Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: Should GOP Head Down Populist Path?



Are Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels the new face of the Republican party? Photos by Chris Kleponis/Bloomberg News and Tom Strattman/AP Photo

Republicans, out of power at every turn in Washington and looking for a path back to the White House, might do well to follow the populist approaches embodied by two of the party's rare success stories in recent years: Govs. Tim Pawlenty (Minn.) and Mitch Daniels (Ind.)

Pawlenty, who announced Tuesday that he will not seek a third term in 2010, and Daniels each built their electoral appeal -- in swing states, no less -- on the idea that they more so than their opponents represented the needs and hopes of average voters.

For Daniels, that populism took the form of an RV in which he toured the state, and his decision to stay in the homes of Indianans when he traveled.

"There is a presumption that Republicans are not connected and not caring about the problems of regular people," said Daniels in a recent interview with the Fix. "We had to establish ourselves."

For Pawlenty, his populism is deeply rooted in his personal story -- raised in a working class family in south St. Paul, his mother died when he was a teenager while his father supported the family by driving a truck; Pawlenty was the first in his family to attend college.

That "authenticity" (in the words of one Republican operative who admires but is not affiliated with Pawlenty) directly correlates to the governor's political messaging -- his oft-quoted pledge is to make the GOP the party of "Sam's Club not just the country club" -- and his appeal as a 2012 nominee for the party.

Populism has proven potent as a political force in recent years. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) rode his everyman message to a victory in the 2008 Iowa caucuses despite being vastly outspent by some of his better known rivals. Former Sen. John Edwards, too, used a fiery populism -- he all but urged listeners to man the barricades against insurance companies -- to stay relevant in the Iowa caucuses last year. And, who could forget the final incarnation of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign -- a populist "people versus the powerful" paean that led to his near-comeback victory against George W. Bush.

Take the proven power of populism and add to it that President Barack Obama is at his best when he is using his oratorical gifts to inspire the electorate not when he is in "I feel your pain" mode and you begin to see a path toward relevance for the GOP.

That said, large numbers of voters -- at least so far in his term -- see Obama as empathetic. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) said that the president understands the problems of people like them in an April Washington Post-ABC poll.

Those numbers suggest that nominating a populist is not a silver-bullet strategy for Republicans hoping to beat Obama in 2012.

But, with the economy almost certain to be the dominant issue of the next presidential election and the Obama Administration banking heavily on government intervention to turn things around, a populist GOP message gives the party at least the chance of appealing to the critical middle class voters who have fled the GOP in droves in recent years.

Wednesday Fix Picks: Have you heard? Dana Mibank. The Fix. Smoking Jackets. Tune in Friday morning for the first full episode!

1. Dan Balz sets expectations for President Obama's Cairo speech on Thursday.
2. Bob Shrum on Sonia Sotomayor.
3. A blueprint for Republicans to win back young voters.
4. Appointment viewing: Blago to go on trial as early as April 2010.
5. Can the Governator bring the World Cup back to the U.S.?

Corzine, Christie Win: Results from yesterday's New Jersey gubernatorial primaries -- Gov. Jon Corzine (D) 78 percent, Carl Bergmanson (D) 9 percent, Jeff Boss (D) 8 percent, Roger Bacon (D) 5 percent; Chris Christie (R) 55 percent, Steven Lonegan (R) 42 percent, Rick Merkt (R) 3 percent.

Deeds-Mentum!: (AN IMPORTANT NOTE: The following item makes reference to a Public Policy Polling survey that shows Creigh Deeds leading the Democratic primary. The current policy of the Washington Post -- as outlined by pollster Jon Cohen in a recent piece -- is not to report on this so-called "robo" polling due to questions about its methodology. The Fix did report this data for two reasons: 1. Through a lack of thoroughness on our part we were unaware of the Post policy 2. Conversations with several people involved in the primary and familiar with internal polling numbers confirmed that Deeds was indeed building momentum.) State Sen. Creigh Deeds is surging in the Virginia Democratic primary for governor with a new independent poll affirming that he could well topple frontrunner and former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe. In a Public Policy Polling survey -- a IVR firm based in North Carolina -- Deeds is actually leading the race with 27 percent followed by McAuliffe with 24 percent and former state Del. Brian Moran at 22 percent. In the PPP poll, Deeds support in northern Virginia has doubled in recent weeks thanks in part to the Post's endorsement of his candidacy, according to PPP. Seeking to counter those numbers, Moran's campaign released its own data that showed their candidate leading with 29 percent followed by Deeds at 27 percent and McAuliffe at 26 percent. Amid this jumble of data, one thing is clear: Deeds is the momentum candidate. McAuliffe, seeking to stymie any further growth for Deeds in northern Virginia, is now on television in the region -- and, given the prohibitive cost of running ads in the D.C. media market, he is likely to have the airwaves to himself for the next week. Will it be enough?

Crider Rises: Jennifer Crider, a longtime aide to Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) is the new political director for the House Speaker, replacing Brian Wolff, who is now at the Edison Electric Institute, in that role. "Jennifer has outworked and outsmarted many a political foe, and her dedication has long been essential to my operation," said Pelosi in a statement on the move. Crider will also continue in her role as deputy executive director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee where she served as communications director during the 2008 cycle.

Names in NY-23 Emerge: The nomination of New York Rep. John McHugh as secretary of the army creates a very competitive special election in the far northern reaches of the Empire State. For Democrats, state Sen. Darrel Aubertine would almost certainly be the strongest candidate but he sits in a seat that leans Republican and, if it was lost, would take away Democratic control of the state Senate. Other Democrats mentioned include state Sen. David Valesky, New York State Democratic Party Chair June O'Neil and actor Viggo Mortensen who apparently lives in the district. On the GOP side, McHugh chief of staff Robert Taub will not run but state Assemblyman Will Barclay, who has significant personal money, is looking seriously at the race. Others mentioned include Franklin County District Attorney Derek Champagne, former state Sen. Jim Wright and Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (great name!).

Follow Me: Three good social media Twitterers to follow (as always these recommendations come from the Fix Twosse): Andy Carvin, Jeff Jarvis and Jeremiah Owyang. And one more for good measure: Mashable.

Dems Launch Crist Scheduling Hotline: In one of the most innovative press gambits we've seen, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has launched a fake scheduling hotline designed to draw attention to the fact that Gov. Charlie Crist (R), who is running for Senate in 2010, has missed 62 days of work since taking office in 2006. Call 1-800-403-2195 and a "scheduler" picks up who puts you on hold to allegedly go look for Crist. She returns, unable to find him and says: "I wish I could go missing from work for nearly three months without any minding." There's more (much more) detailing Crist's attendance at Miami Heat basketball game and raising money on a private yacht. "Floridians deserve to know how their governor is spending his time," said DSCC communications director Eric Schultz in explaining the hotline. Crist is still a heavy primary and general election favorite but you've got to give credit where credit is due: this is well done.

Say What?: "My dream job is to be an NHL defenseman, but at 48 and having no skill it's tough." -- Retiring Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty parries questions about whether he is interested in running for president in 2012.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 3, 2009; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Introducing "Political Theater"
Next: What To Watch For: A Video Guide to the Day in Political Washington

Comments

nodebris wrote:
longbow65, you are so ill-informed it's hard to imagine why anyone would care what you think.
======================
Ouch, that hurt to the quick. So another gay seems to think that was what made the Greeks great. They must all be extinct too if they couldn’t make babies. I think the just did it for kicks with the baths and all, then went home to their wives. Hell you don’t have to be too informed to know that.

What is this a gay forum.

Posted by: longbow65 | June 4, 2009 11:46 PM | Report abuse

"For Daniels, that populism took the form of an RV in which he toured the state, and his decision to stay in the homes of Indianans when he traveled."

I take it you meant "Hoosiers", right, Chris? Never heard of Indiananananses...

Posted by: duchamp | June 4, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

sovine8, the point you are missing is that in order to preserve his full potential to condemn homosexuals to the full extent of any law he could conceive of ever passing, Sanotorum was willing to condone a law that prohibited MARRIED couples from having access to contraception.
Posted by: nodebris
_______
No he's not. He was pointing out a side affect to the right of privacy. he never said anywhere he was against married couples using birth control. In fact I'll bet HE and/or his wife used birth control themselves.

It's like how "conservatives" will ban all access to contraceptives if there is even the slightest possibility that a provider might possibly even mention the word abortion.
Posted by: nodebris
_____
Why would you mention abortion when taking about birth control?? It's completely different. And BTW any woman who considers abortion as their method of birth control has a real big problem...

And like how to preserve our superior morality, conservatives will endorse torture, because we must stop lesser civilizations that torture.
Posted by: nodebris
______
Wow talking about getting off subject. BTW the argument is not do Conservative endorse torture. They don't (unless it's that ticking bomb which even many Liberals would support in that case), the disagreement is Consevatives and Liberals disagree what constitutes torture...

Have you ever heard the phrase "We had to destroy the village in order to save it?"
That's the modern conservative movement in a nutshell.
Posted by: nodebris
_____
Yeah how do you figure??? And BTW please quote the Conservative who endorsed it.
In a larger view for example you could argue we had to destroy Nazi Germany to save Germany. But why are we on this discussion again???

"Yes, you all are face down in the mud, but it's necessary so that my own hands stay clean."It's an ideology of moral cowardice. You have no legs to stand on here, sovine08. You have fallen down already, you just haven't noticed yet.
Posted by: nodebris
____
Man you have gone so far off the subject of birth control I can only guess your meds have kicked in..

Posted by: sovine08 | June 4, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

You're just emitting apologia for your party, and they don't deserve any. Anyone who wants teenagers to get pregnant as punishment for having sex deserves to be horsewhipped, not defended.
Posted by: chrisfox8
____
Wait your argument is Republicans WANT teenagers to get pregnant??? That's crazy!!! In that case why do they support "abstinence only" education??? If they WANT teenagers to get knocked up.. they should just say.. Go at it!!! Look you may disagree with HOW they think we should stop teens from getting pregnant.. but it doesn't change the fact that is their goal. And again we were talking about birth control in general.. you by trying to narrow the conversaion to kids and methods to prevent teen pregancy is getting way off the subject...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 4, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Update, 3:15 p.m.: Gov. Tim Pawlenty is under far less pressure to certify Democrat Al Franken as the winner in the Minnesota Senate race if the state Supreme Court rejects the election appeal of former Sen. Norm Coleman.
As we wrote a few weeks back:

Assuming he doesn't plan to run for reelection, Pawlenty can refuse to sign the election certificate for Franken -- if Coleman wants to take the legal fight federal -- and continue to raise his national profile by arguing (in his low key, inoffensive way) on a variety of televisions outlets that he is simply trying to ensure no legitimate votes are left uncounted, a GREAT issue for him in the eyes of GOP base voters.
-------------------------------

Is this fair to the people of Minnesota?

Posted by: opp88 | June 4, 2009 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Hardly any Republicans can relate to the concerns of ordinary people, especially in the important areas of jobs, health care, the environment, consumer safety, education, so this column is total fantasy. Given the overwhelming domination by right wingers of the GOP, this is very unlikely to change for at least a generation, perhaps never.

Obama is intelligent, articulate and often seems to say the right things, conveying an impression he understands the concerns of most people. However, his policies, especially his major flip flops on health care "reform" and support for reducing Medicare spending suggest he is out of touch with how some of these ideas, if implemented, will create significant financial burdens for millions of people. He seems especially indifferent toward the needs of retired people, by initially excluding them from tax relief, advocating reductions in Medicare spending, possibly taxing employer paid health care benefits for early retirees before being eligible for Medicare.

Republicans and most Democrats are beholden to special interest groups, especially corporate interests, certain unions and trial lawyers. Most politicians in both parties seem out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people. Just the GOP seems even more so than Democrats.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | June 4, 2009 12:58 AM | Report abuse

longbow65, you are so ill-informed it's hard to imagine why anyone would care what you think.

You know where America's democratic traditions ultimately originated? Ancient Greece. Read a bit about them, then walk around DC admiring all the fine Ionian and Corinthian columns. Idiot.

Posted by: nodebris | June 4, 2009 12:34 AM | Report abuse

sovine8, the point you are missing is that in order to preserve his full potential to condemn homosexuals to the full extent of any law he could conceive of ever passing, Sanotorum was willing to condone a law that prohibited MARRIED couples from having access to contraception. "Allow married heterosexuals the right to contraception, or allow for laws I might someday be able to pass against homosexuals? Screw contraception!" I'd say that shows contempt for contraception, and for married heterosexuals. All you can argue here is that Santorum respects gay people somewhat less than he respects the rights of adult heterosexuals.

It's like how "conservatives" will ban all access to contraceptives if there is even the slightest possibility that a provider might possibly even mention the word abortion. I'm not exaggerating. All they have to do is mention the word, and conservatives will refuse them funding. Therefore permitting more unwanted pregnancies and more ACTUAL abortions.

And like how to preserve our superior morality, conservatives will endorse torture, because we must stop lesser civilizations that torture.

Have you ever heard the phrase "We had to destroy the village in order to save it?"

That's the modern conservative movement in a nutshell.

"Yes, you all are face down in the mud, but it's necessary so that my own hands stay clean."

It's an ideology of moral cowardice.

You have no legs to stand on here, sovine08. You have fallen down already, you just haven't noticed yet.

Posted by: nodebris | June 4, 2009 12:30 AM | Report abuse

crisfox8,
just for clarity’s sake are you Chris Cillizza? I do not see you on many other blogs and it does not seem right to attack you on your own site. I have never seen anyone as opinionated as you. It is just hard to believe that an intellectual like you seem to be, can be so blind relating to matters of life or politics.

Do you really believe what you write or do you just play the devils advocate to get a response from others?

Posted by: longbow65 | June 3, 2009 9:20 PM | Report abuse

crisfox8 wrote:
Hint: two identical twins, one gay, one straight. Do the gay twin's genes disappear from the pool?
============================

Sorry, I have to work for a living and just got a chance to get back and see what kind of name you called me and you only said “idiot”. What a disappointment.

So you have a straight twin that will carry on your legacy. Good for you. I do not believe the ratio is normally where it is now but that is because it is somewhat cosmopolitan to be gay now. The government is attempting to make it a bit more legitimate with marriage and all. I have noticed that many gays have the same mean streak you exhibit like Perez Hilton. Is that pretty common? Being the natural hill billy I really do not know.

Posted by: longbow65 | June 3, 2009 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

==

Santorum sounds like a real prude. But then this is the guy who wrote a book about having a family like it was something he invented personally.

Lest we forget, he lost his Senate seat by a whopping 17 points and now he doesn't know which pocket to put his hands in.

Sodomy destroys the family huh?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Sovine, you're equivocating.

Plan B is only an "abortion pill" if fertilization actually occurred (unknown, unlikely, probably < 3%) and the fertilized embryo was viable and implanted in the endometrium wall (70% chance it didn't). In the case of abortion there is knowledge of the presence of a fetus; in the case of Plan B there isn't and in the great majority of cases, 49:1 by rough estimate, there is no fetus to "abort."

The GOP is against sex education, preferring "abstinence only" education which, to be blunt, does not work.

The notion that teenagers will be "encouraged" to have sex is idiotic. They don't need to be encouraged. What you really mean is that condoms reduce the risk of pregnancy, which makes having sex less potentially consequential. Anyone but a control freak would call that a good thing.

You're just emitting apologia for your party, and they don't deserve any. Anyone who wants teenagers to get pregnant as punishment for having sex deserves to be horsewhipped, not defended.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Opposed to Plan B, demanding parental notification for birth control distribution, abstinence-only education ... naaah, no opposition to birth control there.
Posted by: chrisfox8
____
Plan B has been called the ABORTION PILL because it works after conception.. Now I am personally ok with this Plan B pill.. but people who don't believe in abortion are just being consistant. Again saying if you are against PlanB you're against birth control is to them like saying being against abortion is against birth control. As far as demanding parental notification for birth control distribution and abstinence-only education it's because they think telling kids how to use condoms or the pill encourages sex and if a school does a parent wants to know about it. Disagree.. fine.. but I still don't see were a Republican has said he is against birth control

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Ever heard of Rick Santorym, sovine08?
He rather famously argued against Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark case striking down a Connecticut law preventing a *married* couple from using birth control. Seems he doesn't think privacy in the bedroom is appropriate.
____
Griswold was decided in 1965,, Santorym was born in 1958,, so he was 7 years old when that case was decided. So it was long after that he brought up the case but from what I could find.. he wasn't arguing a married couple couldn't use birth control or shouldn't use birth control, his complaint with Griswold was the right of privacy in terms of a sodomy case in Texas and he didn't like were this case was leading... "SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose....And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." Now you may disagree with him.. but you certainly can't deny he wasn't talking about birth control.
Posted by: nodebris

Just as a tiny example. They are legion. If you haven't noticed the GOP's hostility to birth control, especially for poor people, you should probably get an MRI.
Posted by: nodebris
____
What I notice is Conservatives hostility to say handing out condoms in school. But that is because they believe that encourages kids to have sex. Again disagree with that but it doesn't change I have yet to see a case were a Republican came of and said he was against birth control... and you have yet to show me one who has...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

No one denies the holocaust..

.. however ..
6 million people died during WWII, many civilians..

over 1/2 of the people who died in death camps were not Jewish

there were ample opportunities to help others (Koreans, Slavs, Phillipinos, Vietnamese) after the war.. and they were largely ignored.

Posted by: newbeeboy | June 3, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I would be very happy never to hear anything from either group ever again.

Posted by: drindl

==

It'll be a long time before we've heard the last from the settlers. They're armed to the teeth, reflexively violent, full of themselves, and with religious convictions that stealing land is their God-given birthright. Israel has made a huge problem for itself by shipping them in (most of them are immigrants who barely set foot in Israel), and Israel knows that absorbing them into their population is going to create vast social problems, with widespread murder and assassination. And as mark said, nobody is willing to stand up to them.

Hell, even the construction companies that build the settlements can stare down the government.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

excellent summary, mark_in_austin.

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

thank you for that cogent analysis, mark. i get so tired of the irrational arguments[it's our land, god gave to us] on this subject.

You can be extremely pro-Israel [and have relatives there] and still think they are creating a lot of unnecessary problems for themselves.

It doesn't help that they are evictiing poor Palestinians, knocking down their farmhouses and razing orchards and building expensive condos for rich jews either. Nor that they have penned up a bunch of people like beasts and then rained hell down on them either.

I would be very happy never to hear anything from either group ever again.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Ever heard of Rick Santorym, sovine08?

He rather famously argued against Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark case striking down a Connecticut law preventing a *married* couple from using birth control. Seems he doesn't think privacy in the bedroom is appropriate.

Just as a tiny example. They are legion. If you haven't noticed the GOP's hostility to birth control, especially for poor people, you should probably get an MRI.

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Take a situation on the ground that looks like this.

1. A small modern westernized democracy is occupying, outside of its boundaries, a hostile unincorporated territory, and sealing the borders of a second, much more hostile, unincorporated territory.

2. In order to have security from the first hostile unincorporated territory it builds a fence or a wall.

3. It then places more than one hundred thousand of its citizens beyond the security wall in the hostile unincorporated territory.

4. The natives of the hostile unincorporated territory had grievances with the modern westernized state both real and imagined before the wall and the settlement of more than 100,00 persons on land they previously thought was theirs.

5. The military of the modern westernized state would have had security issues just defending the border and holding high ground around its big airport and maintaining access to a river that both the modern westernized state and the hostile unincorporated area residents depend upon.

6. But there are religious fanatics in the modern westernized state. There are persons raised under totalitarian regimes who have recently flooded into the modern westernized state. These two groups are neither rational nor pretend to be friendly to modern western ideas.

7. So the modern westernized state insists on keeping more than 100,000 citizens in settlements in the hostile unincorporated state, either because a majority believes it is a religious "right" or because they believe that the hostile residents of the unincorporated state can be "ethnically cleansed".

8. Thus the modern westernized state has stretched its military commitment beyond defense of a defensible border and water supply to include suppression of violence all across the hostile unincorporated state. This military commitment is daunting for the modern westernized state but is a price it now must pay for its irrationality.

9. Meanwhile, the hostiles, many of whom were irrational to the point of suicidal bombing attacks before, become ever more hostile.

Who can make the first move to break this cycle? None of the current leaders of the modern westernized state seem to have the guts or the vision to do it, on their own.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 3, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

No one here denies the Holocaust. You just go OFF.

All anyone is saying is that it isn't in Israel own interested to let their foreign and domestic policies be hijacked by a small group of zealots who want to live like it was 5000 years ago.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"And if you think there are a lot of elected Republicans against birth control could you please name one cause I don't know any.."

Well, birth control is like abortion. It doesn't matter what a politician thinks because it is Constitutionally protected.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 3, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

So, you Obamacan fruitcakes now have joined Iran's nutty leaders as Holocaust deniers, anti-semites

==

Haven't seen a single "Obmamacan" deny the Holocaust, and "anti-semitism" is a baseless and over-used charge thrown at anyone who entertains the belief that Israelis' feces isn'g fragrant.

You are a complete nutbar.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"Yes, it is pretty frightening to have one sane voice pointing out the inconvenient fact that Israel and her neighbors hate each other."

Yes, thank goodness there is one sane voice pointing out that fact. I can't imagine how the rest of us missed that one. Dang! Now I'm frightened.

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

"None of them ever have a 'debate.' All the winger hosts do is have people on so they can scream at them and then cut their mikes so they cna't talkk back."

Bill O'Reilly might do this from time to time, but most of the time he lets the guest have his say and is often gracious enough to let the guest have the last word. Yeah, he's obnoxious enough that its easy to make a montage of him acting like an ass, but if you turn on his show at random, you probably aren't going to see him be particularly rude to his guests. And yeah, I give him kudos for getting guests he disagrees with. As far as I know, Maddow and Olbermann don't do that.

Although I think the best tv debater is Jon Stewart. He is always respectful to the guests and he does his homework.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 3, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

'On the other hand we have a lot of alleged adults here openly admitting they watch a lot of TV. I consider that a lot more shameful than having a same-sex partner.'

indeed.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, mibrooks, but most of us here are Americans. Please explain why any American should give a rat's rear about Israel any more than, say, Syria. And given how much Israel does to make trouble for the USA, I can think of plenty of reasons to wean them from the money tit.

290,000 reasons, in fact.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Yes, it is pretty frightening to have one sane voice pointing out the inconvenient fact that Israel and her neighbors hate each other. The "Arab on the Street" would like nothing more than to exterminate every Jew in the Middle East. Have you ever been there? I have. I like a lot of those Arabs, too, and several are life long friends, but if you are so delusional as to think that they Israel will ever live in genuine peace, you're a fool. Actually, you are and your liberal policies reflect that inability to maintain contact with reality. Obama, the Democratic Party, and the cheering section of the Obama camp composed of you gerbils, now blame Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East. I know, the nuanced argument you mindless drones would make, is that you are now being "even handed", but the entire world, Europe, Israel, Islamic countries, they all hear that Israel is to blame and we will "get tough" with those dirty Jews. So, you Obamacan fruitcakes now have joined Iran's nutty leaders as Holocaust deniers, anti-semites, and Nazi wannabees.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | June 3, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Opposed to Plan B, demanding parental notification for birth control distribution, abstinence-only education ... naaah, no opposition to birth control there.

Ladies and gentleman, we either have a troll of zouk caliber or we have a world-class idiot

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

sovine08 wrote: "I don't know one Republican in office against birth control."

You really don't know much about your party, do you?

P.S.: There's a reason you're having trouble being understood that has nothing to do with your punctuation.

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Yes, and they will be so please to see that you "progressives" have replaced the showers with a front door to a gay nightclub. That makes it all so much easier...

==

This doesn't make any sense. It's hard to figure out what you guys are trying to say sometimes, you have your own ideas of what's shameful or idiotic that don't line up with reality at all.

I get the idea you think there's something shameful about being gay. Maybe you live in some rural southern toilet-town or something, but in much of America being gay is quite unremarkable.

On the other hand we have a lot of alleged adults here openly admitting they watch a lot of TV. I consider that a lot more shameful than having a same-sex partner.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"Yes, and they will be so please to see that you "progressives" have replaced the showers with a front door to a gay nightclub. That makes it all so much easier...."

this guy is scary nuts.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

newbeeboy wrote: "ObamaNation should quit worrying about the GOP"

To a large extent, we have.

You're right; If the GOP keeps heading right while Americans keep heading left, one likely scenario is that a huge and unwieldy Democratic Party eventually splits into a moderate party and a left party. So the successor of today's GOP as the party of the "right" would eventually be . . . the Democratic Party. Wouldn't that be a fun one for the historians to ponder?

Round and round we go.

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't know one Republican in office against birth control.

Posted by: sovine08

==

I call troll here.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

'I am pro Israel, thats my prejudice nodebris. Although I am not jewish, Israel is the only country in the middle east that shares our liberal values. '

Yes, and they will be so please to see that you "progressives" have replaced the showers with a front door to a gay nightclub. That makes it all so much easier....

Posted by: mibrooks27 | June 3, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

'I don't know one Republican in office against birth control.. and abortion. '
earth calling sovine....
Posted by: drindl
_____
Man I'm really having a hard time being understood.. Read it again..

I don't know one Republican in office against birth control.. and abortion. Well they would say don't get pregnant in the first place.

Yes I understand I should have put a question mark after abortion but was it really that hard to follow?? Let me try this again.. I don't know one Republican in office against birth control. AS FAR AS abortion well they would say don't get pregnant in the first place. Clearer now?? And if you think there are a lot of elected Republicans against birth control could you please name one cause I don't know any..

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Bristol Palin is not taking State welfare for her child, see the difference?

==

Unwed motherhood, thy face is Republican.

Great argument for abstinence-only education.

And thanks to Scott Roeder, the whole "killing babies" thing just lost a of lot its wedge-issue power.

Damn that reality!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"John Stewart is probably the most respected entertainer in Democrat land. And yet, we recognize that he is an entertainer, and not an actual policy guru or the voice of our party. Something you all haven't figured out about Limbaugh yet."

Stewart has been surprisingly hard on Obama. Probably harder than anyone besides the FOX News crowd and the usual niches conservatives.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 3, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Maybe ObamaNation should quit worrying about the GOP, the real threat would be a vote syphoning liberal party.. imho, just concentrate on appeasing those that have a further left view.. you don't want an uprising from within..

My only other real short-term hope for the GOP is my newest fantasy.. The Clintons join the GOP.. and wreak havoc for Obama.. it would be fitting punishment.. so job two for O'Nation.. keep the W.H. regulars happy.. give a little more to HRC, Biden.. kiss up a bit.. you all are nasty with those in your own camp.. show some love, act like they are someone you had a crush on in high school... give them some love.. it will go a long way toward a peaceful 2012.

Posted by: newbeeboy | June 3, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

If the Republicans take the populist path, will it still be financed by the Richest individuals within the Republican Party?

If so, how will that work?

Posted by: wmc418 | June 3, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

'I am pro Israel, thats my prejudice nodebris. Although I am not jewish, Israel is the only country in the middle east that shares our liberal values. '

yes, we love those liberal values... and it's true -- a good many jews are liberals or socialists.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Bristol Palin is not taking State welfare for her child, see the difference?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/why-sarah-palin-shouldnt-run-f.html

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Spend tax revenues on our infrastucture and not on giving more money to people to have more kids out of wedlock.

==

Hmm, the most famous out-of-wedlock mother in America right now is Sarah Palin's little wh0re of a daughter. You might want to rethink this.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I thought you beleived in free speech? Why do you care what Olberman says? I don't. I don't watch him, don't watch TV. Why do you? It's all garbage.
____
I do believe in free speech.. but that means i also have the freedom speech to criticize. And I do watch TV.. but I watch BOTH Right or Left leaning programs.. See I want to hear both sides of a debate. it's the only way to learn. Some are good like Hardball with Matthews and the Factor with O'Reilly. Olbermann because he won't debate is as you correctly stated is.. garbage..

None of them ever have a 'debate.' All the winger hosts do is have people on so they can scream at them and then cut their mikes so they cna't talkk back.
Posted by: drindl
____
Not really.. they get to state their views. If you want good humor watch Bill Maher on HBO. For me to Liberal.. but he will listen to both sides and he is funny.

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes, you skip the specific question I asked. Exactly how is Obama's position toward Israel most like Jackson's and Farrakan's, out of all the possible world of opinion on Israel out there? I found it an interesting comparison. Can you justify it on some deeper level, or does it really just come down to their shared skin color?

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Now that we have found out Obama has the same view of Israel as Farrakhan and Jessie Jackson, I wonder if all of those jewish voters are having remorse.

==

The days when vast majorities of American Jews were unreservedly supporting of Israel ended some time ago. Israel has gotten a little too savage and a little too extreme in its support of the settlers.

Even inside Israel the peace movement is quite strong. Don't look to American Jews to haul GOP ashes out of the fire, they tend to be a little too schmart to fall for the same one-dimensional BS that appeals to the 21-percenters.

Any realistic view of Israel's long-term security accepts that the settlers have to be stopped.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27, it sure does take you a lot of words to insult people you don't like.

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

all it takes is one loook at mibrooks OCD rant to convince you you don't wanna go there.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I am pro Israel, thats my prejudice nodebris. Although I am not jewish, Israel is the only country in the middle east that shares our liberal values. Obama hung out with a lot of people who were anti-semetic. Now we know why.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 3, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

To the Obama gerbil's blathering here still: Keep it up! Resort to infantile name calling, character assassination, bald faced lies, exaggeration, sophomoric social liberalism, and all of the rest of the claptrap you surround yourselves with. Oh, and by all means, welcome chris fox, drindl, koolkat, broadwayjoe, and fellow minded nitwits, fanatics, stupid cheerleaders, and perverts under your tent. They will do you more harm than you can possibly imagine. Actual voters, working men and women, think you are so full of hot air and bad ideas that one shudders at the notion of your having any say in government over the next two years, much less four years. Obama, the Democratic majority, *promised* to end the current depression. They have made it worse. The promised to end job outsourcing and at least curb the more insane excess of free trade. Under the Democrats outsourcing has increased, so have the number of guest worker visas. Rush Limbaugh is a bloated fool, but so is Keith Obermann (and Chris acting like a foolish groupie in one of his periodic appearances on that show). Fox News has a distorted take on the news, commonly ultra right. But, then, look at the Post and their fawning stories about Sotomayer, the Times and their drumbeat for more gun control, and the continual Obama cheerleading at MSNBC and you see a perverted sort of balance. Most people want no part of your social agenda. Abortion has about an equal number of voters opposing it as supporting it, but more than 65% of voters are opposed to any sort of new gun controls and want big city bans on handgun ownership ended. You lunatics are fighting a current running the opposite direction that is going to sweep you and all of your causes and ideas, both good and bad, off the board. Voters WILL BLAME YOU, WILL BLAME OBAMA, for the economic mess you bought, promised to fix immediately, and have made worse. Most are forgetting that Bush began the mess already. Any Republican with the survival instinct of a field mouse will conveniently develop amnesia about Bush and will loudly proclaim that Obama, whatever happened in the past, now owns he shop and is solely responsible for it. They will point out that CNN, The Fix, and other Obama partisan's cheerlead gay marriage, not gay partnership, but *gay marriage*, in the face of overwhelming public opposition, that government funds and government employees are being used to foster that campaign in public schools and other institutions. And they will carefully take note of postings by twisted little monsters like chris fox, here, and make sure voters see them again and again. You people are history, if the Republican's even start acting like populists.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | June 3, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

'I don't know one Republican in office against birth control.. and abortion. '

earth calling sovine....

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"I don't know one Republican in office against birth control.. and abortion."

You really don't know much about your party, do you?

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah smart Republican that Ike"

Actually, today I believe you would refer to him as a RINO. Come to think of it, that is pretty much synonymous with "smart Republican."

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

And what would be the effect of rightwingnut anti-abortion, anti-birth control policies, hmmm?
Posted by: koolkat_1960
____
I don't know one Republican in office against birth control.. and abortion. Well they would say don't get pregnant in the first place.. Me.. I'm a pro choice Republican.. so I say you should only have kids you can afford. It's called family planning.. more people should practice it.

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

When was the last time you saw an elected Democratic official back down or genuflect to Olberman, invite him as keynote speaker to a major Democratic event, or even really acknowledge him at all in public utterances?

John Stewart is probably the most respected entertainer in Democrat land. And yet, we recognize that he is an entertainer, and not an actual policy guru or the voice of our party. Something you all haven't figured out about Limbaugh yet.

But then, a good number of you appear to believe Colbert is actually a conservative, according to recent polls. So I'm sure all the subtle distinctions I've outlined are utterly lost on you.

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

'I sure the american jewish voters will correct their mistake in 2012."

Everyone in my synagogue will be voting for obama just like we did last time. israel needs to get the crazy settlers under control for the good of Israel.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah smart Republican that Ike.. Spend tax revenues on our infrastucture"

Funny how Ike is a Republican in this case when normally you people would call him a conservative. There is NOTHING conservative about a massive, coast-to-coast highway program funded by taxes. That is so big government it's not funny.

How about the space program -- more conservative Republicanism? Or more big government Republicanism?

Republicans like Ike and Gerald Ford would feel completely unwelcome in today's wingnut-run GOP. They'd be called RINOs, like every other Repub who isn't a rightwingnut loon.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 3, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"If you want infantile you should check out Countdown with Olbermann.. he still has a segment BUSHED.. and Bush has been out of office over 4 months.. Talk about a CHILD. In fact he is such a baby he never has a Republican on his show to debate with.. just a bunch of his cronies who all they say is... yes keith, your so right Keith, your so funny Keith. If there is a guy who needs to be muzzled... he's the one.. "

I thought you beleived in free speech? Why do you care what Olberman says? I don't. I don't watch him, don't watch TV. Why do you? It's all garbage.

None of them ever have a 'debate.' All the winger hosts do is have people on so they can scream at them and then cut their mikes so they cna't talkk back.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"not on giving more money to people to have more kids out of wedlock.."

And what would be the effect of rightwingnut anti-abortion, anti-birth control policies, hmmm?

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 3, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes wrote: "Now that we have found out Obama has the same view of Israel as Farrakhan and Jessie Jackson . . ."

I don't think your prejudices are quite blatantly obvious enough there -- would you please expand on the comparison for us?

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Are you all this brain damaged, that you can't help yourselves from making these babyish 'jokes.'? I really believe the mental age of the base is about 10. I have never seen such infantile 'humor.'
Posted by: drindl
____
If you want infantile you should check out Countdown with Olbermann.. he still has a segment BUSHED.. and Bush has been out of office over 4 months.. Talk about a CHILD. In fact he is such a baby he never has a Republican on his show to debate with.. just a bunch of his cronies who all they say is... yes keith, your so right Keith, your so funny Keith. If there is a guy who needs to be muzzled... he's the one..

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I don't think McAuliffe's ads are going to help much. The few folks who vote in the primaries are generally pretty well informed about the candidates and do not make their decisions based on television ads. Maybe others have a different experience, but the one word I hear most often from these folks when McAuliffe's name is mentioned is "carpetbagger." Not a good tag to have on you in Virginia.

Call me crazy, but I'm sick of the culture wars and support Deeds in the hope of expanding Democratic support out of the cities and neutralizing the self-defeating urban/rural divide in VA politics. I just don't see McAuliffe playing well in the Valley or South Side.

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

The Republic Party is not heading down the populist path, they're on the populist talk radio interstate highway.

Posted by: whocares666 | June 3, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

It would be nice if the Republican party took that we care about you attitude, but that is not going to fix their issues.

The fact is they want most of them that are left are these right wing extremist and the old party faithful that will go down with the sinking ship. That is what the GOP is right now is a sinking ship.

When you have people like Boss Limbaugh who no one in the GOP has the nerve to cross speaking for them and people like Dick Cheney who basically is going around trying to scare America into thinking that America is not safe in President Obama's hands, and Newt Gingrich who has the nerve to call Judge Satomayor a racist. This from a man who angered and tricked Southern White men into thinking the reason they were not doing well was because minorities had their jobs. What kinds of jobs are minorities supposed to have Newt? Are they just supposed to be only in service jobs like maids, and butlers?

The GOP in reality doesn't want the SAMS club folks they want to stay in their own country club.They only care about and advance agendas of people in the country club.

The truth is they do not reach out to minorities because quite frankly if the minorities is not like them they don't want them. Michael Steele doesn't count. He, Bobby Rindal and even that empty headed chic Sarah Palin are just being used. They are tokens. See we have one too. You can't tell me that if President Obama wasn't President, that Michael Steele would be where he is now. We would be looking at the Graham guy from SC. Another extreme right wing conservative just like Sanford of SC. His own people have to fight him in court just to get him to take stimulus money that their state badly needs.

If the GOP keeps trashing Judge Satomayor like they have been they are going to alienate the few Hispanics that vote for them in the first place. I don't understand how minorities can vote for Republicans given the way the leaders of the party speaks about them.

While I embrace some of the conservative principles, the talk is totally different and quite frankly off the wall.

That will be the day when the Republicans in the party now really cared about every day Americans. They only do at election time. The rest of the time, they could care less.

Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels are other Animals. They must practice what they preach. In other words you would do what Jesus would do. They way I see it the right wing conservatives are far from it and need some serious prayer.

Posted by: bjlopez1130 | June 3, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Now that we have found out Obama has the same view of Israel as Farrakhan and Jessie Jackson, I wonder if all of those jewish voters are having remorse. Somehow Obama believes we can more security if well sell Israel down the river. I sure the american jewish voters will correct their mistake in 2012.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 3, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

The powers that be in the GOP -- rightwing religious nuts and big $$ fatcats -- will never allow the party to go down a populist path. It's a non-starter.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 3, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

What do you think the federal government did with that tax revenue? They spent it on the US infrastructure, numbnuts, where do you think our highway system came from? Bridges that didn't collapse?
Posted by: chrisfox8
___
Yeah smart Republican that Ike.. Spend tax revenues on our infrastucture and not on giving more money to people to have more kids out of wedlock.. Thank goodness Republicans finally took control of Congress in 1992.. and finally got Clinton (it took 3 trys) to sign welfare reform to finally reign in all that waste LBJ put into place... "In January 1995, when the Republican Congress arrived, there were almost 14 million welfare recipients. By March 1999, that number had shrunk to 7.3 million."

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"When did it became Republicans job to "muzzle" two talk show hosts?"

It's not your job, it would just be a smart thing to do. So I'm sure you'll decline.

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"When did it became Republicans job to "muzzle" two talk show hosts?? I mean don't we still have FREE speech in this country? Republicans should muzzle them when Democrats muzzle Keith Doberman and Rachel MadCOW... "

Are you all this brain damaged, that you can't help yourselves from making these babyish 'jokes.'? I really believe the mental age of the base is about 10. I have never seen such infantile 'humor.'

FYI, jokey, the R leaders are TRYING to get the shreiking spewing talk jocks to tone it down, just so there'll be there'll be more than the 20% hardcore left to vote, but they won't be successful. Making it plain that you hate everyone doesn't buy you many friends or voters.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

longbow651 wrote: "The government has never, ever been able to manage anything efficiently"

Never, ever?

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

MEMO TO WOULD-BE GOP "POPULISTS" (IS THERE AN OXYMORON THERE?):


How about taking up the cause of libertarianism and personal freedom -- from covert big government abuse of power?

Case in point...

DEMOCRACY AND DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW ARE BEING STOLEN AT THE GRASSROOTS...

...BY A BUSH-CHENEY- SPAWNED 'EXTRAJUDICIAL TARGETING AND PUNISHMENT MATRIX' THAT (THUS FAR) HAS BEEN ENABLED BY TEAM OBAMA


The real threat to liberty is at the "micro" level, in YOUR hometown, at YOUR police and fire stations, on YOUR street -- a vigilante "citizen corps" army that implants GPS tracking devices to stalk and persecute unjustly "targeted" citizens and their families...

...and uses hi-tech microwave radiation "directed energy weapons" to degrade the minds and bodies of their prey.

GOP "populist" wannabes, Team Obama and naive and distracted mainstream media, now hear this:

This American Gestapo is funded and overseen by secretive federal security/military/intel agencies and their usurping local operatives.

Team Obama: THIS is the real threat to freedom in America -- and to YOUR administration:


http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | June 3, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Republicans and Populism do not exactly mix. To be a populist you have to be a man or woman of the people. That is not easy when you are campaigning from the deck of a yacht or from a golf cart on a private course. Huckabee is of course a populist and the business wing of the Republican party would have voted for Obama before Huckabee. I'm not sure what Palin is, but it is not a populist. We have now come to the end of the list of Republicans with anything remotely resembling charisma. So onto pointing out why TPaw may be a VP but is not Presidential material.

TPaw has a good story, but he isn't exactly a prairie firebrand. In 2002 he won with 44% of the vote. Penny, a popular politician running as an independent, pulled 16% of the vote that year. In 2006 TPaw won with 46.7% of the vote versus Mike Hatch (D) with 45.7% and a weak Independence Party candidate. The guy has yet to pull over 50% of the vote, won by one percent as the incumbent, and he won't run a third time because he thinks he'll lose. This is the future of the Republicans?

Posted by: caribis | June 3, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

And so they try to pull back from the brink and repair the damage -- but they can't muzzzle Hannity and Limbaugh, who will continue to spew vileness andmake the republican party repugnant to hispanics.
Posted by: drindl
____
When did it became Republicans job to "muzzle" two talk show hosts?? I mean don't we still have FREE speech in this country? Republicans should muzzle them when Democrats muzzle Keith Doberman and Rachel MadCOW...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

In 2010 (and 2012) Republican's that really go populist will clean up. We're in the midst of a depression. Millions of people are out of work and it's going to get a lot worse. Once the sugar high of federal spending ceases, Wall Street will crash, too. Desperate people care a lot more about feeding their family than they do about ideology. The Democrats have jumped on the free trade bandwagon and made cause with corporate and Wall Street parasites. If I were a Republican, I would start with those photo's of Obama glad handing with those hi tech executives and run numbers of jobs lost due to more H1-B visas, more outsourcing, more factories moved overseas. Underline that with the fact that the banks he bailed out fired 38,000 U.S. IT workers and, then, turned around and received 38,000 "emergency" H1-B visas and hired 38,000 Indian IT workers. Start now, run those ads down the Democrat's throats and the Democratic majority will disappear like so much smoke.

Oh, and chrisfox8 and the other homosexual nut jobs, social leftists of all sorts, can kiss their day in the sunshine goodbye, too. Most voters distrust them and genuine populism has no place for them. I can't wait! Out of the disappointment created by all of Obama's empty promises, out of the fury seeing the wealthy just getting wealthier, out of the angry at business fraud, banks playing games with credit card rates and bank fees, we are going to see a revolution that will sweep the NeoCons and the Transnational Liberals out of the American kitchen with the garbage.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | June 3, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"I must have pissed you off finding out you were gay, and atheist, huh?

Posted by: longbow651"

so many of the wingers feel this need to project their 'manliness' with their pet names. generally i find it that those who are most impotent do that.

any should anyone care if you think they are gay? you're nobody.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"What is it with you and Latinos?"

His gardener and maid keep raising their rates.

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

After 8 years of "POLICIES AND CORRUPTION OF THE BUSH ADM." the only path the Greedy Old Party is going down is the path to destruction.

Posted by: SWAMPYPD | June 3, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

a troll wrote: "For the record, Arnold is a RINO, and the rest of California's government is run by the Democrats."

For the record, CA has the idiotic rule pushed by conservatives requiring a 66% majority for budget votes. So a piddling minority of dishonest wing-nuts are able to hold the entire state captive and blame it on the majority party. For the record.

Posted by: nodebris | June 3, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The good thing is you should be extinct after one generation because you will not procreate. Now who doesn’t have a brain?

==

You.

We've been around for thousands of years in the same unvarying ratio. If we were going to go "extinct" for want of bat-squeaking rug-rats, it would have happened thousands of years ago.

You're dumb as a bag of hair if you can't figure that out.

Hint: two identical twins, one gay, one straight. Do the gay twin's genes disappear from the pool?

Idiot.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Crisfox8,
The good thing is you should be extinct after one generation because you will not procreate. Now who doesn’t have a brain?

Posted by: longbow651 | June 3, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

llntgrty writes
"People like the concept of pay less-spend less."


Not really. What people like is the concept of "something for nothing." But you can't sell it that way, you have to say "Cutting Taxes boosts revenue!"


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 3, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"People like the concept of pay less-spend less."

So can we cut military spending 20%?

Posted by: knjincvc | June 3, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

We looked in your brain and found it to be empty.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I must have pissed you off finding out you were gay, and atheist, huh?

==

Why would that be?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I must have pissed you off finding out you were gay, and atheist, huh?

Posted by: longbow651 | June 3, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

If you think Republicans matter, you are not paying attention.

We need to stop wondering if the GOP might get relevant some day and start parsing this ruling class of Democrats.

Crucial decisions are being made every day, the future is being decided as dimwits continue to battle on the same old fields.

Speaking of which, in WWI 5,600 hundred people were killed (and of course, many more wounded/blinded, etc.) every day of the war, on average, not counting flu deaths. WWI the war to end all wars, begat WWII, in which many more people died every day, on average.

Don't think it could happen again? Fool yourself.

Pick your battles people, some things matter and some don't. We need to focus on real threats. People say we will be fighting over land that has water soon.

Point is, Republicans had their day, it was back when Ronald Reagan was driving around Camp David in a golf cart with Laffer, thinking about how great it is to be (white and) rich and that cutting taxes on the rich was the right answer for everything.

Now, who is in the driver's seat? China, Energy Producers and American Democrats are controlling the battle fields of tomorrow.

I wish there were some way to know what they are up to, like maybe, a news source or blog that mattered.

Posted by: shrink2 | June 3, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

1) How about we STOP all of this cash flow [or tax it to death] out of our economy instead?
2) Wouldn't keeping all of that cash here help out the California budget "crisis"?

Actually a transaction tax would solve California and the U.S. budget deficit.

The system, developed by University of Wisconsin Professor of Economics Edgar L. Feige, is known as the APT or Automated Payments/Transaction Tax.

http://www.apttax.com/

Posted by: knjincvc | June 3, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

The government has never, ever been able to manage anything efficiently

==

hahahahahahaha

If you don't have alarm bells going off in your head when you write something like that, you don't even have a god damn brain.

You're that "reverse racism" guy, right?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the GOP should be more 'tuned-in' to the lives of 'average' people. People like the concept of pay less-spend less.

Posted by: IIntgrty | June 3, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Why follow anybody down a Socialist path.
==
Posted by: chrisfox8
Because it works better than our system, that's why. Look how many countries manage to provide quality medical to everyone at a third our per-capita cost. And in those countries you can see a doctor when you're sick, not waiting three weeks, and you get seen at the time of your appointment, not after two and a half hours in the waiting room.
======================

JakeD was right. You are an Obamanation shill trying to sell that yammering. The government has never, ever been able to manage anything efficiently and to think Hillary’s health care would be any different will make you the dreamer.

Grow up Chrissie and use your intellect for something constructive like selling used cars.

Posted by: longbow651 | June 3, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Taxed Enough Already ("TEA") Parties

July 4th

http://www.teapartyday.com/

Posted by: JakeD

==

hahahahaha another one?

Funny as hell, people whose taxes were cut pretending they were raised, showing up with signs where the O in Obama is hammer-and-sickle, ranting on the news without a word to do with taxation.

What a pack of losers

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"Under Ike we didn't have all that spending LBJ put in under his Great Society either.. Increases in welfare and adding Medicare and Medicaid.. So was it the high taxes or low spending that gave us prosperous times???"

Of course taxes allowed spending on infrastructure,welfare and adding Medicare and Medicaid..which improved U.S. productivity.
BTW, the infrastructure built in the 50's and 60's is wearing out, just ask T-paw about I-35.
For those who believe LBJ's great society was a waste of money take a look at videos of how poor white and blacks were living in the south.

Posted by: knjincvc | June 3, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't see anyone asking Jake any questions

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

The FIX - all loony tunes - all the time. Chrissuxit and drivl have established this as their own little sandbox. Except the cats keep trying to bury them.

OMG, Our President is a Muslim. who knew? I looked in the NYTimes and on NBC and found nothing.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 3, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Freedom's just another word for nothin left to lose...

except the next election.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry Matt, that's not how it works. Joe's one and only role in the Senate is to cast a vote when there's a tie. He doesn't get to decide when or if Sen-elect Franken gets seated."

You mean he doesn't run the Senate???

Posted by: DDAWD | June 3, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

hot air -- bsimon, that's the gop energy plan. they will stand in front of turbines bloviating and the blades will surely whip around furiously.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

Not likely -- besides, I don't think it's too much to ask for some common courtesy in return from those who are, in fact, asking ME questions -- you, not so much.

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

It's quite easy to ignore jaked--saves a lot of valuable time too.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"Earlier today, former Republican senator George Allen officially launched his latest venture, “an industry-backed anti-regulatory group” called American Energy Freedom Center."

==

Heh heh heh the GOPs annointed prince, kicked out of office for being a foaming idiot, desperate for attention.

Funny how these limp-dicks manage to work "freedom" into just about everything.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"Allen claimed that he wants to “tell people the truthful story about America’s energy potential that has never been told before.” "


Has he figured out how to turn macaca into fuel?


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 3, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Taxed Enough Already ("TEA") Parties

July 4th

http://www.teapartyday.com/

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"I will be glad to answer your question to me, just as soon as you answer my already pending questions to you."

Perhaps if nobody answers the above-referenced questions, they will be asked elsewhere & there will be less clutter here.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 3, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

As soon as you get every illegal alien to send in their $568 check, I'll do the same.

==

I doubt you could scrape together that much money, Jake.

What is it with you and Latinos? Did your "wife" leave you for one? Do you really think that "illegal aliens" are the basis of California's problems or do you just like posting nasty racist BS because it makes you feel like a bigshot?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc:

As soon as you get every illegal alien to send in their $568 check, I'll do the same.

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Oh, look-- Former Senator Macaca Allen is the lead lobbyist for Poisonous Polluters, Inc. Gee, what a surprise. Is there anyone in this party who isn't a monster?

"Earlier today, former Republican senator George Allen officially launched his latest venture, “an industry-backed anti-regulatory group” called American Energy Freedom Center. In a webcast today, Allen claimed that he wants to “tell people the truthful story about America’s energy potential that has never been told before.” Allen’s new organization is a partner group to the Institute for Energy Research, which is partially funded by Exxon Mobil and run by Robert Bradley Jr., who worked at Enron. In 2003, Bradley wrote the book “Climate Alarmism Reconsidered,” which argued that “that climate alarmism and its corollary, policy activism, are unwarranted and counterproductive” in the face of global climate change."

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

novamatt:

YOU were the one who asked me a question -- if you don't want to DISCUSS it, fine by me -- I am not in favor of shutting down all "remittances" or just those to Mexico (certainly not any through reputable charities like World Vision or Samaritan's Purse). The ONE tax increase I would support, however, is 91% on private cash remittances overseas.

Care to answer my questions now:

1) How about we STOP all of this cash flow [or tax it to death] out of our economy instead?

2) Wouldn't keeping all of that cash here help out the California budget "crisis"?

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

And so they try to pull back from the brink and repair the damage -- but they can't muzzzle Hannity and Limbaugh, who will continue to spew vileness andmake the republican party repugnant to hispanics.

==

I have one Latino friend I see most weekends .. he's a GOPer because he's Catholic and pro-life.

Now he's a Democrat. As of a few days ago.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

BTw, this morning Pawlenty said if the court so ruled, of course he would certify.

He has to, it's the law. He doesn't want to be impeached.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I will be glad to answer your question to me, just as soon as you answer my already pending questions to you.

Posted by: JakeD

==

HEY JAKE. NOBODY CARES ABOUT THIS CRAP. QUIT IT.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

And back on planet Earth, Newt Gingrich is walkng it back. Sotomeyor is NO RACIST, he says, he misspoke or something. And Sessions [KKK Alabama] is so glad, he says, because of course she is not a racist.

And so they try to pull back from the brink and repair the damage -- but they can't muzzzle Hannity and Limbaugh, who will continue to spew vileness andmake the republican party repugnant to hispanics.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"Wow $50 billion sure sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it! Until of course you add in the fact that the state has almost 37 million people. Then it doesn't really seem like that much, does it."

California has a $21 billion dollar deficit and as mentioned 37 million residents or $568/person.

A small tax of some sort, you choose, would clean the slate but the GOP is resisting any tax increase. They would rather pay interest to banks.

Posted by: knjincvc | June 3, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Under Ike we didn't have all that spending LBJ put in under his Great Society either.. Increases in welfare and adding Medicare and Medicaid.. So was it the high taxes or low spending that gave us prosperous times???

==

Great Society did a lot of great work slowing the movement into poverty.

What do you think the federal government did with that tax revenue? They spent it on the US infrastructure, numbnuts, where do you think our highway system came from? Bridges that didn't collapse?

Do you think it just went into some cookie jar somewhere?

You're hysterical.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

You're talking to yourselves about Nancy Pelosi and the american (people) must think you're all insane, becuase they don't even know who she is.
Posted by: drindl
____
Wow what a sad commentary about the American voter.

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you don't seem understand the meaning of the word populism. It is not the fascism Pawlenty expouses. Populism is what Wellstone was about, not Pawlenty of Nuthin'.

Also, you obviously don't fact check. If you would check the web you can get a PDF of Minnesota Statutes on Election Contests, chapter 209, and you would read that should the Minn. Supreme Court decide in Franken's favor the law says he must certified and seated immediately. No, if's, and's or but's about it, Minnesota elects its representatives, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't decide Minnesota's elections.

As coy as Cheney's boy Pawlenty has been about his support of Bush Boy Coleman, he doesn't have a choice. He must certify. If he doesn't, he won't even have a chance at running for president. Who will vote for an impeached ex-governor?

Posted by: EndTheSpin | June 3, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Getting the teabaggers all riled up isn't going to help the GOP at all. It's like trying to convert people to Islam in Indonesia.

But even after two and half years of losing elections the GOP hasn't Clue One how to appeal to the rest of us.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

novamatt:

I will be glad to answer your question to me, just as soon as you answer my already pending questions to you.

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Under Eisenhower we had top marginal tax rates of 91%, and those were prosperous times. If what you say is true, it would have been a recession. Tax cuts are not the stimulus you guys want to believe.
Posted by: chrisfox8
_____
Under Ike we didn't have all that spending LBJ put in under his Great Society either.. Increases in welfare and adding Medicare and Medicaid.. So was it the high taxes or low spending that gave us prosperous times???

Posted by: sovine08 | June 3, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Does the koolaid that republicans drink turn them all into snickering 12 year olds?

Apparently.

God, you thought you lost badly last time, this time you aren't even TRYING to talk to people about issues. You're talking to yourselves about Nancy Pelosi and the american must think you're all insane, becuase they don't even know who she is.

This is not a strategy, it's a travesty, it's a joke. It's like one of those Southern Calfornia cults.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

For the record, Arnold is a RINO, and the rest of California's government is run by the Democrats. They don't get to avoid this blame. Also, $50 billion divided by 37 million people is $1,351.35 for every man, woman, and child. And, that's only ONE source of State revenue -- the HIGHEST income tax rate kicks in at $47,500 for a single taxpayer -- don't forget the car, gas, cigarette, general sales and use taxes either.

Taxed Enough Already ("TEA") Parties

July 4th

http://www.teapartyday.com/

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

More relevant, I think, is whether Mr. Cillizza ever reported on how many days of work Senator Obama missed during the THREE YEARS he was running for President, as RobT1 pointed out.

==

Another pointless distraction from the slavish troll.

Every candidate nominally holding office is going to lose some time in the office while he campaigns. Campaigns are hard work.

How much did that goofy loser McCain get done while he was on the stump yammering about earmarks and the .. the bridge to nowhere ...

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

"WASHINGTON (CNN) — House Republicans have launched a coordinated public relations blitz against 17 congressional Democrats that seeks to tie them to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her accusations that the CIA misled Congress about the interrogation of terror suspects.

Specifically, the multi-faceted campaign targets these Democrats with television or radio ads, or a pre-recorded telephone message to constituents' homes, that criticizes the members of Congress for voting against initiating an investigation into when Pelosi learned about the use of waterboarding.

It is the first time the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of the congressional GOP, has bought a TV ad using Pelosi's comments about the CIA. Late last week, the Republican National Committee posted a Web video comparing the House speaker to the James Bond character Pussy Galore. The RNC video has since been removed from its Web site and You Tube."

PUSSY GALORE?

What is wrong with these people?

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, would you limit all money flowing from the United States to other countries, or just the money held by brown people?

But that's a good example of right-wing populism: it would sound good to stupid, angry white people, and properly horrify anyone with any understanding of economics. Good show.

Posted by: novamatt | June 3, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

The USA is about to be steamrolled by 50 million Indian and Chinese college grads produced each year while conservative republicans argue over Darwinism vs intelligent design

==

.. and the vital issue of packing heat in Yellowstone.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"Take the proven power of populism and add to it that President Barack Obama is at his best when he is using his oratorical gifts to inspire the electorate not when he is in "I feel your pain" mode and you begin to see a path toward relevance for the GOP."

In your dreams, Cilizza.

Posted by: drindl | June 3, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

More relevant, I think, is whether Mr. Cillizza ever reported on how many days of work Senator Obama missed during the THREE YEARS he was running for President, as RobT1 pointed out.

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

POPULISM IN AMERICA
There was the Grange, Bryant's anti-gold free trade Democrats, the Greenback Party, the Progressive Party of 1912 led by Theodore Roosevelt, and the Progressive Party of 1924 led by Robert M. La Follette, Sr.

Also called populist were: Huey Long in 1933-35,
George Wallace, 1968 and 1972;
Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996;
Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton;
John Edwards,Governor Mike Huckabee, John McCain and his running-mate Governor Sarah Palin; Senator Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama.

The People's Party of the 1890s represented the early U.S. populist movement in which millions of farmers and other working people successfully enacted their anti-trust agenda, and eventually the protection for union organizing, child labor laws, and the minimum wage.

A continuing populist mechanism is initiative and referendum. JakeD nominates tax protest.

Confused?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 3, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 posted @12:25 PM
“I guess we'll know pretty soon if Pawlenty is an American first or a Republican first. Will he certify the election and let Franken take his seat or will he continue to pretend that the election is in doubt and continue to carry water for the GOP?”

I agree! I also believe Pawlenty will have to explain his willingness to let his state’s infrastructure collapse, i.e. Mississippi river bridge on I-35.

Conservative republicans are in denial when it come to infrastructure, health care, education, middle class jobs, outsourcing jobs, predatory lending, real issues we the people have to focus on every day.
The USA is about to be steamrolled by 50 million Indian and Chinese college grads produced each year while conservative republicans argue over Darwinism vs intelligent design.

Posted by: knjincvc | June 3, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

$50 BILLION in property taxes per year is still too little for the vampire tax-and-spend liberals!

==

It's not enough for California's Republican government, don't you mean?

Wow $50 billion sure sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it! Until of course you add in the fact that the state has almost 37 million people. Then it doesn't really seem like that much, does it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

rawreid:

62 "week" days.

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

dbitt:

The State's revenue from local property taxes ROSE 500% from 1995 to 2005, even under the "horrible" Proposition 13. $50 BILLION in property taxes per year is still too little for the vampire tax-and-spend liberals! If you don't want to believe studies commissioned by the Howard Jarvis outfit, just check this chart out from the "non-partisan" Legislative Analyst's report:

http://www.cehwiedel.com/blogs/redcountycalifornia/?p=4527

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Chris I disagree with you re the 'fake' Crist hotline. I don't like what the DSCC is doing, smacks of republican tactics, underhanded. And since when did 62 days become almost three months?

Posted by: rawreid | June 3, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox writes
"we'll know pretty soon if Pawlenty is an American first or a Republican first. Will he certify the election and let Franken take his seat?"

see the article to which I linked a few minutes ago. Gov Pawlenty restated, yesterday, his position which is: when the courts tell him to sign the certificate, he will sign it. The Franken team explicitly asked the MN Supremes to sign the certificate in their briefing to the court; the subject apparently was not visited in oral arguments on Monday & the Coleman team chose not to address the point in their reply brief.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 3, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

How about we STOP all of this cash flow out of our economy instead?

==

Ah, so that's the problem. People in the US send money they've earned to their relatives in Mexico. Stem that flow and we'll be just fine.

What about the billions sent to Viet Nam? You wanna stop that too? You gonna blockade me from the money I send every month? Just try.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Quite understandably, your view on this is political, but a single party needs to combine an ideology as well as a strategy. The Republicans need to recognise when it's time to restructure, both idiologically and internally.

This schism is unhealthy and dangerous for the Republicans and, by extension, for the Democrats as well. No party should have absolute power, but the public has (in my opinion, at any rate), rejected the Republican party as it is/has been defined for the last few decades.

It would seem that T-Paw and Daniels (and possibly Crist) are onto something, but they and other 'progressive/populist' Republicans (an oxymoron? Currently, it probably is) are like a newborn child--extremely vulnerable and in need of nurturing, not savaging by the 'usual suspects' of the old guard.

And with the extreme right-wing of the party being in control (Rush L., Dick Cheney, Marcia Blackburn, Jeff Sessions, and dare I add that truly unhinged or fanatically misguided Michelle Bachmann?), it would seem that there will be a long 'ice age' until the 'wooly mammoths' are safely embedded in the ice.

Anything can happen, of course, but is it likely to? Obama, as all but the most rabid Obama-haters know, is very strategic and cautious (but not timid--and there IS a difference). It's unlikely he or the Democrats will overreach for the next two cycles.

In the meantime, the Republicans are going to have to get the evangelicals in their base under control if they are going to make a significant comeback (apologies to JakeD, et. al.), or face extinction in their present, ultraconservative form.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | June 3, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

novamatt:

Funny you should bring that up. On Monday, Mexico's central bank complained that "remittances" from the U.S. for the month of April totaled "only" $1.7 billion, 18.6% less than the $2.1 billion recorded in April 2008. How about we STOP all of this cash flow out of our economy instead? Money can hardly "think" if it's sent south of the border. Wouldn't keeping all of that cash here help out the California budget "crisis"?

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"We're a party of the marketplac"

==

Bloody lunatics, anyone who believes this "thinking money" BS should be sent to a mental institution

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

There are different kinds of populism, of course, even on the right. Mike Huckabee is representative of one kind, the genial evangelical conservative kind, and it wouldn't be surprising to see him run again in '12. Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan are another kind, focused on fighting back the brown hordes. Ron Paul is another kind, the anti-government laissez-faire kind. We could well see someone from the harder-edged religious right populists, like Judge Roy Moore.

And I don't know exactly what is "populist" about Pawlenty, other than his family background. Populism, even on the right, isn't just a haircut or dropping one's g's. It's about defending "the people" from group x or y.

But the question isn't whether we'll see populist Rs in 2012. Of course we will. Will they have any more traction than they had in '08? Which ones? Why?

Posted by: novamatt | June 3, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Local longtime political journalist Eric Black penned a piece that explains why The Fix is right to keep his eye on Pawlenty ('populist' might be the wrong word though):

http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2009/06/02/9236/tim_pawlenty_loves_god_his_wife_and_kids_the_troops_and_minnesotans

Eric Black writes:
"His message to his party went like this:

"We're a party of the marketplace, and the marketplace is signaling movement to our competitors ... We've gotta be the party that can accommodate both Colin Powell and Rush Limbaugh. Not either/or. Both." "

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 3, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Note that all Jake's "documentation" comes from some right-wing anti-tax site, dedicated to protecting Prop. 13.

Biases right out in front, and sure enough they see unions and pensions as the big problem. Not the Proposition that makes balancing the budget politically infeasible.

Obviously the solution to California's fiscal problems is to let people starve once they can no longer "create wealth," right, Jake?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes posted @ 11:21 AM
“The dems took control of Congress January 2007, the recession started December 2007. Sorry about hitting you with hard facts, but I'm sure you will be able to twist it to fix your very rigid beliefs.”

Actually the GOP still controlled the senate by filibuster but tell us what the dems did to tank the economy in 12 months.

Did they borrow $4 BILLION DOLLAR$ a month from China and flush it down a toilet in Iraq?

Posted by: knjincvc | June 3, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

dbitt:

Come on, even you should know that "shutting down every State park" is a scare tactic and won't even save that much money. Why do we pay $50K per year to house each State prisoner when Florida does it for $14K each year? Explain to me how California government cannot be run for less than $100 BILLION per year?!

http://www.hjta.org/pdf/CGA-HJTA-P13-Report.pdf

You also asked for what Arnold could do to save money:

http://www.hjta.org/studies-and-reports/2008-california-piglet-book

How about we go to the unions and pension plans to give them an ultimatum? Roll back those huge expeditures voluntarily or you can take your chances with a bankruptcy judge. That's where our real fiscal timebomb is.

http://www.hjta.org/studies-and-reports/public-pension-liability-study

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I guess we'll know pretty soon if Pawlenty is an American first or a Republican first. Will he certify the election and let Franken take his seat or will he continue to pretend that the election is in doubt and continue to carry water for the GOP?

Coleman's appeals have become increasingly frivolous, each time the votes are re-examined, his loss increases. Get this over with, already, it's been six months.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

This is, what, the third Fix in two weeks hailing Daniels as the next GOP savior?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The housing crash began before then. I certainly know we saw it coming in 2005, when my wife and I bought our current home. For a while we carried 3 mortgages & hurried to unload my duplex and her house before the market crashed. I think our realtor thought we were nuts or overreacting. The joke's on him, I guess.

Posted by: bsimon1

==

vbhoomes brings to mind that Nancy Griffiths song, "Last of the True Believers."

He thinks the Democrats are Socialists, that tax cuts increase revenue, that taxation is a drain on the economy, that regulations distort the marketplace. Probably believes the Nazis were leftists too.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I know, my point is...is such a mess, a mess oh goodness!
"Please Coleman concede fast"

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | June 3, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

mattadams writes
"Vice President Biden is waiting in the wings right now while President Obama is away to throw a bombshell to the Republicans when he as the President of the Senate, crowns Al Franken the winner of the Minnesota Senate race and sweers him in a fews days from now."


Sorry Matt, that's not how it works. Joe's one and only role in the Senate is to cast a vote when there's a tie. He doesn't get to decide when or if Sen-elect Franken gets seated.


Posted by: bsimon1 | June 3, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes
"The dems took control of Congress January 2007, the recession started December 2007."

The housing crash began before then. I certainly know we saw it coming in 2005, when my wife and I bought our current home. For a while we carried 3 mortgages & hurried to unload my duplex and her house before the market crashed. I think our realtor thought we were nuts or overreacting. The joke's on him, I guess.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 3, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Its horrible seeing the Republicans now. They are a mess and they can forget about 2012 or even in my opinion 2016.
Vice President Biden is waiting in the wings right now while President Obama is away to throw a bombshell to the Republicans when he as the President of the Senate, crowns Al Franken the winner of the Minnesota Senate race and sweers him in a fews days from now.
Franken has already been in meetings with the Vice President. This is a bomb ready to explode, and the Republicans do not have the votes to filibuster this. Either Snow or Coolin or both will go along when this ruling comes down. The Republicans created there own grave and Vice President Joe Biden will be there to make them non existent.

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | June 3, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

So vbhoomes if everything was going so well before they took office, why did the voters throw the GOP bums out? Because they felt secure in their jobs? Because they felt the country was on the right track?

Like hell. Maybe you can edit your own memory to conform with your loyalty to the party that screwed up our economy and our moral credibility in the world, but don't expect others to go along.

"Maybe it's just bad timing" (spits). Like hell. It was a belief in deregulation, in nutty free-market nonsense, in tax cuts, that got us into this mess.

As for the nominal topic, Pawlenty had a certain bridge collapse to esplain.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

ChrisFox you have a bad memory, The dems took control of Congress January 2007, the recession started December 2007. Sorry about hitting you with hard facts, but I'm sure you will be able to twist it to fix your very rigid beliefs.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 3, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

dbitt:

The main problem in California is out-of-control spending financed by too much borrowing (sound familiar?) which has ruined our credit rating. Some GOP in Sacramento have agreed to tax increases, which is why they are the subjects of recall petitions. Spending on social programs has far out paced population growth and inflation. While Prop. 13 kept local property taxes in check for a while, it could not keep up with the housing bubble. From 1995 to 2005, local property taxes rose from $10 billion per year to over $50 billion per year. You can't legitimately say that property taxes should have been raised even more than that.

Posted by: JakeD
**************
JakeD, you can't say that the state is plagued by "out of control" spending when the budget correction calls for shutting most of the state's parks, laying off large numbers of civil servants and closing some government facilities. Where is the out of control spending in any of that?
Where has Schwarzenegger been wasteful in his spending?
Prop 13's damage is not the past few years; it has been cumulative, sapping the state's financial reserves to the point that drastic, even draconian action is necessary to avoid state bankruptcy. Raising property taxes so much in a short time would not have been necessary if Prop 13 and the ridiculous 2/3 requirement on passing a budget had not been in place since '79.
No, this is not an issue of borrowing-and-spending, at least not structurally. This is an issue of a stupid, unbalanced law helping the few at the expense of the many for far too long. The state must come to grips with its unreasonable, unsustainable budget process. It won't be painless--the long property tax starvation ensured that--but what other options do you think are on the table?
What could Gov. Schwarzenegger do to save the state?
The Republican mantras of less-taxes-smaller-government are NOT working and they will not work. So what do the "real" Republicans have to offer?

Posted by: dbitt | June 3, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

"I'm not following your point. Are you arguing that populism is antithetical to capitalism? Or akin to socialism? Neither statement is accurate. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant?"

Kind of says a lot, doesn't it? To them, capitalism entails trampling over the little guy.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 3, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

ddawd writes
"The thing is that [the GOP] will need to soften their stance on upper class tax cuts. They can't just say "oh, we're populist" Without a meaningful change in policies, there is that other party out there that won't hesitate to remind the American people as to who the Republican policies have really been helping."


That's the crux of the problem for the GOP. They are focused more on being against Obama, across the board, rather than being for a set of policies on which they might find some common ground with the President. By being a pragmatist, President Obama has boxed the GOP out of the center - but only because they refuse to work with him. Ergo self-marginalization. Enjoy being in the minority, boys.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 3, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"Maybe its just bad timing dee5, but the economy was just fine until the democratic-socialist party took control of Congress in 2007."

Ah, there it is! I was wondering when the first post would come in today, blaming the collapse on the Democratic Congress.

I love how these guys never seem to remember who was, you know, --President-- during that stretch. Or who was calling the shots in Congress AND the White House during the preceding six years, when deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, deficit spending aimed at friends of the GOP, and corporate socialism set us up for the present debacle.

I truly hope that reasonable people like rogden71 are successful in regaining control of their party. The spoiled petulant children in the GOP have had the run of the place for too long, and look what happened. Republicans are in sore need of some serious adult supervision right about now.

Posted by: WaitingForGodot | June 3, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Well, of course they should. Numbers is power and there are a lot more people to be reached by populism than through appealing to corporate America. The thing is that they will need to soften their stance on upper class tax cuts. They can't just say "oh, we're populist" Without a meaningful change in policies, there is that other party out there that won't hesitate to remind the American people as to who the Republican policies have really been helping.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 3, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Lower taxes works; cut the Pork: it works.

==

History provides little or no evidence to support this. You are reciting an article of faith in the face of abundant counterevidence.

Under Eisenhower we had top marginal tax rates of 91%, and those were prosperous times. If what you say is true, it would have been a recession.

Tax cuts are not the stimulus you guys want to believe.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I don't care what you call it; the republicans will do nothing politically until they quit trying to appease both sides of the aisle. How many times do the republicans have to bring back a bloody stub trying to " work with" the Liberals? Lower taxes works; cut the Pork: it works.

Posted by: yokohlman | June 3, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Maybe its just bad timing dee5, but the economy was just fine until the democratic-socialist party took control of Congress in 2007.

Posted by: vbhoomes

==

The recession started officilly in December, which means the damage had been done already and the economy was already well along in tanking well before the "Democratic Socialists" took office. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, and this is recent history, not the Civil War or something.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

" I do not know what you think of when you think of populism, of course."

I think of William Jennings Bryan and the Free Silver Movement.

But, I'm a dork.

Posted by: VTDuffman | June 3, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Maybe its just bad timing dee5, but the economy was just fine until the democratic-socialist party took control of Congress in 2007.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 3, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes
"put me dowm with favoring capitalism. An economic system that has given this country and citizens enormous wealth. Sure there are some down sides to it. It is darwinism, the strongest survive, but consider the altenative, I'll take it."

I'm not following your point. Are you arguing that populism is antithetical to capitalism? Or akin to socialism? Neither statement is accurate. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant?

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 3, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

dee5: Palin won't be glamorous by 2012. Her looks are on borrowed time already, by 2012 she'll be pushing 50 and will look quite matronly. She probably looks like Oprah in the morning already.

Spot-on about the others. Huckabee "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff" isn't going anywhere.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Tim Pawlenty is a non-starter in the doomed GOP race toward the bottom for 2012. The populist angle will be a hard sell for him because like Jindal, Pawlenty has all the charisma of a kernel of rice, but without the nutritional value.

The hilarious line-up of Republicans for 2012 includes Huckabee (witty but off-the-wall extremist), Palin (dim bulb but glamorous), Romney (out-of-touch and tin-eared), Jindal (horrible speaker, horrible ideas), Gingrich (old, doughy, irrelevant), and Pawlenty (cowardly dullard).

The odds of an Obama landslide in 2012 are increasing geometrically every day.

Posted by: dee5 | June 3, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

"There is a presumption that Republicans are not connected and not caring about the problems of regular people,"

============================

This is not a presumption, it is a fact.
It is the primary reason that Republicans should not be given any chances to rule the nation again.

The Republicans caused the economic meltdown.

Posted by: vigor | June 3, 2009 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I stand corrected.

Posted by: mnteng

==

It's OK. It's easy to forget Arnor, what with each succession fragmenting it until all that was left were hills in the grass

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

rogden71 writes
"As a member of the moderate-wing of the GOP, I support candidates such as Pawlenty, Daniels, and Crist."


Pawlenty is fooling you. He talks like a moderate but governs like a hard right conservative. To me, a moderate is someone who looks for the right solution. Pawlenty looks for the solution that only involves cuts. Good government looks for money effectively spent - that generates an appropriate return on the dollar. Pawlenty's government pays lip service to performance, but focuses on cuts - regardless of impact.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 3, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

This disdain for Detroit by Rs and their failure to really support the TARP leaves them open to American big biz bailing on them as a reliable ally.

==

While leaving the automakers to twist in the wind, the financial sector had to be handed billions. The companies that actually produce something were left to "let the marketplace decide" while the financials, who produce nothing of value, were reflexively bailed out to the tune of trillions and not even required to tell us what they did with the money.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:
Thanks for reminding me of Chuck Percy. He was the first Senator I became aware of while I was growing up. Moderate-to-liberal Republican ... a dying/dead breed.

chrisfox8:
I stand corrected.

Posted by: mnteng | June 3, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes:

Good luck defending capitalism with this crowd!

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

I don't think of socialsm when I think of populism. I think more along the lines of Taxed Enough Already ("TEA") Parties coming again July 4th and the recall petitions out here in California. BOTH major parties have their own special interests that the PEOPLE have to rip control from.

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Chris/Fox put me dowm with favoring capitalism. An economic system that has given this country and citizens enormous wealth. Sure there are some down sides to it. It is darwinism, the strongest survive, but consider the altenative, I'll take it.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 3, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

self-edit: Should have been "owned" and "mighty".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 3, 2009 10:30 AM | Report abuse

There's a tax revolt going on out here in California at least.

==

That isn't a "tax revolt" any more than were those dumb tea parties. What California is doing with taxes is more like a suicide pact.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Oh no! Who then would look out for the interests of rich people and religious fanatics?

Posted by: raschumacher | June 3, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

The bedrock of the R Party in 1963 was industrial and financial America. It was the Party of Wall Street and of the management of the auto industry. Its moderate, pro-biz, leaders were men named Rockefeller and Romney and Percy. In 2008-09 both Wall Street and the American auto industry management came begging to DC and were "saved", so to speak, in large part by Ds.

If you had told me in 1963 this would happen in 2009 I would have said the Rs would be controlling the WH and Congres when that occurred.

This disdain for Detroit by Rs and their failure to really support the TARP leaves them open to American big biz bailing on them as a reliable ally. Split ticket and split funding from American big biz would end the one structural advantage Rs had in the 20th C.:
predictably better fundraising than Ds.

Losing that advantage could perhaps be offset by claiming "populism". It might work. Depends in part on the string of messages that are sent and whether they are coherent and relevant to daily life.

I think of the Grange League Federation when I think of populism. I grew up on a farm and own 10 preferred shares of G.L.F., the non-profit that ran the grain elevators and aggregated our produce for shipping, but whose history included the organization of farmers and ranchers against the might railroads of the 1890s. I do not know what you think of when you think of populism, of course.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 3, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Aragon, King of Gondor, for Congress indeed!

==

Gondor and Arnor, to be precise

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

With the cacophony of voice from the right and far-right of the GOP, populist Rs like Daniels and Pawlenty will be hard-pressed to make themselves heard. To top it off, neither of them has the charisma of pull it off, especially compared to Huckabee (should he decide to give up his day job). Still, I think it will take at least one more election cycle for the GOP to get its act together and figure out a core message that will allow it to regain traction after the pummeling it took these last two elections.

Aragon, King of Gondor, for Congress indeed!

Posted by: mnteng | June 3, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Pawlenty as a populist? Good luck with that sale. The guy who wants to shut down essential state services to spare the wealthy a tax increase? That isn't populism. This is just more phony GOP rebranding.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

dbitt:

The main problem in California is out-of-control spending financed by too much borrowing (sound familiar?) which has ruined our credit rating. Some GOP in Sacramento have agreed to tax increases, which is why they are the subjects of recall petitions. Spending on social programs has far out paced population growth and inflation. While Prop. 13 kept local property taxes in check for a while, it could not keep up with the housing bubble. From 1995 to 2005, local property taxes rose from $10 billion per year to over $50 billion per year. You can't legitimately say that property taxes should have been raised even more than that.

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Why follow anybody down a Socialist path.

==

Because it works better than our system, that's why. Look how many countries manage to provide quality medical to everyone at a third our per-capita cost. And in those countries you can see a doctor when you're sick, not waiting three weeks, and you get seen at the time of your appointment, not after two and a half hours in the waiting room.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

The populist card is the lowest common denominator appealing to a bunch of whiners and losers,"Life is unfair". If the party ever goes that direction, even pragmatists like myself would go looking to form a 3rd Party.

==

The whiners and losers are you guys, unable to handle the results of our last election. You guys haven't stopped crying and raging for six months. And you're nowhere near getting candid with yourselves that you deserved to lose.

Still ranting about Obama as some sort of Messiah figure, as a "celebrity," not as the guy who beat daffy John McCain fair and squiare.

Please do go on record as favoring corporate profit over American jobs, that'll be a winner in 11/10 anc 11/12.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

As a member of the moderate-wing of the GOP, I support candidates such as Pawlenty, Daniels, and Crist. The GOP needs to appeal to the independents and Reagan Democrats to become viable again. The best thing the GOP leaders in Congress can do is ignore the ravings of the far-right (i.e. Rush, Cheney, and neo-cons) and adopt the inclusive,libretarian principles the GOP exposued in the past.

Posted by: rogden71 | June 3, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Aragon for Congress! Now that's cool!

Posted by: dre7861 | June 3, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

They won't. The GOP is too beholden to the wealthy, it's instinctive for them. They'd abandon their own children before they'd abandon the top 1%. A few lip-service speeches won't bring them back.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 3, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Chris, interesting that you chose to report on the Dems highlighting how many days of work Florida Gov. Crist has supposedly missed. I don't recall you ever reporting on how many days of work Senator Obma missed during the two plus years he was running for president.

Posted by: RobT1 | June 3, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Did Chris Cillizza read what he wrote? Of course people vote for populist candidates. If they weren't popular no one would vote for them. This is the problem with the Republican Party; you have a small group on the far right making policy and expecting the rest of the party to follow their lead. This is a ridiculous expectation! The Republicans must have a consensus in their direction. This is why they are failing. Until the party actually asks the membership what their beliefs and goals are and then acts on those results they will continue to loose membership just as they lost me when I voted for Obama. In a democracy people expect their voices to be heard. Something that does not occur now because people can't be heard over the rants of the extreme right. Powell tried to tell them and the far right shouted him down. Until the Republican Party forces the far right to let the rest of the party speak it will continue its slide towards oblivion.

Posted by: reiley | June 3, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

The populist card is the lowest common denominator appealing to a bunch of whiners and losers,"Life is unfair". If the party ever goes that direction, even pragmatists like myself would go looking to form a 3rd Party.

Posted by: vbhoomes | June 3, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

California's problems stem mostly from Prop 13, that Howard Jarvis debacle from ages past that froze property taxes and set an impossible bar for raising them. This was during a Democratic governorship but Schwarzenegger has inherited this nightmare--which is made vastly worse by the Republican minority refusing any attempt to raise taxes in California.

As a result, the "Golden State" has sunk to the bottom in many respects. This is a case study in what political paralysis and hyperpartisanship yield. Gridlock is not a political strategy; it is the ultimate in spoilsport, poison pill bad loserism.

The GOP can try the populist message-- heck, they can try anything under the sun-- but the real challenge is: is the party willing to reform itself to appeal to a broader, more diverse constituency? If not, then its "base" of grumpy old white men will slowly die off... followed by the party itself.

Posted by: dbitt | June 3, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Why follow anybody down a Socialist path. That is what the Dems are all about. Big Intrusive Over Arching Redistribution Statest Government. That is the Dem philosophy. The Government is the answer all to enslave the population. Not a winner for the Country but maybe a vote getter from the naive, gullible and ignorant.

Posted by: ChangeWhat | June 3, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

newageblues writes
"I don't understand the big deal about Pawlenty, he barely got reelected as governor, that's not usually the profile of a serious presidential contender"

The Fix has been corrected on this point many times; that Pawlenty won a squeaker with a plurality of the vote - not a majority. It is a mystery why The Fix chooses to ignore this significant detail. I suspect part of the problem is trying to follow hundreds of races nationwide - there's only so much attention to be paid to any particular race.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 3, 2009 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Even P.T. Barnum could not take the GOP ideology and package it as populism. Their hard core beliefs are not compatable with where most U.S. voters stand on almost all issues. It is almost like appointing a person who does not belief in medicine to run a hospital chain.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | June 3, 2009 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Limbaugh and the far-right base will never allow someone even resembling a moderate conservative to become a 2012 McCain. Newt and Rush are the true GOP leadership.

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | June 3, 2009 8:13 AM | Report abuse

The GOP can go populist on cultural issues, but only if the DEMs make enough blunders. People like Emanuel seem to have a good grasp on that. Pushing a cultural issue beyond what is considered fair or neutral i.e. pushing abortion on people vs. ensuring access, gun control that leaves people defenseless in the face of rising crime.

On economic issues it would be hard for the GOP to be populist because their underlining ideology allows business to rape consumers (credit card) and puts all the power in the workplace in the hands of the managers. Perhaps the GOP should concentrate on helping small business and breaking up some multinationals.

Ultimately it is as moemongo said: "The question is not the populist path but the path of reason." What party is doing something that does not make sense to the average voter.

Posted by: Pebble1776 | June 3, 2009 8:03 AM | Report abuse

This column was a lot more about the image and persona of populism that about any substance.
I don't understand the big deal about Pawlenty, he barely got reelected as governor, that's not usually the profile of a serious presidential contender.

Posted by: newageblues | June 3, 2009 7:44 AM | Report abuse

To which Republicans are you referring? Arnold is a RINO.

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 7:35 AM | Report abuse

What seems obvious about Virginia Democrats is that 2/3 of them DON'T WANT THE SLEAZY MCAULIFFE. Nominating him will hand the governor's office to the GOP. He should stick to race-baiting for the Clintons.

Posted by: uh_huhh | June 3, 2009 7:33 AM | Report abuse

moemongo:

Did you read the "blueprint" link to HuPo article? (I certainly hope I "framed" that question to your satisfaction)

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 7:21 AM | Report abuse

The problems of CA were created by republicans. If Obama and the Democrats can remind voters of who is responsible, then the issue is solved.

Posted by: moemongo | June 3, 2009 7:17 AM | Report abuse

As usual you frame questions so as to create division and not a real dialogue. The question is not the populist path but the path of reason.

Posted by: moemongo | June 3, 2009 7:04 AM | Report abuse

Of course the GOP can win again. There's a tax revolt going on out here in California at least. For example, as even Obama himself admitted, if the economy doesn't improve, he won't be re-elected.

Posted by: JakeD | June 3, 2009 6:23 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company