Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Republican National Committee rocked by resignations

1. The resignation of Republican National Committee chief of staff Ken McKay and the decision by media consultant Curt Anderson to sever ties with the committee marks a public airing of fissures that have marred the organization for much of Chairman Michael Steele's tenure.

Steele's remaining allies cast McKay's departure -- and the promotion of deputy chief of staff Mike Leavitt -- as a long overdue move that will set the committee on the right path heading into the midterm election this fall. Leavitt won praise from, among others, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie who touted him as an "experienced political hand who knows the chairman well and how best to maximize his strengths."

But, those allies were in a clear minority among the political professional class, much of which has long disliked/distrusted Steele and saw McKay's ouster as the latest sign of a chairman who seeks to eliminate dissenting opinions. Anderson, who had played a central role in Steele's surprise victory last January, had stepped back from day-to-day involvement with the RNC several months ago -- leaving McKay as the lone voice of opposition to the chairman, according to several informed sources.

What's abundantly clear is that the RNC infrastructure that Steele put into place in the early part of 2009 is no more. In addition to McKay and Anderson, former RNC communications director Jim Dyke is no longer affiliated with the committee and a series of staffers -- including communications director Trevor Francis and press secretary Gail Gitcho -- have also left.

The next step for Steele and the RNC is uncertain. His two top advisers -- Leavitt and communications director Doug Heye -- are Steele loyalists, both of whom worked on his unsuccessful 2006 Senate campaign.

Steele's primary mission in the coming days almost certainly will be to reassure anxious donors that the sky is not falling and that pulling out their dollars is the wrong move.

The decision by major donor Sam Fox not to continue in his unpaid position with the committee is an ill omen in that regard as is the formation of American Crossroads, a group of former RNC officials planning to spend $50 plus million in the 2010 midterms.

Can Steele (and his RNC) recover from the series of body blows he/it have endured of late? It won't be easy but we never say never in politics -- John McCain's 2008 presidential primary comeback taught us that lesson.

2. Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R) has put $20 million more of her own money into her race for California governor, bringing her total personal donation in the contest to date to an astounding $59 million.

Whitman, a billionaire, has said she will put as much as $150 million of her own money into the race -- an amount that would shatter all personal donation records in the state.

Whitman's personal donations to date have worked wonders for her standing in the polls. An independent poll released Monday showed Whitman with a 60 percent to 20 percent lead in her primary race against state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and ahead of state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) by a 44 percent to 41 percent margin in a general election matchup.

That same poll showed that three-quarters of all California voters had seen Whitman's ads -- perhaps not terribly surprising that in the first 11 weeks of 2010 she spent upwards of $27 million, the majority of which went to television commercials.

Poizner has sought to use Whitman's personal spending against her in the primary but, so far, to no avail. And, Democrats, fearful of Whitman's checkbook, have formed an outside group known as "Level the Playing Field 2010" aimed at, well, leveling the financial playing field.

ALSO READ: Former representative Tom Campbell raised $1.6 million in the first three months of the year for his Senate bid in California, a total that virtually ensures former HP executive Carly Fiorina will outspend him in the June 8 Republican primary.

3. Arkansas state Sen. Gilbert Baker launched the first ads of his bid for the Republican Senate nomination Monday with a distinctly anti-Washington message.

"Washington is broken and Congress is the problem," Baker says -- citing the vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) as images of Rep. John Boozman, Baker's main competition in the Republican primary and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) are shown on screen. "We have to stand up to President Obama and put Arkansas values first," says Baker.

Baker trails Boozman by double digits in most publicly released polling in advance of the May 18 primary but clearly believes that running against Washington is the key to a comeback.

As we've written before, TARP is becoming an increasingly contentious issue in primaries -- particularly on the Republican side -- as it has rapidly become for voters a symbol of everything they don't like about Washington. If Baker's numbers start to move in a significant way, Republican (and Democratic) candidates across the country will take notice.

4. Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown on Monday endorsed Charlie Baker, the Republican businessman running for governor in the Bay State, a rare instance of the GOP's newest national star using his political capital to help fellow candidates.

Brown recorded a robo-call for Baker in advance of the state's April 17 Republican convention in which Baker will compete against Christy Mihos who ran and lost in 2006. Baker is considered a heavy favorite over Mihos both at the convention and in the Sept. 14 primary.

Baker is the third Republican that Brown has endorsed since winning a special election on Jan. 19. The others are Sen. John McCain, who finds himself in a contested primary race against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth in Arizona, and state Rep. Jeff Perry, who is running in a contested primary for the seat of retiring Massachusetts Rep. Bill Delahunt.

National Republicans believe Baker has a strong chance of repeating Brown's victory this fall thanks to his strong fundraising -- $2.3 million in several months of fundraising last year -- and Gov. Deval Patrick's (D) continued weakness in the polls.

Expect Brown to get more involved for candidates as the election nears -- and as he sets up his political operation in earnest. There's little question nearly any Republican running for office this fall would love to have Brown campaign with them.

5. It's just six days until the April edition of "Politics and Pints," our monthly trivia night of general revelry. It all goes down from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Capitol Lounge. Prizes will be awarded to the winners and the runners up while the team with the best/most creative name -- as picked by yours truly -- will win official Fix T-shirts.

Be there! (And, yes, we will be reminding you relentlessly of "P&P" over the next six days.)

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 6, 2010; 6:22 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: RNC chief of staff Ken McKay resigns
Next: Five ways Michael Steele could come back

Comments

.I am not a rascist but American was founed by white Christian people and when people who have goals completely destructive to the founders illegatimately come to power you can only expect that we will defend it.

Posted by: SavedGirl | April 8, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

I am not a rascist but American was founed by white Christian people and when other people are put in positions of power there will be trouble. This points not only to Steel, but "president" Obama

Posted by: SavedGirl | April 8, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I am not a rascist but American was founed by white Christian people and when other people are put in positions of power there will be trouble. This points not only to Steel, but "president" Obama

Posted by: SavedGirl | April 8, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

What is Jerry Brown is doing for his 72nd birthday? http://bit.ly/9Rw0og

Posted by: magrant | April 7, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

GO MCCAIN!!!!!!! WE NEED YOU IN WASHINGTON!!!!!!!

Posted by: antidonkey | April 7, 2010 12:48 AM | Report abuse

The truth is that democrats love to walk around and claim credit for Civil Rights.


But that is not the real story.


The story is the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act in 1875.


It was the democrats who REPEALED that Act, and then spend 80 years terrorizing blacks, aligning themselves with the KKK and hanging blacks from trees.


It was the democrats who were behind the Jim Crow laws - and the Dred Scott decision as well.


So who are the bad guys ?


What you have is people who caused ALL the trouble - now running around pointing fingers at EVERYONE ELSE.


What is the real racism - the Jim Crow laws and aligning with the KKK - or anything that has happened since the 1970s ???


This is why the democrats are so TWISTED IN THEIR LIES THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 6, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Ah, I understand now. Thank you for explaining that, Polls.

Posted by: JakeD3 | April 6, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse


DDAWD, 12BarCrawl, broadwayjoe


There is NOTHING MORE RACIST than a democrat talking about a BLACK REPUBLICAN.


Think about it for a moment - democrats have the attitude that "BLACKS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THEIR OWN OPINIONS, THEY ALL HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE DEMOCRATS."


If a black person does not agree with a democrat, there is HATE.


The democrats have the attitude that A black person DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH THE DEMOCRATS.


There is nothing MORE RACIST THAN A DEMOCRAT TALKING ABOUT A BLACK REPUBLICAN.


THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE ATTITUDE THAT THE COLOR OF A BLACK'S SKIN SHOULD DETERMINE THEIR POLITICAL OPINIONS.


THAT IS RACIST.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 6, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

JakeD3 asked 37th:

Does that mean a black Republican talking about a white Democrat is RACIST too?

37th has only said:

There is NOTHING MORE RACIST than a democrat talking about a BLACK REPUBLICAN.

Thus we know only that it is LESS racist for a black Republican talking about a white Democrat. We cannot know from the axiom whether it is racist or not, or what is the scale of the racism, if any.

Be content with understanding the concepts of "more" and "less" from today's lesson.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | April 6, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD, 12BarCrawl, broadwayjoe

Practically ALL of the slaveholders were democrats.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 6, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse


DDAWD, 12BarCrawl, broadwayjoe


There is NOTHING MORE RACIST than a democrat talking about a BLACK REPUBLICAN.

Think about it for a moment - democrats have the attitude that "BLACKS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THEIR OWN OPINIONS, THEY ALL HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE DEMOCRATS."


If a black person does not agree with a democrat, there is HATE.


The democrats have the attitude that A black person DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH THE DEMOCRATS.


There is nothing MORE RACIST THAN A DEMOCRAT TALKING ABOUT A BLACK REPUBLICAN.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE ATTITUDE THAT THE COLOR OF A BLACK'S SKIN SHOULD DETERMINE THEIR POLITICAL OPINIONS.


THAT IS RACIST.

.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 6, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Does that mean a black Republican talking about a white Democrat is RACIST too?

Posted by: JakeD3 | April 6, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse


DDAWD, 12BarCrawl, broadwayjoe

There is NOTHING MORE RACIST than a democrat talking about a BLACK REPUBLICAN.


Think about it for a moment - democrats have the attitude that "BLACKS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THEIR OWN OPINIONS, THEY ALL HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE DEMOCRATS."

If a black person does not agree with a democrat, there is HATE.


The democrats have the attitude that A black person DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH THE DEMOCRATS.

There is nothing MORE RACIST THAN A DEMOCRAT TALKING ABOUT A BLACK REPUBLICAN.


THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE ATTITUDE THAT THE COLOR OF A BLACK'S SKIN SHOULD DETERMINE THEIR POLITICAL OPINIONS.

THAT IS RACIST.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 6, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd, that kind of thinking has hurt Texican Rs here, but not black Rs. See:

http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/mar/04/negative-name-recognition/

Carrillo is one of the Rs I usually vote for - a good solid regulator of the O&G industry, although certainly not unfriendly to the drillers. He lost, after 7 years on the Commission, in the R Primary to an unknown. OTOH, Michael Williams, the black R who heads the RR Commission, is well known and would beat a white R other than say Perry or KBH or someone else with big name recognition. I do not vote for Williams, BTW.
Also, our CJ of the Supremes, Wallace Jefferson, is the best justice [actually a pretty good one] on an undistinguished high court. He is a black R who would not be beaten by a newbie white guy. But a spanish surname in an R primary can be deadly here.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 6, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"The only question is: Will Republicans vote for these black Americans?

How about the Rev. Faulkner and Allen West? See my post @ 11:46.

Posted by: 12BarBlues"

A few years ago, I think it was 2006, there was a study done. It found that you get a lot of Republicans crossing over when their guy is black.

It's tough to be a black Republican. You're not going to get the black vote since they typically vote in self-interest and you are not going to get the Republican vote since they typically don't vote for blacks.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 6, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Berry's opening day pitch was the perfect metaphor for his administration.

the pitch was weak and way off to the left. It missed the strike zone (the middle) by a mile. the team lost 11-1 in a blow out. berry wore loafers and couldn't name a single player on his favorite team. this despite practicing all week to appear as if he wasn't the weakest pitcher ever to "grace" the mound, putting off important foreign policy deadlines in the meantime.

He wore a jacket from one team, a hat from another and when asked, stated a preference for a third.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | April 6, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

12barblues: let me give you some odds on Star Parker's chances for victory: zero point zero.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 6, 2010 11:49 AM0."
-------------------------
The only question is: Will Republicans vote for these black Americans?

How about the Rev. Faulkner and Allen West? See my post @ 11:46.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 6, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

12barblues: let me give you some odds on Star Parker's chances for victory: zero point zero.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 6, 2010 11:49 AM0."
-------------------------
The only question is: Will Republicans vote for these black Americans?

How about the Rev. Faulkner and Allen West? See my post @ 11:46.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 6, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

More notable new blacks running on the Republican ticket:

"• The Reverend Michel Faulkner is running as a Republican in Harlem to replace the ethically embattled Rep. Charles Rangel. An inspirational speaker who has served as a pastor in northern Manhattan for the past 20 years, Faulkner is also known for having played a season for the hometown favorite New York Jets. He is campaigning on an anti-corruption, pro-growth platform, saying” I believe that the American Dream has been stolen by greed and corruption, causing hard-working, peace-loving people to become apathetic about democracy and, when that happens, democracy does not work.”

• Allen West is a highly decorated retired Army lieutenant colonel who resigned with full benefits after an investigation for misconduct in Iraq. His troops were accused of harshly interrogating an Iraqi police officer they believed had given information to insurgent forces that targeted U.S. soldiers. West was accused of firing a pistol near the man’s head. When asked if he would act the same way during a subsequent inquest, West defended his actions saying, “If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can.” He campaigned unsuccessfully for Florida’s 22nd District in 2008 and is trying again in 2010."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 6, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

More notable new blacks running on the Republican ticket:

"• The Reverend Michel Faulkner is running as a Republican in Harlem to replace the ethically embattled Rep. Charles Rangel. An inspirational speaker who has served as a pastor in northern Manhattan for the past 20 years, Faulkner is also known for having played a season for the hometown favorite New York Jets. He is campaigning on an anti-corruption, pro-growth platform, saying” I believe that the American Dream has been stolen by greed and corruption, causing hard-working, peace-loving people to become apathetic about democracy and, when that happens, democracy does not work.”

• Allen West is a highly decorated retired Army lieutenant colonel who resigned with full benefits after an investigation for misconduct in Iraq. His troops were accused of harshly interrogating an Iraqi police officer they believed had given information to insurgent forces that targeted U.S. soldiers. West was accused of firing a pistol near the man’s head. When asked if he would act the same way during a subsequent inquest, West defended his actions saying, “If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can.” He campaigned unsuccessfully for Florida’s 22nd District in 2008 and is trying again in 2010."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 6, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

doof, I thought Brown got credit for turning Oakland around in a fiscally responsible way. Is that history or fiction? Or am I mis-remembering?

Did I read that the RNC cancelled taking their young recruits to a NC paramilitary training camp? Surely they would cancel such an event - but was such an event actually planned? Inquiring minds want to know.

BTW, I do believe Ds have conducted "biz meetings" in strip clubs, too. I believe it without admissions in the press, because I have watched the antics of the TX Lege for 44 years. From this zoo we have elected both Rs and Ds to Congress. We always think the lobbyists are so sweet in Austin, taking their daughters with them to meetings.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 6, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse


TO: mark_in_austin who wrote:
“…If I were in CA I would surely back Campbell against Fiorina in the R Primary. I do not think much of Boxer, but the direction of the Rs is such that I might vote for her in the GE, although I would not like that. In less toxic times I would want her out and think Campbell the better legislative choice…”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If you like Campbell so much, maybe you vote for him in Texas and get him out of our hair here in California.

You don’t know California politicians. Here in California, it’s hard to find a Republican who isn’t totally corrupt. Even when they do get in office, they end up being thrown out for stealing money.

The only Republican who has held up here is Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that’s probably only because his wife is a Democrat.

No thanks, we’ll stick with Barbara Boxer. She’s been a very good and effective leader for us here in California.

No! Let Michael Steele stay!

He's doing a great job for the Democrats.

All Michael Steele is doing is giving the American People a behind-the-scenes look at how Republicans runs things, you know, spend spend spend, private planes, 5 star hotels, money is free and there's more where this came from, you know -- living like a king on easy street.

More donations please, or Michael might have to take a commercial airplane (Oh the horror!).


Posted by: lindalovejones | April 6, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

More notable new blacks running on the Republican ticket:

"• The Reverend Michel Faulkner is running as a Republican in Harlem to replace the ethically embattled Rep. Charles Rangel. An inspirational speaker who has served as a pastor in northern Manhattan for the past 20 years, Faulkner is also known for having played a season for the hometown favorite New York Jets. He is campaigning on an anti-corruption, pro-growth platform, saying” I believe that the American Dream has been stolen by greed and corruption, causing hard-working, peace-loving people to become apathetic about democracy and, when that happens, democracy does not work.”

• Allen West is a highly decorated retired Army lieutenant colonel who resigned with full benefits after an investigation for misconduct in Iraq. His troops were accused of harshly interrogating an Iraqi police officer they believed had given information to insurgent forces that targeted U.S. soldiers. West was accused of firing a pistol near the man’s head. When asked if he would act the same way during a subsequent inquest, West defended his actions saying, “If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can.” He campaigned unsuccessfully for Florida’s 22nd District in 2008 and is trying again in 2010."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 6, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

No! Let Michael Steele stay!

He's doing a great job for the Democrats.

All Michael Steele is doing is giving the American People a behind-the-scenes look at how Republicans runs things, you know, spend spend spend, private planes, 5 star hotels, money is free and there's more where this came from, you know -- living like a king on easy street.

More donations please, or Michael might have to take a commercial airplane (Oh the horror!).


Posted by: lindalovejones | April 6, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Yet another jaw-dropper for a president whose stock-in-trade is manufacturing a false image. Yesterday, after botching the first-pitch at the Washington Nationals' home-opener, the president was asked a simple question: Who, while growing up, was your favorite Chicago White Sock? Obama, who lived and worked in the Sox' South Side ‘hood, might have named a number of players-Bill Melton. Richie Allen. or Moe Drabowsky.

Instead, he whiffed. Seems the White Sox fan can't name a White Sock (and refers to the well known former Chicago landmark Comiskey part as "Cominsky" park). This is typical of Obama, who when not lecturing, is micro-managed to avoid conversation. When off-script, with real people, he isn't the One, enlightening the masses, he's a misinformed phony. The media, unfortunately, won't tell it like it is.

And the president still looks really bad tossing out the first pitch at the National's opening day game against the Phillies

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | April 6, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Wow, it's stooge central in here today. all that typing and monkeys still make more sense.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | April 6, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

12barblues: let me give you some odds on Star Parker's chances for victory: zero point zero.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 6, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

doof, I thought Brown got credit for turning Oakland around in a fiscally responsible way. Is that history or fiction? Or am I mis-remembering?

Did I read that the RNC cancelled taking their young recruits to a NC paramilitary training camp? Surely they would cancel such an event - but was such an event actually planned? Inquiring minds want to know.

BTW, I do believe Ds have conducted "biz meetings" in strip clubs, too. I believe it without admissions in the press, because I have watched the antics of the TX Lege for 44 years. From this zoo we have elected both Rs and Ds to Congress. We always think the lobbyists are so sweet in Austin, taking their daughters with them to meetings.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 6, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

No! Let Michael Steele stay!

He's doing a great job for the Democrats.

All Michael Steele is doing is giving the American People a behind-the-scenes look at how Republicans runs things, you know, spend spend spend, private planes, 5 star hotels, money is free and there's more where this came from, you know -- living like a king on easy street.

More donations please, or Michael might have to take a commercial airplane (Oh the horror!).


Posted by: lindalovejones | April 6, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

More notable new blacks running on the Republican ticket:

"• The Reverend Michel Faulkner is running as a Republican in Harlem to replace the ethically embattled Rep. Charles Rangel. An inspirational speaker who has served as a pastor in northern Manhattan for the past 20 years, Faulkner is also known for having played a season for the hometown favorite New York Jets. He is campaigning on an anti-corruption, pro-growth platform, saying” I believe that the American Dream has been stolen by greed and corruption, causing hard-working, peace-loving people to become apathetic about democracy and, when that happens, democracy does not work.”

• Allen West is a highly decorated retired Army lieutenant colonel who resigned with full benefits after an investigation for misconduct in Iraq. His troops were accused of harshly interrogating an Iraqi police officer they believed had given information to insurgent forces that targeted U.S. soldiers. West was accused of firing a pistol near the man’s head. When asked if he would act the same way during a subsequent inquest, West defended his actions saying, “If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can.” He campaigned unsuccessfully for Florida’s 22nd District in 2008 and is trying again in 2010."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 6, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

You can't beat an allenridge "wolfpack press" post...for mind-numbing stupidity, that is.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 6, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

One of the more notable black candidates on the Republican ticket:

"• Scripps Howard columnist Star Parker, author of the controversial Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It and a college-campus speaker for the Clare Boothe Luce Institute. She is running in California’s 37th District, which includes parts of Compton and Long Beach."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 6, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

You can't beat an allenridge "wolfpack press" post...for mind-numbing stupidity, that is.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 6, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

More about black candidates in the Republican party:

"Whatever you call them, this group of 32 address the elephant in the room in American politics—that the Tea Party protests and Republican caucuses have been largely devoid of the diversity which characterizes modern America. Their candidacies offer a degree of absolution for this uncomfortable fact."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 6, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

No one can say the Republicans are not trying:

"Republicans have recruited their biggest roster of African-American candidates ever. John Avlon on how the GOP hopes to use this group of 32 to help close their diversity deficit.

There are 32 African-American Republicans running for Congress in the first midterm elections of the Obama administration. That is more than the entire number of black Republicans who have served in Congress in U.S. history...

All the 23 African Americans who served in Congress before 1900 were Republicans. But since the civil-rights era, there have been only three African-American Republicans elected to Congress—Massachusetts' Ed Brooke, Connecticut's Gary Franks, and Oklahoma's JC Watts—while there have been 93 Democrats. In 1956, Dwight Eisenhower won 39 percent of the African-American vote. By 1980, only 10 percent voted for Reagan; against Barack Obama, John McCain was only able to win 4 percent of the black vote."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-18/the-gops-new-race-card/

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 6, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD


I glad that you are "pretty sure" that the Republicans want the Court challenges to go away.

How did you arrive at this conclusion - extensive conversations with Republicans over the past few weeks ???

Were those conversations before or after you were calling the Republicans RACISTS for not wanting Obama's largest tax increase in American History?


What you do not understand is the Republicans do not believe that massive taxes and a massive government program is the answer to ANYTHING.

So I'm pretty sure that the Republicans want the Court challenges.


AND if Obama had kept his word, and made a compromise with the Republicans, we would not be in this situation.

YOU are in this situation because of Obama's LYING -

Funny how Clinton got the democrats into trouble by LYING and now it is Obama who was LYING.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 6, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

'I'm actually pretty sure that Republican lawmakers want these court challenges to go away. '

O, not Pawlenty, dawd. He's willing to waste tons of Minnesota taxpayer money to file a frivolous suit against HCR, even though he can't prevail, because he has to prove his idiot bonafides to the rubes.

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

allenridge


I always think about the political landscape of the State when you consider which Senate races are close and which are not - a State like Wisconsin is a whole lot close to split evenly than other States, like California.


Wisconsin is a prime chance for a pick-up in the Senate - no matter what.

Look at the demographics - the Republicans have a strong base electorate to work off of.

In California, you really need someone like Arnold to run - even if his numbers are bad now, if he was in the race, the story would be different.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 6, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

"Both parties tend to overestimate their victories and misinterpret them as ideological shifts". You sure got that right, jaxas70. The two party system, enforced by the lack of proportional representation, is killing our future.

Posted by: newageblues | April 6, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Geez, allenridge. Google Tommy Thompson RINO and look at all the hits you get. Like Branstad, he spent freely and expanded state government while he was Governor. Except for their electability, no one in the GOP or conservative movement would be looking at them.

Neither one would pass any purity test from the right. Branstad's one of those acedemic-elitist types and Thompson's a reformer!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 6, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse


You should definitely give your money to the RNC, so they can use it to take young J. 'Pippy' Smeedley-Smythe and his friends Chip and Buffy to a polo match or regatta.

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I'm actually pretty sure that Republican lawmakers want these court challenges to go away. They don't want to see the bill repealed and they don't want repeal to be their message. The AG actions will just keep their politically dangerous message in the spotlight.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 6, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

allenridge


Is that right ?

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 6, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"The numbers don’t lie.

The percentage of Americans viewing “The Tea Party movement” favorably: 37 percent. The percentage of Americans with a positive image of “socialism”: 36 percent. (Both sources, Gallup)."

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

'Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson has rebuffed Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s request to challenge the constitutionality of health reform, and has announced that she will instead file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the federal government. In a formal letter responding to Pawlenty’s request, Swanson defended the the new law:
'
Having carefully reviewed the applicable Supreme Court precedent and other legal authority, it is my legal opinion that health care — which comprises over one-sixth of our country’s economy — substantially affects interstate commerce. See Gonzales, 545 U.S. at 17 (noting that Congress has the authority to regulate even purely local activities if the local activities are part of a “class of activities” that have a substantial affect on interstate commerce). The United States government has been involved for years in many aspects of health care, including Medicare and Medicaid, both of which were enacted in the 1960s, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, enacted in the 1970s, and the Public Helath Service Act, enacted in 1944. '

Indeed, a growing number of Attorneys General are refusing to participate in the lawsuits, arguing that the effort would “waste taxpayer dollars on a political stunt.”

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

The POST along with the rest of our corrupt liberal/progressive MSM wolfpack press are CREATING a story where there isn't one.......now in more important news:

"We're still waiting on a decision from Tommy Thompson about whether he'll challenge Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI). But a new poll today gives him more to think about as he explores that possibility, with a St. Norbert College Survey for Wisconsin Public Radio (400 RVs, 3/23-31, MoE +/- 5%) showing him with a double-digit lead.

Senate General Election Matchups
Thompson 45
Feingold 33
Generic Independent 14
Und 7"

.......Yeah our left-ist press doesn't have time for this type of news....sad

Posted by: allenridge | April 6, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, drindl. I wish the "Our taxes are too high when the Democrats are in office" crowd would start looking at the numbers and face reality. Some people and companies NEVER pay taxes, no matter who is in office.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 6, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Republicans need to get their house in order. After November they will run the whole country except for the idiot in the Oval Office so they have a ton of work to do to get America headed back to propserity and free enterprise. That Socialist crap of Obama will just have to be defunded till GOP has the White House and then all repealed. What a disaster Obama has been After the idiot Bush having another inept incompetent is almost more than the country can take.

Posted by: cdorbg | April 6, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

here's one of the major problems we face -- corporate deadbeats:

'Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid no taxes to the US:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi.

Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research.

Big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers.

In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

jaxas70


You make some good points but then you SKIP OVER what the Clinton administration did.


Much of the DEREGULATION which you HATE was the Clinton administration - the trade-deals, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and basically letting Wall St do whatever it wanted.


George W. Bush was distracted by the war on terror from the first year.

One important point - Clinton and the democrats were in the middle of the mortgage situation - FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC WERE PACKED WITH CLINTON APPOINTEES WITH LONG-TERM TERMS WHICH RAN FAR INTO THE BUSH YEARS.


So, your initial thoughts are right, but you really have to look at what Clinton did - who did what - Barney Frank at the Banking Committee, Chris Dodd on the Banking Committee in the Senate.


Remember HILLARY ran for the Senate in 2000 - and she was FUNDRAISING ON WALL STREET IN THE YEARS PRIOR TO THAT ELECTION.

Some atmosphere for regulation, huh? Sounds more like the deregulation went hand-in-hand with Hillary raising money on Wall Street - and then constantly raising money in New York and Wall Street from 1998 - 2008.

Chris Dodd was trying to rasise money from Wall Street interests too when he ran for President.

So, to say that the democrats had nothing to do with the financial crisis is simply NOT CORRECT.


Instead, the democrats have been in the middle of every problem.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 6, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

This just says it all. I feel sorry for middle class people who think it represents them.

"None of the co-chairmen returned phone calls, nor did the Young Eagles’ Mid-Atlantic regional director, J. Roby Penn IV, a 29-year-old heir to an oil and gas fortune, who describes himself on his website as a “ranked polo player and avid sailor” but who hadn’t given any money to the RNC since 2006.

“We do events that a specific demographic will like, so it will love us and give us money and vote for us,” said David Norcross, a former RNC general counsel and current committeeman who was briefed by Steele on the RNC’s plan to revamp its reimbursement and expense-approval process for all programs in the wake of the controversy.
...
The Young Eagles are “a fun group,” the former member said. “If you’ve got a little insecurity complex, but you’ve got money — what a cool group to hang out with.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CFC92495-18FE-70B2-A88860B653CBCA13

'
J. Roby Penn IV, a 29-year-old heir to an oil and gas fortune,'

this IS the republican party.

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

More people prefer tea parties than Obama 48-44.

Liberal spending has jumped the shark. Liberals can't be trusted.

Posted by: Moonbat | April 6, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Gov. Deval Patrick is extremely unpopular in my state of Massachusetts and Charlie Baker has built up a huge war chest - far outpacing Patrick in fundraising. Baker's Republican opponent, Christy Mihos, has his own financial problems and some key campaign staffers have quit. State Treasurer Tim Cahill, a former Democrat, running as a independent, could take votes away from Baker.
Cahill, running as a Scott Brown wannabee, got national publicity for his criticism of healthcare reform, stating it would bankrupt the country. He's also been accused of being a pawn for Patrick in the race.
Patrick has a real uphill battle to win re-election. He had no experience for the job and it has shown in his lack of governing ability and some costly rooky political mistakes.

Posted by: pjsilva | April 6, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

If the banks have recovered so quickly - the bailout has to be re-examined. Specifically, WHAT HAPPENED, what lines were we fed and what was true and what wasn't when the Federal gov't gave these people billions.

The actions of the banks like Chase - raising credit cards rates and cutting back credit lines - call into question all the credibility of what happened.

At the time, the people were called on to help the banks - that WE were all in it together - that the bailout was ULTIMATELY meant to help MAIN ST. - well that is not what happened - the banks have taken care of themselves - and they have told everyone else that they don't care at all about anyone else's financial health.

Specifically, the foreclosures should have been stopped in exchange for the bailout-

Instead of that, we get this vague pay-back, when they want - but they raise credit card rates and give the American People their own money and say their debt is paid - but your credit cards are not paid.


In addition, the Fed has given these banks ZERO PERCENT INTEREST RATES THIS WHOLE TIME.

A great deal of people have been talking about the topic - what if we let the big banks go under - had the Feds step in and take-over the banks and run them.

Remember the "toxic assets" - when the Feds said they would take those "toxic assets" the banks said, "no, we want to keep the toxic assets"


Basically, the big banks wanted the US taxpayers to FINANCE THEM UNTIL THEIR TOXIC ASSETS WOULD GIVE THEM A BIG PAYOFF.

So, the truth is probably a great deal worse than you think.

.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 6, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Cryos, you tell liberals to grow up. That conservatives have been dealing with "it" for years, it being your childish notion that there has been this giant, liberal bias in the media which I presume means that absent this bias conservatives would have long ago been successful in implementing their limited, government, low tax, Manifest Destiny foreign policy and broad expansion of the liberties and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. Ridiculous!

In fact, history argues forcefully against that addled proposition. Until Obama was elected, conservatives controlled the White House for 20 of the previous 28 years. During that time, tax cut after tax cut was implemented over the years doing nothing more than adding to our debt. Business was gleefully deregulated giving us nothing but headaches like the Savings and Loan bailout in the 80s, a Wall Street Panic in the late 80s and early 90s because of the growing deficit that prompted even George H. W. Bush to break his own pledge and raise payroll taxes. After 8 years of economic expansion under Bill Clinton and a Pay-Go regime in Congress, America left the 20th century with a budget surplus which newly elected conservative President George W. Bush promptly dispatched with yet another round of supply side tax cuts in addition to saddling us with unpaid for wars.

That is how we got to the decrepit condition we now find ourselves in. Indeed, maybe if we had had a liberal bias in the press during those years, it might have kept us from sliding into this financial oblivion courtesty of a succession of conservative administrations and Congresses.

Posted by: jaxas70 | April 6, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

"There's little question nearly any Republican running for office this fall would love to have Brown campaign with them."


Why?"


They love Cosmo Boy... maybe it's the pink leather hot pants.


Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

"The big fundraising event at the Philadelphia Phillies home opener is canceled. So is the one at the steeplechase race in Virginia horse country and the weekend at the North Carolina paramilitary training compound. No definite word on the professional bull-riding rodeo this fall, or the trip to meet British Conservative Party leader David Cameron in London.

The Republican National Committee’s Young Eagles program to attract wealthy young donors is on hold, thanks to the bad publicity generated by a now infamous visit by members of the group to the West Hollywood “bondage” club Voyeur that has made the RNC and its chairman, Michael Steele, the target of late-night TV jokes and outraged conservatives.

But aside from any accounting and appearance issues raised by the RNC’s picking up the tab at Voyeur, there is a more pragmatic question for many Republicans: Is the cash actually raised by the Young Eagles worth the high cost — and potentially bad press — of the group’s nontraditional and sometimes edgy events?


“Is it a good idea to get young people fired up about the party and maybe giving money to the party when they’re 25 or 30?” said John Grotta, a GOP direct-mail consultant who worked at the RNC in the 1980s and 1990s under Chairmen Frank Fahrenkopf and Haley Barbour.

“Yes, in theory, it is. But the devil’s in the details, and throwing junkets at them is not the way to go about it. There’s no way [the Young Eagles program] is even breaking even now.”


And to think, there's still some people gullible enough to think these clowns should be running the country again.

This is exactly the way they DID run it -- like one big party for a few rich elites that the rest of us are now picking up the tab for.

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

If there is one thing I have learned about politics is that nothing stays the same for very long. For the past several months, republicans have savored an uptick in their favorability ratings but not because of anything positive they have done. Mostly it is attributable to the economic conditions and to the seeming inability of the Congress to do much of anything.

The American voter is notoriously fickle. They may be down on Obama and democrats at the moment but I guarantee you that if this economy begins to hum again--and all the signs point to that already beginning--no amount of Tea Party anger and emotion and energy is going to work against that positive development. Both parties tend to overestimate their victories and misinterpret them as ideological shifts. American voters are quite candidly too dumb to even begin to apprehend what an ideology even is much less try to pin down their own. They are largely apolitical until election time draws near.

I guess my advice to any prognosticator is this: Whatever is the flavor of the month today, if its not to your liking, stick around. It is bound to change to a new flavor maybe more to your liking.

Posted by: jaxas70 | April 6, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

BREAD AND CIRCUSES AND OTHER OPIATES OF THE MASSES -- AND MASS MEDIA...

This focus on bread and circuses plays into the hands of those who are HIJACKING politics and the U.S. government to pursue a peculiarly authoritarian ideological agenda -- enabled by the naivete of those who think "it can't happen here."

IS THE U.S. MILITARY TELLING PRESIDENT OBAMA THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT THE CAPABILITIES AND DOMESTIC DEPLOYMENT OF MICROWAVE/LASER/RADIO FREQUENCY DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS?

IF SO, SHOULDN'T POTUS REALIZE THAT THESE SILENT, INVISIBLE, POTENTIALLY LETHAL WEAPON SYSTEMS POSE AS GREAT A THREAT TO HUMANITY AS CONVENTIONAL 'NUKES..."

...BECAUSE THEY CAN BE USED TO ELECTROMAGNETICALLY IMPAIR, ENSLAVE AND SUBJUGATE ENTIRE POPULATIONS -- OR NEUTRALIZE POLITICAL 'ENEMIES?'

HOW DOES THIS JOURNALIST KNOW THIS?

BECAUSE HE'S A SIX-YEAR VICTIM OF U.S. MICROWAVE TORTURE -- AND BECAUSE HE'S A HELL OF A REPORTER:

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

VIC LIVINGSTON REPORTS: "After a business day of respite, the microwave torture resumes." See latest comments:

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-govt-uses-cbs-news-cover-microwave-cell-tower-torture
NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 6, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Gotta love hacks like ddawd and drindl who cry like little girls if there is anything but leftist viewpoints in the MSM.

Grow up conservatives have been dealing with it for years.

Posted by: Cryos | April 6, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I don't know how the elections will turn out in November. I suspect the GOP will add seats in both chambers. But, I do know this: The idea that the GOP is going to be able to sustain itslef by moving in the direction of the Tea Party over the long term is ludicrous. Why? Because the Tea Party is a temporary phenomenon fueld mainly by anger over losing the 2008 election and by the ridiculous myth that Obama is some sort of socialist ot extreme leftist.

But even more alarming for republicans is this libertarain bent of the Tea Party. There is simply no way the American people are going to sit for an agenda that fundamentally says government should have no involvement in our lives other than to protect us from outside military threats. The American people presently are distrustful of government for good reason owing mainly to its inability to govern sensibly and with common sense. But that does not mean that they accept this crazy extreme right wing view that they want the government out of their lives entirely.

Americans want their government to operate efficiently and responsibly. But, they absolutely do not want what some of the more extreme libertarians are peddling which essentially no government at all.

Posted by: jaxas70 | April 6, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

"There's little question nearly any Republican running for office this fall would love to have Brown campaign with them."


Why?


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 6, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

MMeyers, re your post in the last thread, one play that comes to mind is near the end of the game where Zoubek slams his arm backward and knocks over Matt Howard when trying to get the rebound on the Singler miss. (the one that went off Zoubek's foot setting up the last Butler possession). Zoubek would have fouled out which could have changed that last possession. Plus I thought there were some terrible charge calls. Like Howard's first charge against a clearly moving Zoubek and another one called on I forget who, but it was under the basket and Scheyer wasn't even on the ground, much less planted.

Still an exciting game, though. That timeout by Coach Stevens in the first half was really well timed as Duke was starting to take control. And Butler seemed to always be able to score and get timely stops. Just at the end when Hayward couldn't get a good shot off. One for the ages. It just goes to show how close the teams are. The difference between a 1 seed and 5 seed is so meaningless nowdays.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 6, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

"Sheesh, I didn't think when the WaPo tapped the editor from the WSJ to run this paper, he would hire every damn wingnut he could find.

I'm all for balance of viewpoints, but this has just gotten ridiculous."

Why not, dawd, that's what they do at the Wall Street Juvenile. I don't bother with most of the WaPo's editorial stuff any more. Most of it is laughably, cartoonishly, rightwing.

Thank god there's still the NYTimes and McClatchy -- still great papers.

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

"Just when you thought you'd had enough of Goldman Sachs running things -- and running them into the ground -- along comes Meg Whitman. Most Californians know she's using her fortune to run for governor. They probably don't know that she was once on the board of Goldman Sachs, and most likely still would be if she hadn't been cited for a practice one law firm describes as "essentially ... an illegal bribe ... to corporate leaders." Then came the Congressional investigation, and the investor lawsuit, and ... well, it was probably best to just leave the board."

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/rj_eskow/27612/meg_whitmans_shady_goldman_sachs_past_is_it_californias_future

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse


Meg Whitman has done some serious Goldman Sachs issues:

Whitman was a Goldman Sachs board member from 2001 to 2002, when she resigned under a cloud of suspicion for her role in an IPO scandal.

Whitman's connections to Goldman Sachs are quite relevant, as Eskow explains, showing that Goldman Sachs has a long record of screwing California taxpayers:

What kind of business relationship can Californians expect their state to have with Goldman Sachs and firms like it if Meg Whitman becomes governor? Here's a clue: In a report called "Corporate cash boosts Whitman," the Associated Press reported that "The biggest donations came from New York investment bankers, hedge fund managers, attorneys and others." If there's one thing these guys know it's how to prime the pump.

Not that Whitman's old pals at Goldman haven't already been profiting off California's misery. They were hired to manage some multibillion dollar state bond offerings but, as reported in the Los Angeles Times, millions in fees didn't stop Goldman from secretly undermining California's credit rating. That hurt the very sales they were hired to manage. As the Times states, the firm "urged some of its big clients to place investment bets against California bonds" by "proposing a way for ... clients to profit from California's deepening financial misery."

I hope they aren't stupid enough to elect this crook.

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Has Jerry Brown spent dollar one on his campaign yet? The fact that he is only 3% points behind Whitman is fantastic. Just think how his numbers will rise once he starts spending money.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 6, 2010 8:37 AM


brown is toast in california. he is already known and spending money won't help him out. people don't like him. he's destroying jobs with all his "green" programs. people here aren't stupid.

whitman is spending a lot of money. if that's what it takes to defeat brown, fine. whitman will win.

boxer is toast too. unemployment is over 12% here.

Posted by: doof | April 6, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

I agree with MM on Jerry Brown and with Ddawd on Whitman. It is not like Whitman is Perot, rejecting any donations over $100. Brown could probably beat her on a shoestring, but he will have plenty to spend when the time is right. This is from my eight friends or family scattered across CA, one of whom is an R, 5 of whom are Ds. I know: 5+1=6. But I have no idea of the party affiliation of two. One is a SD realtor who supported Wilson for years but who generally is pretty moderate and pro biz - probably a RINO in current parlance. She does not say she is for Brown, just that she thinks Brown wins. They all think that.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 6, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Has Jerry Brown spent dollar one on his campaign yet? The fact that he is only 3% points behind Whitman is fantastic. Just think how his numbers will rise once he starts spending money.

There is a lot of good will in California for Brown. Whitman can buy all the name recognition she wants, but by November she will have to show people more than commercials if she wants to get elected.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 6, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

haha...man...I'm going to carry a bucket of cold water with me. The next person to tell me the WaPo is a liberal rag gets a nice shower.

What brought on this sentiment?

The newest blog

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/?hpid=topnews

Another blog made to promote the right wing agenda. Let's add that to Kristol, Hiatt, Krauthammer, Will, that Ponruru guy, that Bush speechwriter that was recently hired Thiessen, I think, the weekly chat about rebuilding the Republican majority, Charles Lane, this page, every retarded Sarah Palin op-ed, Gerson, and Kathleen Parker. Sheesh, I didn't think when the WaPo tapped the editor from the WSJ to run this paper, he would hire every damn wingnut he could find.

I'm all for balance of viewpoints, but this has just gotten ridiculous.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 6, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Mark,
I agree that the current rush to purity is bad for the political discourse in this country, but frankly the rational people in this country every once in a while needs to see what the fringe right and left look like up and close so that they can reject those ideas and come back to the middle where we all mostly fall.

I also think that the situation at the RNC is partly to blame for the current situation our political discourse has found itself in. A strong grounded leader at the national level would never had let the Tea-Party crazies run off the hook so much and would have spent time and money to focus them better. But alas Steele has never shown a strong ability to plan ahead well and so all he really does is play catch up. In this political environment you have to be one step ahead of everything so that you can shape and mold it to benefit your party, and Steele hasn't done that. For that alone he should resign and let someone like Gillispie take over for the rest of the year.

Posted by: AndyR3 | April 6, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

CC, what no mention of the wonderful story that Kornblutt and Baconjr did on the fornt page on friday where they had this wonderful poll that showed deep distrust of the HRC. of course, later on in the story the reporters did mention that of the 1009 respondents 94% were white and 73% were conservative, which proves my point about the vaunted polls that you constantly hype. 1009 people do not accurately represent the views of 120,000,000+ voters. and since you are a longtime friend of Chip Saltzman, perhaps you should excuse yourself from writing about the man who got the job instead of him. can we rely on your objectivity in this matter?

Posted by: katem1 | April 6, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

If Whitman has to plop down $100million of her own money, then she won't win. Bombarding people with tv ads won't mean a thing if she can't get voters enthusiastic enough to donate to her campaign. Using her own money may be noble, but it's also a bad omen.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 6, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Campbell link in LAT blog actually says his fundraising is OK. We knew Fiorina would outspend him in any event, I think. If I were in CA I would surely back Campbell against Fiorina in the R Primary. I do not think much of Boxer, but the direction of the Rs is such that I might vote for her in the GE, although I would not like that. In less toxic times I would want her out and think Campbell the better legislative choice.

The Rs turned on themselves and the Ds in a purity drive to mimic the Spanish Inquisition in the early 50s.
That was the worst environment I recall, but this one is, unfortunately, similar. Then my dad had Ike and a lot of east coast and progressive Rs, some of whom eventually hung tough against McCarthy. Ike himself tread lightly against Joe until late in the game, which disappointed many.

When you hear a party cave in to cries of "socialism" and "treason" because a majority did not go their way it defeats the health of the two party system and the American discourse. And it hurts a guy like Campbell, who could have been a welcome alternative to Boxer in a rational time, but who will have trouble straddling the center and the mindless rage in this climate.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 6, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Par for the course for Republicans, eliminate all decenting views, deny truth, make up lies and pretend the lies are the truth. You can tell when a Republican is lying because his lips are moving.

Posted by: murphyj87 | April 6, 2010 7:15 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company