reserve. Privately, Republican insiders acknowledge their fundraising is not where it could or should be given the level of excitement and the surfeit of targets they will have in 2010. (One of the main culprits, the sources say, is the lack of giving by Republican members of Congress to the NRCC -- a problem Chairman Pete Sessions is working to correct.) What's clear is that if Republican fundraising doesn't pick up substantially, the GOP could leave a number of winnable races on the table. Stu Rothenberg (of the Rothenberg Political Report) moved 28 races in Republicans' favor on Monday, meaning that he now carried 58 Democratic-held seats and just 14 Republican seats on his competitive race list. (Charlie Cook, a fellow political handicapper, rates 87 Democratic seats and 26 GOP districts as competitive.)

3. South Dakota Sen. John Thune (R) ended 2009 with $6 million in the bank for his Senate reelection race, a sum sure to drive talk that he is positioning himself for a run for national office in 2012. Over the final three months of the year, Thune raised $898,000, bringing him to $9.7 million raised since he defeated then Sen. Tom Daschle (D) in 2004. While Thune advisers insist he is focused on his reelection bid, not a single Democrat has announced against him and the state's March 30 filing deadline is rapidly approaching. The more likely scenario for Thune -- assuming he doesn't draw any serious opposition -- is that he begins the transition to exploring a bid for president in 2012 using his $6 million as seed money in the event he decides to run. Thune's defeat of Daschle has given him a national fundraising network and Thune has slowly but surely acquired a stable of talented political operatives who would transition rather quickly into consideration of a national bid. With the field even more wide open than it was in 2008, there are many within the party urging Thune to run -- believing that his charisma and youth give Republicans their best possible matchup against Obama. (He placed second behind former governor Mitt Romney (Mass.) in a recent poll of political insiders asked who the GOP nominee would be in 2012.) It remains to be seen whether Thune will take the leap but it's hard to see him not looking seriously at the race.

4. Rumors were already rampant that Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) is preparing to call it quits this week before her campaign inexplicably tweeted that their would be a "major announcement" today. The tweet spread around the web like wildfire before national Democratic operatives put it out by spreading the word that Lincoln was just announcing her fourth quarter fundraising numbers. (Folks, we have an early leader for the Fix's 2010 tone-deaf political move of the year!) Lincoln insiders insist that she has no plans to step aside despite poll numbers that show her losing to two little-known Republican state senators. A key development to keep an eye on: most insiders expect Rep. John Boozman (R) to announce his candidacy against Lincoln later this week. Watch to see if Boozman's expected announcement thins out what is a very crowded field. If Boozman can push the likes of state Sen. Gilbert Baker and businessman Curtis Coleman to the side and, in so doing, unite establishment GOP support behind his candidacy, Lincoln could well rethink her current plan to seek a third term in November.

5. A new Chicago Tribune poll suggests that Rep. Mark Kirk (R) and state Treasurer Lexi Giannoulias -- long the frontrunners for their party's Senate nods -- are comfortably ahead with just one week remaining before the Feb. 2 primaries. Kirk holds a wide 47 percent to eight percent edge over businessman Patrick Hughes, a lead largely attributable to Kirk's name identification advantage. The Democratic primary is slightly more up for grabs with roughly one in four voters saying they have not chosen a candidate. Among those who have made up their minds, Giannoulias leads with 34 percent to 19 percent for Chicago Urban League President Cheryle Jackson and 16 percent for former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman. Hoffman is, however, refusing to go down without a fight -- launching ads on Monday hammering Giannoulias as an insider and seeking to link him to disgraced developer Tony Rezko.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 26, 2010; 5:54 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Analyzing the David Plouffe addition and State of the Union (VIDEO)
Next: Stephen Colbert on Harold Ford (and a new New York Senate poll)


Evidently, the film maker was willing to hang out on the corner.


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 26, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Despite federal programs that have pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into homeowner tax credits, automaker bailouts and other measures meant to stimulate the economy, more than two-thirds of economists responding to a nationwide survey say the stimulus so far has failed to create jobs.

"The U.S. recovery from the Great Recession continues, albeit at a slow pace," said William Strauss, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, commenting on the latest quarterly survey from the National Association for Business Economics.

In a poll of staff economists at 75 private-sector companies and industry trade groups, the association found that 28% of the employers cut jobs in the last quarter of 2009, while only 13% added jobs and 59% held steady.

"The vast majority (69%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date," the report says.

Posted by: leapin | January 26, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

6. The conservative young filmmaker who tarnished the reputation of a liberal activist group with his undercover videos has been arrested for allegedly trying to bug Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in New Orleans.


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade
ACORN tarnished their reputation not the other way around. The filmmaker must have ben very curious as to who Mary was whoring herself out to this week.

Posted by: leapin | January 26, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

6. The conservative young filmmaker who tarnished the reputation of a liberal activist group with his undercover videos has been arrested for allegedly trying to bug Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in New Orleans.


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 26, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Blanche Lincoln's big announcement was that she will oppose reconciliation. The smell of one's own blood is a powerful motivator.

Posted by: Chippewa | January 26, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

looks or thoughts? Hard not to laugh at Nancy's popping eyes. rolling on the floor when Dingy speaks.

Posted by: drivl
Watch Nanny State during the State of the Union. She claps her hands like a pre-schooler watching Barney. (not Frank)

Posted by: leapin | January 26, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

looks or thoughts? Hard not to laugh at Nancy's popping eyes. rolling on the floor when Dingy speaks.

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

so which is funnier? Lib science or Lib economics?

Posted by: drivl
They are both designed for complete neocom statist control. The Communist Party USA has endorsed Obama's agenda. It says that a financial crisis and sustained recession are necessary to "break' the population into accepting government control.I can't say that is funny but the players are funny. Is Tim Geithner funnier than Al Gore? Is Nancy Pelosi funnier than Harry Reid? A matter of taste They're all a hoot.

Posted by: leapin | January 26, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

More than 100 manatees have been found dead in Florida waters since the beginning of the year, mostly victims of a nearly two-week cold snap.

Meanwhile Polar bears thrive.

al gore, check your messages.

Bucharest - A deep freeze gripping Europe claimed more lives on Tuesday as record low temperatures combined with snow and ice to disrupt travel, close schools and trigger emergency measures. (Snip) In Romania, one of the worst-hit nations, nine more people succumbed, the health ministry said, bringing its toll for the last six days alone to 31. With temperatures plunging as low as -32°C in the centre, authorities triggered an emergency measure.

so which is funnier? Lib science or Lib economics?

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Obowma says kick us, we're weak. the world complies:

Moscow - Libya is seeking to buy more than $2bn worth of Russian arms including 20 fighter planes, the Interfax news agency reported on Tuesday, citing a military-diplomatic source. The report came as Libya's defense minister was due to visit Russia in the latest sign of renewed co-operation between Moscow and the North African state (Snip) ''Libya is ready to buy around 20 fighter planes, at least two divisions of S-300PMU2 air defense systems

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I guess they weren't too impressed with the bowing and scraping from Obowma:

Just one day after a Der Spiegel report claimed that new intelligence acquired by Germany's BND offered conclusive proof that Iran's nuclear program had a military angle, a Revolutionary Guards commander on Tuesday declared that the country planned to inaugurate ''several new missiles and arms projects'' in February, Reuters reported. ''Iran's Defense Ministry will inaugurate several missiles and arms projects during the Fajr (Dawn) 10-day period, marking the victory of the 1979 Islamic revolution''

Nastiness is on the march in the world after the US surrendered its strength last year. Maybe a dutch painter can save us again.

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse


ON your global warming post - I AGREE there is a pattern of deception -

From the sample set of the tree ring study

To the claims about Antartica

To the claims about the fake data.

To be honest, I have no idea why they have to "adjust" any temperatures. WHY???

Use the raw data.

Then the warmists are asked for the raw data, and we are told it was thrown away a long time ago.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 26, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Someone has to have the guts to be honest with the American people, that we can't live on borrowed money forever, and tax increases are part of the solution - including tax increases on people who define themselves as 'middle class'.
Posted by: bsimon1
After the call from the gallery of “YOU STILL LIE”, the one that has borrowed from future years and generations will gather himself and outline his “solution”. It will not include middle class tax increases as he must now buy votes (a BO administration theme) but very well may include a middle class tax cut. (I know his yo-yoing gets confusing).

Posted by: leapin | January 26, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I am pretty sure Messiah does not realize that everyone is laughing at him. even with those ears!

although he did mention ruling for a single term. Perhaps reality is creeping slowly into his world.

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

sliowa1 writes
"Who knows it may be a result of increase revenue due to either a better performing economy or new taxes on banks and businesses or less expenditure due to less people on unemployment and most likely it’s a combination of a host of factors."

I agree with most of your post, including the disparagement of Speaker Pelosi. We're all in this together & all have to take responsibility for contributing our fair share. Regarding the budget itself, it is not reasonable to think that we can solve the deficit problem without fundamental reform to the tax code, or rolling back the Bush cuts, at a minimum. There is very clearly too little revenue coming in, and too many expenses going out. Unless you are advocating radical entitlement reform or radical cuts at DoD, there really aren't any silver bullets for balancing the budget or paying down the debt. And I don't think there's a majority, or even plurality in Congress that would accept either of those solutions. Someone has to have the guts to be honest with the American people, that we can't live on borrowed money forever, and tax increases are part of the solution - including tax increases on people who define themselves as 'middle class'.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 26, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Will the one, who controls the tides, be able to stop this with his newfound fiscal restraint?

Posted by: leapin | January 26, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

they will form a committee to report to a panel that will write a report that goes to a council that will be reviewed by a blue ribbon assembly.

After that everyone will have forgotten all about it.

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes you hope that a story cannot be true. This is one of those stories; the implications are truly mind-boggling if its even close.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that the amount of time FBI interrogators had with the EunuchBomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, prior to reading the terrorist his Miranda rights was all of fifty minutes. They spoke directly with Abdulmutallab long enough to send the FBI on a wild-goose chase for a second bomb on the airplane, and for hours before going into surgery they overheard him discussing his attack with anyone who would listen, including medical personnel treating his severe burns. When Abdulmutallab came out of surgery, the FBI decided to read him the Miranda rights despite having an exception for imminent threats — and the terrorist clammed up...

Gibbs can't say if Abdulmutallab was interr for < 50 mins. Says WH putting together a timeline now. Didn't exhaustive admin review do this?

Please tell me that they are not this utterly clueless.

Posted by: leapin | January 26, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 37thand0street

YES - The statist Demos use ignorance and a free lunch platform to obtain and maintain power.

Posted by: leapin | January 26, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

That would make perfect sense to someone who hasn't even the most fundamental understanding of science and weather systems. That said, have as much fun as you can with your "proof" while you have a life-supporting planet on which to have that fun.
It amazes me how many conservatives will defend to the death, their belief that Iraq had something to do with 9-11, of which there was absolutely no evidence; but will deny to the death global climate change and evolution, of which there are mountains of proof.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 26, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Let me be CLEAR

Obama drives the deficit up to $1.3 TRILLION - which is 3.5 BILLION DOLLARS a DAY

And Obama wants to go to the State of the Union and say "Let's Freeze it at this level."



Posted by: 37thand0street | January 26, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Yet another story of how propaganda trumped science.

The story so far: The United Nations’ chief global warming agitators, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issued a report a couple years back. It said, among other things, that the glaciers atop the Himalayas would be gone by 2035.

Now, it turns out there’s no science to back that up. The glaciers won’t be gone by 2035; the claim was bogus and was based on nothing more than a talking point in an old environmentalist brochure. Experts on the Himalayan glaciers said the claim is baseless.

Now, new twist: The guy who put the claim in the report, according to the Daily Mail, “admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”...

And are you surprised? This after leaked e-mails from the world’s leading alarmist scientists in Britain and America revealed that they were doing their level best to distort the science to spur political action toward their preferred ends.

It isn’t just the Himalayan glaciers. It’s a pattern of deceit.

Posted by: leapin | January 26, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse


Apparently it's true: the global warming numbers have been cooked.

The charts were also manipulated.

Everytime an aspect of global warming is investigated, it doesn't hold up - and we hear a very implausable set of excuses.

We were told that Antartica was melting - then satellite data came forward stating that the ice mass in Antartica was really increasing.

Then the climate models were faced with stable temperatures around the world.

And the warmists told us that global warming was going to show up first at the poles.

Doesn't it make sense that global warming would show up first where the carbon dioxide is produced - not some remote place ?

Well - now we find out that the warmists aren't really taking the temperatures at the poles - rather they are calculating what they think the temperatures are with temperatures much closer to the equator.

The whole thing starts to make no sense.

Then we find out they are faking the data in New Zealand - but that is the data they are using to calculate the temperatures in other regions.

The whole global warming story has fallen apart.

People are still out there clinging to a set of faked data - well alright.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 26, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

OK Obama is already spending

3.5 BILLION DOLLARS A DAY more than the government takes in

AND Obama says, Let's Freeze it at that level.

What a complete laugh.

In the late 1950s - Eisenhower's budget was going to go over ONE BILLION FOR THE YEAR - and there was such a fight within the cabinet - maybe a Secretary resigned - ONE Billion caused a major, major stir in that day.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 26, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to say this again - and see if someone follows me because it is pretty simple.

787 Billion Dollar stimulus program - divided by let's just say $30,000 a year per job.

That comes out to 26 MILLION JOBS.

In this recession, the country has lost about 7 Million jobs - and total unemployment is about 15 Million.

Unemployment went up - what did Obama do with the money ???


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 26, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe them either 37th. Like I literally can't believe them.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 26, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse


I really can not believe some of the stories about manipulation of data in the global warming saga.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 26, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse


“Doesn't it fly in the face of allegations of never-ending deficits? Doesn't it demonstrate efforts on the administration's part to clean waste & inefficency out of gov't?”

I would say I agree with you on a number of your posts and I think you are one of the more balanced on this site; however, I dare say that it’s the administration cost cutting efforts (unless you count the 100 million saved by the cabinet that Obama requested). I would point out that the CBO does not project an end to deficits in the near future. The report by CBO is modeled data based on certain assumptions and if CBO projects the economy performing at better than previously estimated then the forecast will be for smaller deficits. I have not looked at nor will I look at the report, but I have doubts that its the administration cost cutting efforts. Who knows it may be a result of increase revenue due to either a better performing economy or new taxes on banks and businesses or less expenditure due to less people on unemployment and most likely it’s a combination of a host of factors.

When Obama took over in January part of the previous budget was not passed since the previous administration was setting smaller budget, but Obama restore most of the previous cuts and tacked on extra as well. Then declared the budget was old news (some scalpel). This administration and the previous administration have no shown no restraint in spending money.

“People seem to buy into the GOP/TEA fantasies that you can unendingly cut taxes while not cutting benefits & the budget will magically fix itself. In the real world, its a little more complicated than that.”

First off I do not buy into the TEA party agenda, nor do I buy into Pelosi’s tax the other guys mentality either. You are right that the world is complicated but just taxing rich will do little to get the economy rolling either.

Posted by: sliowa1 | January 26, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Back in the 1994 midterm elections when Bill Clinton's policies got rejected by the voters, he changed them and moved to the political center. Don't look for Comrade Barack Obama to do the same though, after his Socialist Communist ones got rejected by the voters of Mass., N.J., and Va., nor when he'll get his butt kicked come the November midterms.
Reason? Barack Obama is a Socialist Communist ideologue who'se following the script of Saul Alinski's book "Rules for Radicals". Obama was a Socialist Communist for all of his adult life, and he won't change now that he's in the catbird seat. He'll try to ram his Socialist Communist health care agenda down the throats of the American people no matter what. He could care less if 60% and more of the American people don't like it, because he knows best. After all, he's far superior to us peons and ordinary worker rabble.

Posted by: armpeg | January 26, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Consumer confidence in January hit its highest level since September 2008 in data published on Tuesday.

A decline in job losses in recent months and a resurgent stock market have helped improve consumers' mood after the protracted U.S. recession that ended last year.

U.S. consumer confidence rose for the third straight month in January, driven mostly by an improvement in present-day conditions, according to a private report released on Tuesday. The Conference Board, an industry group, said its index of consumer attitudes rose to 55.9 in January from an upwardly revised 53.6 in December.

The median forecast from analysts polled by Reuters was for a January reading of 53.5.

The data on Tuesday also showed consumers' expectations are at their highest in more than two years.

Posted by: drindl | January 26, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

How did Obama get the deficit up to

1.3 Trillion Dollars ???

The stimulus and TARP were supposed to be one-time deals

So how did Obama get the deficit so high?

AND does it make ANY SENSE for Obama to highlight the deficit problem ???

From a communications standpoint - highlighting one's weak spot is not really a great idea.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 26, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Republican primaries are getting increasingly amusing as the rabid dogs attack each other:

A Republican candidate for the U.S. House from Illinois has apologized for sending out a mailer that suggests his primary opponent condones human trafficking, The Hill reports.

State Sen. Randy Hultgren last week sent out the mailer, which claims that his Republican opponent, Ethan Hastert, "was employed by the same law firm that lobbies on behalf of foreign mining companies with deplorable human rights records and a history of human trafficking."

Hultgren's campaign released a statement on Monday saying Hultgren had recorded a robo-call apologizing to Republican voters.

"I believe that this was a mistake as it has taken the campaign discourse away from the issues. Because I did this, I feel that I owe you an apology," he said in the call.

Hastert's campaign had lashed out at Hultgren, calling the claim a "vicious lie" and a "personal attack."

Hastert is the son of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R).

Posted by: drindl | January 26, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

OK so Obama jacks the deficit up to


and then he says he wants to freeze it ???

That is like saying he is doing 15 hits of coke a day - and he is going to freeze it at 15 hits a day - and that will solve the problem.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 26, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I believe this much is CLEAR - CRYSTAL CLEAR - THIS WEEK:

Obama and the democrats can not even manage their own party correctly -


Think about it.

Think about it. Think about the gibberish coming from Obama and the White House this week.

How many jobs did they save or correct - look at the website - the website has not been updated since October.

Obama's performance in office has been pathetic.

This is when everyone starts to remember all the lies and deceptions which Obama has been pushing all year - and they start to wonder what exactly has been going on all this time.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 26, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Why should he release his SAT score? Many of you will just deny that its real anyway.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 26, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

sliowa1 writes
"News flash the estimates are for 1.35 trillion rather than 1.4 trillion hardly news worthy accomplishment"

Doesn't it fly in the face of allegations of never-ending deficits? Doesn't it demonstrate efforts on the administration's part to clean waste & inefficency out of gov't? People seem to buy into the GOP/TEA fantasies that you can unendingly cut taxes while not cutting benefits & the budget will magically fix itself. In the real world, its a little more complicated than that.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 26, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse




See "comments" section, at:
OR (see "stories" list).

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 26, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

The fourth step is "Experiment":

This is the part of the scientific method that tests your hypothesis. An experiment is a tool that you design to find out if your ideas about your topic are right or wrong. It is absolutely necessary to design a science fair experiment that will accurately test your hypothesis. The experiment is the most important part of the scientific method.

The only means by which a scientist can prove whether a hypothesis is correct is if it is possible to prove it wrong. This is known as the principle of "falsifiability." Noted scientist Karl Popper developed this principle as a methodology for determining true science from "non-science."

Global warming morphed into the amorphous term "climate change" for the very reason that it makes the hypothesis impossible to disprove. Since the Earth's climate continually changes, all extraordinary climate phenomena -- i.e., earthquakes, floods, extreme heat, extreme cold, tsunamis, hurricanes, and absence of hurricanes -- can be attributed to "climate change."

Note actor Danny Glover's logic in making the case that the Haiti earthquake was caused by "global warming." Global warming, a.k.a. climate change, becomes "non-science," a.k.a. nonsense.

Finally, the "Conclusion":

Remember, a science fair experiment isn't a failure if it proves your hypothesis wrong or if your prediction isn't accurate. No one will take points off for that. A science fair experiment is only a failure if its design is flawed. A flawed experiment is one that (1) doesn't keep its variables under control, and (2) doesn't sufficiently answer the question that you asked of it.

Judge this science project yourself. Were the variables well-controlled? Are the multiple hypotheses sufficiently supported? Were flaws in the experimental design intentionally suppressed? I give the IPCC scientists a resounding F-.

But why would formerly-respected scientists lie, cheat, and subvert science at the behest of the U.N. and various world governments? The power that controls carbon dioxide output will effectively control every living thing on Earth. Isn't that reason enough? Q.E.D., hypothesis proved.

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

The second step in our science fair project is "Hypothesis":

The hypothesis is a simple statement that defines what you think the outcome of your experiment will be.

Substantially, the IPCC actually proposes four separate hypotheses:

1) The Earth is getting warmer.
2) Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are significantly increasing.
3) An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide causes the Earth's temperature to rise.
4) Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are anthropogenically generated (man-made).
Disproving any one of these negates the entire political climate change argument. None of these hypotheses have yet been proven. In fact, some IPCC scientists now admit that the Earth is cooling, refuting hypothesis #1.

Are atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increasing at a significant rate? According to NOAA, the current amount is estimated to be almost four-hundredths of one percent (about 387 parts per million) of our atmosphere. At the current rate of increase, in another five years, it will still not quite be four-hundredths of one percent. In fact, one new study has shown that carbon dioxide levels have remained stable for the past 160 years due to the Earth's capacity to absorb the gas. So hypothesis #2 is in doubt.

There is also much dispute over whether increases in carbon dioxide levels precede or lag behind increases in global temperature. Additionally, there is significant evidence that the changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide do not match the output of human emissions and may be primarily due to natural phenomena. These data cast doubt on hypotheses #3 and #4.

In the third step, "Prediction," the following advice is provided:

An incorrect prediction doesn't mean that you "failed." It just means that the experiment brought some new facts to light that maybe you hadn't thought about before. The judges at your science fair will not take points off simply because your results don't match up with your hypothesis.

However, the judges will take points off if you intentionally hide results that don't agree with your hypothesis. All facts must be considered using the scientific method, and contrary data should be pursued aggressively.

Contrast that with the behavior of the IPCC climate scientists. As we now know from the released "Climategate" e-mails, scientists including University of East Anglia's Phil Jones and Penn State University's Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann actively bullied other climate scientists and suppressed dissenting evidence.

As is well-known by now, U.K. climate data has been faked and manipulated at East Anglia. Breathtaking revelations are now being brought to light that New Zealand and Russian data were also fabricated. The final straw is that now the U.S. government itself, through the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), has been caught red-handed manipulating the data in support of the global warming hypothesis.

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I use as my reference "Understanding and using The Scientific Method," a how-to guide to school science fair projects from

The Scientific Method is a logical and rational order of steps by which scientists come to conclusions about the world around them. [...] Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and deductions to make these conclusions, just like you will use the Scientific Method in your science fair project.

The first step of the process is "Observation":

For this stage of the Scientific Method, it's important to use as many sources as you can find. The more information you have on your science fair project topic, the better the design of your experiment is going to be ...

How well did the IPCC do in collecting the observations that have been used to develop their hypothesis? Well, the term "cherry-picking" seems apropos. None of their erstwhile "scientific" observations have included solar cycle or water vapor data, or the sixteen other sources of climate change -- only carbon dioxide data, which is highly suspect.

All of the observations of supposedly increasing global temperatures and resulting melting glaciers have been made by this U.N. agency with no substantiating objective evidence to support it.

In fact, a new report is out in which the IPCC admit that their predictions of melting glaciers in the Himalayas by 2035 was based entirely on unscientific "speculation" rather than the scientific evidence they claimed to have. "Criminal dishonesty" is a term that comes to mind in place of "speculation."

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

'In all the ways that matter, the Abramoff Scandal is an unexamined scandal. Most of it has been swept under the rug of history. This was the largest corruption scandal to hit Capital Hill since Teapot Dome and yet, almost nothing was really done about it. Yeah, Jack went to jail and it is harder to buy a staffer lunch or fly your Congressman to a tropical island in the Pacific or a golf trip to Scotland, but that is about it. Abramoff’s partners in Congress are mostly still there and a few that were run out of office, like Richard Pombo and J.D. Hayworth are running to get back on the gravy train this November. Their names should be mud, but because the Abramoff scandal was never really exposed for what it was and what it did, these weasel get to try and return.
It is like all of Jack’s old friends are getting the band back together again. I can hardly wait for the announcement about DeLay’s comeback, but in reality most of Jack’s merry band of corruptionists never stopped playing the game.

I suspect most folks would be surprised to learn that neither the House nor the Senate ever conducted any investigation into the connections that many elected officials and Hill staffers had with the scandal. Yes, there were a handful of very narrow Congressional investigation, but each of these intentionally avoided following up any trail of corruption that led to a staffer or a member of the House or Senate. And they boxed up far more documents than they release. For example, McCain’s Indian Affairs Committee investigation into Abramoff collected over 750,000 pages of documents. Far less than 5,000 of those pages were ever released and McCain had these docs buried at the National Archives until 2030 or so (I think they’re a couple of isles over from the Ark of the Covenant, but I digress).'

Posted by: drindl | January 26, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Great new film about DC corruption:

'From the early reviews of 'Casino Jack and the United States of Money' it looks like this film should be a wake up call for Americans of all stripes about the corrupting influence of money on our politics. '

'His partner was Tom DeLay, the most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives — but, of course, DeLay’s fall from grace, and Abramoff’s conviction in the scandal that brought them both down, is old news. What’s astonishing, and important, about Casino Jack is that it lays out how the system of funneling cash for favors that Abramoff turned into a new kind of government machine, with the money often hidden behind fake nonpartisan organizations, didn’t go away; it took over. It was Jack Abramoff who elevated the lobbyist to the status of shadow legislator. Casino Jack is really a look at how, and why, the government no longer works — how the culture of Washington was effectively rebuilt to sell itself to the highest bidder.'

Posted by: drindl | January 26, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

What were your SAT and LSAT scores and your GPA at graduation from Columbia?

You are one of the youngest presidents ever, with one of the leanest track records in elected or executive office. Virtually all your predecessors served in the U.S. Congress for many years, or served as vice president, or in a cabinet, or a high military command position, or as governor of a state, prior to being president. (See Appendix.)

Yet you served in the U.S. Senate for only one year before starting your run for president, had never held any other national office, had never been a governor of any state, had never held any executive position, and had not even been in the military. We really know very little about you. We have not even seen your real birth certificate, meaning the official "long form" version.

We knew President Bush's SAT scores and his grades at Yale. We also knew Al Gore's SAT scores and grades at Harvard. And John Kerry's grades, too. Yet without ever releasing any test scores or transcripts, you have been proclaimed as "probably the smartest guy ever to become president" by a presidential historian of such credibility that PBS puts him aside noted plagiarist Doris Kearns Goodwin on its News Hour.

So what exactly were your test scores and grades? Did you take any economics courses? Was your SAT score higher than 1206, which was President Bush's score?

You told us your eleven-year-old daughter Malia's score on a third-grade science test. How about telling us your test scores?

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

"A new Chicago Tribune poll suggests that Rep. Mark Kirk (R) and state Treasurer Lexi Giannoulias -- long the frontrunners for their party's Senate nods -- are comfortably ahead with just one week remaining before the Feb. 2 primaries."

If this happens, the Republicans will have a good to excellent chance to win in Illinois, because Giannoulias is the oiliest of the sleazy Illinois politicians—and the Rezko connection means felony indictments for Giannoulias, as it does for Obama and his pals.

Illinois is the crookest of all the states and I doubt that anyone, liberal, conservative, or independent, can understand just how systemically corrupt our state has become, because of the Chicago Democrat machine.

There have been a few corrupt Republicans (one of whom is in prison now), but it's a Democratic state and ALL of them should now be in prison. And that includes the sitting president of the United States and all the Chicago thugs on his staff.

Posted by: Jerzy | January 26, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

It can be a powerful drug. I’ve seen many of my media friends swept off their feet by its incredible power and influence. Hopeium. Oh, the mere sight or sound of the junk can cause the most callous and caustic reporter to wither and melt like Nancy Pelosi during a free Botox party.

The first time the media heard Barack Obama use the phrase “Hope”, they were hooked.

It explains what caused NBC’s Chris Matthews to get the “thrill up going up my leg”, as Barack Obama spoke. It explains why ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and his wife cried on Inauguration Day. Maybe it explains what Evan Thomas of Newsweek was thinking when he proclaimed Obama is, “sort of god.” Here’s the full quote so you have the context:

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.

Timothy Leary would love this. That’s some powerful stuff. High on hopeium.

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

The self-denial of the WH is staggering, and for all of those commentators that are seeking a re-play of the Clinton escape, they also need to come out of self-denial.

The WH excoriates Fox news when they seem to spouse divergent views; they called Rasmussen Reports names when their poll numbers match reality instead of their wishes, and are now ignoring Massachusetts (and Virginia and New Jersey) to plunge forward in a suicidal pact.

The question remains; are congressional Democrats still willing to plunge down the cliff with Mr. Obama?

If Mr. Obama thinks that his turn to a Hugo Chavez "Populist" mode is going to do the trick, he better read,
"10 Actions President Obama Must Take to Save His Presidency"

…….as of now, he is way off and heading for the cliff!

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | January 26, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"The issues in this case were so clear that even Justice Kennedy, the swing vote on the court, delivered a clear decision for once, calling censorship censorship. And striking it down in this 5-to-4 ruling.

Call it a victory for freedom for now"

LOL. The slave licks the boots of his corporate masters. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

Posted by: drindl | January 26, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse


Why do you keep on saying the Senate candidate in Illionois is Lexi - it is Alex.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 26, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Bismon and Andy,

News flash the estimates are for 1.35 trillion rather than 1.4 trillion hardly news worthy accomplishment, but when you have nothing to show you have to tout something. This past week the Des Monies Register noted that Warren Buffet had soured on the D in power. He did not directly point a finger at Obama, but he was not pleased with how the administration had out sourced the stimulus bill to the congressional D nor was he pleased with the populist rhetoric of Obama. He questioned why the two car companies and AIG were not being taxed since they are the main reason TARP is not returning funds.

Posted by: sliowa1 | January 26, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse





Posted by: danders5000 | January 26, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

the court decided that the First Amendment means what it says. It took a while for the court to reverse its original, ill-advised approval of these restrictions on free speech, but it finally has done so.

You can hear freedom ring in the yelps of those who would like to limit corporate and union spending to only their campaigns. Barack Obama, for example. The president immediately denounced the decision as having given "a green light to a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics."

This great populist from Goldman Sachs -- its employees contributed $995,000 to his presidential campaign -- doubtless would like to see the old stampede of special-interest money continue to flood his campaign coffers. Indeed, his definition of a special interest doesn't seem to include the labor unions that donated all that money and all those workers to his presidential campaign. Hypocrisy, thy name is Campaign Finance Reform.

The issues in this case were so clear that even Justice Kennedy, the swing vote on the court, delivered a clear decision for once, calling censorship censorship. And striking it down in this 5-to-4 ruling.

Call it a victory for freedom for now

We have our own special set of rules as liberals. We will accept public financing, unless we don't. We will be transparent, unless we won't. We will be frugal. OK that was just plain comedy.

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

And guess who wins from the new rightwing Supreme Court -- whi, it's big corporations -- what a surprise!

"Rich Masterson, a Republican political consultant whose firm, CampaignGrid, develops internet ad campaigns, said his phone had been ringing off the hook with potential clients whose eagerness to develop campaigns for the 2010 election was given a major boost by Thursday's ruling. Many of these corporate players can now "accelerate their planning," he said, describing the mood as "cautiously optimistic." That's especially true of corporations in heavily regulated industries -- the financial sector, for instance -- who have a lot to gain or lose from what happens in Washington."

Now, the very same foreign-owned financial industry who created last year's financial crash can buy more seats for their republican puppets so that they exert even greater control over people and can wreak even greater havoc than ever. This country will be dead broke and on its knees before they are through with it.

You thought your bank/credit card company treated you like sh*t before? Just wait and see how high your interest rates go now. See how much harder it will get to borrow, to buy a house to run a business. If the rightwingers honestly had any brains, they would understand who their real enemies are. But they won't because they're suckers.

Posted by: drindl | January 26, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

the new CNN/ORC numbers confirm what everyone but the moonbats in the west wing knows.

It is full moon time for the McGovernites. Only Rahm Emanuel can save the President from the suicidal plot to "reconciliate" health care legislation. And he will. The Harry and Nancy show is almost over.

Posted by: miglefitz | January 26, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

One year out, the tally:

You've increased the national debt by a first-year record, from $1.6 trillion to more than $12 trillion total, with 2010 White House end-of-fiscal-year projections topping $14 trillion and end-of-decade projections topping $24.5 trillion -- even exceeding the gross domestic product projection for 2019 of $22.8 trillion.

Despite your promise to cap unemployment at 8 percent by borrowing and bailouts costing taxpayers trillions of dollars, it has climbed to 10.2 percent and shows no sign of decreasing. And a record 14 percent of homeowners are either in foreclosure or behind by at least one mortgage payment.

You've purchased and controlled enormous segments of the banking, automobile and (soon, you hope) health industries with taxpayers' money, but you refuse to call it socialism. At the very least, you've begun to turn America into a European-style country, in which the government sector dominates the private sector. No wonder a new quarterly Bloomberg Global Poll revealed that 77 percent of investors now regard you as "anti-business."

You promised that you would provide "the most sweeping ethics reform in history" in Washington. Yet your administration has been riddled with questionable Cabinet appointees and a host of suspect czars.

You promised that you would be "committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government." Yet you've had more exclusive meetings, backroom negotiations, events closed to the media and clandestine sweetheart deals than any previous administration in its first year.

Despite your oath of office to defend the U.S. against all potential enemies, foreign and domestic, and your reluctant increase in U.S. forces in Afghanistan, you have pacified those who harbor terrorists, fought for the rights of combative detainees, allowed Gitmo detainees and terrorists to come to the U.S., enabled the enemies of Israel, and contributed -- via your tolerance and political correctness -- to homegrown terrorists, such as Fort Hood murderer Maj. Nidal Hasan. You've become a chief cheerleader for the "blame America" crowd and painted America before other countries as arrogant, intolerant and nonreligious (or non-Christian).

Mr. President, your presidency is flailing. Your plan is failing. Your popularity is faltering. Our union is falling apart. We are not better off than we were a year ago, and it's time to quit pretending we are. It isn't helping our country to present false hope. It is an audacity of denial. The truth isn't "yes, we can"; it's "no, you haven't."

State of the union grade: F.

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Bsimon, I think it is little pieces of news like that that will help lead to an Obama resurgence.

Drindl, did you support Udal's proposal when Bill Frist proposed it four years ago??? I would be willing to bet that you didn't. Could you imagine the amount of damage that Bush could have done if he didn't have the check of the 49 democratic members of the senate just a few years ago. The filibuster rule is there for a very good reason, and I for one would like to see it stay.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 26, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Maybe this is why:

The Obama Administration and Congress get an “F” for failing to prepare for a biological terrorist attack – a “national security” risk that is getting greater “by the day." (Snip) The bipartisan WMD commission is today issuing a “report card” on how the U.S. government has responded to its December 2008 recommendations for steps needed to prepare for the threat that terrorists will strike using nuclear or biological weapons.

Posted by: drivl


We've got great contingency plans to keep gov't going, but there's not a lot that can be done to save civilians. The facts are that biological and to a lesser extent dirty nuclear weapons can be easily concealed and no longer require extensive investment to create.

There's not much we can it's time to stop living in fear.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 26, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

As for the State of the Union address, I couldn't care less. Just another speech that, in a year, everyone will have to admit he lied about (e.g. closing GTMO from last year). I had hoped that another liar like Bill Clinton would ever get into the Oval Office, but Obama makes Bubba look like a saint!

Posted by: JakeD | January 26, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse










Posted by: danders5000 | January 26, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

MEanwhile, after all that chumminess, the obvious faliure of obama policy marches on:

North Korea issued two no-sail zones near its disputed western sea border with South Korea, officials said Tuesday, a possible indication the country may be preparing to conduct missile tests.

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Up is Down!
Left is Right!
War is Peace!

Obama says whatever his pollsters think we want to hear. Sometimes he will take both sides of an issue in the same speech, separated by a few minutes.
Words are for getting votes.
Sure, Obama wants to reduce the deficit, and will say so when necessary, but he also wants to spend money on a lot of new initiatives, and when forced to decide he has chosen the spending.
Talk about "Crying Wolf", this president is the most cynical propagandist, the slipperiest politician I have ever witnessed.

Posted by: johnL1 | January 26, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse


At the same time, Politico adds that some tea party activists are considering staging protests outside the National Tea Party Convention. “It would really look bad for tea parties to be out there protesting the tea party,” said former Tea Party Nation member Anthony Shreeve.

Posted by: drindl | January 26, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I am all in favor of checks and balances to keep one party from having too much power, but I simply am not willing to forget the massive damage and corruption of the Republican party. It's like choosing between a delinquent (Dems) and a hardened killer (Repubs). The Democrats are small potatoes in the destruction of this country when you look at clowns like DeMint, Gingrich, Wilson and the lot. They have an agenda to break the country down and sell it to corporate interests while profiting themselves.

That is not a direction I support.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 26, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

What's also great abuot Thune -- he's wiling to take the US to war to bring christianity to other countries -- a regular Crusader:

In a 2005 interview with Christianity Today, Thune supported invading Iraq, expressing a hope that this would result in greater religious freedom: "Liberating Iraq from decades of tyranny and dictatorship, bringing about political freedom, will create an atmosphere of where religious freedom will come to Iraq. And that opens the door, obviously, for the Christian faith there as well."[13]

Posted by: drindl | January 26, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

But maybe he does understand precisely what’s going on and doesn’t have the wherewithal to revisit his assumptions, get into the weeds of a new agenda, offend old allies on the Left, and morph — as Bill Clinton did — into an effective centrist. Maybe he’d just rather hang it up in three years. In a bizarre interview, that’s what it sounded like: “President Barack Obama said that he ‘would rather be a really good one-term president’ than have two mediocre terms.” Well, the danger here is his being a really bad one-term president. But after only a year in office, it is, to put it mildly, an odd comment. Of all the times to avoid sounding remote, nonchalant, and snooty, this is it. Yet that’s exactly how Obama sounded in an interview he must know will be widely picked over for clues as to the direction of his presidency. Even the New York Times concedes:

Mr. Obama is not the first president in trouble to frame the choice as sticking to his principles instead of worrying about his personal political fortunes. … But it is usually a measure of how much difficulty a president is facing when he starts talking about even the prospect of being a one-term president.

The reasons for the president’s reaction to his self-made predicament – defiance, anger, stubborn indifference — are at some point unknowable. For the country and for his party, the reason is less important than the specter of a president who seems disconnected from the public and somewhat lost.

Unfortunately, we’ve come to see that Obama doesn’t shine in a crisis. Not in the aftermath of Iran’s June election and revolt. Not after Fort Hood. Not after the Christmas Day bombing. Not after his own political wipeout. It takes him multiple chances to sound serious and engaged. He doesn’t relate on a visceral level with the public. It should no longer come as a surprise, but it is of concern. If he really does want a second term and wants to be more than a mediocre president, he’s going to have to step it up. And quickly.

so now even barry himself has admitted his failure and acknowledges hisglide down to lame duck one termness. Yet somehow his arrogance won't permit the notion of his failure. We won't reelect him because of his smashing success?

got to be a liberal.
It goes along with their science, economics and business sense.

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse


I know that you copy & paste all of that, but maybe you could read it first? How is it a "fact" if Phillips refused to confirm or deny said fact? Do you have independent confirmation from other sources?

Oh well, at least your cohort won't post again today, 1/26/10 (he "insists" he doesn't post here more than 6 times per day). Do you want to take that pledge as well?

Posted by: JakeD | January 26, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

WaPost front page teases:
"Source: Federal budget deficit will improve slightly"

That would be an interesting announcement to go into the SOTU with: despite falling revenue & a poor economy, the Obama admin is managing the Fed budget such that the deficit is improving.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 26, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Maybe this is why:

The Obama Administration and Congress get an “F” for failing to prepare for a biological terrorist attack – a “national security” risk that is getting greater “by the day." (Snip) The bipartisan WMD commission is today issuing a “report card” on how the U.S. government has responded to its December 2008 recommendations for steps needed to prepare for the threat that terrorists will strike using nuclear or biological weapons.

Posted by: drivl | January 26, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Why the teabaggers will never get anywhere:

'Tea party activists are set to gather next month at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, TN with the goal of “bringing the Tea Party Movement leaders together from around the nation.” However, infighting among tea party activist and leaders has already cast a shadow on the inaugural teabagger gala. Much of the controversy surrounds convention “brainchild” Judson Phillips, a Tennessee lawyer who controls the for-profit corporation Tea Party Nation, because of his intention to make money off of the event:

“I think it is a great con of people making money off the passions of others,” RedState’s Erick Erickson told the Washington Independent recently. A Nashville-based tea party activist called Phillips’ Tea Party Nation “dishonest” and that it is “hijacking the tea party movement.” And Politico reported last week that three major sponsors have withdrawn support because of “the convention’s unusual finances.” Other groups followed suit:

Besides the issue of Phillips “money making venture,” other tea party activist have balked at the convention’s cost and the fact that Tea Party Nation is paying Sarah Palin $100,000 to attend — a fee that Phillips would not confirm or deny in a recent radio interview. “When I’ve talked to our members, they’ve said this is entirely too expensive,” said Jenny Beth Martin, the national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots. It “smells scammy,” Erickson said, adding, “A $500+ per person fee to a for-profit organization run by people most people have never heard of is neither populist nor accessible for many tea party activists.”

Posted by: drindl | January 26, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

"there are many within the party urging Thune to run -- believing that his charisma and youth give Republicans their best possible matchup against Obama."

Nevermind, uh, policy. Moonbat's comment about experience is not half as clever as he thinks: most Dems thought in 2006 & 2007 that Obama would not, should nut run in 2008. But Obama proved to be a remarkable campaign tactician & enormously motivating speaker. He was able to out-organize the Clinton machine, which is no small achievement. Now, back to Thune. What does he bring to the table? If Obama is vulnerable in 2012, would the GOP really be smart to nominate a guy that suffers from the same 'experience' allegations that the GOP has been hitting Obama with for the last 3 years? If experience is the issue in 2012, who will voters go for, the guy who's been doing the job for 4 years, or the guy who's been voting 'no' in the Senate?

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 26, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Too funny -- Senator Loserman keeps on sinking...

'Lieberman has also suggested that he would “support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the elections in 2010.” In a separate part of the interview, Lieberman suggested that he was open to endorsing Republican Linda McMahon in a Senate race against Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal if she wins her primary with former Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT).

It’s not clear, however, how helpful Lieberman’s support would be for any candidate in the Senate race. A recent Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey found that Lieberman had “a 25 percent approval rating with 67 percent of his constituents giving him bad marks.” To demonstrate how disliked Lieberman is by CT Democrats, PPP notes that “Barack Obama’s approval rating with Connecticut Republicans is higher than Lieberman’s with the state’s Democrats.”

Posted by: drindl | January 26, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

''Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) has introduced a resolution that could end the filibuster, instead allowing the Senate to proceed on matters by a simple majority vote. “[P]artisan rancor and the Senate’s own incapacitating rules often prevent us from fulfilling that duty,” Udall said in his remarks on the floor of the Senate.'

An excellent idea that would allow the will of the people to once again be executed in Congress.

Posted by: drindl | January 26, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Although Sen. Thune has an advantage with a lackluster field of competitors in the GOP, he'd better be a kick-ass campaigner and fundraiser. I notice that Chris didn't mention Pawlenty, who shares some of the advantages of Thune.

I can't figure Romney, who seems to have disappeared from the fray. His lack of personal investment in other races and issues seems strange--unless he's worried about peaking too soon. I've always felt that presidential politics was a 24/7 sport.

Posted by: bulldog6 | January 26, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

"Folks, we have an early leader for the Fix's 2010 tone-deaf political move of the year!"

Its going to take more than a mis-tweet to bump the Coakley campaign from the top 4 or 5 spots.


Posted by: bsimon1 | January 26, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

CC, I have asked before and I am starting to feel that Obama's speech on Wednesday may be the point when the Obama resurgence begins...

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 26, 2010 8:43 AM

Man, you're funnier than Conan! Do you also feel a tingle down your leg?

Posted by: Hembo | January 26, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Elijah, Exactly. The thing that Reagan had that Obama doesn't is a Congress that was controlled by the other party so he could blame them for the problems of the country. The fact that the GOP now has to participate may be a bad thing for their electoral hopes, especially since they are facing a right-wing that will crucify them if they try to pass anything that is middle ground.

Now don't get me wrong, I wish the democrats had 70 seats in the senate cause then they could amend the constitution to give DC statehood. But since that ain't gonna happen I think this may be good for the democrats in the long run. I have said it before and I am thinking more and more that it may be true, that Scott Brown's election was the Peak of the GOP's little surge and that they dont' have the leadership or the orginization to keep it going for 9 more months.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 26, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Elijah, I would bet that Pence goes down to Bayh. Bayh can take the mantle of an independent voice, and he can raise a ton of money.

Also Parker I agree that the poll is bad for Democrats, but it also not a glowing sign for the GOP. I think this mostly has to do with the fact that the GOP is seen by alot of independents as the the Tea-Partiests and that scares them. If it comes down to a Democrat that you may think are lackluster verses a GOP Tea-Party wackjob the Democrat wins hands down (see NY-23). Now if the GOP nominates people who are seen as moderates (even though they might not be) then they will win (ie McDonnel, Christie, and to an extent Brown).

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 26, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Probably the same way Reagan felt at this point in his presidency.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 26, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

CC, I have asked before and I am starting to feel that Obama's speech on Wednesday may be the point when the Obama resurgence begins. We all know that he is one if not the greatest public speaker this country has seen since MLK. And although I agree that speaches alone won't fix all our problems, they can have a tremendous effect on the general mood of the country.
All of the numbers that are presented that say that the Democrats are down and out ignore the fact that we are at the bottom of the worst recession in 80 years, and unemployment is extremely high right now. I could see a situation that Obama gives a very strong speach and basically takes full responsibility for the current situation we are in. THEN when the recovery (which has already started) begins to show signs of improvement in the unemployment market Obama will get all the credit. I would be willing to bet that in 4 weeks the numbers for Obama will start to take a turn north. Then you will see the overall democrat numbers turn north as well.

The thing is now that the Demcrats don't have a 60 seat majority, they label the GOP as obstructionists of the President's policies. If I were the Democrats in Congress I would pass the senates version of the Healthcare Bill and then move on to a new Job's bill, Climate Change legislation, and bank reform. They will take a short term hit for the Healthcare plan but in three months when the unemployment numbers drop below 9.5% then it will be forgotten.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 26, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

How does he feel about being a really below average one termer?

Time for some new promises. The old ones aren't fooling anyone any more.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 26, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Gatecrasher, Pence will run. I lived in Indiana for 30 years until last fall, and have been involved in politics through most of the last 10 years. I have NEVER met a more ambitious person than Mike Pence. He's trying to milk the story. I would submit to you however, that the GOP might be better off leaving Bayh where he is. He's practically a Republican anyway. I miss his father.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 26, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Memo to President Obama: "First, Do No Harm"






A secretive Homeland-directed multi-agency "coordinated action program" continues to use high-tech cell tower- based microwave and laser weaponry to silently, invisibly torture, impair, and physiologically and neurologically entrain -- in effect, enslave -- many thousands of unjustly and unconstitutionally "targeted" Americans, right here at home.

These Americans, entire families, also are subject to relentless surveillance, financial sabotage and police-protected community watch vigilante stalking, vandalism and other acts of government-tolerated domestic terrorism.


See: (Journalism groups -- Reporting):

"U.S. Silently Tortures Americans with Cell Tower Microwaves" •
"Gestapo USA: Fed-Funded Vigilante Network Terrorizes America"
OR (see "stories" list)

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 26, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

The senate is looking bad for libs. Pretty sure losses in Delaware, Nevada, Illinois, Arkansas, north Dakota and more.

The house smells like over 50 seats to switch.

A bloodbath laid directly at the feet of the inept messiah.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 26, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Have liberals changed their mind and now demand prerequisite accomplishment and economic knowledge as a condition for high office?

What a difference a year makes.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 26, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

That poll showed some bad numbers for the Dems, but what's more important is that that no party came out looking good. Americans may not want a Dem supermajority, but they don;t want the GOP in charge, either.

Posted by: parkerfl1 | January 26, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse

Thune as a possible presidential candidate is a joke. There is no way that he will be able to energize the Tea-Party wing of the party, and without them he doesn't have a clear path to the nomination. Romney beats him on the economic front, and he has no major legislation to hang his hat on. Plus he has no national name ID, and that will be a neccesary attribute to compete with Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Palin.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 26, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Has Mike Pence decided on IN senate yet? Rasmussen have him in the lead over Bayh, 47-44, which would be a major coup for the NRSC.

Posted by: Gatecrasher | January 26, 2010 7:00 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company