Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

House Republicans make case for majority

1. House Republican leaders made their case for why -- and how -- their party can win back the majority this fall in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. "The electorate does see very clearly that one party control in Washington is not in their best interest," said National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas), pointing to a series of national polls suggesting that Republicans are making up ground on their Democratic opponents thanks to a desire for divided government in Washington. (In a new Washington Post/ABC News poll 57 percent said it was a good thing that Republicans now have the ability -- with Sen. Scott Brown's victory last month -- to block legislation proposed by President Obama and Senate Democrats.) Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the up and coming Californian charged with recruiting candidates, insisted that the math was in place to deliver Republicans the majority; McCarthy argued that if Republicans can beat between 10 percent and 15 percent of all Democratic incumbents and takeover all of the competitive Democratic open seats (10, by our count) then a 40-seat pickup is in sight. The biggest hurdle to all of those grand plans remains money as the NRCC ended the year with roughly one-eighth as much cash on hand as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. To that end, Sessions announced that January had been a record-setting month for the committee as it raked in $4.5 million and banked $4.1 million -- its best month since March 2009. (The DCCC has not yet announced its January fundraising totals.) Sessions, in the understatement of the year, said fundraising was the "key component for us being very effective" in the fall, adding that Republican members had donated $500,000 from their own campaign coffers at the recent party retreat in Baltimore.

2. The Democratic National Committee -- seeking to drive the people versus the powerful theme -- will send an email today to its entire 13 million plus email list highlighting Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's recent comment that "after taxes, $1 million is not a lot of money." DNC Chairman Tim Kaine referred to Steele's comment as "crazy talk" adding: "It's no surprise coming from the head of a party that prefers favors for Wall Street to jobs on Main Street." The e-mail drives users to a Web site where they can type in their salary to see how many years it would take to earn $1 million and then write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper about Steele's comments -- a nice touch. "Republicans are going all out to be seen as defenders of the 'little guy' this election season," writes Kaine. "But Chairman Steele's comment last week made it clear they're not. We need to make sure every American hears about it." The email lands just one day after an interview President Obama gave to BusinessWeek magazine in which he said that he did not "begrudge" the CEOs of JP Morgan Chase or Goldman Sachs for their massive bonuses. That interview raised eyebrows among some Democrats as it seems to run directly counter to the preferred populist message expected to be coming from the White House. Obama, as we have noted before, is not a natural populist and these sorts of moments then are probably unavoidable.

3. Denise Ilitch, the daughter of the owner of the Detroit Tigers and Detroit Red Wings as well as a Regent at the University of Michigan, resisted a White House recruitment effort and announced Wednesday she would not run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in the Wolverine State -- a major recruiting blow for the party. "Through a methodical planning process, I saw that the message, resources, and many key endorsements would be there, but concluded that the compressed election year calendar would not allow me to run the kind of campaign for governor I believe Michigan needs at this time," Ilitch said in a statement. "And that stubborn fact is the one and only reason why I am not running for governor today." Ilitch, with her personal wealth and her business bona fides, was regarded as perhaps Democrats' best chance of keeping the governor's race competitive in a year where Republicans see the state as one of their best pickup opportunities in the country. Without Ilitch in the contest, the field will almost certainly be more wide open. Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero and state Sen. Alma Wheeler Smith are already running on the Democratic side and state House Speaker Andy Dillon is likely to get in too. The Republican field is stacked with quality candidates led by Rep. Pete Hoekstra and state Attorney General Mike Cox. ALSO READ: The Grand Rapids Press handicaps the race to replace retiring Michigan Rep. Vern Ehlers (R).

4. After a week of taking incoming fire from national Democrats, former senator Dan Coats is beginning to fight back in advance of his planned race against Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) this fall. Coats, in an appearance on the "Fred Thompson Show" (yes, that Fred Thompson), said he was running "full-bore" and launched a broadside against the Indiana Democrat. "[Bayh] talked a good game back at home but when push came to shove he was right there with the liberals and Obama every time," said Coats. Coats's pushback comes after being on the receiving end of a brutal battering from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee aimed at derailing any momentum-building in the run-up to Coats' expected formal announcement. Kevin Kellems, a former communications director for Vice President Dick Cheney and now a spokesman for Coats, insisted that Democrats had made a "colossal error" in attacking the former Republican senator. "The charges have no basis and Senator Bayh resides in a big, bright glass house on these themes," said Kellems. "He will regret encouraging national party political operatives to do his bidding."

5. California Rep. Diane Watson's decision to step aside on Wednesday makes her the 13th Democratic House retiree of the 2010 election cycle. But, Watson's Los Angeles-based 33rd district is a Democratic stronghold -- President Obama won it with 87 percent of the vote in 2008 -- and won't even be contested by Republicans. Watson, who won a June 2001 special election to replace the late Rep. Julian Dixon (D), appears to favor state Assembly Speaker Karen Bass as the heir to the seat. Bass was elected to the state Assembly in 2004 and four years later ascended to the speakership. (You've got to love term limits!) Bass was the first Democratic woman and the first African American to hold that coveted post. It's not clear whether Bass will have primary competition. When Watson won the race in 2001, she beat out state Sen. Kevin Murray and Los Angeles City Councilman Nate Holden in the Democratic primary. Murray retired from the state Senate due to -- you guessed it! -- term limits in 2006; Holden is in his eighties and not likely to want to run again. ALSO READ: Dan Balz's piece on the comeback (again) of California Attorney General Jerry Brown.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 11, 2010; 6:03 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Generic ballot moves toward Republicans
Next: Lincoln Diaz-Balart to retire

Comments

It's too late now with the State of the Union behind him, but President Obama should publicly say the Democrats in Congress are doing a good job once in a while (if he thinks so). He's going to be working to help them in the 2010 election, so he should make his job easier. As rough as the past year has been, the recent polls showing he has higher favorability than the Republicans can be used to help him finally find his footing and start to exploit that advantage to the Democrats (and his agenda's) benefit. God knows that relying on Nancy Pelosi's charm isn't going to keep the Democrats in the majority next term.

Posted by: johnc_80 | February 11, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

If you were honest, you would have cited your source.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 11, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of original thought, or lack thereof, Leapin copied that text directly from www.victorhanson.com. I'm beginning to think that Leapin is another mask for Zouk

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade
------------------------------------------
No, I'm NotLeapin (i.e. the smoke monster) exposing libs to the great historical perspective of VDH that their revisionist history teachers would never allow.

Posted by: leapin | February 11, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of original thought, or lack thereof, Leapin copied that text directly from www.victorhanson.com. I'm beginning to think that Leapin is another mask for Zouk

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 11, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

See what I mean?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Save it, Blade. The people who deny climate change are the same ones who deny evolution. You're wasting your breath.
Posted by: elijah24
-------------------------------------------
Though Darwinism is a fossil of 19th-century progressive thought, it is eagerly embraced by the neo-atheists in their quest to appear scientific. But Darwin’s mechanism of progress, natural selection, has never been shown to create anything close to the improvements in organisms necessary to get us where we are right now, such improvements as wings in birds or brains in humans.

The Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins argues that such changes must, therefore, be the work of covert critters called, “selfish genes”. These Ayn Rand like rascals relentlessly compete for survival, the implacable goal of all organisms according to Darwin. So Dawkins hopes that when we observe people behaving, say, altruistically, we will believe that the selfish gene fable explains their behavior and not what our own eyes and common sense tell us.

Posted by: leapin | February 11, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I don't entirely agree. Evolution is settled science and we're filling in the details. Climate change is an active

If you will, I think it's more like the development of quantum mechanics in the 20th century. The Bohr model was observational, but didn't have a found basis. The Hamiltonian was developed for classical mechanics and the Schrödinger equation is a direct adaptation of it. Of course, you didn't have politicians commenting on its development.

Just remember one thing. There was a big BOOM in 1945 as a consequence. Belittle scientists at your peril.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 11, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Save it, Blade. The people who deny climate change are the same ones who deny evolution. You're wasting your breath.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

@Leapin - Decent comment. I hope that you are aware that Vancouver, which is normally snowed in, is having to truck in vast quantities of snow for the Olympics.

The hurricane season a few years ago is not proof of global warming. The trifecta of Snopocalypse, Snomageddon, and Snoverkill is not proof of global cooling. Nor the fact that Vancouver didn't get any snow.

Doesn't anyone around here understand the difference between climate and weather?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 11, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

What they fail to see is that Republicans poll even lower than Dems. The Repubs that won the recent elections never campaigned as Republicans, they were ashamed to admit it.

Posted by: JRM2 | February 11, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

George Will is a good writer, though his opposition to global warming has led him into flat earther territory.
Posted by: FairlingtonBlade
-----------------------------------------

Earlier today, MS-NBC and Time Magazine tried to argue that the massive amounts of snow hitting the mid-Atlantic region somehow proves anthropogenic global-warming (AGW) theory, but it wasn’t that long ago that Democrats in Congress blamed AGW for the relative lack of snowfall in the same region, as well as in Minnesota. Quotes from 2005 through 2008 from Senate Democrats Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Amy Klobuchar, and Jay Inslee explained that the lack of snow was predicted by the AGW climate models and represented an emergency requiring immediate action by the federal government...
Kind of ironic today, don't you think?

Posted by: leapin | February 11, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Thats a good history, Blade, but it's just a history. Someone who actually holds it against the President that he is an academic elite, please explain it to me.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

The New Commandments on the Animal Farm Barn Wall Of BHO and Today’s NeoCom Statists.

Old 1. Savvy Americans always see through the fraud in the end and do the right thing .
New 1. Savvy Americans are infantile and don’t know what’s good for them.

Old 2. Democracy is finally working again.
New 2. Democracy is in decline and the people are ungovernable.

Old 3. The filibuster is a much need check on the Bush-Cheney steamrolling nexus.
New 3. The filibuster is evil.

Old 4. Bloggers and pundits overwhelmingly support much needed progressive change.
New 4. Bloggers and pundits are a DC echo chamber that we should ignore.

Old 5. Congress has become a Culture of Corruption
New 5. Congress is full of hard working servants who more than earn the perks that they receive.

Old 6. Americans and their politicians should listen to brave voices of dissent within the intelligence community,
New 6. Americans and their politicians must support in bipartisan fashion their government’s policies against terrorism.

Old 7. Bipartisanship is simply caving to Republican obstructionism.
New 7. Bipartisanship is a way to get the country moving again.

Old 8. Trying KSM in New York is proof of the resiliency of the American system.
New 8. Trying KSM in New York is problematic.

Old 9. Guantanamo Bay will be shut down a year from inauguration
New 9. Guantanamo Bay will be shut down sometime, perhaps, in the future.

Old 10. Deficits are proof of the reckless Bush-Cheney fiscal policies.
New 10. Deficits are necessary stimuli designed to move our country in a fairer and more equitable direction.

Old 11. Wall Street bankers are greedy fat cats.
New 11. Wall Street bankers are savvy businessmen whom we don’t begrudge.

Old 12. C-Span should air health care debates .
New 12. C-Span will air bipartisan exchanges with the president.

Posted by: leapin | February 11, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

There's long been a strand of anti-intellectual populism in American politics. I think it's being cynically used by Republicans right now, but the same strain has been exploited by Democrats. I enjoyed reading William F. Buckley. George Will is a good writer, though his opposition to global warming has led him into flat earther territory.

I've a friend who works on Wall Street. He had an office in the World Trade Center and just happened to be late to work that day. He was getting out of the subway when the second jet hit (he lived). For all the talk about bonuses, those folks work crazy hard at what they do. When I think about the venom directed at anyone in the financial sector, I think of him. Sure, there's plenty of greed and opportunism. There's also plenty of people who have worked harder than anyone commenting on this blog.

Thinking of FICS, I realize that makes me both a Fixista and a FICSista!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 11, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

That was supposed to say "I've never gotten an answer that ammounted to MORE THAN petty jealousy"

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I love chess. I may join you over there when im stuck at home tomorow.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I think I've asked this before, but I've never gotten an answer that ammounted to petty jealousy, so here goes: How is it a bad thing to be an "academic elite"? Don't all (or at least all good) parents dream of sending our kids to Harvard or Cornell? Why would we want a lesser education for the leader of our nation? This person (be it Obama, Bush or whomever is next) will shape the world for generations to follow. Why would we want anyone who is not well educated and elite?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

For online games, I like FICS - the Free Internet Chess Server. My handle is buckyball over there. That's where the BB comes from (also buh-bye).

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 11, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Why is this blog flooded with loony leftists?

Observe:

478 37thand0street RR
31 bsimon1 L
28 broadwayjoe LLL
28 elijah24 L
16 margaretmeyers LL
13 12BarBlues L
12 scrivener50 L
11 DDAWD LLLLL
11 drivl R
9 BigTrees
9 katem1 L
8 AndyR3 L
6 FairlingtonBlade L
4 GJonahJameson
3 mark_in_austin L
3 MikeK3
3 parkerfl1
2 georges2
2 jameschirico
2 jjj141
2 Maddogg
2 mesondk
2 RandallHough
2 RobT1

Posted by: drivl | February 11, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Idiotic, just idiotic. This whole DC narrative -- tht Obama is an ELITE -- is constructed by the ACTUAL elite class -- celebrity journalists like chris here.

Posted by: drindl


all sorts of down to earth people have their chef make a veal doghouse for their pet. send their kids to sidwell while depriving the neighbors of that chance. Etc.

Posted by: drivl | February 11, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

well, ok. thats less worrisome. Play some on-line poker or something.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

@elijah - It's just a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet. Takes about 2 minutes to do. I'm snowed in and working on a paper on solar cells, so heading over here is a diversion. I'd be worried for anyone for whom this isn't a simple diversion.

BB

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

that list seems to be in reverse order for value.

Posted by: drivl | February 11, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Blade, you know i love you, but I'm really concerned with your psychological health. You actually counted the number of lines and broke them down by commenter?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Well, this comment thread has been spammed, so I'll be heading off.

BB

687 total lines of comment

Lines Source
478 37thand0street
31 bsimon1
28 broadwayjoe
28 elijah24
16 margaretmeyers
13 12BarBlues
12 scrivener50
11 DDAWD
11 drivl
9 BigTrees
9 katem1
8 AndyR3
6 FairlingtonBlade
4 GJonahJameson
3 mark_in_austin
3 MikeK3
3 parkerfl1
2 georges2
2 jameschirico
2 jjj141
2 Maddogg
2 mesondk
2 RandallHough
2 RobT1

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 11, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

WHEN WILL WE HAVE A CASE FOR DEMOCRATS KEEPING THE MAJORITY?

you know, fair and balanced.

Posted by: drindl | February 11, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse


'My only weapons are words - and those are sufficient.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street '


boy are you delusional.

Posted by: drindl | February 11, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

'Obama, as we have noted before, is not a natural populist and these sorts of moments then are probably unavoidable.'

Idiotic, just idiotic. This whole DC narrative -- tht Obama is an ELITE -- is constructed by the ACTUAL elite class -- celebrity journalists like chris here.

Posted by: drindl | February 11, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

GJonahJameson


We almost had a plane blow up with 200 people on it - by a bomb made in Yemen - where Obama had just released some terrorists from Gitmo a few weeks before.

NOW to start to defending that policy is way out there.

AND to attempt to defend that policy by saying "Bush was wrong, and we are smarter than Bush."

Well, how do you want to describe that attitude ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been living in a BUBBLE OF ARROGANCE -


It is really amazing how practically all of the democratic agenda has fallen by the wayside - in a short period of time.

As the readers of this blog know, Obama has been called a FRAUD for a long time, but to have it so obvious like never before - well it is astonishing.


The entire democratic agenda is now out the window.

It is difficult to imagine what Obama is going to come up with for an agenda now.

It is even more difficult to imagine what the democrats are going to run on in the next election.

What are the democrats going to say ?


They want a massive government health care program ??


We want a massive tax increase during a recession ???


They want a policy that is "soft on terror"??


What can the democrats run on now that Obama has discredited so much of this agenda ???

Obama has exposed the democrats - and left them with little to say.


That is why this year's elections will be so interesting.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

So yeah, I have no idea.

Posted by: DDAWD


I don't think that is news to anyone.

Posted by: drivl | February 11, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

BWJ, Broder took the buyout, but from what he said, nothing would change, so I'm not sure what's going on. He'd still have his column and everything.

So yeah, I have no idea.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 11, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Debt and deficits -- from Dubai to Greece to the good ol' USofA. A British wag has coined the acronym PIGS to describe Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain -- basket-case Euro zone countries with public debt at or near 100 percent of their GDP. In the U.S., Congress has just raised the debt ceiling $2 trillion, to $14.3 trillion. Economic projections, including federal expenditures totaling $45 trillion over the next decade, have total U.S. federal debt growing from 53 percent of GDP in 2009 to 77 percent in 2020. The Moody's credit-rating agency warns that such spending could jeopardize the nation's AAA rating for its debt. And that $45 trillion single-decade amount would equal federal budgets from 1789 to 2006 combined

Posted by: drivl | February 11, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Not to get myself involved in an argument about that would be a fantastic waste of my time, but if everyone on earth who was called an idiot reacted to it by keeping quiet, the Internet would have failed years ago for lack of content.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | February 11, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade


I reserve the word idiot for those who want to loosen up on national security, and thus risk American lives.

Didn't you see the commentary in the Post about liberals who were condescending.

This is a general topic of conversation from the Post -

However, if you think someone is walking around with a superior attitude, then I guess the label would fit.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

The Obama administration came into office also convinced of another theory popular among many intellectuals, lawyers and members of the media -- that the so-called "war on terror" had degenerated into a Bush administration overreaction to 9/11. Obama's anti-terrorism czar, John Brennan, lambasted the past anti-terrorism nomenclature and the methods of the very administration he used to work for.

President Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay. Rendition, military tribunals and Predator drone attacks at one time or another were caricatured as unnecessary or counterproductive. Even the name "war on terror" was dropped for kindler, gentler euphemisms.

"Outreach" and "reset" with the Islamic world became instead the talking points. Highly educated experts had to explain to those of us who are less sophisticated that the real dangers were Guantanamo Bay and the waterboarding of a few terrorist detainees rather than the need to detain and interrogate actual terrorists.

And now? After the mass murdering at Fort Hood, the Christmas Day bombing plot, the popular outrage over offering a civilian trial in New York to the architect of 9/11, and the snubbing of American outreach by a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran, there's less reason than ever to accept a therapeutic approach to dealing with radical Islamic terrorism.

There is an unfocused but growing anger in the country -- and it should come as no surprise. Nobody likes to be lectured by those claiming superior wisdom but often lacking common sense about everything from out-of-control spending and predicting the weather to dealing with enemies who are trying to kill us all.

Posted by: drivl | February 11, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

C'mon 12-bar, it's fine to criticize, and call him out when he is wrong, or foolish, but don't be pointlessly mean. You're better than that.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 11:58 AM
--------------------------------
You are right elijah. I can't bring myself to respond to 37th hysteria and gotcha's, so teasing him is just too enticing. Sorry, I will try to do better.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 11, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

elijah24

You should go out and start talking to people - and I actually travel a great deal.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 8:28 AM
--------------------------
A guy who thinks martial law is going to start any moment?

And he travels a great deal too?

Darn, and I was hoping you were trying to tell us about your impending trip to the Big House.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 11, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

C'mon 12-bar, it's fine to criticize, and call him out when he is wrong, or foolish, but don't be pointlessly mean. You're better than that.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

RandallHough


She was the first African American woman who was Speaker

Willie Brown is a character.


Hey imagine this - a meeting between Willie Brown and Governor Moonbeam.

That has got to be a good one.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


Sorry


To disappoint you and your conspiracy theory.


My only weapons are words - and those are sufficient.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Karen Bass was the first African American speaker of the California Assembly?? Have you Easterners never heard of Willie Brown?

Posted by: RandallHough | February 11, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

News flash! News flash
37th, our resident corner, is now famous.
--------------------------------------------

"A Massachusetts technology consultant who feared martial law was imminent and was preparing for "Armageddon," according to police, has been charged with stockpiling weapons, and having explosive devices including tear gas and pepper ball canisters."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 11, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

I suspect that the House will schedule a series of uncomfortable votes for the Republican minority such as the Ryan budget proposal. Allow right wing amendments that might be in their hearts, but are politically unpalatable.

It would be amusing if the public actually buys the fiscal conservatives argument. It's like a convicted prisoner deciding to sober up and denouncing the evil bottle. There's no booze in lock-up, so it's easy to proclaim Tolerance. Let's see what happens when they get out of stir.

Although it's tempting to join in on the general community beat down on 37th, it's not worth the effort. I'd note that calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot or condescending or both is, well, not terribly productive, but it's CC's blog and he or the Post decides what passes for productive discourse around here. Spam spam spam spam spammity spam...

BB

(psst, Margaret, could you pass me the popcorn?)

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 11, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"Once someone points out that you are an idiot, it is best to keep quiet."

This is too amusing for words, coming from you.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | February 11, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1 writes:

My point is that the Obama administration is apparently more competent than the prior one, which released prisoners from Gitmo who have conducted attacks on the US & our allies since being released. So the rule should be (and the record shows the Obama admin understands this): if they're a risk, don't release them. If they pose no danger to us, cut them loose. Its a no-brainer, really. Why should we be paying to incarcerate people who are no threat to us? Its a waste

_________________________________


Your ignorance on this subject is stunning.

The Bush administration released prisoners which at the time were deemed to be the LEAST DANGEROUS - ONES THAT HAD THE WEAKEST CONNECTIONS TO TERRORISMS.


For instance, a driver as opposed to a bomb maker.

Of those deemed LEAST dangerous, many returned to terrorism.

SO NOW OBAMA IS LOOKING AT THE NEXT GROUP - THE GROUP THAT WAS DEEMED TO BE MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE FIRST GROUP.


You would think that the discovery that some in the first group returned to terrorism would lead one to the conclusion that NO MORE TERRORISTS SHOULD BE RELEASED, THE POLICY DID NOT WORK.

Instead, Obama said - "Let's release more terrorists, and terrorists from the group which was determined to be MORE DANGEROUS."


What makes you a complete idiot is that Obama's release program was NOT based on the safety of Americans and the risk that these terrorists posed.


Instead Obama's release program was based on his desire to close Gitmo and start holding trials.

Obama's people decided that the paperwork against these terrorists was not strong enough - so instead of risking losing a trial - Obama decided to release these terrorists.


YOU are a complete idiot - you are risking the lives of Americans with this "soft on terror" policy.

200 people almost died on the plane in Detroit and you still don't get it.

I just hope no one dies because of stupid people like you and Obama.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1


Once someone points out that you are an idiot, it is best to keep quiet.


Those terrorists which Obama released were just released in December, so how do you know if they will return to terrorism???


There isn't enough time to make a determination.

So instead of saying that I am "misinformed," you are DELIBERATELY TRYING TO DECEIVE PEOPLE.


THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.

Again, please don't bother me with your idiocy anymore - and once it is pointed out, please do not persist.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"...Yeah, that was kind of jaw dropping, wasn't it? Especially at the end where he implied that the only line of attack people had against her was that she writes notes on her palm.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 11, 2010 9:39 AM"
________

Wasn't Broder given a buy-out? The Post, we assume, kept its "buy" end of the bargain. Isn't he suppose to keep his, i.e., go OUT? It is amazing the Post doesn't print any facts about her, her views, or her (alleged) associations with the most extreme elements of our society. Instead, they just go with this "populist" nonsense that has no basis in fact.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 11, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

It's cute to see the Republican leadership saying the American people should give them majorities in the House and Senate because one-party control is bad. Does that mean that if they do retake the House and Senate in 2010, they won't run a candidate for president in 2012 so as to avoid the risk of one-party control? Ahhhh, it's almost as funny as when the Democrats said it in 2006.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | February 11, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

37th & O writes
"I did not talk about such a rate - so don't put words in my mouth and then LIE by saying I am misinformed."

If you don't know what recidivism means, just ask. It means that a convict returns to their criminal ways after being released from prison. So, in this case, we're talking about whether people freed from Gitmo take up terrorism upon their release. You note that the Obama admin has released some prisoners from Gitmo to Yemen (and elsewhere), which is true. But, thus far, none of those individuals has taken up terrorism. Therefore your criticism is irrelevant. My point is that the Obama administration is apparently more competent than the prior one, which released prisoners from Gitmo who have conducted attacks on the US & our allies since being released. So the rule should be (and the record shows the Obama admin understands this): if they're a risk, don't release them. If they pose no danger to us, cut them loose. Its a no-brainer, really. Why should we be paying to incarcerate people who are no threat to us? Its a waste.

Posted by: bsimon1 | February 11, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Even the liberals out there have to be saying to themselves that Obama doesn't know what he is doing.

You elect a guy with little experience, what do you expect???

Obama was elected US Senator, and what did he do ? He went on a book tour.


You may ask yourself why that matters. It matters to the liberals because Obama never really learned what it took to get a bill through the Senate.


When the health care bill came up, Obama's lack of experience showed most in the US Senate - precisely the place Obama should have been learning the process - instead of being on a book tour.


Liberals have been extremely irresponsible to the country by supporting Obama - and getting him elected -

And that means you.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: DDAWD | February 11, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1


I did not talk about such a rate - so don't put words in my mouth and then LIE by saying I am misinformed.


Everyone hates liars, you know that.

Obama DID release terrorists to YEMEN right before the Detroit bombing incident.

Isn't that right ????


Isn't that what I say ????

Don't lie again.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Can Obama do anything right ???


He starts going after the Wall Street Bonues -


Now he is supporting the bonuses. Is Obama a complete idiot ????

This is getting painful to watch.


Really painful.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

37th & O writes
"You seem to forget that Obama was releasing terrorists to Yemen before the Detroit bombing arrest."


The last report I saw said the recidivism rate for prisoners released from Gitmo by the Obama administration is zero. ZERO. Several dozen detainees released before the Obama admin have rejoined terrorist groups & conducted attacks on the US & our allies.

So, you seem to be misinformed, as usual.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | February 11, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Its hard to tell which will bring the U.S. to a halt more effectively, the first Frankensnow resulting from global warming's moisture adding effects or the Fifty Nine Vote Filibusters as the Republicans try to avoid any meaningful legislation coming out of the Obama administration.

Posted by: mesondk | February 11, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers


Why do you think liberals are so condescending???

Why???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

MikeK3


Why do you think liberals are so condescending ???


WHY ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1


You don't get it - do you - on one hand Obama thinks that having a trial is playing to the Islamic world, to show that what good guys we are, having these trials. On the other hand, Obama has to tell the American people he will get convictions.

Obama is not helping his case in the Islamic world by saying that - he is defeating his own purpose.

I know you don't get it.

No one trusts the defense attornies in these courts - anything could happen.

Remember, Obama's pal William Ayers got off in his trial - he was on trial for bombings - the judge ruled there was so much misconduct by the government that he threw the case out.

Well let's take KSM trial - why wouldn't a judge say that waterboarding is not government misconduct - and decide to throw the case out ? Anything could happen.

You seem to forget that Obama was releasing terrorists to Yemen before the Detroit bombing arrest.

Let's be serious here -

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

37th needs to remember that he is a cosmetologist, not a climatologist. Go back and look at your degree from the

GEORGETOWN

BEAUTICIAN

COLLEGE.


In fact, the heavy snows dipping so far south are an expression of global warming. We have that from

BETTER CLIMATE

AUTHORITIES

THAN YOU.

I hear that 37th *can* explain why John Boehner is so very orange -- it has to do with 37th's inabilities with his spray tan equipment. He has to take the color mixing class over again.


.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 11, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

37th, I don't think that liberals are condescending as a group, any more than i think conservatives are racist. Are some conservatives racist, and some liberals condescending? Yes. But no specific character flaw can possibly be accurately applied to a large group of people like that. I can only speak for myself, and I hope my explanation earlier laid out my reasons.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

MikeK3


Why do you think liberals are so condescending ???


WHY ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

37th Street:
"Through out"? The word is not spelled "through." You would greatly benefit from a refresher course in English. And Politics.

Posted by: MikeK3 | February 11, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"Obama and Gibbs are trying to tell us that the court system is fair - but at the same time they are saying they will get convictions. Isn't there an inherent contradiction there ???"

No. It is reasonable to state that you believe that 1) the system is fair, and 2) we have enough on these crooks that we will get convictions.

Or, if you think they (Obama and Gibbs) are wrong, which statement do you think is wrong? Is the court system unfair, or do you think that with 200-odd witnesses to Capt Underpants' bombing attempt we can't convict him?

Posted by: bsimon1 | February 11, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"House Republican leaders made their case for why -- and how -- their party can win back the majority this fall in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. "The electorate does see very clearly that one party control in Washington is not in their best interest," "

While that is true enough that many voters agree with the principle, it is not necessarily true that people vote on that principle. For one thing, if I like my rep, I'm not going to change my vote in order to better influence the balance of power in Washington. More importantly, the challengers, in this case the GOP, have to come up with something to sell. In recent history they've certainly had success with the magic elixer of tax cuts solving all the country's problems, but past performance is no guarantee of future results. Of course, unless the Dems can figure out how to fight back, the Repubs shouldn't be counted out.

Posted by: bsimon1 | February 11, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

"House Republican leaders made their case for why -- and how -- their party can win back the majority this fall in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. "The electorate does see very clearly that one party control in Washington is not in their best interest," "

While that is true enough that many voters agree with the principle, it is not necessarily true that people vote on that principle. For one thing, if I like my rep, I'm not going to change my vote in order to better influence the balance of power in Washington. More importantly, the challengers, in this case the GOP, have to come up with something to sell. In recent history they've certainly had success with the magic elixer of tax cuts solving all the country's problems, but past performance is no guarantee of future results. Of course, unless the Dems can figure out how to fight back, the Repubs shouldn't be counted out.

Posted by: bsimon1 | February 11, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Obama and Gibbs are trying to tell us that the court system is fair - but at the same time they are saying they will get convictions. Isn't there an inherent contradiction there ???


Couldn't a defense attorney argue that those statesment taint a jury ???

This whole court thing is based on the idea that showing the world the American court system will reduce terrorism - but the terrorists want Islamic law and an Islamic court system.

It is difficult to see how this argument is going to sway the thinking of the terrorists, or anyone else in the Islamic world - everyone there knows the difference between our system and the Islamic courts.

Obama is showing a basic lack of understanding of what is going on here - and what the thinking of the terrorists is.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

MSNBC just asked Gibbs if he was prepared for the contingency if a federal judge through out a case against a terrorist.


And Gibbs said he doesn't think that is going to happen.

But contingencies are for things you don't think are going to happen.

Someone get rid of Gibbs and spare the country.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Gibbs just said something amazing.


Gibbs said "Don't you think we should let people with decades of experience decide how we should interrogate someone??"


Well, isn't that what Obama is doing - Obama is substituting his judgement - out of the intelligence community - and imposing his liberal thinking on the security people.


So according to Gibbs, we shouldn't be listening to Obama.

Gibbs has to go - he has lost his credibility - and I feel bad for Brennen because he should have never been put in a position which is partisan - but he should go too, unless he says he will stay out of the partisan battles - any person in his position should not be asked to do that.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: DDAWD | February 11, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


Why do you think the administration wants to criticize Palin ? It only elevates her.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

"Not recommended: Broder's oped today in the Post cheerleading for Mrs. Palin. Her knownothingism and (alleged [by many journalists]) racism is re-characterized by Broder as..."populism." I don't recall the Post's writers in the past EVER cheerleading for Strom Thurmond's candidacy or George Wallace's. But I guess that times at the Post have changed.
Oh well. Audra Shay for Vice President?

Posted by: broadwayjoe"

Yeah, that was kind of jaw dropping, wasn't it? Especially at the end where he implied that the only line of attack people had against her was that she writes notes on her palm.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 11, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


Why do you think liberals are so condescending ???

WHY ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson has a show? It must make him A LOT of money because that is the only reason he does anything.

Remember his run for President? He realised it was much nicer to just rake in the easy lobbying/speaking money and withdrew... which is what Quitter Palin will also decide to do, but not until 2012.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 11, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Did the Fix just overlook this other poll about the leading GOP contender, Mrs. Palin just released by...THE WASHINGTON POST? How can you not mention this other poll sponsored by THE WASHINGTON POST????
___________

"Palin Unqualified to be President, Says a Vast Majority of America."

The spotlight has been bright, not necessarily kind to former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 71% of Americans do not feel that Palin is qualified to be President. That includes a sharp drop in Republican support, where 45% believe she is qualified compared to 66% who thought she was last fall.

Overall, 37% have a favorable view while 55% have an unfavorable view of the former Alaska Governor.

Palin has been able to count on support from the Tea Party, but the Washington Post indicates that the movement itself has split favorability and is poorly understood[.]
....
The movement's supporters were identified as, "overwhelmingly white, mostly conservative and generally disapproving of Obama."

71%!!!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/11/palin-unqualified-president-tea-party-poll_n_457836.html

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 11, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

It looks like Wisconsin and Washington State could hold the key to the Republicans taking over the Senate.


This is all speculation.

However, people I speak to in Wisconsin say they are sick of Obama - so the Republicans need to put up a strong candidate in order to make it a race.


I don't know anyone in Washington State, so I can't say what anyone is thinking about up there.

Yea, in response to the jokers on this blog - you will find it amazing how much you find out by getting on the telephone and asking people what they think - listening is important - try it a few times.

Right now, everyone but the diehards want to throw Obama out of office.


It looks like a horrible election for the democrats right down the ticket -

Because Obama is not on the ballot, people are going to vote against the entire democratic ticket in order to make a statement - if Obama was on the top of the ticket, people could vote against him and give the other democrats a chance at their vote.

The democrats wanted Obama - they thought it would help them - it is a complete disaster.

The worst part of this debacle is Obama has destroyed the democratic agenda - they can't deliver on anything they have promised - but they have also exposed how morally bankrupt their agenda is.


All the problems with the democratic agenda have been exposed - no one wants it.


Who wants their electric bill doubled?

Who wants their health care costs to rise?


AND Obama has MADE IT CLEAR he wants to jam all these increase through during a recession.

He goes out there and says you don't go to Vegas when you are trying to save -

Well, you don't try to pass a massive health care bill in the middle of a recession.

Obama is an idiot - he is not looking out for the people - and he seems obsessed with his own agenda - to the detriment of the American people.


Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

A GOP house takeover is a very longshot. Not because the Dems have not delivered, but support of a platform which is been there, done that and it failed. It also won't help holding giant stimulus checks before crowds when most voted against it. The great society programs of the sixties were never adusted for the for profit health care providers/insurers raping the government and consumers. Doctors/facilities cry tort reform as the reason for unneeded testing, but I have never seen a doctor not bill to view test results, nor a facility that tests at cost. Doctors starting med. school enter at a 4-1 ratio of specialists to GPs, the opposite of need because specialists earn more with us paying the freight. We don't get our unsustainable balance of trade and medical inflation under control, this country will fall like Rome. We must rebuild our industrial base by economic policies that make it more attractive to buy American, build American. People don't want a food stamp handout, nor extended unemployment, they want to be rewarded for being the most productive workers in the world. A pox on both parties for policies that helped the American decline.

Posted by: jameschirico | February 11, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

I don't mean to be condescending. But I get frustrated with people bashing a President for not just what he has done wrong, but what he might do wrong, while refusing to acknowledging anything good he has done. I get equally tired of people who have no answers to the questions i ask, trying to escape those questions by claiming to already have answered them. I get tired of people acting like it is a bad thing that our president went to Harvard. As if it is a bad thing to be "Elite".
I get tired of all of this, and sometimes my frustration comes out in my tone of font. If I am unjustly condescending, it is not intentional, but sometimes my condescention is justified. I believe this is one of those times.

Why are you never wrong?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

37th, about Coats/Bayh: First, I didn't intend to call Coats a liar. My point was to disperage Bayh, not Coats. You're right: Bayh did vote for the bill. For that reason, Coats can get away with calling Bayh a liberal, without technically lying at all. However, he only did so after siding with Lieberman on the possibility of not voting for cloture because the bill was "too much, too fast". He has voted with Dems, so Coats is right. But he has hedged every decision he has made. He has never used the position of leadership he has, to advance liberal causes. That was my point: neither side is likely to be enthusiastic about Bayh, and it's his own fault.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Politics amounts to no more than bread and circuses in a nation whose security apparatus disrespects human and civil rights.

U.S. GOV'T CELL TOWER MICROWAVE WEAPON SYSTEM SILENTLY 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 torture, impair, subjugate citizens deemed to be dissidents or undesirables -- 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 SILENT GOV'T MICROWAVE CELL TOWER TORTURE HELD HOSTAGE TO A POLICE-PROTECTED 'COMMUNITY WATCH' GESTAPO

• Bucks County, PA- based MAGLOCLEN fusion center: "Mid-Atlantic States Ground Zero of a Multi-Agency Federal-Local American Gestapo"

• When will Obama administration act to restore the rule of law?

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

Posted by: scrivener50 | February 11, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Georges2,
The vast majority of americans live on the east and west coasts (12% of our countries population lives in California alone), so any "change" will come from those areas or it won't amount to a hill of beans.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 11, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Not recommended: Broder's oped today in the Post cheerleading for Mrs. Palin. Her knownothingism and (alleged [by many journalists]) racism is re-characterized by Broder as..."populism." I don't recall the Post's writers in the past EVER cheerleading for Strom Thurmond's candidacy or George Wallace's. But I guess that times at the Post have changed.
Oh well. Audra Shay for Vice President?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 11, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

We're sick of personal attacks from you too. Your side, yes, but also specifically from you. So if you want to keep it on issues, I trust, you'll stop throwing around words, whos definitions are unclear to you like bipartisan. and you'll cut out calling the President a liar for not having fulfilled every single "promise" in 1/4 of his term. Right? Just sticking to issues, and facts?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Also Congressman Sessions may want to be careful to not build up expectations too high. What happens if they only gain 15-20 seats? The way they are selling this that scenario will allow the Democrats to claim a victory and to say that the GOP 'resurgence' is over.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 11, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

A forty seat pick up is a pipe dream and if they pick up anything less than 40 they won't get the majority back. I Sessions also isn't saying that he has to defend all 17 of his open seats one of which he will surely lose (Deleware) and there a few more where the demcorats have an obvious advantage. The fact is that all this national mood cr@p doesn't mean squat until August, and as Mark pointed out that can all change big time if the unemplyment numbers are closer to 8% by then.

We already are at 9.7% and dropping (by 0.5% last month). If the unemployment numbers drop on average 0.2% a month we will be at 8.5% at the end of June. That isn't that far fetched since the economy has stopped shedding jobs and since the governement is going to hire 1.2 million people to work on the census. Taken with the fact that all the economic indicators are showing signs of improvement, I think the idea of 8% unemployment by the end of August is a real possibility. In that case the democrats have a better chance of gaining forty seats than the GOP.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 11, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

CC, wouldn't the title be more accurate to say that the Republicans "state" their case? Saying they make their case implys it worked, and that won't show as a result until the only poll that matters, election day.

Posted by: katem1 | February 11, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


Why do you think liberals are so condescending ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

katem1's logic: everything I say is based on polls - what the American people think.

geessshhhhh, why in the world would I be concerned with what the American people think ????

Because Obama apparently doesn't and neither do the liberals.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

You got it right, Mr. Cillizza, but it's amazing how many commenters on this site refuse to believe it! Americans have seen what Obama really is, and they don't like it. Change is coming, and it's not going to have anything to do with Obama. Forget the East Coast and the West Coast. It's going be all of us little people in the rest of the country who are going to do this. We're sick and tired of the arrogance of Washington, D.C.!

Posted by: georges2 | February 11, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


Did Bayh vote for the liberal health care bill ???


How is that false ???

YOU are on here calling Coats a liar before he says anything.

But it is you who are lying.

Bayh voted for the health care bill - that is about all the Voters have to know - and for the HOUSE, those democrats voted to DOUBLE YOUR ELECTRIC BILL with Cap and Trade -


Elijah


Those are NOT lies.

But you are SO QUICK TO CALL HIM A LIAR.

You are horrible.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

elijah24, there is no debating with the corner. It's all about how right he is, and how he bases everything he thinks he knows on polls. have you ever done one of these polls? The questions are like follows:
Q: Are your feelings more favourable or less favourable about Obama than they were this time last year?
Q: If less favourable, are they a) much less favourable b)somewhat less favourable c) about the same.
Q: If more favourable, are they a) much more favourable b) somewhat more faourable c) about the same
every single question has more than one answer, and after having to decide the first one then you'll be asked about how your feelings are in compararison to six months ago. The questions are being read to you over the phone, and after awhile you feel like the same questions are being asked over and over again, cause they all have the same answers to choose form.
besides, how can 1700 randomly picked people ,(and let's not forget how many calls were made to get 1700 respondents) accurately indicate, even within the vaunted margin of error, how 120,000,000 voters are going to vote? So many reports are based entirely on the results of polls, and put up like news stories, based on facts, instead of based on scientific guessing. Who out there has ever voted a certain way because of what a poll says? This is how polling outfits justify their exsistence, with the full support of the media. It's a vicious cycle, and I would rather figure out who to vote for by listening to the candidates, and doing my own fact checking. The fact that it took Jon Stewart to show how DeMint was lying about the Prez never talking about the war on terror is ridiculous, because the same taped speeches were available to everyone, all media, but it's easier to rely on polls instead of a little research to fact check Demint's falsehoods. Plus the media loves controversy, cause then they can do a poll on how the public feels about the "controversy" whether it's true or not. A vicious cycle that ill serves the voting public.

Posted by: katem1 | February 11, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

1. "... House Republican leaders made their case for why -- and how -- their party can win back the majority this fall in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. "The electorate does see very clearly that one party control in Washington is not in their best interest," said National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas),...."
______________

Wouldn't the Washington Post business department prefer that the RNC and NRCC pay for their newspaper ads? Just askin'.
_________

2. Also:

Wasn't this Post poll question just a tad loaded?

"Republicans now hold enough seats in the U.S. Senate to block any legislation Obama and the Senate Democrats propose. Overall, do you think this is (a good thing because it will force Obama and the Democrats to cooperate more with the Republicans); OR (a bad thing because it will enable the Republicans to set terms before allowing anything to go forward)?"

If I was an indedependent who knew nothing about either party, I would probably vote "yes" on general principle. Given the question's slant, I'm surprised the 57& wasn't more like 87%.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 11, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Breaking promises.

Reagan made 101 campaign promises in two elections. He kept 7 the first term and 1 the second. Most of those promises concerned tax cuts for the rich and ending programs that helped lower income Americans. He also drove the cost of higher education higher.

With a GOP mob idolizing this demon why would any rational American cast of vote for these people knowing what their goal is - destruction of the United States government. They don't exactly hide that goal, they are proud of it.

Posted by: BigTrees | February 11, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


Why don't you stick to the issues - instead of talking about the messanger.

I am getting a little tired of the personal attacks coming from the Obama people.

It appears that whenever they know they have lost a point, they start to attack someone personally.

This started during the primaries with Hillary.

A really ugly, horrible, angry group of people. A fish rots from the head. I hope that Obama is not personally as ugly, horrible and angry as you - however his personal statement lately appear to indicate just that.

Obama is an angry man - he doesn't know whether to turn right or left.


Obama is not sure what went wrong - it seems he is in a BUBBLE OF ARROGANCE - and no one is willing to let him have it - maybe Joe Biden will go in there and tell him what happened.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

elijah24

You should go out and start talking to people - and I actually travel a great deal.

You are talking about something you know little.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

For the entire week, the warmists have been saying that one can not draw conclusions from one set of weather events.


YOU DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WEATHER AND CLIMATE, they say.

HAAAAA. NOW the warmists are saying that the snow is actually caused by the global warming - completely reversing their position -

Because according to them today, YOU CAN DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM ONE SET OF WEATHER EVENTS.

We have an old saying - Figures don't lie but liars figure.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 8:26 AM | Report abuse

I'm curious, 37th, when was the election to make you the spokesman for "everyone"? I didn't get the memo. I'll bet you live in a small town, and never been more than 20 miles outside of city limits. Am I right? Cuz you seem awfully eager to speak for "Everyone". It seems like you have no idea how many people, with how many different ideas and thought processees that word encompasses.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Republicans want two party in power government? Most people want government that works. Democrats and Republicans need to get their heads out of the sand.

Posted by: Maddogg | February 11, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

No you havent. You have told me WHY you think President Obama is not bipartisan. You have said it over and over. You have said it in CAPS. You have accused him in a box, and you have accused him with a Fox (news) But you have not defined the word. You haven't defined it Sam-I-am. Not once have you said anything about it, not in relation to the President. As long as you fail to tell me what you think the word means, independent of any specific elected officials, I will continue to assume that you are just another paritsan hack. A child trying to sound smart by throwing around words, without really knowing their meaning. You can change my mind at any time by giving me a definition. Don't worry. I'll wait.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


Obama lied to you - if you can't see it I'm sorry for you.


Obama said he was going to do a whole bunch of things -

And when he got to Washington he took off in a whole different direction - You think the American people did not notice? Obama violated the trust of the American people.

The Republicans in Washington do not believe a commitment was made to them.

It is the American People to whom Obama made the commitments - and they feel the sense of betrayal - now it is time to start figuring out how to get Obama out and to electing someone different. Everyone has lost confidence that Obama can do anything close to what he was elected to do. And no one cares about his skin color anymore - it is his accent that everyone is concerned with.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Trees, I think it was called the "Contract WITH America", though your name is probably more accurate.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

All the Dems really need to do is start highlighting Paul Ryan's GOP Budget.

Posted by: jjj141 | February 11, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


Read my posts - I think I have been pretty specific. If you can't find it, take your best guess.

Word games are not going to help you or Obama.

I have been extremely clear in my posts.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

What Democrats need to do is embrace these numbers and give American a taste of what a return to Republican leadership would be like. Let the GOP handle leadership roles and drag them down with the Dems. They don't have a silver bullet on jobs or health care, and their budget includes eliminating Medicare and Social Security. The Dems need to have voters understand this.

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | February 11, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Funny to hear Bayh criticizing Coats for living outside the state for the past couple of years when he almost never leaves Washington DC except for every 6 years when he has to come home to Indiana to campaign. I would think all the effort the Democrats are putting in trying to knock Coats out of the race before he even declares would actually do the opposite since Coats is the Republican canidate they fear the most.

Posted by: RobT1 | February 11, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

The only way for Republicans to win an election is to lie. Name one meaningful or viable proposal authored by a right-winger in the last three years? Name one that was properly funded or regulated in the previous ten.

Every time Republicans get their hands on government in this country the situation gets worse. They don't cause the problems, Republicans ARE the problem.

Look at their campaigns. Hate, fear and character assassinations. Gingrich is the last Republican on the national stage to have any proposals and thankfully the Contract On America was derailed because of his corrupt behavior before it could be fully implemented. But it built on another failed GOP agenda - Reaganomics - has wrought The Great Recession, which still could lead us into the worst depression in human history if GOP fiscal policies - more of the same - are followed.

You can't compromise with Republicans. They insist on all or nothing. The stimulus bill demonstrated that. They got want they wanted then voted against it in mass. How can Americans ever trust another Republican again?

Posted by: BigTrees | February 11, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

The voters who hear Obama lashing out at the Republicans are taking it personally - if the voters have the same view that they did not want the health care program enacted, then Obama is lashing out at them too.


At this point, that stands at 64% of the American voters which Obama is lashing out at.

Obama's stances (plural intended) over the past few weeks have been really counter-productive.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

good morning 37th. have you figured out a definition for bipartisanship yet?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

I think this is the type of year that voters will carry the Republicans over the finish line if they have to.


Obama broke his promises to the American people.

It is the people who are angry at Obama - and he has shown nothing but arrogance the past few weeks. If anyone, Obama has only re-enforced the position he is in over the past few weeks.


Playing to Obama's base got him into this jam (pun intended.)

Playing to his base is not going to get him out.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 11, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

#4 Evan Bayh's problem is that Coats can go on the air and say falsely that Bayh was with the liberals all along, and fire up the conservative base. Meanwhile we liberals know that that isn't true. He failed us time and time again, so our side isn't particularly motivated to help him. Hoosier liberals will vote for him, but they won't be happy about it, and the Get-Out-The-Vote program will be a joke. Bayh is in very real danger of losing his seat if he doesn't give his base something to like about him, PDQ.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 11, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

it is possible that the Rs will take over the House. It is likely that Rs will close the gap enough in the House to effectively limit the Ds in any event. The prediction that unemployment will hover at 10% is the benchmark to follow through the year, behind the noise.

I wonder if the R campaigns will actually address the misery of underemployment and unemployment. I hope they do, because it would mark a return to actually campaigning on issues.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 11, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company