Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: RGA Unloads in Virginia

The Republican Governors Association is doubling down on comments on taxes made by state Sen. Creigh Deeds last month with new television ads that will flood the Washington, D.C. media market today.

The latest RGA ad, the second of a massive $1.7 million ad buy from the committee, features an obviously perturbed Deeds, after an extended back and forth on his position on taxes, turning to a female reporter and saying: "I think I made myself clear, young lady."

Deeds' cringe-worthy line, which was delivered last month following a debate with former state attorney general Bob McDonnell (R), and the RGA's decision to run it not once but twice in one of the closing ads of the campaign is an attempt to repair some of the damage among female voters incurred by the extensive coverage of McDonnell's graduate school thesis, in which he described working women and feminists as "detrimental" to the family.

That thesis, which argued for an extreme social conservative view of government, and the controversy it created gave life to what had been a moribund Deeds campaign. A slew of polls showed Deeds closing the gap and, in a survey conducted by the Washington Post, much of the Democrats' gains came from independent women.

It remains to be seen whether this ad will move some of those women back to McDonnell or, perhaps, back into the undecided camp. Our guess is that it will since voters tend to rankle at the image of a politician clearly losing his cool on camera -- especially when that loss of cool is at a woman.

With millions pouring into the race for the final month of the campaign -- the Democratic National Committee transferred $1 million to Deeds on Sunday -- it's hard to say that any one ad -- or series of ads -- will be decisive.

But, if Deeds winds up coming up short on Nov. 3, he and his campaign team will almost certainly point to that fateful press conference on Sept. 17 as the reason.

Monday Fix Picks:

1. A tough Post profile of Creigh Deeds.
2. Ryan Lizza profiles the White House economic team.
3. Broder on Obama's moment of truth.
4. How bad off is Blanche Lincoln?
5. Linda McMahon gets the Times treatment.

Hayworth Considers McCain Primary Challenge: Former representative J.D. Hayworth is weighing a candidacy against Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in 2010, according to sources familiar with his thinking. Hayworth, a former sportscaster who spent more than a decade in Congress before he was defeated in 2006 by Rep. Harry Mitchell (D), is a popular figure among grassroots conservatives -- a status McCain has never courted or achieved. McCain already faces a primary challenge from Chris Simcox, a founder of the Minutemen -- a leading anti-immigration group. While there is considerable resentment from some grassroots conservatives toward McCain, it's not clear that he is vulnerable to a primary challenge. McCain ended June with $4.65 million in the bank.

Tpaw To Address RJC: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) will address a gathering of Republican Jewish Coalition leaders on Oct. 14 in D.C. Tpaw has been everywhere of late as he ramps up his political operation in advance of the 2012 presidential contest -- having unveiled the consulting team for his Freedom First PAC late last week.

Labor Makes Final Health Care Push: With the health care legislation expected to see the Senate floor this week, organized labor is making a last effort to convince Members to support it. More than 100 labor leaders from 27 states will descend on Washington to meet with House members and Senators; they will also deliver hand-written letters from union members urging passage of a bill. "America's working families need health care reform that includes a robust public option that will control costs through competition and break the stranglehold insurance companies have over the system," said Eddie Vale, a spokesman for AFL-CIO.

Rubio Gaining Traction?: Former Florida state House speaker Marco Rubio (R) is seizing on a recent Miami Herald piece -- written by Beth Reinhard, a member of the Fix's list of best state-based political reporters -- as evidence that Gov. Charlie Crist (R) has begun to look over his shoulder in the 2010 Senate race. "Faced with Marco's growing momentum and a public growing increasingly sour about his own record of supporting tax increases, the wasteful Obama stimulus package and cap-and-trade, Crist and his allies are lashing out with misleading, negative and personal attacks," reads a fundraising e-mail sent to Rubio supporters over the weekend. Rubio has won plaudits and endorsements from national conservatives but his stunningly poor fundraising between April 1 and June 30 (less than $350,000 raised) took much of the momentum away from his candidacy and led to widespread rumors that he would drop from the race. With another fundraising deadline approaching -- reports are due at the Federal Election Commission on Oct. 15 -- Rubio must show he can raise real money is he wants to be taken seriously as a challenger to the popular Crist.

Schlafly for Perry: Phyllis Schlafy, an icon in the national conservative movement, has thrown her support to Texas Gov. Rick Perry in his upcoming primary fight against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. "In a time where conservative ideals are increasingly under attack, Governor Perry hasn't backed away from working to implement policies that defend families, religious freedoms and life," said Schlafly in a statement. Schlafly's endorsement is in keeping with Perry's attempt to position himself as far to the ideological right as he can in hopes of portraying Hutchison as too moderate to rightly represent Republicans' interests.

Say What?: ""He doesn't represent the Republican Party." -- South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) lays the smack down on conservative television host Glenn Beck in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 5, 2009; 6:41 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: The Four Elements of Great Primaries
Next: The Palin Wars: Part LXII

Comments

"no one is suggesting that the government outlaw women working outside the home"

No, McDonnell just believes you are destroying Traditional Marriage if you do. But he'll facilitate it anyway, because voters want it. What a prince!

Posted by: nodebris | October 5, 2009 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Other McDonnell ads are more effective, I think. The ones that remind voters McDonnell will focus on economic growth, jobs, and transportation from day one are especially good: they give people a reason to get out and vote for McDonnell.

Posted by: coastofutopia | October 5, 2009 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Calling a young woman a "young lady" like that is actually MUCH WORSE than the government facilitating young women to stay at home and raise families -- no one is suggesting that the government outlaw women working outside the home -- hopefully, McDonnell can make this distinction clear to enough undecided voters.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

The RGA like the RNC is tone-deaf. Having no understanding of real people's concerns, they think calling a young woman "young lady" (which is somewhat dismissive) is equivalent to having a career ambition to keeping women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Not exactly.

Posted by: mikeinmidIand | October 5, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Wait - the RGA is hitting Deeds because he said "young lady?"

I don't get it. But then again, I haven't understood the GOP since Gerald Ford.

Posted by: ennepe68 | October 5, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

A) Scalia's concerns confirm the perverse conservative interest in bizarre sexual acts rather than deny it.

B) Scalia is just playing defense. There are a huge number of holes in his argument, but essentially he is merely offering a rhetorically shaky -- even juvenile -- "Parade of Horribles" argument. For him to propose that the basis for any strictures must either stand or fall in its entirety is weak at best, a desperate last stand.

C) Imagine Scalia's argument applied to miscegenation laws, once considered just as abhorrent as gay marriage today. Did interracial marriage lead to the legalization of inter-species marriage? Is it a necessary consequence? The very notion is, of course, absurd. By Scalia's logic, the battle against inter-species marriage was already lost when Virginia's miscegenation laws were knocked down.

Posted by: nodebris | October 5, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

nobody cares.

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:

"It seems to me that the 'societal reliance' on the principles confirmed in Bowers and discarded today has been overwhelming. Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority's belief that certain sexual behavior is 'immoral and unacceptable' constitutes a rational basis for regulation. See, e.g., Williams v. Pryor, 240 F. 3d 944, 949 (CA11 2001) (citing Bowers in upholding Alabama's prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that "[t]he crafting and safeguarding of public morality ... indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny"); Milner v. Apfel, 148 F. 3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that "[l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality ... rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms"); Holmes v. California Army National Guard 124 F. 3d 1126, 1136 (CA9 1997) (relying on Bowers in upholding the federal statute and regulations banning from military service those who engage in homosexual conduct); Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that "a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage"); Sherman v. Henry, 928 S. W. 2d 464, 469-473 (Tex. 1996) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed constitutional right to commit adultery). We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indiana's public indecency statute furthered "a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality," ibid., (plurality opinion); see also id., at 575 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

(cont.)

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, m@sturbation, adultery, fornication, besti@lity, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE LAWS IS CALLED INTO QUESTION BY TODAY'S DECISION; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex" (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional "morals" offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. "The law," it said, "is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed."

(Emphasis Added)

If anyone else want to debate Scalia's point, rather than deride that legitimate concern as some fantasy we conservatives wish to actually partake in -- wouldn't it be easier to not dissent if that were our ultimate goal -- please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

that's the funny thing about these so-called 'conservatives' margaret, like santorum and his man-on-dog sex. they have fantasies about stuff that the rest of never even think of, because it's too revolting.

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Jake, if you ARE curious most counselors suggest you should act on your curiosity.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 5, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to leave legalizing Father and Son marriage to the next generation and Jake.

In the mean time I am very concerned about Governors resigning from their posts before their terms are up. I think they should have to return ALL the campaign money they raised. The money was donated to make them Governeor and then they just walk away? Un-unh.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 5, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

you wouldn't know a 'fact' if it bit you.

here's a fact -- your broadcast heros are clowns.

Fox News host Glenn Beck didn’t get much love from yesterday’s Sunday show guests. First, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that Beck “doesn’t represent the Republican Party.” “You can listen to him if you like,” he added. “I choose not to.” Later, a bipartisan group of pundits also dismissed Beck. On NBC’s Meet the Press, GOP strategist Mike Murphy said:

MURPHY: These radio guys can’t deliver a pizza, let alone a nomination. And you can case study that out in the last election.

On CNN, when conservative pundit Mary Matalin attempted to defend Beck by saying that he is tapping into a neglected constituency of “maligned mothers,” her husband, liberal strategist James Carville, jumped in and called Beck “nuts”:

CARVILLE: Yes. I think he’s nuts, OK? Just out and out nuts. And I also think that he’s a blatant hypocrite.

Here’s somebody that sits on his show and weeping about how much he loves America and then he’s absolutely giddy when his country doesn’t get the Olympics

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"That's a simple fact"

No, it isn't.

Posted by: nodebris | October 5, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

If "gay marriage" is not a problem, we won't be able to stop legalized incest or polygamy either. That's a simple fact, and it's just a matter of "when" not if.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

The RGA is doing a smart thing here. After the fallout of McDonnell's graduate thesis, his polls numbers have came back up just as fast. He leads Deeds now 51%-42%, with 7% still undecided. McDonnell must think that alot of the 7% is females. Deeds' hammering of McDonnell for the thesis statement way back may play both ways. For 1, it may well energize the conservative base and appeal to moderately social conservative democrats in most of the state of Virginia. It says that McDonnell is a man of conviction, and many people appreciate that. Now, move in's living in Northern Virginia may not appreciate that so much. That's why Deeds' is being hammered in the DC suburbs and Northern Virginia, to hopefully win some of that 7% and for McDonnell to break even in Northern Virginia. It looks like he is dead even in Northern Virginia right now according to SurveyUSA polls, 50%-50%. That's big and if it stays that way on voting day, McDonnell will win with about 55% of the vote.

Hayworth can't beat McCain. McCain will beat him just as he will beat out Simcox. A defeated US Congressman and a racist is hardly going to beat out John McCain for US Senate in Arizona. Plus, Jon Kyl will support McCain and see him through any primary he will face.

Marco Rubio had better get to raising cash if he wants to compete with Crist. John Cornyn & the NRSC has already endorsed Crist, which dries up Rubio fundraising efforts. Rubio had better get outside cash fast if he wants to have a shot. I'd say Rubio could possibly raise cash in states like Iowa, Arkansas & South Carolina, where he has other conservative support from Mike Huckabee & Jim DeMint.

Posted by: reason5 | October 5, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Not at all curious; no one surpasses jaked in worrying about unlikely hypotheticals.

Posted by: nodebris | October 5, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

I am clearly against any such laws (as I am against "gay marriage" to start with), but neither you nor drindl have stated similar opposition. Curious indeed.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Jake, if you want to pass laws making it legal for fathers to marry their sons, go ahead with your project. I'm sure you'll be as good a spokesman as that group will find.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 5, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

(CNN) – The competitive gubernatorial race in Virginia is set to be showered with $1 million cash at the behest of Democratic National Committee Chairman and current Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, CNN has confirmed.

The DNC, which for months has heavily focused on this off year gubernatorial race as well as that in New Jersey, has already pumped $5 million into the contest that appears to be getting tighter as Election Day looms.

A Democratic loss in either the Virginia race or that in New Jersey, where Republican challenger Chris Christie appears to have a slight edge over incumbent Jon Corzine, is likely to be seen as a referendum on President Barack Obama's polices a year after he was elected. A victory in either state could also give the GOP instant momentum heading into the 2010 midterm election season.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

YOU were the one who tried to claim that "gay marriage" is now TRADITIONAL -- I was simply seeing where, if at all, you draw the line -- fathers and daughters can be in "love" too, committing themselves to each other in front of their family and friends, right? It is curious that you won't answer that question but instead type about faux rage.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Incest is incest. It is not homosexuality. perhaps you should invest in a dictionary and learn the meaning of words before you try to use them.

Now stop talking to me, you are a waste of time.

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you have a bad habit of writing and headline, and instead of providing material supportive of the headline, it turns out quite the opposite, leading to frequent non-sequitars. Like this:

"Rubio Gaining Traction?
....but his stunningly poor fundraising between April 1 and June 30 (less than $350,000 raised) took much of the momentum away from his candidacy and led to widespread rumors that he would drop from the race."

That doesn't sound much like 'traction' somehow. More like wishful thinking again.

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

OK, how about an adult father "marrying" his adult son?

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"If you think that "gay marriage" is traditional now, how about an adult father "marrying" his adult daughter?"

that is disgusting and insulting to gay people. you are a jack*ss, plain and simple.

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me." (John 12:8) Is that "conservative" enough for you, drindl? Care to answer my prior question to you: "If you think that "gay marriage" is traditional now, how about an adult father "marrying" his adult daughter?"

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Poverty is brutal on traditional marriage, but I never hear conservatives complaining about it.

Posted by: nodebris | October 5, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

In case you really did not know this, "working moms" refer to OUTSIDE THE HOME -- I've already said many times before that moms working inside the home and raising families are the most important "jobs" in our society -- that's why I want to protect them.

If you think that "gay marriage" is traditional now, how about an adult father "marrying" his adult daughter?

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"He simply stated the truth that working moms and feminists are, in fact, "detrimental" to the TRADITIONAL definition of family. So are homosexuals who "marry"."

Joked is, as everyone knows, a neanderthal. All women WORK, chucklehead. As margaret patiently pointed out to you, 'traditional' means different things to different people, not just your definition.

When I've been to gay weddings, I see two people who are in love committing themselves to each other in front of their family and friends. What could be more traditional than that?

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

newageblues:

If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. Careful with the name-calling though.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Mark, I imagine it will be pretty predictable, but let us know if you go.

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

We don't need schools or roads? That news to me.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 5, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Deeds = Progressive who will increase our taxes to provide services none of us needs... But at least our infrastructure will remain OURS

McDonnell = Progressive-Lite who prays at the temple of Public-Private partnerships and will end up giving our infrastructure away... Just so we will end up paying higher tolls and fees to his buddies while our elected leadership stands back and lets it happen since its a valid "business cost"...

So are you can see, its just two sides of the same Progressive coin...

...One day an American who has read and BELIEVES IN the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution will run for office again...

Posted by: indep2 | October 5, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

all I said about prostitution, JakieD, is that it's despicable to compare it to murder. I didn't say anything about whether terminally ill patients or anyone else has the right to use or be a prostitute. I don't have time for further discussion of that subject today, especially with a full tilt demagogue like you with such pathetic reading comprehension ability.
Get real.

Posted by: newageblues | October 5, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Re Fix Pick#4: I imagine that all Rasmussen polls achieve their atypical results from similar manipulation. There are many ways to influence such robo-call polls beyond which numbers you call and the order of the questions. Even the tone of voice in the recording can sway what reads as a neutral question in a transcript.

Rasmussen has an agenda, and it is not to achieve an accurate poll.

Posted by: mikeinmidIand | October 5, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Jake: YES, I DO think gay marriage and working women undermine the TRADITIONAL definition of a family. In the same way that 20th century divorce law undermines it, and domestic violence laws undermine it, and the 150+ year trend to city living undermines it, and our 200+ year history of educating girls undermines it, and even the outlawing of foot binding undermines it. As usual, you are assuming that everyone has the same definition of something and we all know what that is. You may think your definition is Ward Cleaver, but maybe we think it's Henry VIII.
Women have always worked: from Cave Woman to Serf to Rosie the Riveter. This is nothing new. Have same-sex marriages allowed us new ways to commit ourselves? yep. You should be happy for them instead of all cranky.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 5, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

"Now Republicans are out front in the not one penny taken away from Medicare game."

Yeah, it's weird, isn't it?

Posted by: DDAWD | October 5, 2009 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Wow, the descent to non-sequitur and reduction to the absurd starts earlier and earlier.

But sadly it is true the seeds of Socialized Medicine are in this bill.
There is way too much M&M growth to be sustainable. Everyone realizes the public option is Medicare and Medicaid, right?
So if M&M grow, what gives way?

The public sector exists alongside, actually, in a manner fully integrated with all but the highest end of the continuum of care. Subsidies for the private sector purchases by a dwindling sector of the risk pool are a fig leaf. The public sector grows and grows, it has to because there is interest on all sides to grow it. Now Republicans are out front in the not one penny taken away from Medicare game.

And I consider this a critique from the left. I can't imagine a more expensive way to get to single party payer, but we are going there. The industry wants this bill and the industry will get this bill.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 5, 2009 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"we would know that the feminist movement was no longer necessary when the divorce rate leveled out at about 50%. I asked her why, and she said that half of all marriages were that bad, but hers was great, and half were good to great. When women were no longer trapped in bad marriages, feminism would be vindicated, she said."

Wow, that's really prescient. I don't think the feminist movement has been completely vindicated yet. There's still work to be done. But I do think it's good that people see that there is an upside to the divorce rate. Yeah, it's not good in and of itself that a marriage ends, but it's far preferable for a marriage to end than for people and their children to be stuck in a bad one.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 5, 2009 10:06 AM | Report abuse

#4 of the Fix picks is very interesting. It's more a piece on how a poll would find Lincoln behind relatively unknown candidates. Answer: mention the potential opponent's name right before asking the horse race question. The taker of this poll?
Rasmussen.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 5, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

There are traditions that have lasted for thousands of years, and some that are called traditions after the "2nd Annual." The fact is that marriage, like society itself, has been adapting and changing with the times since it's inception. There is no logic in choosing the "typical" marriage in 1915 or 1950 as the model of a
"traditional" marriage.

Inevitably, people confuse their memory of a "good" marriage with the details of that union, rather than it's spirit. "Traditional" does not equate to "good."

Posted by: mikeinmidIand | October 5, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

newageblues:

So, you believe in a terminally ill patient's right to use women as empty vessels, despite all the evidence about how damaging prostitution is? That doesn't sound like feminism either.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

"JakeD compares a terminally ill patient's right to use medicinal marijuana to deal with their nightmarish pain to Charles Manson's "right" to commit murder. I knew Jake was crazy, I didn't realize he was THAT crazy (and sadistic). Comparing prostitution to murder is also thoroughly despicable.

Posted by: newageblues"

Funny thing is that this isn't close to the most offensive thing he's said on here.

Best just to ignore him.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 5, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

That was completely outside of the norm for 1915, let alone 1950 (my definition). 2015, not so much.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

JakeD compares a terminally ill patient's right to use medicinal marijuana to deal with their nightmarish pain to Charles Manson's "right" to commit murder. I knew Jake was crazy, I didn't realize he was THAT crazy (and sadistic). Comparing prostitution to murder is also thoroughly despicable.

Posted by: newageblues | October 5, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Typical Palin "reader."

http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/po/

Posted by: mikeinmidIand | October 5, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Obviously, 1915 and 1916...

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 5, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

JakeD says "McDonnell should win this one. He simply stated the truth that working moms and feminists are, in fact, "detrimental" to the TRADITIONAL definition of family. So are homosexuals who "marry". Now, especially if you don't like that traditional definition, you should be happy to admit this self-evident fact too."

It's not self-evident that a traditional family is hurt in any way by working women or married gays. The sense of power and control that traditionalists used to have over women and gays is blown away, but how are their real lives affected by the choices that others make?

Posted by: newageblues | October 5, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Definitions of "traditional families" and "feminism" are suspect because they are subjective. In the generations of my family who I know personally, my maternal grandmother was a high school graduate, around 2015, who married an engineer in 2016, had tow children, was a suffragette, and worked outside the home. She told me, when she was in her mid 80s, that we would know that the feminist movement was no longer necessary when the divorce rate leveled out at about 50%. I asked her why, and she said that half of all marriages were that bad, but hers was great, and half were good to great. When women were no longer trapped in bad marriages, feminism would be vindicated, she said.

Her children were successful and each had advanced degrees, and her granddaughters both earned PhDs and both have raised children while working outside the home. Those were the traditional expectations in my family.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 5, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

shrink2:

Is the ultimate goal to get healthcare up over 50% of GDP so that everyone is forced to agree to single-payor socialism just to survive?

newageblues:

T-Paw doesn't agree with the "freedom" of prostitution or "real" murder either. Perhaps Charles Manson would be a better candidate for your world view.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

Thanks for the local perspective. The Michael Leahy
on Deeds's stammering, especially in light of the traumatic divorce of his parents, and David Broder's piece on Obama are well worth the read.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

This "reform" bill is going to drive health care consumption past 25% of gdp.

Everybody is going to pay to get everyone covered. That coverage is going to get used. I can't see anything standing in the way. The unmet need is enormous.

I am hoping for a piece of the new pie baking at the bottom of page 75 of The Mark. Getting psych patients out of med/surg ERs is a really good thing, eventually that will pay for itself. But like every other new business, the start up won't be cheap.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 5, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Tim Pawlenty calls his PAC Freedom First. This is the same guy who vetoed a medical marijuana bill that would only have applied to terminally ill patients. Welcome to George Orwell's 1984.

Posted by: newageblues | October 5, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

JakeD, as someone who still admires the KBH I knew in law school - one of only six women in my section of 100 - and subjected to verbal abuse by at least one law prof b/c she was still a cheerleader as a First Year, and as a contributor to KBH, and as a loud detractor of Goodhair, there is no objectivity in me about him whatsoever.

With that caveat, I hope Schlafly helps isolate Goodhair as a fringe right candidate.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 5, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

So the McDonnell campaign is saying its perfectly fine for their candidate to hate women but the Deeds comment is reprehensible? Where is the logic?

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | October 5, 2009 9:27 AM | Report abuse

A truly resurgent economy would come from a technological breakthrough that led to a new industry or industries, or exportable services. Shrink is bitter when he views the health care "reforms" as a jobs package and little else, but he certainly has a point. That effect will be felt in 2013, I imagine, and later years. The Prez is counting on transitioning to clean energy and supporting technological breakthroughs there. I think that has some promise, say by 2014.

Meanwhile, we could be building thorium generation 4 reactors like Canada and India and probably kill two birds with one stone. The new construction jobs could start in a year or so, and would build and provide us with homegrown power as we transition to wind, thermal, hydro, and solar power.

Why no one is listening to Chu about nukes is beyond me.

I apologize for the threadjack.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 5, 2009 9:24 AM | Report abuse

shrink2:

As if 1/7th of the economy isn't enough for healthcare? We are taking our new Corvette to Vegas in three weeks, if that helps ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Even that fly-by-night "university" McDonnell attended would not have accepted a thesis that was mere definition.

Besides defining what was and was not "traditional," McDonnell laid out a series of strategies for strengthening that type of marriage, and then went on to enact legislation in support of those goals.

His legislative agenda is what is important. But the thesis lays out the roadmap, and shows where he has yet to go.

Posted by: mikeinmidIand | October 5, 2009 9:17 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

What do you think about Schlafly for Perry?

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 9:17 AM | Report abuse

"...especially if Obama's numbers are high from a resurgent economy."

It is hard to misunderestimate how important this is. And where is the resurgent economy supposed to come from?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/08/the-well-heeled-might-be-able-to-save-the-us-economy-from-a-long-period-of-dismal-consumer-spending----if-only-we-dont.html

If this is true, then political pandering aside, the Middle Class' era as driver of the American economy is over for now, maybe forever. So all you rich people out there better start buying stuff. Maybe the trickle down theory won.

I won't miss consumer consumption as the driver of the gdp. Lets get on to health care consumption, thats the ticket.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 5, 2009 9:13 AM | Report abuse

McDonnell should win this one. He simply stated the truth that working moms and feminists are, in fact, "detrimental" to the TRADITIONAL definition of family. So are homosexuals who "marry". Now, especially if you don't like that traditional definition, you should be happy to admit this self-evident fact too.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 9:07 AM | Report abuse

A challenge to McCain is foolish if you ask me. Arizona is becoming more and more purple every day and I don't see a more conservative option winning in the general election.
BTW, I wouldn't be suprised to see Harry Mitchell take on John Kyl in 2012, especially if Obama's numbers are high from a resurgent economy.

Posted by: AndyR3 | October 5, 2009 9:04 AM | Report abuse

I have seen these ads and they aren't as damning as the interview as a whole. It seems that they cut and pasted it together to make it seem worse, which somewhat takes away from the trainwreck that the interview was. I think they would have been better off just showing the whole interview by itself.

Also I don't think it will make women move back to McDonnell at all because at the same time that this came out the Deeds campaign is hitting the airwaves with Mark Warner talking about how Deeds is like him. If McDonnell is seen as being negative and Deeds remains positive and talking about what he will do when he is elected then I think he can win it. Some new poll data would also be nice to get an idea of the way the wind is blowing.

Posted by: AndyR3 | October 5, 2009 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Decades of corruption by Rangel. Just another dem.

Barry is now a laughingstock as shown on snl. Not a single accomplishment. Ouch.

To make it clear for all there is now

chia Obama.

How long till mr Hollywood is selling kitchen appliances on late night infomercials. He does read good prompter.

Posted by: snowbama | October 5, 2009 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Deeds is looking very bad. Those commercials are killing him.

Posted by: snowbama | October 5, 2009 7:48 AM | Report abuse

"...break the stranglehold insurance companies have over the system..."

Yes and on that day, I'll be King and dogs'll have wings.

[excuse me Tom Petty]

Posted by: shrink2 | October 5, 2009 7:45 AM | Report abuse

The primary challenge against McCain would be pretty interesting. I do think Arizona has a pretty rabid ultra-con base. I don't think such a candidate would bet a Democrat in a general election, though. Does AZ have an open primary? If McCain loses a primary challenge, can he run as an independent? Either of those two factors would make the story less interesting, but I do think McCain is a bit damaged in the eyes of the conservative crowd. McCain would certainly win as an independent if he chooses to do so.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 5, 2009 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Goodhair is driving the campaign and KBH is moving to the right as a result. Two new emails from KBH bear this out.

"Kay is wrapping up another great week of fighting against Obama's health care and "cap-and-tax" plans."
...
"This week, Kay talked to West Texas' KCRS about the damage that Obama's government takeover of health care and "cap-and-tax" plans would bring to Texas. On CNBC's "The Kudlow Report," she continued her fight against these programs, saying, "I've been representing and protecting Texas in Washington. I have been voting against the Obama big spending. I've been fighting the government big takeover of health care. Now I'm going to be fighting the cap-and-trade, that would be cap-and-tax, hurting our businesses all over this country as well as our families."

She is rolling out her own "big" endorsement today -

Please Join Kay Bailey Hutchison for a
BIG ENDORSEMENT
Monday, October 5, 2009
4:00PM - 4:30PM At
Allens Boots
1522 South Congress
Austin, Texas

Allens Boots is a great bootmaker but a storefront venue. If I go, I will report.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 5, 2009 7:23 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company