Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Nancy Pelosi predicts Democrats will hold the House

1. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) predicted Sunday that Democrats will retain their majority in the fall, in no small part because the party is already bracing itself for what it knows will be a difficult election. "We are ready," Pelosi told CNN's Candy Crowley. "And in the past when there [have] been these swings, it's been when people had not been ready." Pelosi also touted her party's record in special election, noting that Rep. Bill Owens' (D) win in New York's 23rd was the first time since the Civil War era that Democrats had controlled the district. Pelosi told Crowley that Democrats will have to talk about "jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs" if they want to perform well at the ballot box this November. "We inherited a terrible mess from the Bush administration and their failed economic policies," Pelosi added. "And so we have -- now we are in charge, fully in charge, we have to create jobs." (In a separate interview with ABC's Elizabeth Vargas, Pelosi argued that elements of the Tea Party movement shared common cause with Democrats: "We share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C. . . . It just has to stop," Pelosi told Vargas.) While Pelosi gets little credit from many in official Washington for her role as a party strategist, her understanding of the challenge before Democrats is dead on. With President Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of both chambers of Congress, there is an expectation among the American people -- whether reasonable or not is a debate for another time -- that things should be getting done in Washington. Can Pelosi and her Democratic brethren sell the idea that they have done what they said they would when the keys to Congress were handed to them in 2006? That is the central question of the 2010 midterms.

2. House (and Senate) Democrats got some good news over the weekend with Rep. Baron Hill's decision not to challenge Rep. Brad Ellsworthh for the Democratic Senate nomination. "I will not seek the nomination for the United States Senate, and will continue my efforts to be reelected to another term representing the Ninth District of Indiana," said Hill. In deciding to run for re-election, Hill gives House Democrats a genuine chance at holding his southern Indiana seat where, for the fifth(!) time, he will take on former Rep. Mike Sodrel (R). That joy may be short-lived, however, as Hill will now almost certainly run for governor in 2012 as Republicans are expected to target his district for annihilation (or close to it) during the 2011 redistricting process. For Senate Democrats, Ellsworth is now the near-certain nominee -- a decision that will be validated after the scheduled May 4 primary when the state central committee will hand-pick the nominee. (Since Sen. Evan Bayh announced his retirement so close to the filing deadline, no Democrat was able to get the required signatures to get on the ballot.) And, a poll conducted for the liberal Daily Kos blog by Research 2000 shows Ellsworth surprisingly competitive against former senator Dan Coats, the likely Republican nominee. Coats took 37 percent to 36 percent for Ellsworth while roughly one in four Indiana voters (27 percent) were undecided on the contest. Coats's image in the state is somewhat weak -- 40 percent had a favorable opinion of him while 36 percent saw him in an unfavorable light; Ellsworth's numbers were stronger with a 41 percent favorable/24 percent unfavorable rating. The Kos survey suggests that while Democrats took a hit when Bayh retired suddenly, the party hasn't lost all hope of holding his seat.

3. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty continues to be the most active 2012 presidential candidate as the Iowans for Tax Relief announced that he will headline an event for them in Des Moines on April 17. Ed Failor Jr., the president of the group and a major player in the Republican presidential caucus in the Hawkeye State, said that the group was "excited to have Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty speak to our members as he has a record of balancing budgets without raising taxes in Minnesota." It will be Tpaw's second trip to the Hawkeye State since he began mulling the presidential race; in November, Pawlenty headlined a "Leadership for Iowa" event. The return trip to Iowa for Pawlenty comes amid a flurry of other political activity including speeches to Republican groups in Missouri on Friday and Nevada the following night. While it's tough to dispute that Pawlenty is the Energizer Bunny of the 2012 race to date, his hometown paper, in a piece that ran over the weekend, cast some doubt on whether all of his action is paying dividends. "It's early, and Pawlenty has room to develop, but for now, if there were a political report card on his national political progress, it might read: Has potential, needs improvement," wrote the Star Tribune's Rachel Stassen-Berger. Pawlenty likely has from now until the November election to improve before the klieg lights of the presidential race turn on him full bore. ALSO READ: Where Pawlenty fits in the rankings of the ten most influential Republican elected officials, according to us.

4. New polling in the Michigan governor's race shows free-spending businessman Rick Snyder moving into contention thanks to a slew of television ads introducing the candidate to Republican primary voters as "one, tough nerd". Rep. Pete Hoekstra led the way in the EPIC/MRA survey with 27 percent followed by state Attorney General Mike Cox with 21 percent. Snyder, who has been an asterisk in all polling done before his ad campaign began, had vaulted to 12 percent with Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard at 10 percent. Of the results, Snyder spokesman Jake Suski said that his boss has "just begun to share his vision of reinventing Michigan and the more voters learn about his entrepreneurial background the more likely they are to support him." Snyder, a former Gateway computer executive, is benefiting from the fact that his personal wealth makes him the only Republican candidate on television at the moment and from what is a decidedly anti-politician environment. It remains to be seen whether he can maintain momentum all the way through the state's August 3 primary. On the Democratic side, uncertainty reigns with 45 percent of the poll's sample undecided on a candidate. The race appears to be a three-way fight between state House Speaker Andy Dillon, former Genesee County Treasurer Dan Kildee and Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero. Michigan is one of Republicans' best pickup opportunities in the country this fall.

5. Georgia Republican Rep. John Linder's retirement over the weekend makes him the 19th GOP member to announce his departure from the House this fall. (A 20th -- Republican Rep. Mario Diaz Balart -- is abandoning his 25th district in Florida to run for the seat of his retiring brother in the nearby 21st district.) Linder's 7th district is safe Republican territory -- Sen. John McCain won it with 60 percent in 2008 -- so the action is in the GOP primary. State Sens. Don Balfour and David Shafer are both likely to run and Gwinnett County Sheriff Butch Conway may run; those three names comprise the top tier. The best known name in the mix is Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition and chairman of the Georgia Republican Party. Reed, however, lost badly in a lieutenant governor primary race in 2008 and the Georgia GOPers the Fix spoke with said it was unlikely he would run. ALSO READ: Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) reportedly will resign his 9th district seat today to focus full time on his run for governor. Hello special election!

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 1, 2010; 5:49 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Ranking Republican leaders
Next: Bill Halter to challenge Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas

Comments

No "corporations" contributed to Washington's campaign. You need to review history. In the United States, government chartering of "public companies" began to fall out of vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focused on protection of the public interest alone, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and corporations were required to comply with the purposes expressed in their charters. Many private firms in the 19th century avoided the corporate model for these reasons (Andrew Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited partnership, and John D. Rockefeller set up Standard Oil as a trust). Eventually, state governments began to realize the greater corporate registration revenues available by providing more permissive corporate laws. New Jersey was the first state to adopt an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state. Delaware followed, and soon became known as the most corporation-friendly state in the country after New Jersey raised taxes on the corporations, driving them out. New Jersey reduced these taxes after this mistake was realized, but by then it was too late; even today, most major public corporations are set up under Delaware law.

By the beginning of the 19th century, government policy on both sides of the Atlantic began to change, reflecting the growing popularity of the proposition that corporations were riding the economic wave of the future. In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations a plethora of rights they had not previously recognized or enjoyed. Corporate charters were deemed "inviolable", and not subject to arbitrary amendment or abolition by state governments. The Corporation as a whole was labeled an "artificial person," possessing both individuality and immortality.

By the end of the 19th century the forces of limited liability, state and national deregulation, and vastly increasing capital markets had come together to give birth to the corporation in its modern-day form. The well-known Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision began to influence policymaking and the modern corporate era had begun.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 2, 2010 2:40 AM | Report abuse

Please, most people in this country would have more respect for politicians if they were straight more often with us. Pelosi, Obama, Democrats, Republicans have no intention of checking the power of special interest groups in Washington DC. Both parties have special interest groups that unduly influence them, with corporations usually generously giving to both politicians in both. This has been true since Washington's administration and is unfortunately not going to change.

Pelosi is probably right about Democrats being able to keep their majority in the House of Representatives, given how they currently overwhelmingly control it. Most Republican gains will come in taking seats from relatively conservative Democrats, so the ideological make-up of the House may not significantly change. Hard to predict eight months away, but GOP should pick up a net twenty or so seats.


Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | March 2, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Now now now

A simple majority is the buzz phrase of the day. "Up or down" is so……. zeros.

BBB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 1, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Where is the change?

Gibbs says Obama wants an 'Up-or-down vote' on health care reform.

Sure sounds like Buch circa 2005


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 1, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

As I said, anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Your fantasy girl is the one who owes the apology, nothing in that babble merits one.

Palin needs to apologize for "death panels" and a host if other lies, and for riling up the poor dumb brutes in her audience with terror and paranoia. And for lowering political discourse down to her small-town small-minded small-brain level.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

EVERYone else who disparaged Palin back then, but now WANTS Biden "to support the President's agenda" and be "in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better ..." really owe her an apology.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else… …who owes her an apology.

Darn grammar checker.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 1, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else who disparaged Palin back then, but now WANTS Biden "to support the President's agenda" and be "in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better ..." really owe her an apology.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

What a sucker, buying books just because they have someone's name on the cover.

I read books to learn things. You read books to reinforce your despicable prejudices. No wonder you need to literally beg for people to respond to you. Probably harass bank tellers and 7/11 clerks.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

If no one has read Ken Gormley's latest book, has anyone else at least ordered Rove's "Courage and Consequences" shipping 3/9/10? I didn't bother with Romney's book though; has anyone read it yet?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

I would be happy to discuss the thread topic too. For instance, I "predict" that the Dems will lose both the House and U.S. Senate in November. And, I'm not alone in my "prediction" of course:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2010/02/22/BL2010022202746.html

Does anyone else want to discuss that in a civil manner?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Whimpering for attention again?

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Palin would have quit by now. Too much work an' stuff. Especially all the heat she'd take after she pulled out a tit and breast-fed her latest cabbage in front of the Indian PM.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Re: Dove's comments on Biden's possible role, I guess that Palin was right after all?

"Vice President have a really great job because, not only are they there to support the President's agenda, they're like a team member, the team-mate to that President. But also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better ..."

Of course, I doubt that a Vice-President Palin would be ruling the same way as Biden would ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Please 37th just leave them alone.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


That is a lie - the ritual is completely different.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 1, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

You worry about posting style, I'll keep hitting back with the facts, Cletus. Sorry I didn't give you a typo to crow about. Now go pork your sister some more.

Posted by: Noacoler
-------------------------------------------
After you do Nanny government stoodge.

Posted by: leapin | March 1, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

You worry about posting style, I'll keep hitting back with the facts, Cletus. Sorry I didn't give you a typo to crow about. Now go pork your sister some more.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of travel expenses.

Bill Clinton travelling abroad: 76 people. Staff, advisors, gofers etc. Lot of people.

GW Bush: 137 people.

You don't know what your talking about

Posted by: Noacoler
----------------------------------------
Your style of posting is right out of the Frankfurt school.

Posted by: leapin | March 1, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

these were your exact words, not mine
"Looks like Warren Buffet is bailing on D plan for HCR."
I posted Buffett's precise words, you can argue with them as well if that suits you. I have heard Buffett say that a more aggressive public option would create more competition to private HC and drive down costs along with more outcome determined reimbursements to doctors and hospitals.

I raise this point b/c of the constant mentioning of how public polling proves that American voters oppose the public plan, w/o mentioning that many like Buffett(and most progressives) feel that the current plan with exchanges does not go far enough to control costs, but implies like your post about Buffet that we oppose the Senate plan and would side with R oppossition to the Senate plan, which is far from being accurate.

again these were your exact words contrasted to what Buffett actually stated: "Looks like Warren Buffet is bailing on D plan for HCR."

I urge readers to read Buffett's precise words and contrat them to YOUR SPIN on what he actually said and reach your own conclusion about his position on HC. I listened to him on CNBC being interviewed early this am from Omaha, I truly doubt you did.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of travel expenses.

Bill Clinton travelling abroad: 76 people. Staff, advisors, gofers etc. Lot of people.

GW Bush: 137 people.

You don't know what your talking about

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

One of the best things about Nancy P is the stimulus she has provided to the economy through her travel expenses.

Posted by: leapin | March 1, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

my larger point is that there are many here who think that their predictions/ opinions are the political gospel when they are nothing more than their opinions, period. There are few,even those in the business, who's opinions don't come from an agenda. Charlie Cook is someone I respect and his predictions should be taken seriously, but again a week is a lifetime in politics and even what he predicts today may have no relevance by Nov.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 3:20 PM
---------------------------------
Since I started posting here a few months ago, I've noticed that often there is confusion about the difference between fact and opinion. Posters here will shriek "liar" over differences in opinion.

The word "lie" and "liar" can only be applied to facts, not opinions.
Like the earth is flat -- lie.
Like the Pope is not Catholic -- lie.
Like drivl writes his own columns pieces -- lie.

Then, there is opinion:

Like I think 37th hangs Obama's portrait upside down and sprinkles chicken blood on it -- opinion (cause how do I know?) Maybe he doesn't sprinkle blood on it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 1, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

leichtman,

I will not argue that Warren Buffets is against HCR, but rather he is against the current HCR bill. He is mainly against it because it does not control of cost of HC. The current bill as it stands would not pass the control of cost. I think David Brooks has written about time and again and Brooks does believe in HCR. Spare me this rightie garbage.

Posted by: sliowa1 | March 1, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

these are the precise words Buffett told Becky Quick from Omaha this am:

“If it was a choice today between plan A, which is what we’ve got, or plan B, which is … the Senate bill, I would vote for the Senate bill. But I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs. And I think that’s what the American public wants to see…"

and from this righties conclude Buffett is saying he opposes the S.B., another lie being spread by R righties, which insults Buffett.

“If the only choice I had in the world was the present system or the present bill, I’d take the bill.”

most of us including those being polled and sited by Rs as opposing the S.B. would agree with Buffett's conclusions about the pending HC reform bills.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Buffet didn't get where he is by being stupid, and niether did Nancy "we aren't here to get re-elected, we are here to lead...." Pelosi. They both know what needs to get done for the health and, YES, the wealth of this nation.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 1, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"Looks like Warren Buffet is bailing on D plan for HCR."

I actually listened to the entirety of Buffett's comments on CNBC. He suggested that Congress is not going far enough with HC, and has previously stated he would favor a far more aggressive approach to HC then the current Senate bill. He then went on and told Becky Qick from Piccolo's Rest. in Omaha Nebraska this a.m., on CNBC , that if he were in the US Senate he would be voting for the Senate bill even though like most Progressives we would prefer Medicare for all or a more aggressve national HC plan.

Once aagin a rightie comes here and acts like Progressives don't listen carefully to brilliant business people like Buffett. Good try, do you have another lie about HC to try and spread today?

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Warren Buffet is bailing on D plan for HCR.

Posted by: sliowa1 | March 1, 2010 3:15 PM

Obama will eventually get the message, even if it is too late.

Posted by: beltwaybro | March 1, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

my larger point is that there are many here who think that their predictions/ opinions are the political gospel when they are nothing more than their opinions, period. There are few,even those in the business, who's opinions don't come from an agenda. Charlie Cook is someone I respect and his predictions should be taken seriously, but again a week is a lifetime in politics and even what he predicts today may have no relevance by Nov.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

My favorite Pelosi story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040600029.html

Shows courtesy toward her hosts while not conceding her own culture, and especially sweet for its potential to rile the rubes with their “appeasement” nonsense.

Go, Nancy!

Posted by: Noacoler
------------------------------------------
It nice to see someone that respects religion and is tolerant and compassionate.

Posted by: leapin | March 1, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Warren Buffet is bailing on D plan for HCR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/03/warren_buffet_health_care_bill.html


Posted by: sliowa1 | March 1, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Uh, sorry leichtman, I stepped on your line about predictions.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 1, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

My favorite Pelosi story:
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040600029.html
 
Shows courtesy toward her hosts while not conceding her own culture, and especially sweet for its potential to rile the rubes with their “appeasement” nonsense.
 
Go, Nancy!
 
 

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! So, Nancy never "lies" even if all analysts are also correctly predicting November as a Republican sweep.
----------------------------------
How can a prediction be a lie? It's a prediction, you know, something that hasn't happened yet. How can something that hasn't happened yet be true or not true?

I took logic in college but I sure don't remember the name of this fallacy. Probably the Bravo Sierra fallacy.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 1, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

by the way its Madame Speaker, not Nancy just as most people refer to the late POTUS Reagan as POTUS Regan, Not Ronnie.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

its called predicting for a reason. Its a prophesy as of TODAY. nothing more nothing less so don't get too self absorbed about what will happen, not you, not Rove, not Pelosi have any idea how Nov will end up. As a prediction the GOP could lose the governor's race in red Texas. There is also a saying that a week can be a lifetime in politics.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I hope McCain’s doddering and petulant performance on camera last week finishes off his career.  Let him lose in the primaries to an unelectable knuckledragger and Arizona gets a Democratic Senator.  It would be frontier justice for McCain to leave office not of his own choosing, to spend his last days in bitterness and anger, lashing out at reporters and anyone else willing to give him any attention.  For loosing that horrid Palin woman on us he deserves disgrace.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! So, Nancy never "lies" even if all analysts are also correctly predicting November as a Republican sweep. I see, said the blind man. LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Getting back to the topic:

How is Nancy Pelosi predicting that Democrats will retain their majority any different than Karl Rove predicting the same as to Republicans in 2006?

==

simple. Rove was merely being defiant of what all analysts were correctly predicting as a Democratic sweep.

And lying of course, but that's implicit, given his party.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

How is Nancy Pelosi predicting that Democrats will retain their majority any different than Karl Rove predicting the same as to Republicans in 2006?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

even this nutcake DJ running against mccain disavows birtherism.

"Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who is challenging Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in the Republican primary, appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on Friday, and disavowed ever having any belief in the Birther movement, after the McCain campaign attacked him for his prior Birther-friendly statements.

"Hey Bill, I view this entire debate as esoteric. It's as esoteric as arguing about the eligibility of Chester Alan Arthur well over a century after he served as president," said Hayworth, referring to the 19th-century president whose detractors would spread rumors that he was born in Canada. "Look, Barack Obama's the 44th president of the United States. His election was certified. I believe he was born in Hawaii. I made certain statements on the air to -- to provoke conversation. That's what happens in broadcasting."

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD2"


oooooh. tuff guy.

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Getting back to the topic:

How is Nancy Pelosi predicting that Democrats will retain their majority any different than Karl Rove predicting the same as to Republicans in 2006?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Won the Cold War without firing a single

==

see below re: lying

The Soviet Union is still there; it's collapse had nothing to do with Reagan and was the result of decades of the same military spending that Bush engaged in.

Had Carter won reelection the collapse would not have been one second later. See what I mean? You can't point to real avhievements, you have to trot out whoopers like this.

And oh, abortion remains legal even if one rare procedure is circumscribed. Too bad you weren't aborted, nobody has any use for you.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

The liberal women are all ugly as hell.

Posted by: beltwaybro
----------------------------------------
But being members of the party of free lunch they freely give it away.

Posted by: leapin | March 1, 2010 1:54 PM

They give it away, but you get a disease with it.

Posted by: beltwaybro | March 1, 2010 2:17 PM
--------------------------------------
Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Da beltwaybro done leapin up on his knuckles,
ascratchin' under his'n lil arms,
hooti-hootin',
an' atellin' da funnies 'bout dem wimen.

Ain't they cute?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 1, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

great you can name them, for a lawyer that is really impressive. Now when you learn what POTUS appointed them we will be truly floored.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Jaked2:

2.5 trillion dollars in National debt;

Tax burden shifted from business and the wealthy to the middle class;

Ketchup became a vegetable;

elevated that cadre of wimp, chicken hawk Neo Cons;

Clarence Thomas (you insisted);

The Invasion of Grenada (a war U can win!);

Iran-Contra;

Outspent the Ruskies into oblivion (the source of the National debt thing);

Edwin Meese;

The SCOTUS that inflicted us with Georgie Bush.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 1, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Nov 2003. Gee jake you can't even get your right wing talking points straight. Reagan did give us Sandra Day O'Conner. Regan was not an ideologue unlike these current neocons and did not care about your favorite topic, abortion.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

No, but they may be like a "horror movie" to liberals. At least I can name Supreme Court Justices. You can barely manage to cut-and-paste from:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/tea_partiers_call_obama_a_marxist_and_a_dictator_g.php

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

so what disease didja get, beltway bro? i hope it's fatal.

AIDS would be amusing.

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

William Rehnquist.

Antonin Scalia.

Clarence Thomas (via George H.W.Bush)


John Roberts.

Samuel Alito.

---a list of characters out of a horror movie

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

The liberal women are all ugly as hell.

Posted by: beltwaybro
----------------------------------------
But being members of the party of free lunch they freely give it away.

Posted by: leapin | March 1, 2010 1:54 PM

They give it away, but you get a disease with it.

Posted by: beltwaybro | March 1, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Won the Cold War without firing a single shot.

William Rehnquist.

Antonin Scalia.

Clarence Thomas (via George H.W.Bush)

Partial-birth abortion ban (doubtful GWB gets elected if Reagan-Bush hadn't).

John Roberts.

Samuel Alito.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Only the wingnuts think Reagan was a great president.

Ask them to justify, they don't list any achievements, start quoting pithy one-liners and talking about Carter and the tennis courts.

Reagan blew chunks.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I never whined to FairlingtonBlade.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

We are not the ones wandering away from this blog. I'd much rather read drivl's posts than those by FairlingtonBlade and 12BarBlues. If you guys don't like it here so much, then you LEAVE!!

==

wasn't that long ago you were whining to FB to stick up for you.

Why don't you go troll a cancer support group you despicable bigot

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Reagan was legally PRESIDENT at least.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama is no Reagan.

Posted by: JakeD2
========================

aaaahhhh Dope! I didn't know that....Gheez thanks for that great rebuttal...Obama is no Reagan...Thank God!

Reagan used to love to state...Big government is the problem...Less Goverment is the solution....

Yet....

HE BALOON THE GOVERNMENT BY 150% while he was in office

I just hope the teabaggers soon realized they are been played by thier politicians and most of the GOP want corporations to run the political arena and not that of average people like "Joe the Plumber" winthin their party

GOP = LET THE CORPORATION RUN THE ELECTIONS

TEABAGGERS THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT????

Posted by: dove369 | March 1, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

'Obama is no Reagan'

thank god for that... we don't need another senile incoherent old man in office.

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

omaarsblade:

I've declined as much of Medicare as is legally possible.

==

safe to assume that this, like everything from this troll, is a lie

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

i wonder why rightwing men hate women so much? Maybe it's that erectile dysfunction thing....

the biggest advertiser on the Rush Limbaugh show. LOL.

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I urge jake, jake2 and ALL Rs here to petition that their Congressperson actively campaign to:
1. End Medicare as we know it;
2. Immediadely offer all Rs the right to opt out of Medicare.
We know that many Rs would vote against Medicare if it did not exist today.
They should listen to jake and actively campaign to end Medicare.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is offering 72 virgins for a vote for HC. Currently she get find any liberal women to offer up.

Posted by: leapin | March 1, 2010 1:36 PM


The liberal women are all ugly as hell.

Posted by: beltwaybro
----------------------------------------
But being members of the party of free lunch they freely give it away.

Posted by: leapin | March 1, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

No fair using stats, Dove.

Posted by: JakeD3 | March 1, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is offering 72 virgins for a vote for HC. Currently she get find any liberal women to offer up.

Posted by: leapin | March 1, 2010 1:36 PM


The liberal women are all ugly as hell.

Posted by: beltwaybro | March 1, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

The battle lines crystallized over the past week. From Thursday’s White House health care summit to the Sunday talk shows, Republicans have blasted reconciliation as everything from “cataclysmic” to a “trick” to push the bill through Congress.

Democrats, in turn, argued Republicans have no grounds to criticize, accusing them of rank hypocrisy given their frequent embrace of the tactic during the past 30 years, when they passed several major bills using the threshold of a 51-vote Senate majority, not the usual 60...

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 11:16 AM

This guy copies a lot of what he writes too. This is directly from a politico article.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/

Posted by: beltwaybro | March 1, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

omaarsblade:

I've declined as much of Medicare as is legally possible. If you would "let us" decline the rest, then you wouldn't have a false "hypocrisy" charge. Since you brought that topic up, do you want to know what then-Sen. Obama (D-IL) said about the virtues of the fillibuster or Sen. Byrd (D-WV) thought about using reconciliation for Hillarycare?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Speaker Pelosi is correct.

On behalf of the patriotic Democratic Party, I would like to thank her for her service, and thank the America-hating al-Thea insurgents (aka Tea Party) for engaging in fratricide with the America-hating GOP.

Posted by: WillSeattle | March 1, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is offering 72 virgins for a vote for HC. Currently she get find any liberal women to offer up.

Posted by: leapin | March 1, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Now who's engaging in "OPERATION BLOG-SPAM"?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/22/weiner-55-republicans-public-option/
________________

Rep. Weiner Identifies 55 Republicans Congressmen On Medicare Who...

‘Steadfastly Oppose’ The Public Option
____________________

Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) office today released an internal study showing that 151 members of Congress “currently receive government-funded; government-administered single-payer health care — Medicare.” Of those 151 members, 55 are Republicans who also happen to be “steadfastly opposed [to] other Americans getting the public option, like the one they have chosen.”

Included on [Weiner’s List] are anti-public option crusaders Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and Rep. Peter King (R-NY).

This morning on C-Span, Weiner explained the idea behind the project:

WEINER: It’s more another way of looking at this debate, this discussion about the public option, to put it in focus. We went, just out of curiosity, looked at how many members of Congress get the public option. And I know a lot of people have said, “Well under the new bill, how many of you members of Congress would choose the public option?”

Well there already is one; it’s called Medicare. And we found 55 Republicans and 151 members of Congress are on Medicare right now. So they’re already getting the same type of public option that we’d like people who are without insurance to be able to get. And I guess the purpose of this list was to kind of point out some of the hypocrisy of this debate.

“You have members of Congress thumping their chest how they’re against government health care,” Weiner noted, adding, “and yet when it’s time for them to accept Medicare, they’re like, ‘Sign me up!’” Watch it:

Back in July, Weiner offered an amendment that would eliminate Medicare, saying at the time that it was “put-up or shut-up time for the phonies who deride the so-called ‘public option.’” Of course, no one voted for the measure.

“Even in a town known for hypocrisy,” Weiner said in a statement today releasing his study, “this list of 55 Members of Congress deserve some sort of prize. They apparently think the public option is ok for them, but not anyone else.”

Posted by: omaarsblade | March 1, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Give'em hell

12barblues!

Give'em hell!

Posted by: dove369 | March 1, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Hell no we won't go...Hell no we won't go...Hell no we won't go...Hell no we won't go...Hell no we won't go...Hell no we won't go

etc.

All together now...

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

I HEARD THINGS COME BETTER IN THREE'S!

Posted by: dove369 | March 1, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

dasheight's diary wrote :: ::

Reagan came into office with initial job approval ratings as high as 60% by mid-March 1981. On March 30, Reagan was shot by John Hinckley and the resulting concern and sympathy lifted his ratings to 68% by May.

But even as Reagan recovered from his wounds, the public's concerns about the bad economy didn't, and his ratings began to fall as each month went by.

By the end of 1981, Reagan's job approval rating had drifted down to 49%.

In 1982, the public's view of the economy remained sour, and his ratings during 1982 fell even further, hitting the 40% range, ending his second year at 41%. In the '82 midterm elections, the Republicans lost 28 seats in the House. The cause? The economy and the voter's anger over it.

The unemployment rate in Reagan's second year - a full year after his tax cuts for the top 1% - rose to a post WW2 high of 10.8%. According to Gallup, only one third approved of the way he was handling the economy, with the deficit exploding due to his tax cuts benefiting the wealthy.

At the beginning of '83, his approval rating fell to a low of 35%.

The economy, and Reagan's approval, only started to improve in his third year.

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% .... Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% *Reagan cuts taxes for top 1% & says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%
01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8%

For some contrast:

At the start of President Obama's second year, the unemployment rate has so far fallen from 10% to 9.7%, and in the BEA/U.S. Department of Commerce's now revised estimate for GDP growth in the 4th quarter of 2009, released on Friday, the number went up from the initial estimate of 5.7% to 5.9% - the best growth in over six years.

In addition, as some may have already seen, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office last week released its study on the impact of the Recovery Act so far:

The stimulus created up to 2.1 million jobs in the last three months of 2009.

It boosted the economy by up to 3.5 percent.

It lowered the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent during that period.

In 2010, the package is expected to boost GDP by between 1.4 percent and 4 percent.

In 2010 the package is expected to bring down the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percent and 1.8 percent.

And in contrast to Reagan's approval numbers, as Gallup released today, President Obama has hovered at just below or above 50% in a "high degree of stability" since November, while Reagan's had plummeted to 40% or below during the same period.

In addition, despite the talk of independents and his base leaving him in droves:

Posted by: dove369 | March 1, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama is no Reagan.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

dasheight's diary wrote :: ::

Reagan came into office with initial job approval ratings as high as 60% by mid-March 1981. On March 30, Reagan was shot by John Hinckley and the resulting concern and sympathy lifted his ratings to 68% by May.

But even as Reagan recovered from his wounds, the public's concerns about the bad economy didn't, and his ratings began to fall as each month went by.

By the end of 1981, Reagan's job approval rating had drifted down to 49%.

In 1982, the public's view of the economy remained sour, and his ratings during 1982 fell even further, hitting the 40% range, ending his second year at 41%. In the '82 midterm elections, the Republicans lost 28 seats in the House. The cause? The economy and the voter's anger over it.

The unemployment rate in Reagan's second year - a full year after his tax cuts for the top 1% - rose to a post WW2 high of 10.8%. According to Gallup, only one third approved of the way he was handling the economy, with the deficit exploding due to his tax cuts benefiting the wealthy.

At the beginning of '83, his approval rating fell to a low of 35%.

The economy, and Reagan's approval, only started to improve in his third year.

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% .... Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% *Reagan cuts taxes for top 1% & says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%
01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8%

For some contrast:

At the start of President Obama's second year, the unemployment rate has so far fallen from 10% to 9.7%, and in the BEA/U.S. Department of Commerce's now revised estimate for GDP growth in the 4th quarter of 2009, released on Friday, the number went up from the initial estimate of 5.7% to 5.9% - the best growth in over six years.

In addition, as some may have already seen, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office last week released its study on the impact of the Recovery Act so far:

The stimulus created up to 2.1 million jobs in the last three months of 2009.

It boosted the economy by up to 3.5 percent.

It lowered the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent during that period.

In 2010, the package is expected to boost GDP by between 1.4 percent and 4 percent.

In 2010 the package is expected to bring down the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percent and 1.8 percent.

And in contrast to Reagan's approval numbers, as Gallup released today, President Obama has hovered at just below or above 50% in a "high degree of stability" since November, while Reagan's had plummeted to 40% or below during the same period.

In addition, despite the talk of independents and his base leaving him in droves:

Posted by: dove369 | March 1, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

dasheight's diary wrote :: ::

Reagan came into office with initial job approval ratings as high as 60% by mid-March 1981. On March 30, Reagan was shot by John Hinckley and the resulting concern and sympathy lifted his ratings to 68% by May.

But even as Reagan recovered from his wounds, the public's concerns about the bad economy didn't, and his ratings began to fall as each month went by.

By the end of 1981, Reagan's job approval rating had drifted down to 49%.

In 1982, the public's view of the economy remained sour, and his ratings during 1982 fell even further, hitting the 40% range, ending his second year at 41%. In the '82 midterm elections, the Republicans lost 28 seats in the House. The cause? The economy and the voter's anger over it.

The unemployment rate in Reagan's second year - a full year after his tax cuts for the top 1% - rose to a post WW2 high of 10.8%. According to Gallup, only one third approved of the way he was handling the economy, with the deficit exploding due to his tax cuts benefiting the wealthy.

At the beginning of '83, his approval rating fell to a low of 35%.

The economy, and Reagan's approval, only started to improve in his third year.

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% .... Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% *Reagan cuts taxes for top 1% & says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%
01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8%

For some contrast:

At the start of President Obama's second year, the unemployment rate has so far fallen from 10% to 9.7%, and in the BEA/U.S. Department of Commerce's now revised estimate for GDP growth in the 4th quarter of 2009, released on Friday, the number went up from the initial estimate of 5.7% to 5.9% - the best growth in over six years.

In addition, as some may have already seen, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office last week released its study on the impact of the Recovery Act so far:

The stimulus created up to 2.1 million jobs in the last three months of 2009.

It boosted the economy by up to 3.5 percent.

It lowered the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent during that period.

In 2010, the package is expected to boost GDP by between 1.4 percent and 4 percent.

In 2010 the package is expected to bring down the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percent and 1.8 percent.

And in contrast to Reagan's approval numbers, as Gallup released today, President Obama has hovered at just below or above 50% in a "high degree of stability" since November, while Reagan's had plummeted to 40% or below during the same period.

In addition, despite the talk of independents and his base leaving him in droves:

Posted by: dove369 | March 1, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

We are not the ones wandering away from this blog. I'd much rather read drivl's posts than those by FairlingtonBlade and 12BarBlues. If you guys don't like it here so much, then you LEAVE!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Nanny State Pelosi should really sit down and try to learn the lesson of Greece. Then she should explain it to Barry.

Posted by: leapin | March 1, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar - It's easy to tell if Zouk has copied material from elsewhere. If it's coherently written, it was copied. If it contains a personal insult of another poster, it's original.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 1, 2010 12:57 PM
--------------------------------
Yes, you are right. It is easy to spot.

I simply do not understand how someone who claims to be educated and wants his opinions respected, blatantly plagiarizes and then defends it.

Obviously, drivl wishes to be seen as someone who could have written the material, otherwise he would be happy to attribute. Just as clearly, he is incapable of writing or he would give it a try.

Why should anyone take his posts as coming from him? They come from an unidentified writer. Why should anyone respond to drivl, since he doesn't even write for himself.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 1, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

drivl, please do feel free to wander "away from this blog."* "Over the hills, and far away."**


*to quote a library-card holder

**to quote a popular children's song

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 1, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

@drivl,

I write my words.

You steal yours from professional writers.

You defend your theft.

Did you cheat in school too? Did you look over at the other kid's paper and steal his answers? That way you could impersonate an A student.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 1, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Editorial from the Friday Times:

The Cost of Doing Nothing on Health Care
By REED ABELSON

Suppose Congress and President Obama fail to overhaul the system now, or just tinker around the edges, or start over, as the Republicans propose — despite the Democrats’ latest and possibly last big push that began last week at a marathon televised forum in Washington.

Then “my health care” stays the same, right?

Far from it, health policy analysts and economists of nearly every ideological persuasion agree. The unrelenting rise in medical costs is likely to wreak havoc within the system and beyond it, and pretty much everyone will be affected, directly or indirectly.

“People think if we do nothing, we will have what we have now,” said Karen Davis, the president of the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care research group in New York. “In fact, what we will have is a substantial deterioration in what we have.”

Nearly every mainstream analysis calls for medical costs to continue to climb over the next decade, outpacing the growth in the overall economy and certainly increasing faster than the average paycheck. Those higher costs will translate into higher premiums, which will mean fewer individuals and businesses will be able to afford insurance coverage.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28abelson.html?hpw

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 1, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar - It's easy to tell if Zouk has copied material from elsewhere. If it's coherently written, it was copied. If it contains a personal insult of another poster, it's original.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 1, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

ATTN. OPERATION BLOG-SPAM:

DNI apparently aware, via Roslyn Mazer; believed to be taking heavy flak.

STAND DOWN. I repeat: STAND DOWN.

This is not tradecraft. There WILL be consequences. Because this is America -- not Communist China.

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor
http://nowpublic.com/world/how-u-s-spy-ops-censor-web-political-speech
nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor


Posted by: scrivener50 | March 1, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Fools only know in the end.

Change we can believe in is on the way. I wonder for whom?

Posted by: Accuracy | March 1, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I keep forgetting that this blog is populated by writers and thinkers (known to the rest of us as out of work liberals).

If I find the first single instance of an intelligent thought or original composition of something valuable, I will surely discover that I have wandered away from this blog.

I think we have seen enough of the content you provide (12bar, Ped and dribbl) to understand your mental powers, as they may be called euphamistically.

funny how dribbl's endless cut and pastes didn't disturb your moonbat sensibilities in the least.

but you would not be the first liberal hypocrite, in fact, we have yet to find one who isn't.

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"Ms. Pelosi is suffering from methane gas poisoning(head up rear). The only good thing about Obamacare is the Insurance industry will get very RICH. Why will a Surgeon want to do a heart transplant on a poor person for $5000 when a rich person will pay $25,000? You see, Democrats do not understand this simple math.

Posted by: markypolo"

There's not a lot on here that literally makes me laugh out loud. This was certainly one of those times, though.

Posted by: DDAWD
-----------------------------------------
DDAWD laughs because he knows in order for statist system to work the state must use force to suppress any opposition. Therefore he knows the doctor will not have a choice. Not so funny if you believe in liberty instead of tyranny.

Posted by: leapin | March 1, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

drivl:

You STILL forgot to properly attribute when you quote someone else's words. That was none other than "12BarBlues" herself.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/ranking-republican-leaders.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone else explain why Pelosi predicting that Democrats will retain their majority is any different than Rove redicting the same as to Republicans in 2006?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

12bar - you aptly demonstrated your intellectual "prowess" over the weekend with your foray into moonbattery along with your shipmates Ped, Drivl and Baghdad BJ. As a result, no one will take you seriously in anything you say or post here, except those morons you are now bedded with.

We are happy to have you fools spout the liberal line and add to the continued demise of the loon party.

Please continue. but don't think it is anything but comical for anyone with a shred of some intellect.

Here is an example of what passes for liberal brilliance:

One dark and lonely night I told 37th he reminded me of someone who dances around tombstones, sacrifices chickens, and hangs Obama's picture upside down

@fellow minions,

I nominate 37th to be Chairman of the High Crimes and Political Hijinx Committee for the purpose of keel hauling the President and thereby removing him from office forwith or even sooner.

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Rs Pragmatic, what a joke. You should have seen the collage Chris Matthews made of R Frank Luntz talking points repeated endlessly at the summit by Boehner and McConnell.

Economic bills are being passed in trauches if you bothered to pay attention.
Just say the magic word McConnell.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

AndyR3,

“On that point though, I don't think this guy has a chance and he may provide Lincoln with a liberal foil to run against as a moderate. Then if the GOP nominates an extreme conservative than she can shoot the middle and win reelection. Its a long-shot at this point, but that is how I would try and run the campaign if I were her people. Also she should vote for the healthcare bill and than go back to Arkansas and sell it hard.”

There is a fallacy in your argument and that is she can run as a moderate in her own party and win. Typically the hardcore ideologues of each party vote in dispropositionally numbers compared to more moderate elements since they are typically more passionate about their cause. She runs the risk of being defeated in her own party. This challenge is bad news for Lincoln all the way around. If there is any good news for progressive to liberal D is that this may force her into voting for things she would be inclined to vote against in order to keep her senate position. Look she is already being targeted by environmentalist on her farm policy issues. In your world the stars are always line-up just right; reality is a bit more complicated.

Posted by: sliowa1 | March 1, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 1, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

why did Barack Obama convene this unique colloquy. He did so as part of an attempt to pass some Democratic health care bill, somehow, through both houses of Congress -- and to discredit the Republicans who opposed the bills passed by the House in November and the Senate in December.

In that he seems to have failed. The Atlantic's Clive Crook, who supports the Democratic bills, concluded that "the Republicans did not come across as the party of no. They looked well-informed, pragmatic and engaged in the discussion. It was the Democrats who leaned more heavily on talking points, and seemed evasive and unspecific."

Last month, we were told that Obama would switch his focus from health care to jobs. But Democrats have spent February and seem about to spend March focusing on health care. It's hard to see how they can navigate the legislative process successfully -- and even harder to see how they turn around public opinion. Summit flop indeed.

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

@drivl,

You may not like being embarrassed this way, but really, it's considered good manners to properly attribute when you quote someone else's words. Do you understand that is theft?

By lifting the comments of others, you present yourself as someone you are not. You present yourself as a thinker and writer. Why not actually BECOME a thinker and writer instead of impersonating one?

You seem to think that you are not held to the same standards as others.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 1, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

hey 12bar:

get a life.

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

@drivl,

You also plagiarized your "let me be clear" diatribe from American Thinker. "We Need a Ready-for-Prime-Time Barack Obama Impersonator"
By Harold Witkov

Google the meaning of plagiarize if you don't know how to attribute properly. It's not that hard. Authors hate to hate their words ripped off since that is how they earn their living. Decent people do not plagiarize.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/we_need_a_readyforprimetime_ba.html

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 1, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for Nancy to fly off on her broom and lift the curse she has put on this country for the last four years. All American school children should be forced to watch as the voters throw a bucket of cold water on her in November. She's made of brown sugar and she will melt.

Posted by: kenpasadena | March 1, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

"Ms. Pelosi is suffering from methane gas poisoning(head up rear). The only good thing about Obamacare is the Insurance industry will get very RICH. Why will a Surgeon want to do a heart transplant on a poor person for $5000 when a rich person will pay $25,000? You see, Democrats do not understand this simple math.

Posted by: markypolo"

There's not a lot on here that literally makes me laugh out loud. This was certainly one of those times, though.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 1, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

“Have you ever watched a crab on the shore crawling backward in search of the Atlantic Ocean, and missing? That's the way the mind of a liberal operates.”—H. L. Mencken

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

@drivl,

You are plagiarizing. Do you know that is considered theft? It is considered good taste, if not legal behaviour, to attribute the author, by mentioning the author. If you do not have the chops to write your own words, at least attribute them properly.

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/6494-here-comes-the-sunspots

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 1, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Why will a Surgeon want to do a heart transplant on a poor person for $5000 when a rich person will pay $25,000?"


obviously you know absolutely nothing about HC works. Neither Rich people nor poor people paying the doctor directly for that procedure, except for their out of pocket expensese. Apparently you and your party are quite comfortable with 39% increases in your HC permiums; good luck with that philosophy.
R answer to HC: zip

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Aside from the Civil War, and perhaps, the Vietnam Era -- has the country ever been this virulently divided? Not in my memory...

==

We are much more polarized now than in the Vietnam war era. Back then we disagreed but both sided were sane. The right today is nuts. Seriously nuts, whacko conspiracy nuts.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"Let me be clear ...We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."


"Let me be clear ... I won."

AND YOUR POINT?

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Pelosi is suffering from methane gas poisoning(head up rear). The only good thing about Obamacare is the Insurance industry will get very RICH. Why will a Surgeon want to do a heart transplant on a poor person for $5000 when a rich person will pay $25,000? You see, Democrats do not understand this simple math.

Posted by: markypolo | March 1, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

February, 2010, was the first month since 2007 with sunspots every day according to Spaceweather.com for February 27. A quick check of February 28 confirms the streak. So far there have been only 2 spot-free days in 2010. By comparison there were 260 spot-free days in 2009, and there have been 772 spot-free days since 2004. What this means is that one of the quietest periods of solar activity in recent history may be coming to an end.
The relevance of this is that sunspot activity has been proposed by many, such as Geerts and Linacre , as a possible driver of Earth's climate patterns, including global warming and cooling cycles. As with most climate theory, the science has not been settled on the link between sunspots and Earth's climate.

Most, but not all according to some. Global Warming theory is considered so sacred and settled that until recently any scientist who questioned the tenets of its conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of climate change were subject to all but ridicule and censure. Recent events, including the Climategate scandal and a series of years where global temperature has stayed about the same, have tempered this attitude.

But now the sunspots come back and we, as junior scientists are presented with the opportunity to test the hypothesis. If sunspot activity increases, and other factors such as prevalence of greenhouse gases, volcanic activity, and known cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation continue in their recent patterns and temperature increases, then we may conclude that sunspots do indeed affect Earth's climate. If not, then we can eliminate sunspots as a significant contributor to climate change.

time for a sunspot tax.

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

good for a laugh:

"Let me be clear...John...We're not campaigning anymore. The election is over."


"Let me be clear...Over the last fifteen months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states."


"Let me be clear...My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."


"Let me be clear...The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person ..."


"Let me be clear...I've been fighting ... alongside ACORN, on issues you care about, my entire career."


"Let me be clear...You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime."


"Let me be clear...In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world."


"Let me be clear...America has shown arrogance...At times we sought to dictate our terms."


"Let me be clear...The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans...I know, because of my Muslim faith."


"Let me be clear... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


"Let me be clear... I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts ... but I think it's fair to say ... that the Cambridge police acted stupidly."


"Let me be clear ...We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."


"Let me be clear ... I won."

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Someone else is in love with Mitch Daniels. Ross Douthat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opinion/01douthat.html?hp

==

Douthat is pathetic. Like Cohen on here, always trying to come up with an original angle to create an impression of having his own voice. "hard to pin down," and "beholden to neither ideology.". The result is wasted column-inches.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Aside from the Civil War, and perhaps, the Vietnam Era -- has the country ever been this virulently divided? Not in my memory...

The opposing camps that were in evidence during the 2008 campaign are as hateful and passionate as ever.

What do we need in America? A third party for the rational, maybe?

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | March 1, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

my personal theory about drivl/moonbat/zouk/etc is that he is posting from the public library. He can only use the computer for so long, and when I librarian tells him his time is up he waits for another computer to come free. His log-in changes from computer to computer.

==

on this reverse-chronology section it's easy to just PgUp when any of his monikers come into view. Ditto 37thandPissJug, who has established himself as a genuine psychotic. It's nit as though any of the right-wing acreechers are ever going to post anything original or worth the time to read.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

drindl,
my personal theory about drivl/moonbat/zouk/etc is that he is posting from the public library. He can only use the computer for so long, and when I librarian tells him his time is up he waits for another computer to come free. His log-in changes from computer to computer.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 1, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

"Why are we here? We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress," she said on ABC's "This Week."

This quote from Nancy Pelosi sums up the dilema for conservative Democrats in the House. She has been saying that the vote for Obamacare will cause a large number of her caucus to lose their upcoming elections. But she is OK with that as long as they pass something "historic" i.e. big government. She of course, representing a liberal San Fransisco district, doesn't have to worry about her job but I would hope that the conservative Democrats who are being voluteered by Nancy to commit political suicide wise up and vote Obamacare out of existence.

Posted by: RobT1 | March 1, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

290 bills, some with as many as 400 votes have passed the US Congress but are lanquishing in the US Senate. And the right now wants to blame Pelosi for R abuses of the filibuster in the US Senate? Voters don't reward obstructionism with more power in Congress. R hypocrisy will be exposed b/w now and Nov.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Democracy means a country gets what it deserves. The rest of the developed world has pretty much figured out health care. We can't. Sure the upper middle class and rich have the best health care in history... but overall our health statistics trail pretty much everyone else. That is only possible if there are a lot of Americans that have really bad (or nonexistent) health care.

Overall, we are spending more than twice as much on health care as the next closest country and we have higher mortality at every stage of life and overall shorter life expectancy--the ultimate measure of how good your health care is. Even the well-off are getting ripped off as a recent study on congenital health failure has shown that the most expensive hospitals do give you a very marginal rise in survival rate, but they cost eight to nine times more.

In short, we pay a lot more, but it is not clear that we get much more than convenience (which is something... which is why a few Canadians do come down here for a few procedures [though it should be noted that the overwhelming do not... and even of the ones that do, they all get all the rest of their health care back home... not to mention that we try to smuggle drugs from there... not to mention that THEY LIVE LONGER THAN WE DO, even when you control for violent deaths {another problem that most of the developed world has solved, but we seem completely incapable of addressing}]).

Democracy means you get what you deserve. And if this message board is any indication, America deserves a return to Republican "leadership" in November. Hopefully we won't send the world into a third world war or another great depression as we try to blame everyone else for our inability to solve our own problems. How can someone be called a patriot when at the heart of their rhetoric is the claim that Americans, alone of all the people living in the developed countries of the world, are incapable of dealing with health care?

Posted by: orgbluspider | March 1, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Another day, another Pawlenty puff piece. Sleepy Timmy has "room to develop.". Uh, yeah. Lots of room. The guy promoting insurrectionist terror tactics and whose idea of limited government extends to letting his constituents drown in their cars. You're lost in space, Cillizza.

More and more it looks like Cillizza is doing blog entries whose only point is to attract comments from the predictable sickies on the right. Pelosibis sure-fire. Why don't you just put celebrity names in the metadata like all the other hit-wh0res out there.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 1, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Someone else is in love with Mitch Daniels. Ross Douthat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opinion/01douthat.html?hp

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 1, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

MEMO TO SPEAKER PELOSI AND TEAM OBAMA:

A JOB WITHOUT JUSTICE IS SLAVERY BY ANOTHER NAME.

JOB #1:

RESTORE CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND END BUSH-ERA PROGRAMS OF COVERT HIGH-TECH TORTURE AND POLICE STTE VIGILANTISM.

President Obama and Congress fail to realize that as long as the federal government is compromising the health of Americans by putting a cell tower- based microwave/laser weapon system in EVERY neighborhood in America -- and using it to silently attack and impair thousands of unjustly "targeted" citizens -- Americans cannot trust their government when it comes to protecting their health and well being or ensuring meaningful employment.

CELL TOWER MICROWAVE WEAPON SYSTEM ATTACKS, IMPAIRS 'TARGETED' AMERICANS, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Why so many cell towers saturate the American landscape -- urban and rural.

• Weapon system patents reveal silent, powerful attack system in YOUR backyard.

• American human rights atrocities under the cover of national security.

WHY ARE THE POLITICIANS SO NAIVE, SO BLIND TO EVIL?

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
OR: poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2 (see articles list)

NOW IT'S OBAMA'S GESTAPO USA. WHEN WILL TEAM OBAMA ACT?

• Reporter exposing gov't cell tower microwave torture held hostage to community stalking, police-protected, GPS-equipped goon squads that burglarize, vandalize and terrorize -- officially-enabled lawlessness that afflicts many thousands of other unconstitutionally targeted and persecuted Americans.

BUCKS COUNTY, PA- BASED MAGLOCLEN FUSION CENTER: "GROUND ZERO OF A MID-ATLANTIC STATES AMERICAN GESTAPO"

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories" list)

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 1, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The battle lines crystallized over the past week. From Thursday’s White House health care summit to the Sunday talk shows, Republicans have blasted reconciliation as everything from “cataclysmic” to a “trick” to push the bill through Congress.

Democrats, in turn, argued Republicans have no grounds to criticize, accusing them of rank hypocrisy given their frequent embrace of the tactic during the past 30 years, when they passed several major bills using the threshold of a 51-vote Senate majority, not the usual 60.

In a rhetorical shift, Democrats have begun avoiding the word “reconciliation,” in favor of “simple majority.”

“Health care reform has already passed both the House and the Senate with not only a majority in the Senate but a supermajority,” White House health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And we’re not talking about changing any rules here. All the president’s talking about is: Do we need to address this problem, and does it make sense to have a simple, up-or-down vote on whether or not we want to fix these problems.”

Since 1980, Republican presidents have signed 14 of the 19 reconciliation bills into law, including two tax cuts in the George W. Bush administration that did not reduce the deficit, *which the reconciliation rules explicitly require.*

And it was a Republican Congress that used reconciliation in 1996 to pass a sweeping overhaul of the welfare system.

“The criticism of us is absolutely duplicitous,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a leading proponent of health reform. “It is chutzpah. How can those who have championed the use of reconciliation, and far more frequently, how can they come and criticize us?”


Republicans have used the tool frequently and for far more than just minor fiscal adjustments.'

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

"We share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C. . . . It just has to stop."

Oh yeah, sure. That's why Wall Street is kicking the bejeezus out of any attempt to impose meaningful regulation on the financial services industry, including protecting consumers from the industry's serial predatory practices.

Posted by: CopyKinetics | March 1, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Heh, I guess my comments really got to the Bill O' Reilly addicts this morning. It still baffles me how they can't simply hate Pelosi. They've got to hate all of San Fran (an incredible city)

Well, I guess when you've got so much anger at the world leaving you behind...

Posted by: DDAWD | March 1, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

AndyR3,

You made some excellent observations about the Arkansas Senate race.

It doesn't make sense for Lt. Gov. Bill Halter to challenge Blanche Lincoln from the left, but it looks like that is exactly what he is going to do.

The Employee Free Choice Act is not something that the Fortune 500 companies want --- and yes, between retail, transportation/logistics, poultry and telecommunications -- there are several of these companies whose principal placxe of business in Arkansas. Many don't favor the health care bill as it exists today either. And yet, there is Halter building a campaign on these issues.

If Lincoln runs a strong primary campaign as a moderate against Halter, it may give her enough good free press to improve her general election prospects

Posted by: Jay20 | March 1, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Rs talk talk talk about 'jobs' but it's all BS:

Over the weekend, approximately 400,000 laid-off workers may have lost their unemployment benefits, COBRA subsidies to help defray health care costs expired, and loans for small businesses ran out of time — all because of Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY).


Several Republicans have defended Bunning’s destructive tactics, although Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) called on him to move aside. Inhofe pointed out that since the bill also contained transportation funding, an expiration would lead to furloughs of employees of the Federal Highway Administration. Indeed, today, 2,000 federal transportation workers have been furloughed without pay. From a Department of Transportation press release, which lays the blame directly on Bunning:

The action comes as a result of Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning’s decision to block key legislation that would have extended several critical priorities for middle class families. [...]

Because of the shutdown, federal inspectors will be removed from critical construction projects, forcing work to come to a halt on federal lands. Projects span the country, including the $36 million replacement of the Humpback Bridge on the George Washington Parkway in Virginia, $15 million in bridge construction in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, and the $8 million resurfacing of the Natchez Trace Parkway in Mississippi. [...]
'

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

It continues to be too early to tell whether the Dem majority in the House is truly in play. My sense is that if the election was today, Dems would maintain a slim majority. If that's right, it means things have to get worse for Dems between now and November for Republicans to have a serious shot at taking the gavel away from Pelosi. Personally, I don't think that's likely. It's hard to see how the Dems get in any worse shape than they've been in over the last 3 months. But, it's possible. If the Dems continue to screw around on healthcare for another 1-2 months at the expense of everything else, if they continue to not be able to get a 'jobs bill' done, and if they get bogged down on social issues like DA-DT, they might in fact make their political situation even worse. The Dems have a real perception problem that they've gotta address. That problem being the perception that the Dems's priorities are not the country's priorities. This was the major thing that got Republicans canned 4 years ago.

Posted by: mbcnewspaper | March 1, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Someone nudge akeegan2. The needle's stuck.

Posted by: JakeD3 | March 1, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

What is important in all this discussion of health care reform is the opinion of the majority of the electorate.
So go ahead and vent your views!
I'll vent mine here:
1) The nation has too many unemployed workers who are kept from making a decent living wage.
2) This Congress is inept in dealing with the #1 issue of the past year, which is JOB CREATION.
3) Health care reform should have been put on the back burner when it became apparent that HCR would not pass a Congress that had a super majority!
4) The mentality of the leaders of this once great nation is very much in question, as they cannot lead their way out of a paper bag!
5) This president deserves a kick in the butt for his lack of leadership. Too bad that we have to wait until 2012 to kick his butt out of the White House!

Posted by: SeniorVet | March 1, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama is truly comical in this stage of his presidency. He has been asking Dems, even those in contentious races, to support his healthcare bill, even when their voters are responding with a resounding NO!, and while Obama is telling these Dems to "walk the plank" with the voters back home, he's in the process of putting together the peopaganda package for his own re-election run that is still three years away. But if history is any judge, and Obama's "support" continues along is course so far, come November, Obama will begin his Lame Duck Session with a Dem minority in both houses, and the country will be on political autopilot for the next two years.

However, based on the past year of performance of U.S. leaders, not having anyone at the wheel, could turn out to be a good thing.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | March 1, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

If you want to see where Obama’s going, you have to watch this Brand New, Viral

OBAMACARE - YEAR IN REVIEW video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rv7aW3NF7w

This Hilarious and Shocking Video provides a Fast-Paced Look at the No-Lie-Too-Big, Socialist Ideologues Who Now Run Our Country.

MUST WATCH!

Posted by: CommieBlaster | March 1, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

In certain respects it is unfair not to provide unemployment benefits for voters. It is a feature of liberal governance that you remain unemployed for extensive periods of time. Liberals, of course, enjoy taking from productive citizens and giving to deadbeat ACORN workers to man the polls and hand out free lunches. this must be funded to continue electoral victory for liberals. they could never win on the record or ideas that don't exist.

Unfortunately, if you do not get "rewarded" with the effects of voting D - unemployment and despair, you may not learn your lesson.

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Indeed, Pelosi (or is it Pelousy?) will be discussing "jobs jobs jobs" -hers and the jobs of a lot of Democrats this Fall! The ones the Republicans don't get will be snapped up by our new Patriot force -the TEA PARTY! Pelosi will -like dozens of other Democrats- soon be history! sic semper tyrannis to her and all her ilk!

Posted by: churchlionjudah | March 1, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

dribbl, I guess you already forgot about the pay-go rule the Libs enacted which does not permit that payment without a way to fund it.

Libs love passing all sorts of laws, which only apply to others.

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

"Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, is single-handedly blocking Senate action needed to prevent an estimated 1.2 million American workers from prematurely losing their unemployment benefits next month.

As Democratic senators asked again and again for unanimous consent for a vote on a 30-day extension Thursday night, Bunning refused to go along.

And when Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) begged him to drop his objection, Politico reports, Bunning replied: "Tough sh*t."

that pretty much sums up how republicans feel about their constituents -- unless they're corporations.

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Jay I would assume that CC will be doing a full story on the Halter announcement later today. He usually does for that type of news.

On that point though, I don't think this guy has a chance and he may provide Lincoln with a liberal foil to run against as a moderate. Then if the GOP nominates an extreme conservative than she can shoot the middle and win reelection. Its a long-shot at this point, but that is how I would try and run the campaign if I were her people. Also she should vote for the healthcare bill and than go back to Arkansas and sell it hard.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 1, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

my favorite bumper sticker:

TEA PARTIES ARE

FOR LITTLE GIRLS

WITH IMAGINARY FRIENDS

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

moonbat has turned into drivel early today, i see.

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi is delusional as are most of the Dems who think that the next election will be a "cake walk" for any party. The people are angry and the only reason some members of congress have not been tarred and feathered is that such treatment has unfortunately gone out of style. If this were the 1700's there would be a shortage of tar and geese would be in fear of losing their feathers.

Pelosi says that "we will have to talk about "jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs"

Well, Nan, you need to do a lot more than "talk" I was a Democrat for a long time and for a while I was a Republican, after the Dems when Communist/Socialist, now I am an Independent and from the looks of the parties losses in membership more than a few are taking that same course. You can "talk" all you want, but if I am still unemployed come November I will be taking to the streets to remind all within sound of my voice, that jobs are scarce and Dems are the cause. It is way past time to "Blame Bush" especially when you have been in charge for over a year and things have not only not gotten better, they have actually gotten worse, with no end in sight.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | March 1, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

The major question is whether the moderate democrats in the House are going to act like a bunch of lemmings and get in the Toyota with Obama as he accelerates over a political cliff.


Obama has got to be kidding.


The moderate democrats do NOT want to lose their jobs because Obama doesn't know what he is doing. It just is not right. No one wants to lose their job over stupidity.


They are going to say Obama can resign - I'm not risking my job.

Forget it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 1, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

The White House called for a "simple up-or-down" vote on health care legislation Sunday as Speaker Nancy Pelosi appealed to House Democrats to get behind President Barack Obama's chief domestic priority even if it threatens their political careers.


"IF?"

If there's one thing barry knows how to do, it is lose elections for others.

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

The major question is whether the moderate democrats in the House are act like a bunch of lemmings and get in the Toyota with Obama as he accelerates over a political cliff.

Obama has got to be kidding.

The moderate democrats do NOT want to lose their jobs because Obama doesn't know what he is doing. It just is not right. No one wants to lose their job over stupidity.

They are going to say Obama can resign - I'm not risking my job.


Forget it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 1, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Poor dribbl is regurgitating idiotic posts from days ago. I wonder if a short circuit in her brain caused the direct mirror to Kos to go down.

Oh wait, I see my error now. "Dribbl's brain". good one.

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

I am a bit surprised that Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter's (D) decision to challenge Senator Blanche Lincoln in the Democratic primary didn't make the top 5 stories today.

This is a substantially more current and pertinent news item than what Governor Pawlenty is working on for 2012.

Posted by: Jay20 | March 1, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

that's right, katem. on top of his being completely corrupt, Deal is also a birther, a loon.

i just read this about the teabaggy Scott Brown. Funny:

“We’re in the famous truck,” he pointed out, needlessly. “It’s a regular truck.” Yes and no. As Arianna, the younger of his two daughters, told me, he originally purchased it not so he could haul lumber but so he could attach it to a trailer bearing her horse. He soon abandoned that plan. “It’s scary pulling a trailer,” he said…

[....]

Arianna told me that he showed up for his first real date with her mother, Gail Huff, a TV newscaster to whom he has been married for more than 23 years, in pink leather shorts. It’s family lore.

The pinkish color drained from his face when I asked him about it during a conversation in his campaign office just before we took off in the truck. He clarified that the shorts weren’t something that he went out and purchased — it wasn’t like that at all. “I did the couture shows, and instead of paying in cash, they paid in clothes,” he said. “And one of the things I had to wear were leather shorts. And these happened to be pink.”

As he told the story, he seemed, almost in spite of himself, to get into it. “If I wore these now,” he said, “I’d get shot. But it was the ’80s. Pastels were in. It was all pastel-y.”

guess he's not one of the folks they've selected to water the tree of liberty...

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

I hear Wednesday that Barry will deliver another message from the teleprompter to the people. It is rumored to be the most important speech of all time.

No one plans on watching it, so MSDNC is prempting their entire line up for the day.

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Well, Pelosi know how to trist arms and bribe the weak.....And to think she is against water boarding.

Posted by: akeegan2 | March 1, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Well, Pelosi know how to trist arms and bribe the weak.....And to think she is against water boarding.

Posted by: akeegan2 | March 1, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Well, Pelosi know how to trist arms and bribe the weak.....And to think she is against water boarding.

Posted by: akeegan2 | March 1, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Well, Pelosi know how to trist arms and bribe the weak.....And to think she is against water boarding.

Posted by: akeegan2 | March 1, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Well, Pelosi know how to trist arms and bribe the weak.....And to think she is against water boarding.

Posted by: akeegan2 | March 1, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Well, Pelosi know how to trist arms and bribe the weak.....And to think she is against water boarding.

Posted by: akeegan2 | March 1, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Well, Pelosi know how to trist arms and bribe the weak.....And to think she is against water boarding.

Posted by: akeegan2 | March 1, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

If politicians told the truth:

Nancy: we will lose the house, mostly due to my fervor for suicide and ramming things into throats that don't belong there. It is the SF way. If you think I look surprised now, just wait.

Barry: Please, please, please pass something, anything that I can claim as a success before I am run out of town for gross incompetence.

Harry: do you think the Old folks home in any other state will consider having me in December?

Jimmah: Thank you God for Barack Obama. I no longer suck hind tit.

Rangle: OK, I did it, so what? I'm entitled.

Posted by: drivl | March 1, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

They have Robert Dove on - former Senate Parliamentarian -


He said that the test on reconciliation is whether the issue is "budget" or "policy"


If the provision is "policy motivated" then it does not fall under reconciliation.


But then he reminded everyone that Biden can come in and overrule the Parliamentarian.

If Biden comes in and starts to change the substance of the Senate rules - by overruling the Parliamentarian, he will do damage that will be severe. Comments by Senator Conrad over the weekend appeared to caution anyone who believed that the Senate democrats are going to be rolled over by Obama.

Obama is going to mess this up.

The wise thing to do is walk away right now - if Obama drags this on another month, another two months, the damage is only going to be greater.

I can just tell, they are thinking that the "damage is already done" - so they are not calculating the damage already done, which can not be undone.


They are only calculating the damage which can be undone as a potential positive - and they have that up against the potential positive.


However that is a horrible calculation - and the best thing is to just get out.


The democratic Senators are not going to allow Biden to come in and start to completely disregard the rules - it is not going to work that way - they will pull Biden aside and say no.

One major major problem Dove said that there has already been an abortion-related ruling under the reconciliation rules - and that provision was rejected - so Biden would have to overturn a direct precedent.

The moderate democrats in the House should just go to Pelosi and Obama and shut down this thing right away - it is a suicide mission which has little purpose.

It has little purpose because to continue guarantees that the Republicans can undo everything next year, so there is no point.


I know the White House rarely calculates its next step, or two steps ahead - and that may be thinking three steps ahead - but right now the White House really doesn't have any winning plays.

I think it is appropriate to quote Kenny Rogers right now - "you got know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em - and you got to know when to run away."


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 1, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Well
Pelosi knows how to twist arms and bribe
the weak into submission, and to think she is against water boarding.

Posted by: akeegan2 | March 1, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Well
Pelosi knows how to twist arms and bribe
the weak into submission, and to think she is against water boarding.

Posted by: akeegan2 | March 1, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

#5- Nathan Deal- this is the Representative who in November said he was going to send a letter to the WH demanding a copy of the Prez's BC. In January, he did send the letter. Now he's resigning under an ethiocs cloud, and he wants to run for Gov of Georgia. A "birther" for a govenor? only in America...

Posted by: katem1 | March 1, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

that's exactly it, jaxas. the more impotent the guy is, the more he hates pelosi-- a direct correlation between pelosi hatred-erectile dysfunction.

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

And if Obama is able to get some of the GOPs ideas put into the HCR bill (ie Tort Reform and interstate purchasing of insurance) than it passing may turn out to be the best thing that ever happen to the Dems since they will be able to sell the bill as bipartisan even if the GOP doesn't want to vote for it.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 1, 2010 8:16 AM


Last week, Jaxas admitted to being a jackass and said he was proud of it. You should admit to being an idiot and being proud of it.

Posted by: doof | March 1, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

"Deal, whose departure apparently voids a U.S. House ethics investigation into his business dealing with the state, announced his resignation at the Gainesville Civic Center before a crowd of about 100 supporters.

Deal’s decision to resign from the U.S. House now, however, would set up a special election to fill the remainder of his term, which lasts through the November elections. At least six Republicans are already campaigning for the seat as Deal had already announced he would seek the governor’s office rather than run for re-election to Congress.

Deal has been the subject of two inquiries by congressional investigators into Deal’s role in a business with the state that earned his company $1.5 million from 2004 through 2008. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in August that Deal and a business partner obtained the lucrative state business without competition and that Deal personally intervened with state officials to fight proposed changes to the operation.

The Office of Congressional Ethics and the U.S. House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had contacted the state Department of Revenue for documents and interviews regarding Deal’s role in the business, records obtained by the AJC showed.

Once he resigns from the House, the inquiry will end. The House won’t have jurisdiction over him any longer,” said Sloan, whose organization filed the ethics complaints with the U.S. House in response to the AJC’s original report."

Only in america. He skips out of his congressional job to avoid prosecution, and turns around and runs for governor.'

Nobody has more gall than a republican.

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

"Pelosi told Crowley that Democrats will have to talk about "jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs" if they want to perform well at the ballot box this November."

This is the only time I've heard her mention jobs. So far, it's been obamacare, obamacare, obamacare.

Posted by: doof | March 1, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

I attribute most of this bulging-eyeball commentary coming form the brain dead right to the fact that Nancy Pelosi is one of the few democrats who has a real backbone and knows how to aim her arrows at the most sensitive weak spots of republicans.

Take that Health Care Summit last week. While Obama tried to use political foreplay to try and soften up the GOP reptiles like Boehner, McCain and McConnell all lied like psycopaths, Nancy roasted them on her spit, delighting in setting the record straight. Boehner looked like he was dying for a drink. McCain looked as though any moment he were going to pull out an Uzi and star mowing down everyone in the room. And McConnell looked as though one of those innocent, silent outbursts of flatulence that we all experience in such settings, turned into a full explosive whoosh of feces in his britches.

Trust me. When you have the trolls, ogres, and run-of-the-mill thugs so emotionally exercised as they are against Nancy Pelosi, you know she's hitting a nerve in their collective sphincter.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 1, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

I see zouk/moonbat is posting every two minutes already... and still pretending he is employed... how many posts before noon, when he turns magically into 'drivel'?

how's your wife, the Countess?

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

I predict that nancys pole vault will fail. Who would follow this kook over a cliff?

Posted by: Moonbat | March 1, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi, "Dems will have the votes".....for losing the majority in November.. . . . .

The most relevant analysis comes from a piece called, "I Am The President". . . .

They say, "The insecurity reflected in these four words would be recognized by even the densest members of the psychiatric profession.". . . .
At . . www.robbingamerica.com . . .
The consequences will be devastating . . . . .for Democrats.

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | March 1, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza's "Tpaw" puff pieces have gone from annoying to strange. He put up a quote like this with no critical analysis, "...[Pawlenty] has a record of balancing budgets without raising taxes in Minnesota."

I guess no one from Minnesota was available to talk about the accounting tricks (deferred tax increases) he used to balance that budget? Wouldn't it be strange if The Fix put up a quote about how Obama has crushed terrorism, or that Bush destroyed AlQ? Generally, it is not a good reportage to put up other peoples' quotes if they are simply untrue.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 1, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Nancy can dream on about keeping the House.

Seriously folks.


The democrats are a part of the problem - they have sold out time and time again - starting with Clinton's trade deals.

The Chinese and Indonesian money that went to the democrats starting in the 90s was a complete joke.

All one has to do is see the picture of the pharmaceutical companies walking out of the White House after making a deal with Obama to know that the democrats smell.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 1, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

They don't seem bothered by Palin.

Either it is peloonis liberal looniness.

Or dribbl is an idiot

I pick both.

Posted by: Moonbat | March 1, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

A post about Pelosi sure brings out the knuckle-draggers. A woman in power just drives them batsh*t crazy.

Posted by: drindl | March 1, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Pelosis "Itsy Bitsy" brain. Allows her to live in a world of make believe.


Posted by: dashriprock | March 1, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Liberals pass pay go.

Already breaking it.

They just can't help themselves.

Posted by: Moonbat | March 1, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi has a feel for the pulse of... San Francisco--getting all teary-eyed mentioning Harvey Milk, wanting to offend Turkey to please her Armenian constituents--at a time when their cooperation is needed in Iraq. And don't forget that her first impulse, when $90,000 was found in a Congressman's freezer accused of taking foreign bribes was to move him off of a domestic committee and onto a National Security committee (luckily she was talked out of that). And Ms. "clean up Congress" has no intention of removing Charlie Rangle, regardless of the results of his ethics violations investigations. She has the approval of San Francisco and that's all she needs. She's never up for national vote. Which is exactly why federal power was meant to be limited.

Posted by: sam38 | March 1, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

You have to be a rabid leftist not to see the humor in the worst speaker ever. She looks perpetually surprised, her arms flail around while making simple points, indicating confusion and ineffective obfuscation, and she is the biggest hypocrite in congress. Drain the swamp? Drain wrangle then. Tea parties racist Nazis? Now they are her base. She's an embarrasssment.

Posted by: Moonbat | March 1, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

"She has been a very effective Majority Leader and the GOP hates her for it."

--Effective how? Serious question, what exactly has she or the Democrats accomplished so far?

Posted by: southside721 | March 1, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Don't like the idea of reconciliation? If you're a liberal, just change it's name. The ugly procedure will be renamed majority vote to cover obumblers tracks.

Posted by: Moonbat | March 1, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

DDawd, the Republican hatred of Nancy Pelosi is a good measure of her performance in the House. She has been a very effective Majority Leader and the GOP hates her for it. TS.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 1, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

I actually think Pelosi is a pretty good speaker since they are supposed to be pretty brash and kind of hard nosed inside dealer types.
Also I dont' think she is off that they will hold the house. The 20 or so retirements by the GOP in the house is a bad sign and it will suck up vital resources from an already underfunded NRCC. The dems will lose seats but Chris Van Hollen (head of the DCCC) has shown that he knows how to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. Also passing HCR will help them a good amount in dispelling the notion that they can't get anything done.

And if Obama is able to get some of the GOPs ideas put into the HCR bill (ie Tort Reform and interstate purchasing of insurance) than it passing may turn out to be the best thing that ever happen to the Dems since they will be able to sell the bill as bipartisan even if the GOP doesn't want to vote for it.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 1, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Dems may hold the House, but Pelosi doesn't know that for sure. There is great ansgt within the party over this health care vote and how much it damages Dems before November.

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | March 1, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone actually expect her to say "we are about to get trounced."

Posted by: djudge1 | March 1, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

did you know that when obama was sworn in as president, pelosi had her own party and made sure her guests were not identified and I bet none of her guests were black...
do you know how many blacks peosi could employ every time she travels...
do we really need weak congressmen that don't listen to the voters they represent...

Posted by: DwightCollins | March 1, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

"I do think [Pelosi] seems to have a better feel of the pulse of Americans than most of her caucus."

That may or may not be so, but it ain't saying much. She's still dumb as a post and a repulsive commie moonbat.

Posted by: thebump | March 1, 2010 7:25 AM | Report abuse

after healthcare...
comes cap and trade...
then comprehensive immigration reform...
and then bankruptcy...

Posted by: DwightCollins | March 1, 2010 7:20 AM | Report abuse

do the voters want pelosi and the rest of the dems in control of the house passing whatever she wishes...
NO...
throw them out...
throw pelosi out...
throw rangel out...
throw franks out...
throw these bums out...
instead of trying to help the unemployed...
they decided to force healthcare on America...
watch for more layoffs to come after the vote...

Posted by: DwightCollins | March 1, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/28/AR2010022803243.html?hpid=topnews

Democrats will have votes for health bill, Obama aide says

And RE #1, I do agree that Pelosi is pretty underrated as a strategist. Of course, I suppose that is because 90% of what I hear about her is MSM demonization, but whatever. I do think she seems to have a better feel of the pulse of Americans than most of her caucus. She's one of the biggest boosters of HCR, knowing it's the best chance Dems have of limiting the damage, which is why Republicans won't let it come to a vote.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 1, 2010 6:34 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company