Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Illinois primary day: The year of the outsider (continued)?

1. Illinois voters head to the polls today to pick nominees for governor, Senate and a variety of House races. Looking for an overarching theme in the voting? How about the latest test of just how anti-incumbent/anti-establishment the voters are feeling. Gov. Pat Quinn is in serious trouble and, while his challenger -- state Comptroller Dan Hynes -- isn't exactly an outsider, the defeat of a sitting governor in a primary race is a rarity. (The last governor to lose in a primary? Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski in 2006; he lost to a little known mayor named Sarah Palin.) The insider/outsider dynamic is even more clearly at work in the Democratic Senate primary where state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has lined up the support of much of the party establishment but has seen former Chicago inspector general David Hoffman making up ground with a law and order, outsider appeal -- think Elliot Ness. In one ad, Hoffman paints Giannoulias as an insider's insider -- lumping the treasurer in with disgraced former governor Rod Blagojevich and real estate developer Tony Rezko while touting himself as the only one who can bring real change to the state's politics. Wins by Hynes and Hoffman today would rightly be interpreted as voters in Illinois sending the same message that the voters of Massachusetts did last month when Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R) scored an upset victory in the heavily Democratic Bay State. ALSO READ: New York Times columnist Gail Collins on the "outsider" phenomenon in Illinois.

2. While the governor's race and, to a lesser extent, the Senate contest, have drawn most of the national press attention, there are four competitive House race primaries on the Illinois ballot today as well. The marquee race is in the affluent, North Shore 10th district, which is being vacated by Rep. Mark Kirk (R) as he seeks to ascend to the Senate. On the Democratic side, Dan Seals, who lost races to Kirk in 2006 and 2008, started the race as the favorite due to name identification built up over those two contests. But state Rep. Julie Hamos is in the game, thanks to the support of EMILY's List. The Republican race is a three way affair between state Rep. Beth Coulson and businessmen Dick Green and Robert Dold. Given the district's Democratic tilt -- Obama won 61 percent there in 2008 -- either Seals or Hamos would start as the frontrunner. (The district is ranked as the seventh most likely to switch parties on our most recent House Line.) The other major primary fight is in Illinois' 14th district where Ethan Hastert, the son of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R), is running to reclaim his father's seat. In his way is state Sen. Randy Hultgren (R) who appeared to be the momentum candidate until he was forced to apologize for a direct mail piece that tried to link Hastert to human trafficking(!). Republicans have less high-profile primaries in the 8th and 11th districts -- both currently held by Democrats but where national GOP strategists believe they have a legitimate takeover opportunity. ALSO CLICK: The Capitol Fax blog -- the best source of political news in the state.

3. President Obama travels to Nashua, N.H. today, his second trip to a swing state in the six days since his state of the union address. (He was in Tampa, Fla. last Thursday.) And, he -- and his White House -- are clearly pivoting to jobs and the economy even as health care faces an uncertain future in Congress. "Jobs will be our number one focus in 2010," Obama will say, according to remarks released this morning by the White House. "And we're going to start where most new jobs do -- with small businesses." Obama will also announce that $30 millionbillion of returned money from the financial industry bailout last year will be used to create a fund to provide capital to small, community banks in hopes that these banks will in turn loan the money to local small businesses. "This will help small banks do even more of what our economy needs -- ensure that small businesses are once again the engine of job growth in America," Obama will say. Democrats in the Granite State have to hope his words resonate with voters. After experience huge gains in 2006 and 2008, Republicans see the state as critical to their march back to the majority; they are trying to keep retiring Sen. Judd Gregg's (R) seat in GOP hands and are trying to win back one (or both) of the Democratic-held House seats.

4. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) insisted that he will seek reelection this fall despite polls that show him running well behind two little known Republican opponents, in an interview with Nevada's Jon Ralston on Monday. "I'm running," Reid told Ralston, a regular on the Fix's list of best state-based political reporters. "I have the best campaign organization ever set up in the state of Nevada [and] I am very comfortable where I am at this time." During the interview, Reid also touted his work to end the federal government's plan to use a site in Nevada as a permanent home for nuclear waste -- "I can take a little credit for killing Yucca Mountain," he said -- and attacked Arizona Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in quite personal terms. "John is a great name caller," Reid said. "The election is over. He's got to get over this and move on to something else."

5. Money -- being the mother's milk of politics and all -- is the best way to determine whether or not wavering members of Congress are serious about their re-election bids or not. And now, thanks to year-end reports filed over the weekend with the Federal Election Commission, we have scads of data to our over. Here's a look at the financial data for some of the most oft-mentioned retirees: 1) South Carolina Rep. John Spratt (D) raised just $77,000 in the final three months of the year although he ended the year with $646,000. RULING: Not terribly encouraging for Democrats hoping he hangs on for one more term. 2) Iowa Rep. Leonard Boswell (D) brought in $170,000 and showed $462,000 on hand. RULING: Respectable and could beat back retirement talk for now. 3) Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha (D) raised $100,000 and ended 2009 with $388,000 in the bank. RULING: Inconclusive. Murtha can raise as much as he needs -- if he wants to. 4) Florida Rep. Bill Young (R) collected $1,000 (not a typo) and ended the year with $396,000 in the bank. RULING: Although Young sounds like he's running, such a small sum for a member of the Appropriations Committee is very surprising. 5) Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton raised $493,000 in the last three months of the year and closed 2009 with $967,000 in the bank. RULING: A very impressive showing that should clear up doubts about his intentions. 6) West Virginia Rep. Alan Mollohan (D) raised $136,000 but ended the year with just $65,000 in the bank and a debt of $130,000. RULING: Mollohan's already filed to run again, which may be a bigger problem than if he retired.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 2, 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: Poizner Accuses Whitman of Intimidation
Next: Illinois primary day election prediction contest

Comments

"Recently, some have tried to portray this movement as a commercial endeavor rather than the grassroots uprising that it is. Those who do so don't understand the frustration everyday Americans feel when they see their government mortgaging their children's future with reckless spending. The spark of patriotic indignation that inspired those who fought for our independence and those who marched peacefully for civil rights has ignited once again. You can't buy such a sentiment. You can't AstroTurf it. It springs from love of country and the knowledge that we can make a difference if we just stand up and stand together.

I thought long and hard about my participation in this weekend's event. At the end of the day, my decision came down to this: It's important to keep faith with people who put a little bit of their faith in you. Everyone attending this event is a soldier in the cause. Some of them will be driving hundreds of miles to Nashville. I made a commitment to them to be there, and I am going to honor it.

...

I will not benefit financially from speaking at this event. My only goal is to support the grassroots activists who are fighting for responsible, limited government — and our Constitution. In that spirit, any compensation for my appearance will go right back to the cause.

The nature of the Tea Party movement means there may never be a 'perfectly orchestrated' event: Democracy in action doesn't come with a manual. But we must not get caught up in the politics or the controversies that some hope will distract from the heart of the movement. The focus must remain on our ideas and beliefs, and on supporting those ideas and beliefs however we can."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/column-why-im-speaking-at-tea-party-convention-.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 3, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Why I'm speaking at Tea Party convention

By Sarah Palin

They're paying me a LOT of money.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 3, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

drivl:

You brought Edwards up, so I thought you would want to know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 3, 2010 1:05 AM | Report abuse

First Palin, now Edwards. Our master of irrelevance.

What the he'll is the point of snarking on Edwards, he's finished in politics, how stupidy petty, vindictive, and malevolent you are.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 3, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

drivl:

News story tonight about a police report (kept secret for all this time) taken against John Edwards by Elizabeth alleging that he "stole" her wallet, with cash and credit cards, and her phone back in October of 2008.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

That's because you idolize her. You kiss the ground she walked on. You'd crawl naked over a mile of broken glass to eat the corn out of her poop.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I am fine how Sarah PAC is spending my donation (see FEC link below). If anyone else wants to discuss that (or any other thread topic), please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

I really don't beleive for a moment that a bunch of white haired grade school dropouts are organizing on their own. The teabaggers are a rage movement. Rage isn't a political cause. When they interview they don't talk about taxes, unless it's ranting against corporate taxes, never their own. No, they go directly to the name-calling.

Communist, socialist, Fascist.. of course, we know what they really want to call Obama, right?

I doubt very many of then are happy how Palin is spending their donations. The few who know, I mean. I doubt that literacy is very high among that crowd

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

@Noacoler,

You wrote: Just love the "this isn't a top down movement.". Make sure to get at least one whopper in the first paragraph. Yeah, corporate backing fir days, jerkoffs from the Bush GOP with fingerprints al over it, confused angry rednecks screaming words they can't define.
===================================
I think that there IS a grassroots who carry the signs and buy the books and stand in line in the snow. And there are the invisible hands at the top spending money and pulling strings.

The art is to keep the grassroots from realizing their strings are being pulled.

The more astute of the grassroots are beginning to ask why this movement was born only after Obama was elected, not when George Bush was in office and ticked off conservatives royally. The WHO, WHY and WHEN questions are beginning to come up more and more with the grassroots.

This convention is having trouble pulling together because the strings became too visible.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Go to any web site dedicated to this harpy and all you'll read is defensiveness. She didn't say that! She didn't mean that!

Just love the "this isn't a top down movement.". Make sure to get at least one whopper in the first paragraph. Yeah, corporate backing fir days, jerkoffs from the Bush GOP with fingerprints al over it, confused angry rednecks screaming words they can't define.

The empress is buck naked.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse


Why I'm speaking at Tea Party convention

By Sarah Palin

==

I love giving passionate speeches to empty seats in my little girl voice

send money,
Sarah

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 6:00 PM
---------------------------
I like the send money, xoxoxo, Sarah

Seriously, the first line "Why I'm Speaking at a Tea Party Convention" telegraphs the concern. Is that really what the press release said? Quite a Freudian slip. Obviously, there are a lot of people getting to Mrs. Palin and asking, "just why are you doing this, again?"

I guess she couldn't say it is for the hundred large. Just kidding, just kidding.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Let me know when you catch up.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

So now that he finally banned you he's not "our gracious host" anymore?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Since Mr. Cillizza brought up Sarah Palin, feel free to start spreading any new lies here, after you read this piece on Gregory Charles Royal:

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/07/gregory-charles-royal-continues-his.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Why I'm speaking at Tea Party convention

By Sarah Palin

==

I love giving passionate speeches to empty seats in my little girl voice

send money,
Sarah

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

now please go back to ignoring me. I have no interest in you at all. you are the worst sort of loser with no redeeming qualities in the least.

==

nonsense. you follow me around like a lonely lost puppy

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Why I'm speaking at Tea Party convention

By Sarah Palin

Later this week I'll head to Nashville, where I'll have the honor of speaking with members of the Tea Party movement. I look forward to meeting many Americans who share a commitment to limited government, common sense and personal responsibility. This movement is truly a grassroots, organic effort. It's not a top-down organization; it's a ground-up call to action that already has both political parties rethinking the way they do business.

From the town halls last summer to the protests and marches in the fall to the game-changing recent elections, it has been inspiring to see real people — not politicos or inside-the-Beltway professionals — speak out for common-sense conservative policies and values. As with all grassroots efforts, the nature of this movement means that sometimes the debates are loud and the organization is messier than that of a polished, controlled machine. Legitimate disagreements take place about tone and tactics. That's OK, because this movement is about bigger things than politics or organizers.


The soul of the Tea Party is the people who belong to it — everyday Americans who grow our food, run our small businesses, teach our children how to read, serve the less fortunate and fight our wars. They're folks in small towns and cities across this nation who saw what was happening to our country and decided to get involved. Thank God for them. Many of these good Americans had never been involved in their government before, but now they attend town hall meetings and participate in online forums. They write letters to the editor. They sign up to be precinct leaders and run for local office and support other independent patriots. They have the courage to stand up and speak out.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/column-why-im-speaking-at-tea-party-convention-.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Micro / macro evolution is bible college BS. No biologist acknowledges the distinction.

Palin believes the universe was sneezed into being by some giant invisible spirit somewhere around the time of Sumerian civilization. That places her grasp of science somewhere in 3-digit years. America is the laughingstock of the world because we still have people as ignorant as that.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! I was wondering what post / thread he was responding to 37th on : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Ped can't figure out which thread he is on.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm actually a bit shocked that broadwayjoe wasn't back here again posting his out-dated "lies" about Gov. Palin (maybe he is busy making up new ones ; )

I just looked these up from your last set posted on the previous thread (they are all from before the 2008 election). First, may I say thankfully, we don't elect POTUS based on "Yahoo Answers" (but, even if we did, 44% of Americans want GWB back as President, so then Palin could definitely win). Second, as for the specific allegations:

1) Palin doesn't believe in MACROevolution but thinks that the debate should be taught where appropriate (not in "every" classroom). She DOES believe in "microevolution – that geologic and species change occurs incrementally over time." You would know that if you had actually read "Going Rogue". Nice try though.

2) Palin has personally seen the effects of the north polar ice cap melting. But it’s not going quite as fast as Gore says. Gore’s 40 percent figure is outdated. Arctic ice levels, as measured by the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Boulder, were 40 percent lower at the end of the summer of 2007 than the average observed from 1979 to 2000. But the totals have actually increased for two consecutive years since.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

(cont.)

If we are going to believe the scientists now, the average ice cover was 5.36 million square kilometers for the month of September 2009 — at the annual minimum, compared with the 1979 to 2000 September average of 7.04 million square kilometers. That’s a difference of about 24 percent, not 40% as Gore said. (As of early December, sea ice extent during the annual re-freezing was running just above the record-low extent set in 2007, and about 9% below average.)

And Gore was wildly off the mark when he predicted that all Arctic ice would "go completely within the next decade."

We should point out that ice levels in the Arctic region change seasonally. During the summer months some ice melts, and then waters freeze again in winter as the temperature goes down. The levels of summer melting have been going up for a number of years, and this could eventually lead to very minimal ice coverage during the summer.

One researcher, Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Post-Graduate School, made a projection in 2007 that a nearly ice-free arctic summer might occur as early as 2013, though he recently moved that back to 2020. But saying the north polar ice cap will be entirely gone is hyperbole. Even the most dramatic projections, such as Maslowski’s, do not say the ice would be gone during the winter months.

Her WaPo OpEd simply pointed out that she's "always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of 'climate change impacts' was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development."

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Heterosexuals can have jobs too, 37th

why don't YOU get one?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Jake, not sure about that corner market. My world goes the other way, toward the hill, I almost never venture in the southerly/east direction except an occasional foray down to the belgian place on eighth. south of PA ave on 4th street is a gas station and then mostly residential buildings, although the stadium has brought a building boom in the direction of the stadium, but still contained to the south side of the highway for now. I don't grocery shop there because we live across the river.

Ped, no one cares what you think. they haven't for a long time. Hence your desperate attention seeking on this blog day and night. In fact I do applied math/operations research. My wife does the other business with occasional help from me. I know friends and family and multiple career concerns seem like a foreign idea to you, the guy who signs his timecard every week for blogging and brags about his piles of gold and hate for America. Go already! you do what you are skilled at I presumne, which in your case is acting spoiled, belligerent and mysogynist.

if all you have to show for an entire life is a paltry 500K with no kids, you have been severly underpaid or overindulgent all these years. you will die old, lonely and bitter if your present course is any indication. Of course I am not considering your work ethic which involves doing no work.

you are like a flea, itchy but not really a major concern.
now please go back to ignoring me. I have no interest in you at all. you are the worst sort of loser with no redeeming qualities in the least.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

(cont.)

3) She is NOT "currently" under investigation for abuse of power (in fact, that investigation cleared her and her husband of any illegalities) and the FBI took the usual step of stating for the record that she was NOT under investigation precisely because of these type of false rumors.

4) All except three of our Founding Fathers would have been fine wiht "under God" in the Pledge.

5) She wants to drill for oil in Alaska (I guess 1 right out of 8 is not so bad for libs ; )

6) She stands for the aerial slaughter of wolves (to protect the caribou population), but I have never heard of aerial bear hunting.

7) Prior to her candidacy NO ONE thought the idea of her being the Vice President was realistic.

8) She never said "I don't know what a vice president does from day to day" either.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

OFF TOPIC: Ken Gromley's latest book on Bill Clinton is supposed to be fascinating.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Death-of-American-Virtue/Ken-Gormley/e/9780307409447/?itm=1

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

drivl:

Last time we visited the Supreme Court, we parked down one of those streets (maybe 4th Street SE, is there still a small corner market there?)

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Every week you claim to be in a different career, zouk. Must be hard to keep your various phony lives straight when you spend so much fine trolling.... every waking hour, posting your hatred of Obama, of liberals, of Reid and Peloso... and your reverence for Sarah Palin.

So this week you're in politics.. few weeks ago it was applied math. I think your real avocation is sitting at a PC in the day room at the booby hatch, frantically posting in blogs all over the 'sphere, and managing your ten year old collection of dried boogers.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I find that most people are good natured about their views. I happen to work in this field, yes, inside the beltway, even closer actually, my office/townhouse is across from the Supreme court. It is the mark of a true professional to be amused by the rancor.

Of course there are several exceptions and bad actors, expecially on this blog. the three stooges I refer to are the leaders of the ugly and nasty show, spewing constant miscreant abuse and unsults ONLY.

Dribbl, Loud and Dumb and the Ped are giving your side a bad name, as if you needed any help.
but otherwise, yes, you libs are an endless source of amusement, like a pet only more virulent.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

12Bar: don't bother, drivl/zouk is a severely disturbed patient in a mental institution. Save your energies for sane people.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 4:51 PM
----------------------------------
I guess that's a reason for the think-inside-the box attitude. Just funnin' with you, drivl.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

12Bar: don't bother, drivl/zouk is a severely disturbed patient in a mental institution. Save your energies for sane people.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

You are a really think-inside-the-box kind of guy, aren't you? Please don't play gotcha with me, it is disrespectful to both of us and wastes both our time.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Clinton was impeached and andrew Johnson was impeached.

Neither was convicted and removed from office.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

So what are the two cases of successful impeachment. I'm not at all confused between impeachment and conviction. Are you going to play semantic games here?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I believe you are confusing impeachment with conviction. the act of impeachement simply sends it from the House to the Senate for further consideration.

Clinton was indeed impeached, although he was not convicted.

there is a reason the Senate and house were designed as they were. the hot heads in the house can pass anything they like, but it must cool in the saucer of the Senate before it becomes law. It is assumed the Senate is more mature and long-thinking.

Hence the failure of just about every Obama idea. the system is working.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

@drivl,

Perhaps I am wrong. What are the two cases?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

The reputedly expert Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has already had to backtrack on biased statements about global warming, is once again in hot water, reports the Telegraph. The IPCC's latest scientific transgression consists in basing assertions about ice disappearing from the earth's mountain tops on a dissertation written by a geography student studying for the equivalent of a master's degree at the University of Berne.

and you though al gore got it off a box of cereal.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

@Noacoler,

since it seems it's just the two of us interested in this right now, I'll address this just to you.

I've read many, many posts on a lot of blogs, and whether the poster agrees or disagrees with the SCOTUS decision, I would say everyone of the posters was a consequentialist.

The pro SCOTUS decision folks said that voters would be too smart to be influenced by corporate $, and they would "see through" foreign investors. Some pro people said that it was about time that right leaning corporations got "their say" against unions and the media (sort of a leveling the playing field argument). I never read a single post making the fundamental argument. All the anti decision posters obviously were consequentialists.

This tells me that if the most dire consequences show up, there will be a tremendous backlash against this decision.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Do you know why there has never been a successful impeachment of a US President?

Posted by: 12BarBlues


In fact there have been two.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

@Noacoler,

This is an excellent article that you posted. I'll repeat the cite here if anyone else wants to read it. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/what-is-the-first-amendment-for/

Really excellent. I'm still in the middle of it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Re: the Clinton perjury.

Many would say that a lie is a perfect answer to prurient curiosity.

The real tragedy you won't hear from the trolls is that Clinton wanted to go after Osama bin Laden and was rebuffed by Republicans who accused him of trying to change the subject away from their frivolous investigation.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

@drivl,

Don't you know that all interesting people are defined by their contradictions. We could go through all truly great leaders from Alexander to Caesar to the present day, and point out their essential contradictions. And that would prove what, exactly? That great leaders have to fit nicely into these little boxes (that you draw)?

Do you know why there has never been a successful impeachment of a US President?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

If Bill Clinton had committed a crime

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

He must have had his law license revoked for something else.

Are all liberals this devoid of fact and reason or is it just the small sample of loons who inhabite this blog?

I suggest you fools fly down to florida and start recounting votes for al gore again. Try to attend a John Edwards rally while you're there. I'll be home watching the health care debates on CSPAN.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I stand corrected drivl. You're right. Still, unless the law was different for President Clinton, an illicit affair is not a misdemeanor either.
If the inquiry is illegal, the perjury is irrelevent. And if I were wrong (and I'm not) Ginrich wouldn't have settled for a senseur. He would have pushed Clinton right out of office.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 2, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Nobody throws their sleezy members under the bus faster than the Democratic Party.

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

Yet at the same time:

Impeachment & removal from office is a political action. Why didn't it work? Because the R's didn't have the votes.

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

I guess the Libs don't throw out their rascals after all.

The House ethics committee investigation of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) is likely to extend well into 2010,

Recently, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi has had to deny allegations that he used his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee to help raise campaign contributions.

And on the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana faces accusations that he nominated his girlfriend for a U.S. attorney position in the Justice Department, while Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois was recently admonished..

and the list goes on.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I agree jothomp. I'm done with him.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 2, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Impeachment & removal from office is a political action. Why didn't it work? Because the R's didn't have the votes.

If Bill Clinton had committed a crime, I'm sure the R's would have had him in ankle chains frog-marched to the jail. So why didn't they? Seems obvious -- they couldn't pull it off.


Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

the proper phrase is "high crimes and misdemeanors".

Perjury is a federal offense, regardless of the topic of the lie.

for the president, this is indeed a high crime or at least a misdemeanor. hence the impeachment. He will have to live with that stain on his blue dres.... I mean record. no matter how many lame excuses liberals offer.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama

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

At this stage it would be very difficult to find a single person that is NOT more qualified to be President.

Perhaps berry should get on with his campaign for UN emperor. the incompetence and spending patterns there will suit him perfectly.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The House, under the leadership of Newt Ginrich (Quite the sleeze, himself) was engaged in a witch-hunt. They had NO RIGHT to ask about the sex-life of the President, in that venue. His bad behavior (and yes, it was) does not fall under the heading of "high crimes and treason". Those are the grounds for impeachment. Yeah, in the private secter, someone could be fired for such an act, but he would not be charged with a crime.
But none of this is the point. YOU asserted that WE are the ones guilty of political prosecutions. When? Who? Who has been charged with a crime strictly on the basis of politics? My point all along was that you throw wild accusations at us, but your side is guilty too, but if you really want to make such an assertion, you at least need to site specific examples. Otherwise, you're full of crap.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 2, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/what-is-the-first-amendment-for/
 
If anyone would like to read an excellent discussion of the opposing views of the First Amendment that underlie the SCOTUS decision to hand our elections over to corporate money, Stanley Fish has outdone himself.
 
He sees the controversy as between “consequentialists” and “principle-ists,” the latter being those who don’t care what the effect of the law is on society, only that the “principle” of free speech (which nobody seems to really understand anymore) prevails.  Consequentialists care more about the effect on society and recognized that free speech has a purpose, not just a principle, and that purpose is thwarted by allowing the powerful to outshout everyone else.

You'll never read any discussion like this here.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

I know you Libs believe that there are no facts and all knowledge in the world is open to interpetation.

but indeed there are some facts.

for example, cooling is not equal to warming.

1,325,000> 450,000

Losing three major elections in a row is not a sign of success.

surrender is not victory

etc.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Here goes drivl again, living up to his screen name - posting drivel.

In my own personal poll, do I think Drivl is a complete and total blooming idiot: 1000%.

Posted by: jothomp | February 2, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

More from the Daily KOS poll, all republicans:

SCHOOLS

Should sex education be taught in the public schools?

Yes 42
No 51
Not Sure 7

Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

Yes 77
No 15
Not Sure 8

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

And in one of the more bizarre controversies in the news today (pivoting on the cult poll results reported below).  A teenaged-appearing ball player named Tim Teboe is scheduled to appear with his mother on a Focus on the Family ad aired during the superbowl (a football game, I’m pretty sure).  She’s purportedly going to report that she considered an abortion and now is glad she didn’t since her son grew up to be a ball player and is making money.  What’s odd about this is that the superbowl has traditionally eschewed political and controversial advertising.  They’ve turned down MoveOn in the past, now they are lending their viewership to one of the nastier anti-this / anti-that organizations/  FotF advocates the usual predictable gamut of social conservative causes .. anti-abortion, ant-gay marriage, etc. etc. etc.  Are your eyes glazing over? 

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

@drivl,

What do you mean "correct answers"? It's a poll, not a multiple choice test.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

The correct answers are:

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
Not Sure 29

--------------------------------------
Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

Yes 63

---------------------------------------

Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

Not Sure 22

---------------------------------------
Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

Not Sure 33

------------------------------------------
Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?

Yes 21

----------------------------------------

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

Yes 53
----------------------------------

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

Yes 31

----------------------------------------
Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?

No 58


Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse


Btw, if you're interested, there's a private chat group of former posters that's troll-free, so you can actually have a conversation above the sandbox level.

Posted by: drindl | February 2, 2010 2:45 PM
-------------------------------
So how does this work? How do I get into that and outa here?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Another part of the Daily KOS poll, all Republicans:

GAYS

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

Yes 26
No 55
Not Sure 19

Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

Yes 7
No 77
Not Sure 16

Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?

Yes 11
No 68
Not Sure 21

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?

Yes 8
No 73
Not Sure 19

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

12Bar -- you should note that all those statistic are self-identified Republicans. Collectively, they're even stupider than I thought -- and that's saying a lot.

Posted by: drindl | February 2, 2010 2:52 PM
--------------------------------
Yes, that needs to be re-emphasized. This is a poll of several thousand persons who identified themselves as Republicans. That is EXACTLY what makes the poll interesting.

Rather than identify them as stupid, I would rather say this: If I believed as they do, I would have the views they have. I notice a high percentage of "don't know" which is almost the strangest part of the poll.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Biden is set to lose his home state.

Berry is set to lose his home state.

ask the people that know them best. How can we stop the Obomination?

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

12Bar -- you should note that all those statistic are self-identified Republicans. Collectively, they're even stupider than I thought -- and that's saying a lot.

Posted by: drindl | February 2, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

You can call it perjury if you like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It was not me, it was the house of Representatives that called it that.
Generally speaking, lying under oath is considered the general definition of perjury. It doesn't matter what the question was. It usually matters who the liar in chief is.

simply summarized, the sleaze abused the power of his office to cover up a dirty deed done with an underling, often called abuse. most corporations fire people for this. but not liberals. they get to run for higher office.

I thought you liberals were good with words. I understand the math difficulties.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Btw, if you're interested, there's a private chat group of former posters that's troll-free, so you can actually have a conversation above the sandbox level.

Posted by: drindl | February 2, 2010 2:45 PM
-------------------------------
So how does this work? How do I get into that and outa here?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

The referendum on Obama in his home state has already taken place: Lisa Madigan turned him down. Lisa Madigan is an extraordinarily beautiful and ambitious woman. She would not have passed up the opportunity to run for senator or governor if there was a good chance of success.

Lisa Madigan is enormously popular in Illinois. She is the attorney general and in 2006 she was re-elected with 72.4% of the vote. She doesn't need help from Obama to be elected to a higher office. But if she runs, she has to be seen with him, and he would bring her down. She said no.

Obama was rebuffed by Lisa Madigan. Here is the president offering his support in his home state and for his own seat in the Senate and he gets rebuffed. What an embarrassment for Obama. She dissed him.

It seems that Lisa Madigan and the good people of Illinois have known for some time what the rest of us are just beginning to understand: Obama is not nearly as popular as he once was. To be seen with him on the campaign trail is not necessarily a plus. It may be a negative, not a positive.

We must listen to Lisa Madigan. We must listen to what her heart is telling her, and what it is telling us.

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

"peloony"

I'm figuring that zouk is about 12 years old.

Feminizing, infantilizing, diminutive name-calling; derisive and mocking rage, over the top stuff like pedophilia... can anyone imagine this guy having a job, being given responsibilities, working with people?

When I say he's institutionalized it's not a goad. I really can't imagine him living any other way.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Partial results from the Daily KOS poll cited below by drindl.

OBAMA and AMERICA

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

Yes 39
No 32
Not Sure 29

--------------------------------------
Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

Yes 63
No 21
Not Sure 16

---------------------------------------

Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

Yes 42
No 36
Not Sure 22

---------------------------------------
Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

Yes 24
No 43
Not Sure 33

------------------------------------------
Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?

Yes 21
No 24
Not Sure 55

----------------------------------------

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

Yes 53
No 14
Not Sure 33

----------------------------------

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

Yes 31
No 36
Not Sure 33

----------------------------------------
Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?

Yes 23
No 58
Not Sure 19

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Drivl you are exactly what is wrong with politics. I don't agree with any part of the Republican platform. But I would never assume that someone is fundamentally evil just because they disagree with me. I couldn't stand to be that arrogant. I won't dignify the Edwards comment, because i think i was pretty clear on that in my previous post.
Regarding Clinton, however, yes he lied to Congress when he was asked a question that Congress had no right to ask. You can call it perjury if you like, but this was nothing but a partisan witch-hunt, and to deny it is to guzzle the kool-ade.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 2, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

12Bar -- this place is already so crowded with idiots you can barely step over them. It's like the home of the homeless and why I don't bother with it much anymore. Most of the interesting posters have left. Btw, if you're interested, there's a private chat group of former posters that's troll-free, so you can actually have a conversation above the sandbox level.

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

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/the-tea-party-dog-that-didnt-bite.php


@ dribbl

Isn't it considered good manners to cite one's source: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/the-tea-party-dog-that-didnt-bite.phpaz=view_all&address=433x166774
when lifting whole paragraphs out of someone else's column.

Poor mindless dribbl. not a single original thought all day.

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

KarenKay -- why are all you wingers illiterates? Is it low IQ or just hillbilly laziness?

Posted by: drindl | February 2, 2010 2:30 PM
------------------------------
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...let's pray that was a drive by shooting. Can you imagine the blog with this kind of poster, who never saw a punctuation mark she likes.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Nobody throws their sleezy members under the bus faster than the Democratic Party.

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

Oh really. why is that Nancy Peloony declared she would drain the swamp of corruption three years ago, yet the ethics committee has done nothing since. Not ONE action. Was she lying or is everyone clean?

I suppose letting Jefferson stay in office on his committee is just fine until he is voted out and convicted. I think that allowing Wrangle to continue writing tax laws while defending tax charges is swell. the list of Dem rule breakers is long and they are still around. The joke about the cabinet is that they are all tax cheats.

you are delusional.

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

12Bar-- sorry.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/2/832988/-The-2010-Comprehensive-Daily-Kos-Research-2000-Poll-of-Self-Identified-Republicans

KarenKay -- why are all you wingers illiterates? Is it low IQ or just hillbilly laziness?

Posted by: drindl | February 2, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

impeached Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife

no, that was perjury and abuse of power. Are you that dense that you still keep chanting that meme?

shouldn't you be at a John Edwards campaign rally right about now?

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

12bar,
our gracious host has asked that you ignore the mindless noacolor. He is the source of all the invective on this blog going back several months. After repeated attempts at shaming him or outright banning him, he still doesn't get the message. sounds like a liberal thing.

I assure you that you don't want to get in bed with this loser, so to speak. what you catch will remain with you forever.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"Liberalism is a fundamentally immoral political philosophy... This leads to an "anything goes" mentality when dealing with their foes: ignoring the law via a "living constitution,"
==
Wow! Where to begin. Well how about this, if you want to live in a theocracy, this probably isn't the nation for you. Try Iran or Saudi Arabia. Our forefathers made our Constitution a "living document" when they wrote Article V.
==
"politically based prosecutions, shouting down opposing speakers...
==
This from the party that impeached Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife. Shouting down opposing speakers?, you mean like when Fox News cut the feed Friday as President Obama was calling out the GOP delegation of the house for partisanship, and supporting his accusations with facts?
==
On the other hand, liberals will support other libs, no matter how corrupt, sleazy, or vile they are as long as they're politically useful to the left...
==
Nobody throws their sleezy members under the bus faster than the Democratic Party. Name for me please, a major Democrat who came to the defense of Bloggo. Find me one Dem, who thinks of John Edwards as anything but a d0uchebag. Meanwhile, you have John Ensign, Mark Sanford and Larry Craig still holding office. Neither side is perfect, but I think the "people in glass houses" metaphore is appropriate here.
as Margaret Thatcher has said of the Left, "For them, the end always seems to justify the means."
==
With due respect to Mrs. Thatcher, we are not the ones who retrofit the law to allow torture. We are not the ones who led our country into a preemptive war based on false inteligence. We are not the ones who suspended habeus corpus. Once again, I'm not saying my party has clean hands, but...glass houses.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 2, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

@Noacoler,

The newest matchup is Suzy's: Arpaio/Palin and she doesn't care WHO doesn't like it.

Palin/[fill in the name] is now dead.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/02/02/palin_vs_rahm/index.html

Finally, liberals and Palin agree on something: Fire Rahm

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

@drindl,

What a coincidence, just when you want to know what the polled Republicans think, KarenKay shows up to let us know. And so articulately too. I really doubt that she plagiarized her post.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Take a number, Karen,your troll is already covered here.

Anyways, yours needs work. Needs a smidgeon of credibility and that excludes Palin running for any public office, much less the top one.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Does the poll indicate how many Dems think that John Edwards is an honest and straighforward politician?

If only we knew then what we know now.

Well, how is this any different?

Liberals believe merely being liberal makes them good people. Liberals who're obsessed with money think they're compassionate because they give away other people's tax dollars. They believe they care more about the earth than other people, even as they fly around in private jets, because they babble on about global warming. They can be dumb as a rock, but believe they're smarter than most other people because they're liberals. In other words, in the minds of most liberals, liberalism is an all-purpose substitute for actual virtue instead of just another political philosophy.


Liberalism is a fundamentally immoral political philosophy. Ironically, given all their talk about "shades of gray," liberals have a very Manichean view of the world. They consider their fellow travelers to be on the side of the angels, while the people who disagree with them are treated as evil. This leads to an "anything goes" mentality when dealing with their foes: ignoring the law via a "living constitution," politically based prosecutions, shouting down opposing speakers, and treating lying about their agenda or opponents to be moral. On the other hand, liberals will support other libs, no matter how corrupt, sleazy, or vile they are as long as they're politically useful to the left. See Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, John Murtha, and Robert Byrd for examples of that. In other words, as Margaret Thatcher has said of the Left, "For them, the end always seems to justify the means."

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

So,the time has come to kill off the newly
emerging monster in Illinois before it can
multiple and become an even bigger and more
totally corrupt then the Chicago Mayor Richard Daley Political Machine,and yes Iam
talking about The Chicago Thug Head of the
Democrat Culture of Corruption Empty Suit
from Kenya Barack Hussein Obama and his band of incompetent Chicago thugs,like Rahm
Emmanuel and dorky David Azelrod,right along with Obama's Tax Cheater Sec of Treasury,and HHS and the two biggest screwups ever Obama's US Attorney General
Eric Holder and ding dong Sec of Homeland
Security Failed Ex Arizona Governor Total
Disaster Janet Napolitano and Bush/Obama
Butt Kisser Sec of Defense Robert Gates.

Vote Every Incumbent Democrat & Republican
out in 2010 and 2012! Palin for President!

Posted by: KarenKay2009 | February 2, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

@drindl,

Can you post some of the actual percentages from that poll? I read about it yesterday before it was released.

As I remember, something like only 42% of the self identified Republicans thought Obama was born in the U.S.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Stooge two arrives.

Avg. IQ falls to double digits.

Let loose the hounds of hate! Open the spigots of delusion!

all we need now is Loud and Dumb (aka Larry) to arrive in single digit IQ ranges.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

@ dribbl

Isn't it considered good manners to cite one's source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x166774
when lifting whole paragraphs out of someone else's column.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Ultimately, these results explain why it is impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country. Their base are conspiracy mongers who don't believe Obama was born in the United States, that he is the second coming of Lenin, and that he is racist against white people. They already want to impeach him despite the glaringly obvious lack of high crimes or misdemeanors. If any Republican strays and decides to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Even the Maine twins have quit cooperating out of fear of their homegrown teabaggers.

Given what their base demands, and this poll illustrates them perfectly, it's no wonder the GOP is the party of no.'

==

they really do sound like a cult, like the ones who chased flying saucers or the ones who conducted a mass suicide with cyanide Kool Aid.

Which is why I'm unable to conceal contempt for this blogger, doting on them, carrying their water, selling out his country in exchange for privileged access to them.

Obama needs to keep calling them out. If they want to filibuster then let him go before us every day talking about how many dies today of treatable ailments while Republicans Twitter about his "Waterloo."

Posted by: Noacoler | February 2, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

'As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world. But I found myself making certain claims about Republicans that I didn't know if they could be backed up. So I thought, "why don't we ask them directly?" And so, this massive poll, by non-partisan independent pollster Research 2000 of over 2,000 self-identified Republicans, was born.

The results are nothing short of startling.

It's a long poll, so the results are summarized below the fold. For a direct link to the poll's crosstabs, click here.

Ultimately, these results explain why it is impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country. Their base are conspiracy mongers who don't believe Obama was born in the United States, that he is the second coming of Lenin, and that he is racist against white people. They already want to impeach him despite the glaringly obvious lack of high crimes or misdemeanors. If any Republican strays and decides to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Even the Maine twins have quit cooperating out of fear of their homegrown teabaggers.

Given what their base demands, and this poll illustrates them perfectly, it's no wonder the GOP is the party of no.'

Posted by: drindl | February 2, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

@ drivl

Isn't it considered good manners to cite one's source: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/02/the-weight-around-the-democrats-ankles-barack-obama/
when lifting whole paragraphs out of someone else's column.
-------------------------------
"
What is unusual, and politically worrisome for Obama, is for a president this early in his tenure to see his own party increasingly pay little heed to his wishes. For example, the Obama administration took great pride in announcing that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be given a civilian trial in New York City, just a few blocks from where the World Trade Center buildings were attacked and destroyed.


In his State of the Union address, the president, speaking to his party about his crippled health care proposal, said the American people don't expect lawmakers to "run for the hills." But hills are exactly where many Democrats are heading, petrified as they are by the political damaging effects of ObamaCare.

Obama has also been rebuked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi several times. Early in January, reminded that candidate Obama promised all health care negotiations would be broadcast on C-SPAN, Pelosi dismissively said, "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail."

Meanwhile, the president's cap-and-trade proposal is languishing in the Senate, where it is unlikely to ever see the light of day. Guantanamo Bay remains open even though Obama, in one of the first acts of his presidency, declared it would be closed within a year.
In sum: the Obama presidency is seeing its influence and prestige drain away at an unusually rapid rate. It is hard to recall another president who, this early in his tenure, had encountered this much trouble, including the hapless Jimmy Carter.

If history is any guide, his approval ratings -- which have already fallen more than any first year president in history -- will fall even further in his second year. Obama's effort to reclaim the magic of his campaign is unlikely to work in light of his first year, when he pursued a hyper-partisan agenda and shattered promise after promise.

The president's new budget -- which projects a record-breaking, mind-blowing deficit of $1.56 trillion -- is political kryptonite for Democrats; it reinforces the worst possible narrative about them (profligate, fiscally reckless, unprepared to govern).

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 1:20 PM"

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 2, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

What is unusual, and politically worrisome for Obama, is for a president this early in his tenure to see his own party increasingly pay little heed to his wishes. For example, the Obama administration took great pride in announcing that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be given a civilian trial in New York City, just a few blocks from where the World Trade Center buildings were attacked and destroyed.


In his State of the Union address, the president, speaking to his party about his crippled health care proposal, said the American people don't expect lawmakers to "run for the hills." But hills are exactly where many Democrats are heading, petrified as they are by the political damaging effects of ObamaCare.

Obama has also been rebuked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi several times. Early in January, reminded that candidate Obama promised all health care negotiations would be broadcast on C-SPAN, Pelosi dismissively said, "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail."

Meanwhile, the president's cap-and-trade proposal is languishing in the Senate, where it is unlikely to ever see the light of day. Guantanamo Bay remains open even though Obama, in one of the first acts of his presidency, declared it would be closed within a year.
In sum: the Obama presidency is seeing its influence and prestige drain away at an unusually rapid rate. It is hard to recall another president who, this early in his tenure, had encountered this much trouble, including the hapless Jimmy Carter.

If history is any guide, his approval ratings -- which have already fallen more than any first year president in history -- will fall even further in his second year. Obama's effort to reclaim the magic of his campaign is unlikely to work in light of his first year, when he pursued a hyper-partisan agenda and shattered promise after promise.

The president's new budget -- which projects a record-breaking, mind-blowing deficit of $1.56 trillion -- is political kryptonite for Democrats; it reinforces the worst possible narrative about them (profligate, fiscally reckless, unprepared to govern).

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

LOLL!!! YOU forgot Sen. Schumer's (D) too!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Well to be accurate, he wants to freeze less than one percent of the spending for three years only starting next year. all while exploding other spending all over the map.

that is what is referred to as liberal frugality or transparency or idiocy. Just how much of suckers can liberals be? Oh yeah, now I remember, if they had their way, we would be talking about Vice President Edwards (D) assuming power in the next few years.

I put the D there because it is so often dropped in liberal media.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

This is a bit of a jaw-dropper: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) may be in far more trouble than seemed possible even a week ago, with a new Public Policy Polling survey (810 RVs, 1/29-31, MoE +/- 3.4%) showing that Rep. John Boozman (R) would enter the race with a huge advantage.

General Election Matchup
Boozman 56
Lincoln 33
Und 11

Another stunning stat, and a dangerous one for the incumbent: only 33 percent of voters think Lincoln should run for re-election. Her approval rating is at just 27 percent, while 62 percent disapprove.

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

New York Sen. Charles Schumer's approval rating dropped below 50% for the first time in a decade, a detail from a recent Marist poll that the New York Post points out this morning. The share of voters who believe Schumer, the state's senior senator, is doing an "excellent" or "good" job is now 47 percent -- putting him below the magic measure of 50 percent, according to a Marist College Polling Institute survey released yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let liberals be liberals. the voters will react accordingly and send them to the back of their own induced unemployment lines.

It's called Karma.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

drivl:

Don't forget that he also wants to FREEZE spending at the highly-inflated levels as well ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

taking credit for others' hard work.

BB

Is spending other people's money like crazy hard work?

Berry took a one time expenditure, the TARP, and converted it into his baseline budget. Instead of one bad year, we now have disaster for the rest of our lives. Serves us right for electing the AA candidate. his only success so far: spending, spending, spending.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

More info on MN races from MN Post:

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2010/02/01/15469/straw_polls_at_tuesday_caucuses_should_bring_some_clarity_to_the_minnesota_governors_race

In short: today's straw poll at the caucuses will winnow the field, particularly for Dems who have a bunch of candidates for Gov. State party conventions are in April (round 2 of the race to each party's nomination), where candidate endorsements are made; and finally, the primary will be held in August.

Posted by: bsimon1 | February 2, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

The Chicago Tribune is reporting low voter turnout - this is a primary - a sign that the Illinois voters do not know who to vent their anger at.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 2, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't really matter if Republicans want to gut social security. Even when they controlled the House, the Presidency, and 55 seats in the Senate (not to mention the Supremes), they couldn't get it done.

I have to say drivel's timelines are amusing. Nothing like taking credit for others' hard work.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 2, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, fearing that Rs who announce they want to gut
SS would gut SS if they could is perfectly rational. Fearing that a committee of of 7 Rs, 7 Ds, plus two Admin Ds, requiring 12/16 to make a recommendation would gut SS old age benefits is not realistic. It evidences a fear that everyone in DC is out to get you, which is the same motivation for the TEA people.
Fear.
Fear.
Fear.
I know the old saw that just because one is paranoid does not mean "they" are not out to get her. But we cannot run a nation at that level of panicked emotion.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

===========================
Mark in austin - another informed poster? Repubs destroying SS. Lets look at history: FDR - it was suppose to be voluntary and capped at 1%...Dem congress changed to mandatory and is now at over 6%.
LBJ (Dem)....moved ALL SS funds from SS to general revenues..and replaced with IOUs to fund more entitlement..Jimmy Carter and den congress...provided legislation that would allow immigrants aged 65 to receive SS - even if they did not pay into it....and finally - Bill Clinton w/ Al Gore providing 51st vote - allowed all SS benefits to be tax'd by the Fed government....Now - JUST EXACTLY WHO IS DESTROYING HEALTHCARE...Can you imagine if LBJ, Ole Jimmy and Bill left it alone.....But hey - where would they get ALL those dollars to fund all those other warm fuzzy social programs...And you say the repubs destroyed..please get educated.

Posted by: short1 | February 2, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Mark, with all the money that is about to flood the system, I DO have to agree there will be less reason than ever to trust what happens in DC.

In any case, it's not fear so much as experience that motivates me. What have we just gone through? Would this really be any different? If going into it, we know the stated R goal is zero tax increases whatsoever, only benefit cuts to retirees -- then it's a pointless exercise at best, isn't it? And if we are going to cut something, the first thing on the table should be the massive waste in military spending that is bleeding us dry.

Posted by: drindl | February 2, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

Google "Larry Sinclair"

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Gregory Charles Royal is a nut. Sarah Palin seems to attract a lot of nuts. Nuts love Sarah Palin. Kindred spirits and all that.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | February 2, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, fearing that Rs who announce they want to gut
SS would gut SS if they could is perfectly rational. Fearing that a committee of of 7 Rs, 7 Ds, plus two Admin Ds, requiring 12/16 to make a recommendation would gut SS old age benefits is not realistic. It evidences a fear that everyone in DC is out to get you, which is the same motivation for the TEA people.
Fear.
Fear.
Fear.
I know the old saw that just because one is paranoid does not mean "they" are not out to get her. But we cannot run a nation at that level of panicked emotion.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Drindle, 2 things you need to consider
1. "kerfuffle" is a really funny word.
and 2. I saw Jim-Jeb-Judd Henserling on Hardball and that is absolutely NOT what he wants you to think he is saying!

Posted by: elijah24 | February 2, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

drivl:

Now, all of a sudden, borrowing a trillion from China is a BAD thing?! LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

And here's R Paul Ryan:

"Personal Choice in Retirement Accounts. Beginning in 2012, the proposal allows each worker younger than 55 to shift a portion of his or her Social Security payroll tax payment into a personal retirement account"

As I said, it's all a transparent ruse to dump taxpayer money into the stock market and expose the retirement funds of the elderly to the tender mercies of Wall Street greed. It's a sucker's trap -- and no mention is ever made of how much it would cost administratively to change over the system -- we would need to borrow over a trillion from China.

Posted by: drindl | February 2, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

the annual average deficit for the 12 years that Republicans most recently controlled Congress -- $104 billion -- versus that of the past three years under the Democratic-controlled Congress -- $1.1 trillion.

Posted by: drivl | February 2, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

As to 'knee-jerk' reaction to the Debt Commission, Mark -- no, it's simply founded on fact and knowledge of Republican ideology. Take this, for instance -- everything I said to you yesterday -- didn't I and those of us in that camp nail this exactly? I keep telling you -- Rs don't want to 'fix' Social Security -- they want to BURY it.

"In the name of deficit reduction, House Republicans are going back to the Social Security well, offering budget proposals similar to those President George W. Bush proposed after his 2004 re-election that would privatize Social Security accounts and reduce cost of living adjustments.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) appeared on Hardball tonight and advocated balancing the budget by privatizing Social Security and cutting benefits for those now under 55."

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/rep-hensarling-advocates-cutting-benefits-and-privatizing-social-security.php?ref=mp

Posted by: drindl | February 2, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Interestingly, after all the kerfuffle about teabaggers, maybe it's all just sound and fury, signifying nothing. After all, they have not won one race, have they? All the recent GOP victories have gone to *moderates* -- or at least made a point of campaigning as such. Scott Brown is pro-choice.

And in Illinois, moderate Kirk is solidly ahead of two wingers running against him....

"Moderate GOP candidates across the country are closely watching today's Republican primary for the U.S. Senate, where a centrist Rep. Mark Kirk is poised to beat out two conservatives who have the backing of the tea party movement.

And if Kirk pulls it out tonight as he's expected to, a sigh of relief will be heard from Lynchburg, Va. to Seattle.

The meme since the NY-23 kerfuffle has been that Republicans will face contested primaries in dozens of their races, and an emboldened tea party movement will give establishment candidates the boot and potentially hand easy wins to the Democrats.

The evidence had been adding up - with tea party candidates popping up in Pennsylvania and Texas and conservative groups targeting moderate Republicans in California and Florida.

But Kirk holds a steady lead in our TPMPolltracker average over two tea party-backed challengers Patrick Hughes and Judge Don Lowery despite all those efforts. "

As usual, the conventional DC wisdom is largely a myth circled among the insiders. If you want to know the CW/meme any given week, just read Maureen Dowd. She goes to all Sally Quinn's cocktail parties.

Posted by: drindl | February 2, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Here in MN primary day is months away. Between now & then we still have the endorsement conventions, and today's event, which are... Caucuses!! That's right, its a three-event competition before you can even start thinking about the general election in Minnesota. For tonight's caucuses the gubernatorial race is the main focus, with an enormous field from all three major parties (in MN the IP has major party status). For the Dems there are 7 or 8 candidates with a plausible path to the nomination. On the Repub side the field has narrowed to three likely nominees. The IP's caucus is online-only; there are up to five candidates vying for that endorsement, including several ex-Republicans (the IP usually attracts disenchanted Dems). If the IP nominates a former GOPer while that party panders to the TEA types, watch for the odds of a Dem takeover of the Governor's mansion to rise significantly.

MPR reports that the TEA movement is likely to significantly influence the GOP caucuses.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/02/02/tea-party-caucus/


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | February 2, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will also be making a return trip to Michigan in May. She will speak to the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan in Benton Harbor on May 13, a spokesman for the group told CNN.

The 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee apparently has a special place in her heart for Michigan: when John McCain's campaign ceded the state to Barack Obama in 2008, Palin pushed back against the decision and pressed to make more visits to the state. She also launched her book tour last year in Grand Rapids.

(She has slammed Rahm Emanuel too)

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

P.S. to broadwayjoe:

Mr. Cillizza brought up Sarah Palin, so feel free to start spreading your lies here, after you read this piece on Gregory Charles Royal:

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/07/gregory-charles-royal-continues-his.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of Scott Brown, I thought that Reid was going to wait for any major votes until Brown was seated?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9721741

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Jake, you're right about Scott Brown with one caveat: They elected him because Democrats stayed home.
Martha Coakley (please god let me never have to say or type her name again) was such an inept candidate, that Massachusets Dems couldnt bring themselves to give Edward Kennedy's seat to her, but couldnt bring themselves to vote for a Republican either. A half-way decent opponent, who respects the voters the way Kennedy ded, and Coakley did not, will take that seat from Brown in the re-elect without too much trouble, unless he turns out to be an incredibly special senator.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 2, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

mark, I agree and I would write my congressman to ask them to do just that, but as I am a DC resident I have no voice in our government so I can't actually do anything about this little debacle.

I also wonder if they went back to the moderate GOPers and said they are going to take the Senate bill add a trigger for a public option (which Collins and Snowe have said they can support, and would make a lot of liberals a little more confortable) and add Tort reform to see if they will vote for it. Tort reform is always touted as the holy grail for fixing healthcare by the GOP, so I wonder if they would turn it down, even if it was attached to this bill. Then again this may cause a revolt in the Democratic caucus so it may not work.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 2, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Andy, I like the SB much better for my clients, who are generally small businesses. So I hope the House passes the SB today and then lets it alone. Then they can work on job recovery issues. The Ds in Congress being unmanageable, this is unlikely to happen. Lingering issue will be lingering death for many of their political careers. Remember 1994? That wave would have been defused if the HC bill had been enacted, bad as I thought it was. The R plan in 1993 wasw a lot like the SB now, BTW.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

scrivener50:

I see that you are finally asking the right questions.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Elijah, sorry bad choice of words, I guess it would better to say suck it up and vote the senate bill into law. It reduces the deficit and has all the insurance reforms that everyone wanted. I agree that I like the house bill more, but on this they should just bite the bullet and make it happen. They can fix the problems with it in a second bill.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 2, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Elijah and BB - We cannot determine a trend line yet.

BB and I have noted elsewhere that fear seems to be a motivator that overwhelms reason. Our shared example came from a discussion we saw where the left liberals opposed Conrad-Gregg on the kneejerk assumption that it would destroy Social Security old age benefits, and were unwilling to acknowledge the fiscal $40T+ hole that will be our legacy for medicare/medicaid. In fact, that Commission could do no such thing. We know that conservatives never liked the bill either. Only moderates saw it as the escape from the tax and budget peccadillios of one irresponsible Congress to the next.

We live in an anxious time in 2010. Fear consumes. Anything can follow. Stability may come in time to
raise spirits before November, but I doubt it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

IN AN AMERICA WHERE MAJOR FEDERAL AGENCIES DISRESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW -- AND THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE REFUSES TO ENGAGE -- POLITICS BECOMES LITTLE MORE THAN BREAD AND CIRCUSES.

Veteran Journalist Asks Justice Dept. Civil Rights Division:

'THOUSANDS ARE TERRORIZED, PHYSICALLY HARMED BY HOMELAND-SPAWNED, POLICE-PROTECTED MULTI-AGENCY GESTAPO AND CELL TOWER- BASED MICROWAVE WEAPON ATTACK...

..IS THAT WHY NO AUTHORITIES WILL INVESTIGATE?'

• Thousands of Americans unconstitutionally targeted, slandered, sabotaged and silently tortured and impaired by Bush-legacy "multi-agency program" that continues to persecute and physically assault.

Why is the Obama administration COVERING UP A BUSH-SPAWNED AMERICAN GENOCIDE?

* Bucks County, PA- based mid-Atlantic "fusion center" -- Ground Zero of an American Gestapo.

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

Posted by: scrivener50 | February 2, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

I don't think there's really an anti-incumbency movement. At least, I hope there isn't. Anti-incumbency is an incredibly stupid political philosophy. The idea that anyone who has a job in politics should lose that job, being replaced by someone who's not in politics right now, is idiotic. Some incumbents need to go. But getting rid of all of them just doesn't make sense.

So I think the "anti-incumbency" movement is mischaracterized by the media. People hate specific incumbents, usually of the opposing party. Or people hate incumbents who haven't accomplished anything useful. But the number of people who oppose the concept of incumbents is minuscule and will have no effect on the election.

Posted by: Blarg | February 2, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Oh, I thought that you were talking about the "American people as a whole.". My bad. FWIW: those people in the middle elected Scott Brown (R-MA ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

@elijah - The spin cycle does seem to have sped up a bit, no? Let's take the House (please), which has the benefit of gerrymandered districts to protect incumbents. A Democratic majority lasted 40 years. The Republican majority lasted 12 years. I think that the current majority will survive the 2010 election, but beyond 2014? Not so sure about that.

There are a lot of freshman Senators who face re-election in 2012 - 2014. If there's a double dip, I could see the Senate flipping.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 2, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Jake, I'm not talking about you and me. You will always support the conservative, and I the liberal. I'm talking about the people in the middle with no entrenched political standing.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 2, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Oh, sure, elijah24 -- let's all set partisanship aside -- once the Dems control Congress AND the White House, we shouldn't turn the bus around. How convenient ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 2, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Generally, Andy, I assosiate the phraise "man-up" with machismo. There certainly is no lack of that in the house. actually I think that is the problem. I think the House bill is a good one, and the Senate bill is a joke; but I also think that the Senate bill is now the best chance we have to pass any reform at all. So the house needs to stop letting perfectionism block progress. Just put on the "D" jersey and play for the team.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 2, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Elijah, they will pass something, even if it is just the insurance reform part of the package. Frankly, I would like to see the house man up and pass the senate version and get this over with. That way Obama can sign it, deal with the two weeks of yelling and screaming from the right, and then MOVE ON.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 2, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

It hasn't been abandoned. As much political capital as he has spent on it already, President Obama will have a much harder time winning reelection if he doesn't get a bill passed. He knows that.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 2, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Mark, to your point I think all of these guys have enough friends in high places who could bank roll them if they needed them to. I still think Boswell runs again and Murtha is LOVED in his district, plus he is a hell of a campaigner when he wants to be. I would also expect Mollohan's numbers to go up fast now that he has been exonerated by the ethics committee.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 2, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

How happy are Dems that Obama has abandoned health care and is now clearly focusing on his own reelection bind in 2012 by traveling to swing states, not states where he can shore up the Dem majority in time for fall.

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | February 2, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

I have a request: Can we put aside partisanship just for the question im about to ask? Because I don't think this is a Republican or Democrat issue. I think it is an issue of the attitude of the American people as a whole. Here is the question:

What is the long-term virtue of the attitude of anti-incumbancy?
in '06 and '08 we kicked the Republican bums out, now there is a movement to kick the Democratic bums out. What is the point? In a nation where we have an economic crisis, 2 wars a joke of an educational system, a ponzi (sp?) scheme for a health-care system, and banks using OUR money to support their dengerate gambling habit, what is the point of turning the bus all the way around every 2 years?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 2, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

As to #5, can you see the effect of "Citizens United" during the campaigns of any of these folks?

For instance, is Young well placed enough and powerful enough on the Appropriations Committee that some major corporate interests will come to his rescue, by running unlimited ads against his opponent?

Does Mollohan have big friends in coal - either on the mine owners or mineworkers side? Will Chinese ownership in the coal fields lead to a test of our remodeled system?

My point, CC, is that fund raising totals may become relatively meaningless, now.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2010 7:07 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company