Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Republicans close trust gap with Democrats, President Obama

1. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll suggests that Republicans have significantly narrowed the once-large trust gap between themselves and Democrats -- as well as President Obama -- on a variety of hot-button issues. Asked which party they "trust to do a better job in coping with the major problems the country faces," 43 percent chose Democrats while 37 percent named Republicans. The trend line on that question is moving in the wrong direction for Democrats, however. In a mid-November 2009 Post/ABC survey, Democrats held a 47 percent to 31 percent lead over Republicans on that question while in September the Democratic lead was an even wider 48 percent to 28 percent. When matched against President Obama on the trust question, Republicans in Congress lagged only a few points behind on the economy (47 percent Obama/42 percent GOP), health care (46 percent Obama/ 41 percent GOP) and were in a near dead heat on the budget deficit (45 percent Obama/43 percent GOP). What these numbers suggest is that Republicans are benefiting heavily from the political phenomenon of being the "other guy." That is, people are growing increasingly dissatisfied with how a government entirely controlled by Democrats is working and, while they still don't know much about what Republicans would do, they are increasingly willing to just go with the alternative. These numbers provide something of a counter to Democratic strategists' insistence that voters won't ultimately side with Republicans because they don't know what the GOP stands for on the major issues of the day. That said, past elections have shown that the minority party must meet a minimum bar of credibility -- a la the 1994 "Contract with America" -- sometime before the election for voters to side with them in large numbers. Republicans have the next nine months (or so) to do just that.

2. Embattled New York Gov. David Paterson (D) is mounting a public relations offensive against the New York Times in expectation of a much-talked-about story detailing allegedly scandalous elements of his private life. In a letter to the public editor of the Times released late Tuesday, Paterson Secretary Lawrence Schwartz described the governor's "deep disappointment in the approach taken by the New York Times" on the story, alleging that talk of the story had stirred an "intense and damaging series of rumors about the article's supposed content" including talk that Paterson would resign. The letter to the Times came after a Paterson press conference in which he struck a defiant tone about the story and its impact on his political future. "The only way I'm not going to be governor next year is at the ballot box, and the only way I'm leaving before that is in a box," Paterson told reporters matter-of-factly. Paterson's PR tour continues tomorrow in an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live." As we have written before, the drama surrounding Paterson, while entertaining, is ultimately not all that important. Scads of polling shows him losing badly in a primary race to state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and Cuomo is widely expected to enter the contest in the spring.

3. Former Connecticut representative Chris Shays (R) is considering a comeback bid for the 4th district seat he lost to Rep. Jim Himes (D) in 2008, according to sources familiar with his thinking. Shays has spoken to several of his former colleagues about the possibility although it's not clear how close he is to making a go/no-go decision. Shays won the affluent, southwestern Connecticut 4th district in a special election in 1987 and in 2004 and 2006 beat back serious and well-financed challenges. But, with President Obama on the top of the ticket in 2008, black turnout in Bridgeport went through the roof and delivered Himes a 51 percent to 48 percent victory. (Obama carried the seat by 20 points.) It's not immediately clear whether Shays could clear what is a crowded field that includes a current and former state senator if he decided to run. Should he get into the race, Shays would be the ninth eighth former Republican member of Congress running in 2010 for his old seat. The other nine are Reps. Richard Pombo (Calif.), Mike Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Mike Sodrel (Ind.), Tim Walberg (Mich.), Steve Pearce (N.M.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Steve Chabot (Ohio), and Bill Sali (Idaho).

4. Michigan Republican Rep. Vern Ehlers will announce his political intentions at a press conference at 10 a.m. today. The Hotline blog reports that Ehlers will retire; if he does, he will be the 17th Republican House member not to seek reelection as compared to 12 Democrats. Ehlers's 3rd district, which includes the city of Grand Rapids in the state's western reaches was competitive at the presidential level in 2008 -- Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) won it by 2,000 votes -- but was far less competitive in the last two presidentials with George W. Bush winning it with 59 percent in 2004 and 60 percent in 2000. Ehlers' expected retirement comes just one day after state Rep. Justin Amash announced he would take on the eight-term incumbent in the state's Aug. 3 primary. Democrats have no announced candidate in the seat. Whether or not Ehlers's seat is ultimately contested by Democrats, the mere fact that five more Republicans than Democrats are stepping aside this year provide useful pushback against the prevailing national narrative that the majority party is running scared in the wake of Sen. Scott Brown's (R) win last month. Since Brown's victory, only one Democrat -- Arkansas Rep. Marion Berry -- has stepped aside. Ehlers would be the second Republican -- Rep. Steve Buyer (Ind.) was the first -- to call it quits since the Massachusetts Senate special election.

5. Former Virginia governor Doug Wilder (D) lashed out at Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine in a op-ed published on Politico on Tuesday. "A spate of recent losses in races that Democrats should have won underscores what has been obvious to me for a long time: The chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is the wrong job for him," wrote Wilder, referencing the party's defeat in 2009 gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey and the Massachusetts Senate special election on Jan. 19. Brad Woodhouse, communications director at the DNC, retorted that under Kaine's chairmanship Democrats won five special House elections -- the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee played a role in these victories -- and "helped the President pass the most robust agenda of a first year President since FDR." Woodhouse did acknowledge, however, that "we have had our share of setbacks and we recognize this will be a tough year just like all first Presidential midterm elections." The DNC has faced some public (and more private) grousing over the past few months primarily focused on Organizing for America, the grassroots effort created as a project of the DNC in the aftermath of Obama's election. While the DNC defends OFA -- hello acronyms! -- as a vital piece of their grassroots puzzle, there is widespread confusion about what the group does or doesn't do. Kaine, who made Obama's vice presidential short list in 2008, has largely escaped direct criticism although Wilder may now give other Democrats critical of the former Virginia governor cover to speak out.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 10, 2010; 5:53 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why the Murtha special election is no sure thing for Republicans
Next: Michigan Rep. Vern Ehlers retires

Comments

elijah24

I would suggest you read the postings and then take your best guess.

I really can't help you comprehend something that perhaps is well beyond your abilities.

And why are liberals so condescending ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 1:08 AM | Report abuse

No, 37th, what you've done several times, is rant that the President is not bipartisan. You have not one time told me how YOU define the word. And until you do, I will continue to assume that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

The description of bipartisan around here reminds me of an old joke.

A statistician steps up to the archery range and shoots an arrow five feet to the left of the target.

He then fires a second arrow and it hits five feet to right of the target.

He turns around with a BIG grin on his face and shouts BULLSEYE!!!

Compromise implies that there is some middle ground. The Republican caucus has little interesting in expanding coverage, but in pursuing its agenda. Fair enough. Given that's 37th's agenda as well, why the mewling about not being bipartisan?

Hi everybody! Oh, and…

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 10, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

So why doesn't Obama simply propose a law which states that insurance companies can not have a separate rate schedule for individuals - that individuals and small business owners have to get the same insurance rates as large corporations ???


Find some pieces of the health care plan that everyone can agree on - and get those passed???


Why doesn't Obama do that ???


Is it because if the democrats support improving the system we have now, they will lose the justification for a single-payer system ?


And lose the justification for a massive government program?


I wonder if Obama and the democrats have been resisting that route because it will expose their true plans.


We will see.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

elijah

I just described it to you several times


What is wrong with you?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

So then, you don't know the definition? Cuz, I've asked you several times now, and you have dodged the question each time. Chris Mathews would stop the interview at this point until you gave an answer. If you don't know what it is, it's ok. Just say so, and maybe one of the reasonable republicans who actually knows, will tell you.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


Very simply, Obama has been extremely deceptive with the American people.


You can play all the games you want with the words - go right ahead but it will only make people more angry with Obama.

Obama campaigned pledging to be bipartisan - to bring the factions in Washington together - and that meant compromise and resulting CENTRIST POLICIES.

Obama got elected and started to do something extremely different from that commitment - there is a loss of trust - and Obama will never get that back -


Obama and the democrats have betrayed the American people - actually kicked them when they were down with the economic conditions.


Obama repeatedly said "I don't care about the economy - I didn't come to Washington just to take care of the economy " Obama went to Washington to put in his far-left agenda but did not tell anyone during the campaign.


It was all a FRAUD, a deception.

If you don't get it by now, I guess you never will.

The people of Massachusetts get it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


I thought you were pretty reasonable on this blog - I guess you were just pretending.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

elijah24

Listen to Obama's own speeches - I have been very specific on this blog - if you do not understand it by now, sorry.


Go back and read the other posts.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


You are a complete laugh - If you want to play dumb, go right ahead.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Yet still you accuse him of partisanship.
So please, explain to me what is wrong with my definition.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 6:20 PM
---------------------------
The reason 37th keeps shouting to be heard is because his side is irrelevant right now. He'll accuse Obama of any atrocity, any crime, any smear just to get his own voice heard. The worst part about being on the losing side is that you are ignored.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 10, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

37th, the reason I'm asking for your definition of the word, is because i believe the President has been nothing but bipartisan, and if that is the case, clearly there is a disconnect between your definition and mine.
I think bipartisanship is respecting the other party, listening to their ideas, letting them make up half of ever committee even though their numbers do not suggest that they should. In fact i think giving them more power than their numbers warrant, is going too far. President Obama has done all of that. Yet still you accuse him of partisanship.
So please, explain to me what is wrong with my definition.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I think the reason JD2 is uncharactetistically absent is because hw watched Palin's teaparty speech and it finally go through his idiot head that he's hitched his wagon to a complete loser.

Forty minutes of snark, zero substance.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 10, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

hey Chris, one of my friends who worked in Virginia during the campaign told me that their [democratic] campaign had to directly compete for volunteers with Organizing for America, which was recruiting people to write their congress person in support of Health Care, instead of helping the election effort in Virginia.

Posted by: jameshauser | February 10, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

37th said "I have said defined bipartisanship many times."

Bipartisanship = Republican platform
Noise = Music
Black = White

Posted by: JakeD3 | February 10, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe,

How in the world did you get back in?


I thought they banned you.


Read the postings on Obama so you are up to speed.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe,

How in the world did you get back in?


I thought they banned you.


Read the postings on Obama so you are up to speed.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Welcome, JakeD3. The earlier model, JakeD2, was dangerously defective and hopefully has been recalled.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 10, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

TomCamfield and elijah24


I will tell you why Obama's position right now is so stupid.

Obama couldn't get his own moderate democrats to support his far-left health care bill

The result is he has many in his own party OUT ON A LIMB - READY TO BE THROWN OUT OF OFFICE BY THE VOTERS.

IN this atmosphere, of Obama's own making, NOW Obama thinks he is going to get Republicans to back him and hand Obama a victory ???


The moderate democrats do not want to back up Obama anymore, so why would the Republicans do that ????


OBAMA HAS BECOME RADIOACTIVE.

NO ONE WANTS OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN - ANY SUPPORT FOR OBAMA IS RADIOACTIVE.

If Obama now still tries to jam something through, it will be the biggest political disaster in history.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

TomCamfield


Please think back to the commitments Obama made during his campaign - and compare those to his actions over the past year.

Obama is looking more and more like an intentional liar - and a complete fraud.

Even now, Obama appears angry that he is being forced to negotiate with the Republicans - insisting there are things he won't do, and demanding that the Republicans do other things.

This is certainly not the spirit of what Obama said he was going to bring about when he spoke in his speeches in 2008.

Obama's speeches over the past few weeks indicate that Obama is going to negotiate in bad faith -


AND then look for any opportunity to run in front of the cameras to blame the Republicans.

This is pathetic - it is basically dealing with a 5 year old child.


WHAT IS WORSE - the talk out of Obama over the past few weeks is the worst possible way to come out and try to build a bipartisan atmosphere.

Obama did this to himself.

Obama is a liar, who is caught in that lie and doesn't want to talk about it - and just thinks it is appropriate to show anger at being caught.


But he is the President and he is looking very un-Presidential right now.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

elijah24

I have said defined bipartisanship many times.


It is pretty sad that anyone has to define a word like that - it usually means that a wiesel is involved.

The point is: remember what Obama was saying during his speeches during the campaign - let Obama define it with what he said.

Obama has violated the trust of the American People -

Obama has proven himself to be a liar and a FRAUD - and I don't see Obama coming back from it.

If Obama thinks he is going to pull some cheap stunt - inviting the Republicans to a meeting - then Obama refusing to come off the goals - and then blaming the whole thing on the Republicans - the people are not going to buy it.

All Obama will end up doing is prove again to the American people that he is a FRAUD.


Obama promised the American people that he would be different - that he would deliver.

Obama is not delivering - blaming the Repulblicans.

The Republicans did not write Obama's speeches in 2008 - the Republicans did not speak those words - Obama did.


Obama is the one who was elected.

This is getting ridiculous that I have to say any of this - it should be obvious.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

leapin, how would you like your retirement to have been dependant upon the stock market 3 years ago? I'm not saying privatization of Soc. Sec. is a stupid idea, but...well, no... actually that's exactly what I'm saying.

Posted by: elijah24
------------------------------------------
Probably not. But I also wouldn't like my retirement dollars to become worthless thru the hyperinflation that Obama is flirting with.

Posted by: leapin | February 10, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

leapin, how would you like your retirement to have been dependant upon the stock market 3 years ago? I'm not saying privatization of Soc. Sec. is a stupid idea, but...well, no... actually that's exactly what I'm saying.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Jake, that sounds exactly the way I would expect Republicans today to define it.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

don't have to 'change the subject' to republican heartlessness. It's in everything they do.
Ryan is the one who is pushing this publicly -- he is quite upfront about pulling the plug on Granny.
Posted by: drindl
---------------------------------------
Drindl – As a member of the free lunch party (gotta love the Dbaggers and their free lunch parties) how do you reconcile Obama’s calls for bi-partianship with your outright rejection of Ryan. Why not let the people decide on his plan’s merits?

Posted by: leapin | February 10, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

backing away...

"House Republicans are at pains to point out that a far-reaching budget roadmap unveiled by their top budget guy, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), isn't their budget, but when asked today at a press conference what about Ryan's budget he disagreed with, Minority Leader John Boehner couldn't name anything.

"Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you," Boehner said.

Despite the apparent lack of substantive disagreement, though, Boehner wants to keep the Ryan plan from sticking to the GOP.

"Paul Ryan, who's the ranking member on our budget committee, has done an awful lot of work in putting together his roadmap," Boehner said. "But it's his. "

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Bipartisanship (N). When Democrats do exactly what Republicans tell them to do.

Extreme partisanship (N). When they don't. (See: bipartisanship)

Posted by: JakeD3 | February 10, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I don't have to 'change the subject' to republican heartlessness. It's in everything they do.

Ryan is the one who is pushing this publicly -- he is quite upfront about pulling the plug on Granny.

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

you want to see a real Depression? vote for republicans.

Posted by: drindl
----------------------------------------
During his question time at the House Republican retreat, President Obama elevated congressman and budget expert Paul Ryan as a "sincere guy" whose budget blueprint -- which, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), eventually achieves a balanced budget -- has "some ideas in there that I would agree with." Days later, Democratic legislators held a conference call to lambaste Ryan's plan as a vicious, voucherizing, privatizing assault on Social Security, Medicare and every non-millionaire American. Progressive advocacy groups and liberal bloggers joined the jeering in practiced harmony.

The attack "came out of the Democratic National Committee, and that is the White House," Ryan said , sounding both disappointed and unsurprised. On the deficit, Obama's outreach to Republicans has been a ploy, which is to say, a deception. Once again, a president so impressed by his own idealism has become the nation's main manufacturer of public cynicism.

To Ryan, the motivations of Democratic leaders are transparent. "They had an ugly week of budget news. They are precipitating a debt crisis, with deficits that get up to 85 percent of GDP and never get to a sustainable level. They are flirting with economic disaster." So they are attempting some "misdirection," calling attention to Ryan's recently updated budget road map -- first unveiled two years ago -- which proposes difficult entitlement reforms. When all else fails, change the subject to Republican heartlessness.

Posted by: leapin | February 10, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

37th, please define bipartisanship.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse


And here's the republican budget plan -- slash social security and medicare, give big tax breaks to the highest brackets. anyone surprised?

"If some Republicans are squeamish about Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal to privatize Social Security, there's plenty of tax cuts for the rich included in the plan they might find more to their liking.

TPMDC has been scouring the "Roadmap for America's Future" budget blueprint that Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, proposed a few weeks ago. Among the nuggets that have GOPers running a bit scared are his plans to dramatically slash Social Security and Medicare benefits to cut the deficit.

Under the plan, Ryan (R-WI) also would give taxpayers a choice of a "simpler" system with just two tax brackets and he would repeal the corporate income tax. In its place he creates a "consumption tax" of 8.5 percent that experts tell us would unfairly burden the lower and middle classes. That's a tax on all goods and services that shifts the tax burden from corporations to individual consumers.

"These are very, very dramatic changes in the tax code ... likely to lose a tremendous amount of revenue," said Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBBP).'

you want to see a real Depression? vote for republicans.

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

A centrist result would a reasonable and hoped-for result of our president's continuing efforts on many fronts. He still is the fair-minded and honest man we voted for in 2008. But it still feels to me as if the GOP in general is basically just driven by hopes of destroying the Obama presidency, by whatever means come to hand.

Posted by: TomCamfield
-----------------------------------------
More and more [eople are thinking otherwise...
The budget, the deficit, the economy, the arrogance...The One hit new low in new Marist poll.

Independent voters see Pres. Obama in a negative light by a nearly 2-1 margin, according to a new Marist College survey, while almost half of voters say he has failed to meet their expectations.

The poll, conducted Feb. 1-3, showed just 44% of registered voters approving of Obama's job as president. 47% disapprove. But among indie voters, Obama's approval rating sits at a terrible 29%, while his disapproval rating is at 57%.

Obama's 44% job approval rating is the lowest he has scored in any non-internet poll since moving into the WH, according to a review of data compiled by Pollster.com.

And while GOPers strive to avoid attacking Obama personally, for fear of offending voters who see him in a favorable light personally, even that aura of invincibility is wearing off. Independent voters view Obama negatively, too, by a 39% favorable to 52% unfavorable margin. All registered voters still see Obama favorably by a 50%-44% margin, but that's down 5 points in just 2 months.

Voters are disappointed in what they got with Obama's first year. The poll shows 47% believe Obama has failed to meet their expectations -- including a quarter of Dems, 65% of GOPers and 53% of indie voters -- while just 42% say he has met their expectations. 38% say Obama's policies are moving the country in the wrong direction, while 37% say they're making the country better.

**

Gallup finds them same thing...

The political need for Obama to make such a bold move is underscored by his relatively low 36% approval rating on his handling of healthcare. Obama’s healthcare approval rating is statistically little different from the 37% he received last month, but the two ratings are the lowest of his administration.

Americans give Obama his lowest rating, 32%, on handling the federal budget deficit, down from 38% when this was last measured in September. His ratings on the deficit have trailed his overall approval rating each time they have been measured. In late March, for example, Obama received 49% approval on handling the deficit while at the same time his overall approval rating was above 60%.


Posted by: leapin | February 10, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


I have said this many many times - I guess I have to say it again.


Obama campaigned on bipartisanship.


Which means Obama made a commitment to CENTRIST POLICIES. THAT IS WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED FOR.

Somehow Obama and the democrats deluded themselves into thinking that the American people voted for the implementation of a far-left agenda which would be jammed in so that no future Congress or election could undo it.

Isn't that right?

The American people did NOT vote for that - you have deluded yourself into thinking the election meant something far different than it actually did.


Obama has basically destroyed his presidency on this one point.

It was delusion and inexperience.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

37hand0street stated:

Not for nothing, but Obama committed himself during his
campaign to a bipartisan approach, which meant CENTRIST POLICIES WOULD BE THE RESULT.
YOU are still pushing THE FRAUD. That is not what the American people voted for in 2008 and YOU KNOW IT.
That makes you a liar and a FRAUD.
OBAMA LIED AND OBAMA IS A FRAUD - THAT IS WHY OBAMA IS IN THE POSITION HE IS TODAY.

----

And my response would be that finding centrist policies requires just what's going on now. It requires input of the sort that Obama now is urging--from all sides (and there are certainly more than two sides). One could hardly expect a rather liberal president, aided for the most part by a Democratic congressional majority, to put forth as the starting point a plan composed to the liking of far-right minority-party conservatives.

Rather than coming up with "no" out of hand, it's now time for all right-leaning sorts to start swapping marbles in the school yard. And when it comes to concessions, don't try to pawn off a bunch of old "chippies" in exchange for brand-new "cat's-eyes."

A centrist result would a reasonable and hoped-for result of our president's continuing efforts on many fronts. He still is the fair-minded and honest man we voted for in 2008. But it still feels to me as if the GOP in general is basically just driven by hopes of destroying the Obama presidency, by whatever means come to hand.

Posted by: TomCamfield | February 10, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Now that Richard Shelby single-handedly unblocked the Senate by allowing votes on those nominees, the Republicans are heroes. Let's elect more of them.

Posted by: scottilla | February 10, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!

Posted by: JakeD3 | February 10, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse


How is that the attitude that killed health-care? You ARE the minority. I'm not making it up. It's a fact. I'm not saying your side should have no say. You should. I'm saying you shouldn't have equal say to the side that is an overwhelming majority. can you please explain to me the flaw in this logic?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 2:06 PM
------------------------------------
Any faction that loses an election will demand that " we didn't REALLY lose" and their voice has just as much power as before the election. I.e. the voters were just crazy or stuck on stupid on election day.

If that doesn't work, they will boycott the legislative process (like the Sunni's in Iraq did when the Shia won the election).

Then if that doesn't work, they will claim "never mind, we'll win the next election, so you better listen to us now".

My opinion: WHEN the other side wins, THEN they get to call the shots. Until then, the other side gets to call the shots.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 10, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

While President Obama continues to push for financial regulations on Wall Street, he's not keen on attacking JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs for their CEOs' monstrous bonuses.

In an interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, the President admitted that the $17 million bonus for Chase's Jamie Dimon and the $9 million for Sach's Lloyd Blankfein is an extraordinary amount of money, but "there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don't get to the World Series either, so I'm shocked by that as well."

With the help of taxpayer money, both companies righted their financial situation during the recent banking crisis and led their respective banks to profit. They have since paid the government back.

The two CEOs received their payments in the form of stock, which is in line with the goals of Special Master on Executive Compensation, Kenneth Feinberg; the man Mr. Obama tapped to oversee executive pay.

Besides, Mr. Obama said in the interview, "I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system."
------------------------------------------
The Trust Gap closes even more...

Posted by: leapin | February 10, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse


So JakeD3 who are you?

Are you broadwayjoe under your new name?

You are just lurking.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

leapin


NBC News did a report on MILLIONS OF DOLLARS spent by Obama on signs to put in front of constuction projects - to tell people the project was funded by the stimulus bill -

The problem is many of these projects are not underway - or would have been done anyway - no really no new additional jobs have been created.

I have seen one of these signs - but no one working nearby.

It appears that this a problem with many of the signs - the signs went up but no one is working nearby and there are no projects in progress in sight.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

37th, Make it a good one, and I won't even complain.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

How is that the attitude that killed health-care? You ARE the minority. I'm not making it up. It's a fact. I'm not saying your side should have no say. You should. I'm saying you shouldn't have equal say to the side that is an overwhelming majority. can you please explain to me the flaw in this logic?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

elijah24

You go find a primary challenger, but the Republicans will replace him.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

my position is that there is plenty of blame to go around. If i lived in Nebraska, I would find a primary challenger for Ben Nelson by whatever means are necessary, but the fact that he is a corrupt disgrace to my party, doesn't mean that the GOP is excused from doing the job the voters sent them to do.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Criticism is leveled on pols who did not take porkulus money for their states. Why should pols be praised for doing something for their state with someone else’s money. Why does borrowing billions more to fix an overpass have to be advertised by government billboards? Why not a fair practice statute: next to such propaganda some private organization could blare out in a rival sign: “This questionable project meant that we borrowed another $1 billion from China.”.

Posted by: leapin | February 10, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

ALL CAPS POSTING ALERT. CONDITION PURPLE.

Posted by: JakeD3 | February 10, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 writes:


It does not mean saying "even though voters chose us to run things in overwhelming numbers, you guys go ahead and do things your way." I dont know how many ways we can explain this: YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY. And there is a good reason for it.

_________________________________________

EXACTLY THE ATTITUDE WHICH KILLED THE HEALTH CARE BILL.


Not for nothing, but Obama committed himself during his campaign to a bipartisan approach, which meant CENTRIST POLICIES WOULD BE THE RESULT.

YOU are still pushing THE FRAUD. That is not what the American people voted for in 2008 and YOU KNOW IT.

That makes you a liar and a FRAUD.

OBAMA LIED AND OBAMA IS A FRAUD - THAT IS WHY OBAMA IS IN THE POSITION HE IS TODAY.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse


Did you see this story about how a Saudi prince owns a big chunk of FOX and how he's dictating content? Who would have thought republicans would want to get their marching orders from an Islamic prince, from the country that brought us 9/11?

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/10/right-rebels-foxnews/

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2010 1:35 PM
-------------------------------
Yes, I did see this. Apparently the prince has the largest voting block (around 9% I think), which gives him enough power to call some shots, like influence who will be the next chairman. That's known as playing the kingmaker, and no one is more powerful than the kingmaker.

Then, of course, the prince can lean on management to influence today's content. Everyone who has ever worked for a corporation knows you don't piss off the major shareholders. I doubt the prince would really understand principles like "free speech", coming from where he does.

Here is an excellent example of how a single foreign stockholder with only 9% can highly influence a domestic corporation's actions. In this case, the Saudi prince also informally represents a foreign country's interests.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 10, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

There is a rule of thumb with the Obama administration and its most vocal supporters: Those who loudly deplore the new partisanship and acrimony are typically those who in the past were the most partisan and acrimonious.

Posted by: leapin | February 10, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

elijah24

So your position is that you agree it's the democrats' fault that the health care bill failed, BUT it's really the Republicans' fault.


Obama froze the Republicans out of the process because Obama wanted a super-left program put in place. - so you are saying that it's the Republicans' fault they didn't support THAT ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Did you see this story about how a Saudi prince owns a big chunk of FOX and how he's dictating content? Who would have thought republicans would want to get their marching orders from an Islamic prince, from the country that brought us 9/11?

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/10/right-rebels-foxnews/

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Troll alert. Condition red.

Posted by: JakeD3 | February 10, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

The Obama administration entered office determined to repudiate the Bush war protocols and show the Muslim world that America had been in at fault in its previous war against radical Islam.

But in the end, all that it has done so far, ironically, is strengthen U.S. resolve and show the radical Muslim world that America’s therapeutic alternative was a brief and failed deviation — given the continuance of Predator drone attacks, tribunals, renditions, intercepts, and wiretaps, as well as the difficulty in closing Guantanamo, the public outrage over the Christmas Day bomber and the proposed KSM trial, and the realization that appeasement of radical Iran was idiotic. I still cannot see how offering KSM his Miranda rights is any more humane than the on-site killing of suspected terrorists — and any living thing in their general vicinities — in Pakistan.

In short, “victory” in the War on Terror can be defined. We are slowly achieving it; the enemy is not. That’s why the culture of the larger Middle East is becoming much more sympathetic to us than we are to radical Islam, and why the architects of al-Qaeda live incognito and seem more shrill than ever.

Posted by: drivl | February 10, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

And here's the republican budget plan -- slash social security and medicare, give big tax breaks to the highest brackets. anyone surprised?

"If some Republicans are squeamish about Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal to privatize Social Security, there's plenty of tax cuts for the rich included in the plan they might find more to their liking.

TPMDC has been scouring the "Roadmap for America's Future" budget blueprint that Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, proposed a few weeks ago. Among the nuggets that have GOPers running a bit scared are his plans to dramatically slash Social Security and Medicare benefits to cut the deficit.

Under the plan, Ryan (R-WI) also would give taxpayers a choice of a "simpler" system with just two tax brackets and he would repeal the corporate income tax. In its place he creates a "consumption tax" of 8.5 percent that experts tell us would unfairly burden the lower and middle classes. That's a tax on all goods and services that shifts the tax burden from corporations to individual consumers.

"These are very, very dramatic changes in the tax code ... likely to lose a tremendous amount of revenue," said Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBBP).'

you want to see a real Depression? vote for republicans.

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Did you see this story about how a Saudi prince owns a big chunk of FOX and how he's dictating content? Who would have thought republicans would want to get their marching orders from an Islamic prince, from the country that brought us 9/11?

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/10/right-rebels-foxnews/

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, 12Bar, they're pretty good at propaganda, so they may see that. I think they want an opportunity to get their faces in front of the camera and posture, that they'll achieve more obstruction that way, by looking like they're trying to do something other than kill the bill entirely.

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

37th nothing you said in your list of how it is the democrats fault is inaccurate. and none of it would have mattered if republicans cared more about serving their constituents, than they did about hurting the President. Do you really think there is not one Republican who opposes the very idea of national health-care so strongly that they won't even try to make the bill better, with the intention of voting for it? I can be nice to my in-laws all day, but if they have no interest in liking me, I'm just wasting my time, and blood-pressure. The same is true in politics. Bipartisanship means listening to republicans, and applying the good ideas, which we have. It does not mean bending over. It does not mean saying "even though voters chose us to run things in overwhelming numbers, you guys go ahead and do things your way." I dont know how many ways we can explain this: YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY. And there is a good reason for it.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama over the past few weeks has completely destroyed his "bipartisan" campaign commitment.

The ironic tradegy is that that was the way out for Obama - the whole way through.

These comments by Obama over the past few weeks have indicated that Obama has NO INTEREST in real bipartisan negotiations - that he is angry that he has to do that.


We hear these comments out of the adminstrations like "we are starting at universal coverage" which are politically completely out-of-touch - and almost bizarre.

Then we have almost Obama DEMANDING that the Republicans hand him some sort of victory, or he is going to blame them ... for something.


But Obama has been blaming the Republicans all along - and the country has not been buying it.

AGAIN BIZARRE - Obama doesn't get that the American people do NOT want his healthcare plan -


So Obama is really blaming the American People when he blames the Republicans.

I hear people who really aren't involved in politcs yelling at their televisions - Obama is out-of-it. Obama's advisors haven't told him what is going on, that Obama is way to the left of the country -

Obama is trapped in an EGO-BUBBLE.


I GUESS THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Which might make it even worse for them if they don't show up for this healthcare discussion. Cantor has said he would be there, though.

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2010 1:11 PM
--------------------------------
Wonder what's up with that. Guess the GOP DOES realize how it would look to be a no-show, so they send one guy. GOP is hoping the american people won't be smart enough to figure that one out! Riiiiiiight!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 10, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


You don't get it - and neither does Obama - the point is Obama claimed during the election that he would be "bipartisan" "post-partisan" and be the uniter.

Obama going out there in front of the cameras to score cheap political points - first it is extremely un-Presidential -


it is really embarassing actually - in previous decades you would NEVER see a President do such things - Obama is sacrificing his dignity in a major way.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

One number that CC doesn't mention is that 58% of respondents said 'Republicans aren't working hard enough to compromise with Democrats.' So that's even some Rs who are saying this, isn't it?

Which might make it even worse for them if they don't show up for this healthcare discussion. Cantor has said he would be there, though. I wonder if they will overreach from hubris, as Gingrich did with shutting down the gov't way back in -- when was that again?

They got plenty o'hubris to go around and they are starting to look like shrieking toddlers.

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


If you look at the past 12 months, health care died because of the democrats.


First, they NEVER got all the democrats behind one bill -


The Stupak amendment was one issue - and there are still other issues out there on taxes and finances that even the democrats do not agree.


Then there were all the deals.


The pharmaceutical deal


The doctors' fix deal


The unions' deal to give the unions a better tax rate than the rest of us


The Louisiana deal


The Nebraska deal

ALL these deals worked to kill the health care bill - ALL THE DOING OF DEMOCRATS

Finally it was the democrats in Massachusetts who voted for Scott Brown.


HOW in the world can you say it was the the Republicans ???

This is not to mention ALL THE MISTAKES OBAMA MADE BECAUSE OF HIS INEXPERIENCE.

This case is closed, you can say something different, but you will be showing your ignorance or just lying.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

IT IS THE REPUBLICANS FAULT!!!!!!
You wanna talk about cheap political points, lets talk about Republican senators and congressmen and governors condemning the stimulus package, then using the money from the stim, to help their state, and handing out big checks with their own signature on them as if they were the ones who got the money. lets talk about all the great Republican health-care ideas that would have passed almost unanimously when they were in power, but that they dont bother bringing to the table until they are out of power, and someone calls them obstructionists. I am so sick of hearing conservatives pointing the finger at Democrats and accusing us of dishonestly scoring cheap political points. Do we? He11 yes we do, and your side does too. This is the game. Get over it. If Bobby Jindle wants to play Ed McMahon and hand out a big check with his own signature on it, fine. I hope your constituents see through it, but if not, well played. But the GOP has no claim to being anything but obstructionists right now. If they want to be something else, they need to dispence with the hypocricy, accept the fact that they are in the minority, and try to make the bill as good for their states as possible.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama made a MAJOR MISTAKE YESTERDAY - he held a bipartisan meeting with the Republicans - then what did he do? He ran in front of the tv cameras and tried to steal the narrative.

That is a signal of BAD FAITH NEGOTIATING.

AND Obama appeared angry that he had to compromise with the Republicans.

What a difference between Obama's rhetoric and actions - the hypocrisy was so thick yesterday it was more than pathetic.

Obama went backwards yesterday - his attitude appears to be "Those Republicans better hand me a victory or I will blame them."


Last night, I heard more democrats screaming about what Obama was doing than I have ever heard.

People on Obama's side are sick of him - they are sick of the hypocrisy.


Did you hear what Obama was doing??? He was actually describing the mechanics of a compromise like he had never done it before - He said "I will go halfway, but they have to meet me halfway."


But clearly, Obama had not grasped where he stood politically - he was still saying that he wanted to start at universal coverage, and he was ONLY going to compromise the means to get there.

YIKES.

This indicates someone who clearly DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE POLITICAL ISSUES - and does not understand the spending involved in his bill - and the opposition to the spending.


These statements by Obama really are astonishing - Obama has simply not been listening or paying attention over the past year.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin and elijah24


The problem with Obama bringing the Republicans in for a half-day conference is clear: Obama's own statements over the past few weeks have clearly shown Obama's bad faith.


Obama has also demonstrated a desire to score cheap political points rather than get anything done.

The commitment that Obama made during his campaign to be bipartisan involved compromise - and negotiations - Obama said he was the person who was going to do the tough job of bringing everyone together.

NOW Obama is saying the tough job should be done by the Republicans - that Obama should just sit there for one day - and then complain in front of the cameras that its all the Republicans' fault that Obama is not doing WHAT OBAMA SAID HE WOULD DO.

Obama has been caught in a lie, and he is looking to blame someone else.


The American People are going to see through this CHEAP POLITICAL STUNT.

The American People are not going to buy the idea that the Republicans didn't do what Obama wanted one day - so therefor Obama is off the hook on his own commitments.


It goes deeper than that - this commitment to be bipartisan goes to the center of Obama's brand - a brand that Obama has been destroying, week-by-week.

This giddy speculation is silly - "let's have tv pictures of empty seats with GOP signs on them"


Meanwhile, the Republicans were at the White House yesterday.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

NEWS ITEM: SENATE INTEL REPUBLICAN KIT BOND TARGETS OBAMA COUNTER-TERRORISM ADVISER (AND FORMER BUSH CIA OFFICIAL) JOHN BRENNAN

Could Brennan's internal opposition to ongoing Bush-era atrocities explain hard-right attacks on a former Bush CIA official who apparently respects human rights and rejects the dictates of an extremist cabal?

FED CELL TOWER MICROWAVE WEAPON SYSTEM SILENTLY ASSAULTS, TORTURES, IMPAIRS EXTRAJUDICIALLY 'TARGETED' AMERICANS, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Regional Homeland Security- administered fusion centers use a nationwide microwave/laser electromagnetic microwave/laser "directed energy" weapon system to silently assault, impair, subjugate, torture unconstitutionally "targeted" Americans and their families -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight.

• Victims' own cell phones may be used to target them for silent impairment.

• How a young FBI agent's "I believe you" gave victim the faith to go public.

JOURNALIST EXPOSING ONGOING MICROWAVE TORTURE DESCRIBES LATEST ATTACK:

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR NowPublic.com/scrivener ("stories" list) OR poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2

Posted by: scrivener50 | February 10, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

mapledragon writes
"Well, after all this time, some here are still harping on healthcare when everyone here knows that people are worried about why businesses are not hiring people. If you ask the electorate to rank what's important to them Guess what's #1, and guess where healthcare is?"


PSSTTT!!! Digging a hair deeper, one might ask what the factors are that influence companies' hiring decisions. Here's a hint: ever-rising health insurance premiums are a signficant expense that can slow hiring. So while there is a point to be made about jobs, health care reform that addresses the astronomical rate of growth in the cost of health insurance is not irrelevant.

Posted by: bsimon1 | February 10, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Well, after all this time, some here are still harping on healthcare when everyone here knows that people are worried about why businesses are not hiring people. If you ask the electorate to rank what's important to them Guess what's #1, and guess where healthcare is?

If the voters was a homeowner, and if elected officials were contractors the homeowner for 12 months has been yelling that the roof is leaking (jobs) fix it, but the contractors insist that the kitchen cabinets (healthcare) are broken and have to be fixed first.

The homeowner can only yell so long before he decides he hired the wrong contractors, when he stops yelling and start hiring new contractors, you should realize the homeowner has given up on the current batch and want to try other people. It's a case of "anyone who isn't deaf has to better than these clowns" that is guiding them now.

And you wonder why the voters forgot how bad things were at the end of Bush43. The simple answer is they now believe things are now worse than before.

We can talk all we want here, but the only conversation that matters is the one the voters engage in to send their message n november.

Posted by: mapledragon | February 10, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

People are uneasy and Washington is a utterly dysfunctional. But most of that mess is due GOP intransigence and irresponsibility. It took the Republicans eight years to get us in the jam we're in now so it's plausible it may take Democrats (and perhaps a few responsible Republicans) more than a year to get us out of it. They can make all the stupid noises they want but Republicans, as ever, remain the party of no, nothing and nonsense.

Posted by: CopyKinetics | February 10, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

What possible excuse could a person have for not knowing much about what Republicans would do? Perhaps, sound asleep during the latter half of the 20th century? Blackout drinking during the Bush Cheney reign of terror? Dropped out of school in the third grade?

Posted by: shrink2 | February 10, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

#4, should have also mentioned that Ehler's was what could be called a moderate GOPer, who pushed for Great Lakes protections, and increased funding for math and science education. Sorry to see such a patriotic American go.

Posted by: katem1 | February 10, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

"What these numbers suggest is that Republicans are benefiting heavily from the political phenomenon of being the "other guy." That is, people are growing increasingly dissatisfied with how a government entirely controlled by Democrats is working and, while they still don't know much about what Republicans would do, they are increasingly willing to just go with the alternative."
_______________

Whatever is written above after "suggest" is entirely one personal opinion, which, BTW, every American (amuuricun in Palinese) is entitled to give.

We question the worth of such generic polls: politics are local and a good candidate almost always beats a bad one. Thus, Mac beat Deeds in Virginia not because he was a GOPer and Deeds was a Dem; he won because of a great campaign with exceptional outreach (e.g., getting BET's Sheila Johnson's vote). I find it very hard to believe the numbers cited after a speech given by the effective head of the GOP in which she referred to notes handwritten on her skin at an event calling for a return to Jim Crow literacy tests. Many of these polls today are more designed to influence opinion than to measure it.
_______

Five checks today:

GOP comeback narrative. Check.
Slam of a disabled governor. Check.
Cherrypicked anti-BHO poll, Check.
Free ad for Chris Shays. Check.
Positive reference to discredited "Contract [on] America." Check.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 10, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

not bad, CC, but you forgot to mention the area that the poll says Obama has risen in--handling of the war on terror, which WAS the GOP's biggest rock to throw at him. Demint looked like an idiot when 50 speeches of Obama's showed him talking about the war on terror. It's kind of hard not to call Demint a liar when there's video and youtube around. Rather than raising any valid concerns the GOP had about this issue, they now look like "crying wolf" liars. Didn't help the country, didn't help themselves.

Posted by: katem1 | February 10, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Mark, I think that's exactly what he should do. I also don't think it just theater. It would also give him a chance to take a firm grip on his roll of leadership within his own party. He could shut down the Blue-Dogs who worry that he is too liberal, by showing that he is not a partisan hack. He could also shut down those on the far left who complain that he is too eager to appease the minority party, by saying "right is right whether it comes from Bernie Sanders or Mitch McConnell, and if you won't even take the ideas that whould help your state if they come from the other side, you are as bad as the partisan hacks who refused to show up to this meeting."
That statement would also serve to call out the GOP.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I suppose the Prez could conduct the proposed conference in a room with the empty seats of the R invitees named with placards. Then he could project the R health care talking points from the GOP.gov web site

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

and point out that they are all included in the SB - they are its heart and soul. Then he could ask the Ds in the room to support the SB in a show of post partisanship.

The Ds in the room could argue with him about why they should support the R agenda when Rs would not even show up. And the Prez could say b/c he promised to use good ideas no matter where they came from. Tit-for-tat politics are not what he is about, etc.

Theater, of course: but why not?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 10, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Brad, I think you are right that the democrats have a window to make the GOP play along, but the question on healthcare is how far is Obama willing to go. He isn't going to scrap the current plan completely, but will he be willing to add concessions like Tort reform, or increase the Medicare eligibility age, or eliminate the sweetheart deals with Nebraska etc to make it happen.

I think the GOP is playing a bad game of chicken right now saying that they will boycott the healthcare summit unless Obama scraps the plan altogether. If they stick to that than they will pay in the ballot box, cause the Democrats will hang them with it.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 10, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

"That said, past elections have shown that the minority party must meet a minimum bar of credibility -- a la the 1994 "Contract with America" -- sometime before the election for voters to side with them in large numbers. Republicans have the next nine months (or so) to do just that." or not! Remember where Obama was eight months ago, blowing out the Republicans. You are assuming a lot to expect that Obama is going to continue to decline in popularity which in a large result was him not engaging the Republicans. I see this coming down the pike:

On Healthcare - The biggest mistake Obama made was allowing Reid to try and work something out with the Republicans last summer in a closed room. Now he will open it up to the TV cameras offer to compromise with Republicans. They will be boxed at that point, either they do and the Democrats deliver a heath bill or they will be seen as the party of no. (62% of Scott Browns voters wanted him to work with Obama to get healthcare passed)

On Stimulus - Look for Democratic ads showing Republicans at ribbon cuttings in their district with quotes praising the job creation projects in their districts. Look for ads telling people to look at line 63 on their tax return and explaining the Republicans voted against them getting that tax cut. Yes the party of no voted against a tax cut that the vast majority of the country got.

It is a long way from November and I still think to the average American Obama looks a whole lot more reasonable and willing to stake out the middle ground than do the Republicans who are in the process of selecting a whole field of right wing candidates.

Posted by: bradcpa | February 10, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Andy and mm, I appreciate your comments and they are illuminating. I remembered Wilder's non-endorsement and it caused me to speculate to myself, with no one else in the room, but not aloud, that he was not friendly with many Ds in VA. So I wondered if there was personal or old political bad blood between him and Kaine.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 10, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Chris Shays running in Connecticut is a pretty good idea and I think he may have a chance to reclaim his seat. The thing is though that with all these retreads running it will be hard for the GOP to pick up the mantle of change. I think the Democrats can easily paint these guys as more of the same things that got us into this mess. That alone may depress turnout enough to let the incumbents keep their jobs.

And I agree with parker, that the poll numbers is a natural progression of being the opposition party and the economy being in the toilet. And on top of that the demcrats are still WINNING the poll battle. That is a very bad sign for the GOP especially if the unemployment numbers contiue to go down. I have said it before but I think the election of Scott Brown was the peak of the GOP resurgence and the fact that they now have to play ball is going to come back and bite them come november.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 10, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

mark, recalling Wilder's lack of work for Deeds' campaign I don't see how he gets to grouse that the folks who are working aren't working enough.

Pick up the shovel your ownself.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 10, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

If Doug Wilder had actually endorsed the democrat in the VA governor's race than he would have a little more leg to stand on. On top of that Kaine had another job until about 3 weeks ago, so I think Wilder should cut him some slack. That being said I still think Obama shoudl have kept Dean in that role, and Kaine would do well to call Dr Dean and ask his advice or for his help (ie have him run OFA??).

The fact that another republican is retiring has got to have the RNCC sweating pretty hard right now. The fact that they may get a tea-P'er as the nominee in the third district, and if the Dems nominate a moderate, we may see a repeat of the NY-23rd special election next november. I also think this is a bad sign for things to come in 2012 for the GOP. They have a bunch of people who are sticking it out this time because they think they may regain the majority, but if they don't (and all these retirements don't help that cause) then I think we could see a wave of retirements for the GOP in 2012.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 10, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Kaine is the problem. It's a tough time to be a Democrat, and he had an impossibly hard act to follow. He's doing ok, but he also needs the President and the D's in congress to step up and make themselves more appealing too.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

I do miss Dr. Dean.
Perhaps Tim Kaine should resign.

But he isn't nearly the problem the RNC has with Steele. In spite of all the populism and the wing-nut rage, the elections that matter will be decided by money, inside money and outside money. Steele is making a lot of noise, mostly about himself, but he is failing.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 10, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

VA folks - is it possible that Wilder dislikes Kaine, in general?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 10, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

pombo isn't running for his old seat, chris, he's running for a different one in california.

Posted by: IMGoph | February 10, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Its amazing how fickle the electorate is. These very issues are why the GOP got ran out of Washington in the first place. Do people really think that because these problems, many of which were caused by Republicans, are not solved yet, that they must be the fault of the Democrats?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 10, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

These numbers are natural extensions of the GOP being out of power and, frankly, Americans forgetting that they weren't any better when they ran Washington.

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | February 10, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company