Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Political analysts predict tough midterm election for Democrats in Congress

1. Political handicappers have begun readjusting their views of the national political landscape in the wake of Sen.-elect Scott Brown's (R) stunning victory on Tuesday night in Massachusetts. First came Larry Sabato, the mustachioed director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, who wrote Thursday that if the midterm elections were held today Senate Democrats would lose seven seats; "the Democrats' nightmare is the Republican dream scenario," Sabato concluded. Stu Rothenberg (of the Rothenberg Political Report) moved the Arkansas Senate race rating to "lean takeover", meaning that Republicans are now favored to beat Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) this fall. Wrote Rothenberg of the move: "Given the bent of Independent voters (in the recent Massachusetts special election but also in national surveys), we are increasingly doubtful that the Arkansas Democratic Senator can win another term." Arkansas is one of FOUR Democratic-held Senate seats -- Delaware, North Dakota and Nevada are the others that Rothenberg ranks as leaning toward a Republican takeover. Finally came an analysis of the House playing field from the Cook Political Report concluding that in the wake of the Brown win, the operative question was not "Which Democrats are vulnerable?" but rather "Which Democrats are safe?" The trio of developments suggest the degree to which the political ground has shifted beneath Democrats in recent months -- typified by the party losing a Senate seat in one of the Democratic states in the country on Tuesday. While both parties appear to still be sorting through the results from Massachusetts, the next week or two will be instructive. Can Republicans find serious challengers to the likes of Sens. Evan Bayh (Rep. Mike Pence is mentioned) or Russ Feingold (former governor Tommy Thompson is mentioned)? And, can Democrats keep people like Lincoln as well as a growing number of House members from heading for the exits out of fear that 2010 is a stone cold loser fot the party at the ballot box?

2. Fresh off the online fundraising success for Brown's Senate campaign, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint is using his Senate Conservative Fund PAC to organize a one-day "moneybomb" for former state House speaker Marco Rubio's Republican primary campaign in the Florida Senate race. "If the Massachusetts Senate race taught us anything, it's that voters want leaders who will sand up for common-sense, conservative principles," writes DeMint in a letter soliciting donations for Rubio. The date for the moneybomb is Feb. 10, a date chosen to highlight the one-year anniversary of Gov. Charlie Crist, Rubio's primary opponent, appearing alongside President Obama in support of the economic stimulus plan. (DeMint writes of Crist that he is "not the kind of candidate voters should reward with a seat in the United States Senate.") DeMint's goal is to raise $100,000 on that single day, an idea borrowed from the presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) and subsequently used to raise considerable sums for the congressman's son, Rand Paul, who is running for Senate in Kentucky, Peter Schiff, a Connecticut Senate candidate, and, of course, Brown. Speaking of Brown, the breadth of his online fundraising in the final days of the campaign is only now coming into focus. According to Eric Fehrnstrom, a consultant to Brown's bid, the campaign raised $1.3 million from a moneybomb on Jan. 11 -- eight days before the primary. Fehrnstrom added that for the next three days, the campaign raised at least $1 million culminating with a $2.2 million day on Jan. 15. All told, Brown raised nearly $10 million online in the final eight days of the campaign -- a sign of the potential potency of grassroots giving on the Republican side. ALSO READ: A terrific profile of Brown by the Post's Jason Horowitz.

3. The Supreme Court's decision Thursday to overturn the two-decade-old ban on corporate independent expenditures in political races is widely seen as a critical moment in the history of political campaigns. WaPo Court reporter Bob Barnes described the ruling as a "seismic jolt" and suggested that the ruling "might signal a new willingness to act boldly" by the high court. Lyle Denniston over at the SCOTUSblog wrote that the Citizens United decision "may make the hundreds of millions spent in past presidential and congressional elections look like a pittance." Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsberg, in a widely-distributed memo, concluded that "the decision will drastically alter the landscape for candidates and political parties," adding: "Unless the laws change, the political party as we know it is threatened with extinction." It will take weeks for campaign finance lawyers, political operatives and journalists to sort through the entirety of the decision but one thing was clear in the immediate aftermath of the ruling: more money will flood into the election process -- and soon.

4. A new Field Poll in California puts former Rep. Tom Campbell at the front of a three-way Republican primary fight for the right to take on Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) in the fall. Campbell, a former member of Congress who recently switched from the governors race to the Senate contest, took 30 percent to 25 percent for former Hewlett Packard executive Carly Fiorina. Conservative state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore was a distant third with five percent of the vote. Campbell's lead is almost certainly attributable to name identification built over a political career that has seen him represent two different congressional districts (the 12th and the 15th), run unsuccessfully for the Senate twice (1992 and 2000) and make an aborted bid for governor in this election cycle. It remains to be seen whether he can retain that edge in the face of what is expected to be something of a spending spree by Fiorina who is personally wealthy. (Fiorina has donated $2.5 million to her campaign.) The Field poll suggests that whoever emerges from the Republican field has a fighting chance against Boxer despite California's Democratic leaning. The Democratic incumbent, who has served in the Senate since 1992, held a 48 percent to 38 percent edge over Campbell and a 50 percent to 35 percent margin over Fiorina in the Field Poll. Boxer, who raised $1.8 million in the final three months of 2009 and ended the year with more than $7 million in the bank, is clearly concerned about the impact of the national environment on her race, telling Politico on Wednesday that "every state is in play."

5. If it's Friday, it's the "Live Fix" chat. From 11 a.m. to noon today, we'll field your questions about the political news of the day, music, fancy coffee drinks, field hockey, great politician nicknames and whatever else comes to mind. You can submit questions in advance or just follow along in real time. Be there!

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 22, 2010; 5:45 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: And the winner is....
Next: Bill Ritter and the danger of incumbency

Comments

they really need to come up with some punctuation to indicate sarcasm. i was messing with you dude. dont take me too seriously.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Well Elijah I'm almost 56 and it never crossed my mind to b&w offended, but then I'm not vigilantly looking for pretexts to take offense. There are plenty of people on this blog who do everything they can to be offensive so there's no need to embellish.

And one of te things I've learned from the passbe of decades is that people who claim this sort of tangential and marginal sensitivity aren't really worth anyone's time. Kinda like screaming racism in marginal cases, there's plenty of the real thing going around

Posted by: Noacoler | January 22, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

nocoler, I disagree with almost none of that. But even when I unintentionally called old people uneducated, my way of answering the question was nicer. Probably more effective too.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

oh, ok. no problem. we all word things in ways that dont reflect what we really mean sometimes. the least we can do is make it right when that happens, right?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Zouk goaded:
 
“elijah, I don't suppose you'd like to take a crack at explaining why Fox News has more auduence than all three liberal networks combined?

Explain how the WSJ is the only profitable newspaper?

Explain why Sarah Palin's book was the best selling book last year?”

 

==

 

If I may

(1)   Fox’ audience is mostly over-50 angry racists, while most of the rest of us get our news on the Internet.  Television is kinda boring for educated people, since it remains geared to people under ten years old.  Anyway, the other three networks aren’t “liberal” save only in comparison to Fox, but then Fox isn’t really a news network so much as a support channel for people who feel left behind by an America that isn’t exactly like 50 years ago.  Fox tells bitter people what they want to hear.  I see it at my gym sometimes (sound off) and it looks pretty shoddy.

(2)   WSJ’s readership comes mostly from people who like to read it around strangers, the banner facing outward, peering constantly over the edge to see who’s impressed.  That kind of insecurity, along with the notion that reading the Urinal is impressive, comes mostly from the sort of pencil-neck conservative who wants his fellow bus passengers to believe he’s a high-rolling financier.  And don’t forget who owns the damned rag.

(3)   Palin’s book was bought by the people described in (1).  If book sales mean anything then why isn’t JK Rowling running for office?  Do you really think Palin is smarter than she appears?  She appears pretty damned dumb, and in over a year since she dumped on the national stage she hasn’t given people who want to think she’s smart a lot to work with.

Church? Do you attend? Do you believe in God? Is this suppposed to lend credence to your scientific pronouncements? Doesn't the lack of actual evidence for so absurd a notion ever trouble you? It was more than I was willing to overlook when I was 12. 

 

Posted by: Noacoler | January 22, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Apologizing for unintentionally condescending.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

for what?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Thank you.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments I make aren't just for their recipient. If I was unclear, and especially if I was unintentionally condescending, I want to make sure my intent is understood.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Elijah I wouldn't worry too much about charges of condescension from that quarter. Leapin regularly refers to black Americans as "tribal members" so don't worry too much bout his delicate sensibilities.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 22, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Leapin, I wasn't trying to be condescending to anyone. Particularly people over 50. I aspire to be one of them someday and at this pace, i could do it if i keep going for about 19 more years. It isn't that they cant be open minded, but at a certain age, most people have formulated their opinions and are unlikely to change their minds. That was the point i was trying to make. It was intended to be a statement about an age group not any specific generation. In fact that statement was true of that age group when its current cast was my age, and will be when i join that group as well. I NEVER said that anyone CANT be educated. I even pointed out that there are exceptions to the rule.
If this was a misunderstanding because of the way i worded my point, I apologize. But the other possibility is that you deliberately twisted my words. If that is the case, please don't do it again. And if you are uncertain of my meaning, ask for clarification.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Ped and sped at it again.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 22, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

The midterms are going to be all about Obama - right now the country is about to dump him - and they want to vote him out as soon as possible.


Obama has made a mess of his first year.


Scott Brown did a favor to Obama - giving him an early wake-up call and time to recover.


The seniors - many did not vote last time for Obama - because they didn't vote - they are not coming out for Obama - ever - they want to vote
AGAINST Obama now.


The young demo that Obama has is not coming back.


Obama has a serious problem.


The Independents do not want Obama anymore - this is probably the group that Obama has the best chance of getting back however I don't see it happening.


People really did not think the election through - during the primaries, people did not know we were going to be in an economic crisis.

I believe the American people know they made a mistake with Obama - it doesn't help that he broke his campaign promises - and he is being really unrealistic about being bipartisan.


Obama basically is a lame duck right now - maybe he can pull out of it -

But the whole country wants him out.


,

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 22, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

For the record, you have posted EIGHT times (which is more than "1/2 dozen" if my math is right) just on this one thread today. You are also involved in an epic battle of wits with our gracious host, posting more than that, on the following thread.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Don't do the 1/2 dozen posts a day (you were doing many more than that before), and I will leave.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm not here 24/7/365, Jake, I do at most a half dozen posts in a day. You do a dozen an hour and clog the blog with posts about me and DDAWD that nobody wants to read.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 22, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Pity you don't either.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Nobody is interested in your cartoonish caricatures of liberals, zouk. Maybe your fellow trolls are amused but it's blog clog. Pity you don't have any better use for your time.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 22, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

In spite of having access to the best health insurance and fanciest hospitals, Liberals are passionate about the idea of socialized medicine. So much so that they have memorized statistics and examples of how for-profit medicine has destroyed the United States.

But before you can exploit this information for personal gain, it’s important that you understand why Liberals are so in love with free health care.

The first and most obvious reason is “they have it Europe.” Liberals love all things European, this especially true of things that are unavailable in the United States (Rare Beers, Absinthe, legal marijuana, prostitution, soccer). The fact that it’s available in Canada and Vietnam isn’t really that impressive, but it does contribute to their willingness to threaten to move there.

These desires were only heightened in 2007 when Michael Moore released “Sicko,” a documentary that contrasts the health care industry in the United States with that of Canada, France and Cuba. As a general rule of thumb, Liberals are always extra passionate about issues that have been the subject of a Moore documentary. As a test, ask them about 9/11, Gun Control, or Health Care and then say “where did you get that information?” You will not be surprised at the results.

But the secret reason why all Liberals love socialized medicine is that they all love the idea of receiving health care without having a full-time job. This would allow them to work as a freelance designer/consultant/copywriter/photographer/blogger, open their own bookstore, stay at home with their kids, or be a part of an Internet start-up without having to worry about a benefits package. Though many of them would never follow this path, they appreciate having the option.

If you need to impress a Liberal, merely mention how you got hurt on a recent trip Canada/England/Sweden/Vietnam and though you were a foreigner you received excellent and free health care. They will be very impressed and likely tell you about how powerful drug and health care lobbies are destroying everything.

Though their passion for national health care runs deep, it is important to remember that Liberals are most in favor of it when they are healthy. They love the idea of everyone have equal access to the resources that will keep them alive, that is until they have to wait in line for an MRI.

This is very similar to the way that white Liberals express their support for public schools when they don’t have children.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

and try to remember that it is the republican rednecks who are the racists.

==

well they ARE the one with the "niggger" signs...

Posted by: Noacoler | January 22, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Is it any wonder that the Republican party has so few minorities and so few college educated people?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now if you liberals could just get a candidate that looked black, but not too black, light skinned. And he must speak in the king's english, no negro dialect, unless he is in that kind of crowd. and if he were clean and articulate that would be a home run.

and try to remember that it is the republican rednecks who are the racists.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

hint: lay off the slavery references)
Posted by: DDAWD
-----------------------------------------
Excuse me. Did I say plantation slavery was a good condition? Did I say anyone should be put into slavery? It was a terrible sin. In today’s world plantation stands for the enslavement of people in lifetime government dependence in cities and states that have been run by liberal politicians for decades. It also stands for the view that black people have monolithic viewpoints and the coercion not to stray. A reference to slavery is not racist. An endorsement of slavery would be terrible. Disagreeing with someone of different skin pigmentation is not racist. The more libs spout racism cavalierly the more they marginalize the sin of the real thing.

Posted by: leapin | January 22, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

The USA is the only country of the industrialized where making a profit on basic healthcare isn’t illegal, and it’s not a coincidence that we pay twice as much per capita for health insurance and we have vast swaths of the population not covered.  Any reasonable health care reform should explicitly require profit neutrality.
 
Jake’s shopping list is largely irrelevant tangents, abortion, illegal aliens and .. what???  Bush tax cuts??
 
The Republican Allegiance Accords, the ten points that everyone must genuflect to else face ostracization, explicitly call for “market based” solutions to healthcare.   This is self-sabotaging.  The entire foundation of “market” approaches rests on the imperative to maximize profit, which is incompatible with the goal of good healthcare: maximum coverage.  Profit cannot be maximized while treating the chronically ill or the elderly, profit is maximized by limiting coverage to people who won’t cost anything.  Market-based healthcare is what we have now, and it’s the reason that insurance companies drop people who get sick.
 
If people want to make obscene profits on tummy tucks and nose jobs, fine, but basic healthcare should be outside the marketplace.
 
 

Posted by: Noacoler | January 22, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Have a good weekend too (I don't have any pull with the GOP either, but that's what MOST Americans want to see in terms of bi-partisanship ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

note fox dominates in the 25-54 age range, completely eliminating elijahs fictitious argument.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/top-news/cable-news
Posted by: drivl
-------------------------------------------
Re: Elijah’s fictitious argument.

Just like Obama, his followers show the constant brand of condescension about naïve conservative yokels not knowing what’s good for them.

They imply that if you are 50 that you can’t possibly be educated. There weren’t colleges and universities 30 years ago?

If you are 50 you are scared and never had interactions with blacks. Some people 50+ were on the forefront of civil rights. Protesting or attending increasing integrated schools. The WWII generation had a lack of interaction, but they almost gone, but someone that’s 50?

Maybe in their zeal for a statist workers paradise they lack the attention to historical review. It sure shows in their quest to become statists despite what history shows.
Maybe I should give them a pass.

Posted by: leapin | January 22, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I could go for most of that, Jake (as if I have the power to make that agreement)with just a couple of things to hammer out.
1. I don't like the elimination of state lines. Different states have different regulatory standards that are in place to protect the consumer, as well as different pricing structures. With state lines out of place, rather than people getting their insurance from the cheapest place, the cheap places will move to the places that have the weakest regs, and will continue to screw their clients in the name of profits.
2. How will we pay for it? The removal of the pre-existing conditions factor is great, but not in a vacume. By itself it will cause prices to skyrocket. this needs to be balanced with a madate so that the Ins. co's can balance their risk with the premiums of the young and healthy. I gotta run for now. If I dont see you later, everybody have a good weekend.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

How about this, the GOP will agree to address pre-existing conditions / unjust recession / portability and cost-controls that fit within free market principles (perhaps by allowing competition across State lines, but something short of turning every insurance company into non-profits) IF the Dems agree to the Coburn/Burr wellness act (it deals greatly in dealing with tort reform & preventive medicine), no special deals for unions or Nebraska, no coverage for illegal aliens (which means there has to be some way to distinguish between eligible participants and those who will be deported), no federal funds for abortion / guaranteed protections for ER workers who object to abortion on moral grounds, and extending the Bush tax cuts?

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

drivl, Fox mixes hard news into their entertainment the way I mix coke into my rum: just enough to change the color.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"I can put you in touch with people that are very proud and happy to be off the plantation.

Posted by: leapin"

See, this is the problem conservatives have. You guys want to be thought of as intelligent. You guys want to be thought of as non-racist.

Then you go and say something like this.

Is it any wonder that the Republican party has so few minorities and so few college educated people?

(hint: lay off the slavery references)

Posted by: DDAWD | January 22, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

try this story instead.

voters are tired of liberal spin. they now want "Just the facts maam". this has become almost impossible to obtain from primitive media sources like NYTimes, WaPo, NBC, etc.

Fox has brilliantly combined hard news with entertainment. the other outlets still run spin all day long. In fact CNN doesn't update their news all day long. No sense in tuning in for more than one hour per day. MSDNC is a laughingstock with a population of clowns ruminating about their despicable opinions.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

So much for DDAWD leaving ...

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

It sucks to be a conservative black. You get ostracized by whites for being black and you get ostracized by blacks for being an idiot.

Posted by: DDAWD
------------------------------------------
I can put you in touch with people that are very proud and happy to be off the plantation.

Posted by: leapin | January 22, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

For the record, Ddawd, I consider myself a liberal.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Facts, (liberals scroll past please):

Fox News ratings continue elevated in the aftermath of the Massachusetts special election.

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for January 20, 2010

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,922,000 viewers
CNN – 688,000 viewers
MSNBC –389,000 viewers
CNBC – 214,000 viewers
HLN –315,000 viewers

Some ratings notes for the night of the Massachusetts special Senate election.

Fox News averaged its highest primetime average viewerships ince Election Day 2008 (11/4/08).
Fox News beat all 3 cable news channels (CNN, MSNBC and HLN) combined in all categories: Primetime P2+ and A25-54 and Total Day P2+ and A25-54
Hannity and Greta beat The Jay Leno Show and ABC’s primetime line-up in viewership.
Hannity averaged his highest total viewers ever. Bret Baier called the actual election during Hannity’s hour at 9PM

note fox dominates in the 25-54 age range, completely eliminating elijahs fictitious argument.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/top-news/cable-news

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"Your telling me that if you are black conservative that you aren’t demonized and ostracized for not having the liberal view that a black is supposed to espouse."

It sucks to be a conservative black. You get ostracized by whites for being black and you get ostracized by blacks for being an idiot.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 22, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Your = You're ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

No one who claims that Obama is a socialist came to that conclusion on his own since it simply isn't true. They aren't actually worried about deficits since they weren't worried about Bush's larger deficits. They don't think that there are death panels based on their own research because if they did their own research, they would know there aren't death panels. It's just a different mindset. People with liberal views have the views and then sort of get lumped together. Conservatives adopt the label and then espouse the views that conservatives are "supposed" to espouse. Obviously this is a generalization since the conservatives I'm friends with are very smart (and probably not that conservative by today's standards), and I know some liberals who just parrot talking points, but I think it's an apt generalization for like 90% of people.
Posted by: DDAWD
“No one who claims that Obama is a socialist came to that conclusion on his own since it simply isn't true.”

Purple-state presidents don’t appoint Van Joneses and Anita Dunns, or turn the NEA into the Ministry of Approved Culture.

“They aren't actually worried about deficits since they weren't worried about Bush's larger deficits. “

Voters went for the hope-and-change Obama in part because he promised fiscal sobriety after the Bush $500 billion deficit. Instead, in utterly cynical fashion, Obama trumped that red ink four times over. In the process, he developed a terrible habit of promising favored constituencies a hundred billion here, a hundred billion there as if it were all paper money — rather than real borrowed currency that will have to be confiscated in the future from the beleaguered taxpayer. It only makes it worse that the more the administration borrowed, printed, and spent; the higher unemployment rose and the lower economic activity went.

“They don't think that there are death panels based on their own research because if they did their own research, they would know there aren't death panels.”

Of course, “death panels’ is a shortened description for the effects that rationing can have where anyone who doesn’t get a ration of healthcare, as must be the case in Obamacare, will suffer in proportion to their condition.

“People with liberal views have the views and then sort of get lumped together. Conservatives adopt the label and then espouse the views that conservatives are "supposed" to espouse.’

This blog is cluttered with lib talking points. “Old, angry, white, racist”. Your telling me that if you are black conservative that you aren’t demonized and ostracized for not having the liberal view that a black is supposed to espouse.

Posted by: leapin | January 22, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

The reasons Fox News has such comparatively high ratings are 1. we have a liberal president, and were for the last year of the Bush administration on our way to have one. Conservatives felt under attack so they went to Fox where they could feel like they weren't alone in hating that O'Bomba guy, or God forbid: Hillary.
2. There is only one liberal network. MSNBC's target demographic is in their late 20's - 30's and educated. This group works, takes their kids to football practice, plays softball, and in many cases still goes to school. They dont have as much time for sitting around watching TV.
Fox's biggest demo is 50+. As a rule, their kids are grown, they aren't as involved in other activities and many of them are retired. So they have more time to watch TV.
The old dogs and new tricks relationship comes into play too. Young people tend to be more interested in other opinions, where as older people like to be told that they'er right.
Finally, the older people tend to be more conservative. and conservatives tend to fear the slipping away of the country they thought they knew. They see any and all change as a threat. It is comforting to them when they hear Glenn Beck ranting about the same over-the-top nightmares that keep them up at night.
(all of these generalizations are exactly that: generalizations. of course there are exceptions.)

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Jake, I know you do. And you do bring ideas. Bad ones in my opinion, but you try. Thats why I respect you. I'll fight you on almost everything you stand for, and sometimes it may even get hostile. But don't ever think I don't respect you.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"AA went bankrupt because the people who own the major corporations generally are conservative. And the best liberal pundits don't usually like to stay still if there is something they can do to make things better. Rush can complain about politics all he wants, but he wants nothing to do with contributing. Al found that he had a chance to put his money where his mouth is and he took that opportunity. Our country is at what I hope is rock bottom of the worst recession since the 30's. If we go bankrupt do you really think it will be the fault of the first-term senator from Minnesota?

Posted by: elijah24"

Well, I think the main reason is that the target audience of liberal media doesn't really care for...liberal media. I want to be informed. I don't need to hear someone saying how much he hates Bush. I don't like Olbermann because he's over the top. I didn't like Franken for the same reason. Maddow is quite a bit more toned down, so I can find her tolerable, plus I like her dorkiness. It's just about loud mouths spouting off nonsense that you want to hear. Conservative pundits have a more receptive audience for that format than liberal pundits.

Plus, I think there's a club mentality that appeals to conservatives. I don't think I know any liberal who refers to himself as a liberal. They are quite open about protecting the environment, health care reform, funding education, and so forth, but don't really think of themselves as a member of a liberal club. Conservatives that I know kind of define themselves with that label. As a result, their political views are much less defined. Usually it entails just disliking what liberals like. That's why they share the same talking points. No one who claims that Obama is a socialist came to that conclusion on his own since it simply isn't true. They aren't actually worried about deficits since they weren't worried about Bush's larger deficits. They don't think that there are death panels based on their own research because if they did their own research, they would know there aren't death panels. It's just a different mindset. People with liberal views have the views and then sort of get lumped together. Conservatives adopt the label and then espouse the views that conservatives are "supposed" to espouse. Obviously this is a generalization since the conservatives I'm friends with are very smart (and probably not that conservative by today's standards), and I know some liberals who just parrot talking points, but I think it's an apt generalization for like 90% of people.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 22, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Nope, not at all. Just been around and around.

90% is just showing up, remember. I have been in DC since Biden was bald the first time.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I continue to hear a lot of talk among liberals that the reason their health-care reform effort is in trouble, the reason Obama has mediocre-to-lousy approval ratings (particularly on the economy and health care), the reason Democrats are losing big races, and the reason 2010 is looking like an impending political bloodbath is essentially right-wing "misinformation campaigns."

Look, conservatives spent much of 2007 and 2008 arguing that Obama was a pleasant, charismatic man with few legislative accomplishments, no experience as a manager, few concrete results in any area where he had worked, some naïve beliefs hidden by extraordinary eloquence, and no idea of just how hard the job of the presidency is. He underestimated the intractability of certain problems (Middle East peace), wildly overestimated the effectiveness and efficiency of government programs (stimulus spending), had a bad eye for talent (Biden, Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, Napolitano), often had bad first instincts ("I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother"), seemed to trust those who didn't deserve it (Iran), and had sailed along in the world of politics because up until now, everyone was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Throughout that time, a large percentage of the American people rejected that argument. "He seems to know what he's doing. His campaign was a well-run ship. Look at that calm temperment. He was editor of Harvard Law Review. He'll be fine, and he'll probably be great," they concluded.

From 2007 to now, the arguments of the Right haven't changed; what has changed is that now the evidence to support the Right's initial perception — collected by watching this president in action — is becoming more and more compelling by the day.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"Let's just say they know me by name at the Capitol Hill Club."
==
So you're saying you're "kindof a big deal"?
Do you have many leather-bound books?
Does your house smell like rich mahogany?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

elijah, I don't suppose you'd like to take a crack at explaining why Fox News has more auduence than all three liberal networks combined?

Explain how the WSJ is the only profitable newspaper?

Explain why Sarah Palin's book was the best selling book last year?

Perhaps liberals don't read, don't watch Cable news, don't read newspapers? Maybe they are stuck at Whole foods trying to pick between Arugula and Escarole. I understand picking out a dog takes months and months and a church is beyond capability and that war plans must be changed as often as Franken's diaper, but really.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

I care for my fellow human beings, and I've given you plenty of good ideas in that regard (I simply realize that government is not the "end all, be all" to helping people; in fact, MANY poor people are hurt more than they are helped by said government ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Keith Olbermann - another communications major dallying in a thinking man's sport.

speaking of which, isn't he really a sportcaster? One step above weathergirl, except he couldn't work the blue screen and kept pointing at Minnesota for Miami's forecast.

The SNL skit of him was more like him than he is.

Grammar check please ped.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

AA went bankrupt because the people who own the major corporations generally are conservative. And the best liberal pundits don't usually like to stay still if there is something they can do to make things better. Rush can complain about politics all he wants, but he wants nothing to do with contributing. Al found that he had a chance to put his money where his mouth is and he took that opportunity. Our country is at what I hope is rock bottom of the worst recession since the 30's. If we go bankrupt do you really think it will be the fault of the first-term senator from Minnesota?
Posted by: elijah24
-------------------------------------------
If liberals listened to AA they would still be on the air and drawing advertisers and making the corporation a profit. Remember corporations are evil, profit-seeking entities? They are not willy-nilly dropping programs because the management’s political bent. If the management was so far right AA wouldn’t see the light of day in the first place. Liberal or conservative the show must make it profit or it will be dropped. The second point is that lib talk shows are not entertaining. Liberals don’t even like to listen to liberals. The libs like to talk about “angry”. Listen to Keith Olbermann and friends sometime. Calm and rational? At least Limbaugh has a sense of humor.

Posted by: leapin | January 22, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Let's just say they know me by name at the Capitol Hill Club.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I have no idea what the oxford comma is. I misuse apostraphies on a regular basis. same with comas and the semicolon. If you want to impress me, show me 2 things: your concern for the good of your fellow human beings, and your ideas to solve problems.
I am curious where you got your information.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Let me convey a local story about al Franken. he already has a reputation on the hill for treating staff and other "underlings" in nasty and disrepectful ways. He seems to think he is better than them and does not have to put up with any interaction with anyone he deems inferior.

this is quite contrary to the traditions of the Senate on both sides. he has already been forced to apologize to a roomful of staffers by senior senate colleagues for his incredibly rude behavior.

He just seems to be a really low class sort of fellow.

there is a lot of ego in that chamber, but they generally treat the worker bees with deference and respect, especially other members staffers. not Al.

He is now of the "do you know who I am" contingency.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Yes zouk real Americans dunt cair abuot speling and grammer.

Crap. Sloppy work is sloppy work. Cillizza doesn't even pay attention to his spellchecker.

Try submitting a resume written like this. blog and see how many interviews you get. I guess hiring managers are all liberals, right?

Standing up for slop. Way to go, loser.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 22, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

AA went bankrupt because the people who own the major corporations generally are conservative. And the best liberal pundits don't usually like to stay still if there is something they can do to make things better. Rush can complain about politics all he wants, but he wants nothing to do with contributing. Al found that he had a chance to put his money where his mouth is and he took that opportunity. Our country is at what I hope is rock bottom of the worst recession since the 30's. If we go bankrupt do you really think it will be the fault of the first-term senator from Minnesota?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Liberals love rules. It explains why so they get upset when people cut in line, why they tip so religiously and why they become lawyers. But without a doubt, the rule system that Liberals love the most is grammar. It is in their blood not only to use perfect grammar but also to spend significant portions of time pointing out the errors of others.

When asking someone about their biggest annoyances in life, you might expect responses like “hunger,” “being poor,” or “getting shot.” If you ask a Liberal, the most common response will likely be “people who use ‘their’ when they mean ‘there.’ Maybe comma splices, I’m not sure but it’s definitely one of the two.”

If you wish to gain the respect of a Liberal, it’s probably a good idea that you find an obscure and debated grammar rule such as the “Oxford Comma” and take a firm stance on what you believe is correct. This is seen as more productive and forward thinking than simply stating your anger at the improper use of “it’s.

Another important thing to know is that when Liberals read magazines and books they are always looking for grammar and spelling mistakes. In fact, one of the greatest joys a Liberal can experience is to catch a grammar mistake in a major publication. Finding one allows a Liberal to believe that they are better than the writer and the publication since they would have caught the mistake. The more respected the publication, the greater the thrill. If a Liberal were to catch a mistake in The New Yorker, it would be a sufficient reason for a large party.

Though they reserve the harshest judgment for professional, do not assume that Liberals will cast a blind eye to your grammar mistakes in email and official documents. They will judge you and make a general assessment about your intelligence after the first infraction. Fortunately, this situation can be improved if you ask a Liberal to proof read your work before you send it out. “Hey Jill, I’m sorry to do this, but I have a business degree and I’m a terrible writer. Can you look this over for me?” This deft maneuver will allow the Liberal to feel as though their liberal arts degree has a purpose and allow you to do something more interesting.

Don’t worry, it is impossible for a Liberal to turn down the opportunity to proofread.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I trust you recognize that al Franken, if given the chance, wil do what he did to Air America to the entire country - drive it into bankruptcy.

Posted by: drivl |
------------------------------------------
AA is just an analogy for what the Dbaggers are doing to the country.

Posted by: leapin | January 22, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Well I'm a very likable guy.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I find that for some reason, I like you elijah.

I trust you recognize that al Franken, if given the chance, wil do what he did to Air America to the entire country - drive it into bankruptcy.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, the mid-terms are tough on the party in power unless you had an attack on American soil to use as a scare tactic. No one is indispensable and anyone who has a job should keep that in mind.

Posted by: ILDem | January 22, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I think the bought and paid for communist is already ensconced in office. Lest you forget all those untracable overseas credit card donations that went uninvestigated.


Posted by: drivl |
------------------------------------------
Did George Soros prefer cc transactions to wire transfers?

Posted by: leapin | January 22, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

You're from Texas, right, Cillizza? I guess the schools there give short shrift to grammar and punctuation. Your writing is barely mediocre, you overuse hackneyed phrases, and you've completely missed the train on the basics of punctuation.

It's embarrassing.

Get a proofreader, and maybe read a book once in a while to get some new ideas.

No, not a with-book and not some screed by someone in the hate business.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 22, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Citizens United = FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR POLITICAL PUNDITS ACT OF 2010

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

If Lyle Denniston (over at the SCOTUSblog) is correct, and the Citizens United decision "make[s] the hundreds of millions spent in past Presidential and Congressional elections look like a pittance", just think of all the jobs saved or created ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

You'd have no problem with Al Franken or Jeneanne Garaffalo if they were conservative either. You just dont like liberals. And it's not like the voices of Air America are flipping burgers now either. Most still spend a lot of time on-air. One is representing the good people of Minnesota in the US

Posted by: elijah24
-------------------------------------------
There are still a few precious hours to listen and call in to Air America. It might rekindle the feelings of the inauguration whose memory was vanquished by other events this week.

Posted by: leapin | January 22, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

I wouldn't call it "bile".

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Thank you all for your cooperation.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Heller is the best example of Scalia's bile that I have read recently; his concurrence in Citizen's United is mild by comparison. If you read Heller again, you'll find that Scalia was very specifically targeting Stevens for rebuke. IIRC, he takes down Breyer's dissent as well.

Posted by: mnteng | January 22, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

To the Fix: What does Mr. Sabato's mustache have to do with his election predictions? Was that information suppose to enlighten us to something?

Posted by: Kansas28 | January 22, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Stalker.

You're the only one here desperate for attention, Jake. The rest of us come here to post comments, not to demand answers to uninteresting questions or beg for discussion. Nobody else does that, nor cares.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 22, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Again, our host, Chris Cillizza, has asked that we ignore "Noacoler". Thank you all for your cooperation.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Good point on the decreasing relevance of print and TV ads on campaigns, the people who still get their politics from attack ads are largely the white-haired anyway.
 
One other point nobody has mentioned .. as we know the bulk of advertising message-shaping largesse is going to go to Republicans.  Sounds like an advantage to them, but for one thing: they will do what they always do in everything, and that is Go Too Far.  Just as they sincerely believe that the average American is a screeching bigot like themselves, they sincerely believe that no amount of repetition will ever backfire.  OK, repetition works, just ask Joe Goebbels, but there is such a thing as too much and there is such a thing as excess, and Republicans will get there and surpass it,  They may even wear out the teabaggers.
 
But make no mistake, this ruling is truly awful.  It’s not good for America and it isn’t good for anyone reading this blog, unless maybe by chance some billionaire posts here.  You guys crowing about this as some sort of victory are just demented.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 22, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

drivle, do you like anybody?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD (and mnteng):

From Scalia's concurring opinion in THIS case (no need to go to Heller), specifically refuting what drindl posted:

"The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored."

"... it is surely fanciful to think that a consensus of hostility towards corporations was transformed into general favor at some magical moment between 1791 and 1796."

"The dissent says that ‘speech’ refers to oral communications of human beings, and since corporations are not human beings they cannot speak. Post, at 37, n. 55. This is sophistry. The authorized spokesman of a corporation is a human being, who speaks on behalf ofthe human beings who have formed that association—just as the spokesman of an unincorporated association speaks on behalf of itsmembers. The power to publish thoughts, no less than the power to speak thoughts, belongs only to human beings, but the dissent sees no problem with a corporation’s enjoying the freedom of the press."

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

senate

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Nobody has their "finger on the pulse of America." Because America doesn't have a single pulse. People like drivl think that theirs is the only American view-point. People like Drindle think theirs is. Fortunately a few on both sides realize that both sides have merit, even while standing firmly on one side or the other. What Rachel does that seperates her from the rest of the people in her line of work (on both sides) is that while she is very liberal, she puts a very high premium on respect for ones opposition. Every time she interviews someone she opposes, even the ones she plays hardball with, she always asks them if they felt they'd been given a fair chance to make their case, and consistantly they say yes. And a good many go back for a rematch.
What is the difference between someone wanting to listen to liberals "insulting people" and someone wanting to listen to conservatives doing the same? You would have no problem with Keith Olberman if he were a conservative. You'd have no problem with Al Franken or Jeneanne Garaffalo if they were conservative either. You just dont like liberals. And it's not like the voices of Air America are flipping burgers now either. Most still spend a lot of time on-air. One is representing the good people of Minnesota in the US

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I think the bought and paid for communist is already ensconced in office. Lest you forget all those untracable overseas credit card donations that went uninvestigated.

It is indeed a fact that the Libs are the party of the rich, fat cat doners, with average donations far exceeding the little guys that give small amounts to Repubs.

This myth has been perpetrated to fool the voters into thinking who is on their side - the party of modern slavery.

Even commie Mass has figured it out now.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Chris wrote: "If the Massachusetts Senate race taught us anything, it's that voters want leaders who will sand up for common-sense, conservative principles."

"Sand up" reminds me of Coakley and how she somehow had her head in the sand for the last month.

Posted by: MikeK3 | January 22, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Greg Palast:

The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates.

I'm losing sleep over the millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation's U.S. unit; or from the maker of "New Order" fashions, the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.

Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA.

But under today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.

Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding.

Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new rules, progressive or conservative list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names."

Posted by: drindl | January 22, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"The Republicans I have heard celebrating this are notoriously short-sighted anyway... but anyone from either party, particularly if they are not wealthy, can see that this will cause your voice to be ignored in favor of the voice of the uber-wealthy."


If the GOP starts ignoring the 'baggers in pursuit of corporate benefactors, they will give a huge opening to Dems.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 22, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

ddawd, it was that bad. there's not even any prohibition on unlimited spending by foreign governments to buy legislation. we'll have the saudis and uzbeki writing our laws now.

Posted by: drindl | January 22, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD writes:
"not that I read a whole lot of SC opinions, but I don't think I've ever seen a more direct rebuke by a Justice of his colleagues."

You need to read some of Scalia's opinions. A good example is his opinion on Heller (2nd Amendment case a couple of terms ago).

Posted by: mnteng | January 22, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Barry has taken to babbling incoherently:

On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health care reform. "If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have."

The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don't throw her a millstone.

After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don't Mirandize terrorists. Don't raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.

Dr. K.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, not that I read a whole lot of SC opinions, but I don't think I've ever seen a more direct rebuke by a Justice of his colleagues.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 22, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

That Rachel Maddow has her finger on the pulse of America.

That Obama can safely dispense with his promises on transparency because when he made them in 2008, everyone really understood him to mean, “I’ll endorse any dirty deal that suits my purposes.”

That, with unemployment at 10 percent, what Americans really care about is working to keep carbon dioxide in the atmosphere beneath 350 parts per million.

That if Obama attacks the banks, then taxing, spending, and Washington backroom deals will become more popular than ever.

That independent voters haven’t been turned off by Obama’s policies. They have merely been, as liberal columnist E. J. Dionne noted, “confused about his goals.” If President Obama only explained forthrightly why he’s tripling the national debt over the next decade, surely he’d win the ready assent of independents everywhere.

That polls showing conservatives outnumbering liberals 2 to 1 in America can be steadfastly ignored.

Such is the new liberal orthodoxy. If you encounter someone repeating it, don’t be alarmed. Nod affably and avoid sudden movements. Back off slowly and wonder at the awesome power of willful self-delusion.

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

Who wants to hear a angry liberals insult people all day long? Other than here on the FIX?

No one:

Air America announced today, with little fanfare, that it is ceasing operations and filing for bankruptcy, citing “tough economic times” as the reason. Quite honestly, I’m shocked that they didn’t blame Bush. Or global warming. It’s not the economy, stupid. Talk radio continues to thrive and do exceptionally well – in the conservative market.

Posted by: drivl | January 22, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I totally agree, Bsimon. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. The Republicans I have heard celebrating this are notoriously short-sighted anyway(Mr. Boehner, this means you) but anyone from either party, particularly if they are not wealthy, can see that this will cause your voice to be ignored in favor of the voice of the uber-wealthy.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

AndyR3 writes
"I think if you take that fact that the contributers of this blog on both sides of the aisle seem to agree that this is bad for American should tell you that something will be done to make sure that this is overturned."

The only way to overturn it, I think, is to change the makeup of the court.

What I'm watching is whether the TEA types follow up on their claims of being party-neutral. I suspect many of them will punish the GOP if the GOP continues to celebrate this legal victory. In my opinion, this ruling creates a huge opening for the Dems to be the populists. Repubs may lose their momentum faster than Brown's campaign coming out of nowhere.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 22, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Andy, federal law supercedes state law. This ruling is written as protection of a right. Any right that is protected by the constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court; is protected nationally, and that protection supercedes any state prohibition.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

AndyR3


What would you do with television signals across state lines ? I think it has to be a constitutional amendment.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 22, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I think if you take that fact that the contributers of this blog on both sides of the aisle seem to agree that this is bad for American should tell you that something will be done to make sure that this is overturned. By either tweaking the current laws, or amending the consitution to say that corporations and unions are not covered under the first amendment in the case of elections.

Mark, I wonder if an individual state could amend their constitutions to block these types of ads, or would that be seen as conflicting with the First amendment of the US constitution?

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 22, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

Kennedy has been consistent in opposing BRCA, so I agree that he has come to his ideas honestly and honorably. The text of his opinion, though, makes him sound naive to the real world influence of money in electoral campaigns. Perhaps this is the best argument for trying to get more diversity of experience on the court and not just a bunch of former Circuit judges.

Posted by: mnteng | January 22, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin


If there is no constitutional amendment to stop this Supreme Court decision- elections will become the equivalent of protection rackets.


The fear of running a million dollars worth of attack ads will be enough to intimate any legislator.

This is basically going to give carte blanche to the large corporations on legislations - they are going to run the tables - watch your credit card interest go up - any consumer industry can now do whatever they want.


It is very serious.

Very very serious. We just saw what can happen to the economy when Wall Street lobbyists were basically able to 1) end Glass-Steagall and then 2) basically render regulation ineffective.

What happened?


The economy almost collapsed. This is extremely serious


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 22, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Memo to Team Obama:

THE CORPORATE AD ISSUE IS ABOUT BAD THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN.

HOW ABOUT TACKLING VERY BAD THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING TO AMERICANS -- AT THE HAND OF THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT?

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

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

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

Please read this, and demand action before it's too late:

See: Poynter.org (Journalism groups -- Reporting):

"U.S. Silently Tortures Americans with Cell Tower Microwaves" •
"Gestapo USA: Fed-Funded Vigilante Network Terrorizes America"

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

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 22, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Andy, Unions have a fraction (one with a very small numerator and a massive denominator) of the funding that corporations have. And this ruling tilts the field about 80 degrees in favor of the corporations. I hope I'm wrong, but this will be huge.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, that qoute is why I have so much respect for the SC justices, and I agree with Mark that this is by far the most important news of the day. However, I wonder how much this will really change the overall political landscape in this country.
First off, the rise of the communication era has created a situation where direct advertising (ie TV and Print) arent' nearly as powerful as internet or 'viral' messages. We don't have to look any farther than the recent Mass election or Howard Dean to see that a good word of mouth (or word of email) insurgency can be extremely succesful. How does this ruling increase the power of Corporations/Unions to harness this phenomenon?

Secondly, The system is already saturated with special interest money. Unions and corporations can form PACS already, and as the rise of the 527s has shown they aren't afraid to get nasty either. This doesn't even address the fact that most of the people who run these industries already give millions (and sometimes) billions to political campaigns of all types.

Third, have a little faith in the American people. As political junkies we like to think that advertising is what determines elections but that isn't true. Voting decisions are made at the lunch counter, or the church picnic, or the dining room table, where people sit around and talk about the different candidates. I think what this ruling will really mean is that the grassroots and ground game of the two parties will become all that more important.

Lastly, we as democrats worry about corporate influence in the process, but the guys on the other side are just as concerned about unions. And if you don't think that unions could raise and put as much money as a company, just remember that the United Autoworkers basically owns the largest car company in America. In addition, this also means that someone like George Soros or Sir Richard Branson can also drop 500 mil on an election too. Plus companies will have to legitimize to their stockholders why they spent 200 million of their money to get Sarah Palin elected, which I think would be a pretty hard sell.

All in all, I wish that they had gone the other way, but I don't think this is the end of the Union as we know it. We have gone through a lot worse than this. Plus I wouldn't be suprised to see Russ Feingold and McCain to go back to the drawing board to see if they can fix this. Either way it will definitly be a MAJOR campaign issue in the fall, and as an political issue I think it favors the Democrats.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 22, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Could you use the hackneyed phrase "in the wake of" a few more times please. No one can get enough of that phrase.

Still can't find that copy of Strunk and White?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 22, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Chris

This is IMPORTANT


Chuck Todd is stealing your Top 10 Takeover list -


You have to stop this immediately

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 22, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

A tragic and heinous day in American history, from perhaps the most wildly activist court we have yet seen:

As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the dissenters:

Today’s decision is backwards in many senses. It elevates the majority’s agenda over the litigants’ submissions, facial attacks over as-applied claims, broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds, individual dissenting opinions over precedential holdings, assertion over tradition, absolutism over empiricism, rhetoric over reality. Our colleagues have arrived at the conclusion that Austin must be overruled and that §203 is facially unconstitutional only after mischaracterizing both the reach and rationale of those authorities, and after bypassing or ignoring rules of judicial restraint used to cabin the Court’s lawmaking power. … At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.'

Posted by: drindl | January 22, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

I can't fight you on that, mark. Like so many decisions made by judges and politicians, I condemn the decision, but accept and respect the sincerity of the person(s) who made it. It's the timeless battle between what is right and what is good. Is this decision supported by the constitution? A case can be (and was) made that it is. But is it good for the country? No, I don't think a case can be made logically, that it is.
It's odd to me how we as Americans have come to deify our founders. As if the decisions they made as they wrote our constitution were handed down by God himself. Ironically, they themselves would have wanted no such credit, as they demonstrated as they wrote Article V of that very document. They gave us the right and ability to amend their work because they knew they could not foresee the problems we would face 200+ years later. I think they even knew that many of those problems would flow from their own pen.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Elijah, I think you and Ginsberg are right about the diminution of value of party labels that will follow. But were Kennedy to leave the bench this decision would be the first to be revisited.

I must add that the two lines of legal argument are each compelling in their own right. I believe Kennedy came to this decision honestly and honorably. I think the alternate view, supported by [not three decades, CC, but] 103 years of history and stare decisis, is the better one for the republic.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 22, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I love your column; read it religiously.

Have to ask: does anyone proofread your posts before you publish? The erors re staeting to get emmbarrassing.

Posted by: sweethomezchicago | January 22, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Mark, I think this legislation is going to render the letters "D" and "R" meaningless. When people with unlimited funds can buy both parties and all the candidates of each, the parties won't matter. I dont know that the quiet man with the big stick was the best president of the 20th century, but he is certainly in the conversation. And he was right about this. Soon, he will be proven so. I just hope that when he is, it won't be too late to do anything about it. Read up on your Orwell, ladies and gentlemen. Our name is being changed back to Manor Farm.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 22, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

I should add that Ds will follow the Rs to the money and become, for the most part, beholden on various issues affecting big business [not smallbiz]. This is, I think, inevitable. TR saw it happen. why would we be different today? Multinationals and foreign corporations will be heard, too. Heard more easily than you or I.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 22, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

In 1905, TR called for a ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns. He got it through Congress through his relentless campaigning in 1907. Posters here know my insistence that TR was the single greatest prez of the 20th Century - the inventor, so to speak, of the modern presidency. Reversing TR [whatever you think of the merits of the 1st A. argument - the ACLU absolutist position is now the law] overshadows and dictates all of your other stories, CC.

If TR was correct, the playing field will begin to tilt heavily in favor of those who cater to corporate donors. The 2010 elections will be awash in money.
Favoring regulation of investment banking will not be on the agenda of the donors, I am sure.

I would bet that Rs will soon become dominant, at every level, before I would bet on Ds.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 22, 2010 7:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company