Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Most Important Number in Politics Today



More than half of Minnesota voters don't think Gov. Tim Pawlenty should run for president. AP Photo/The Detroit News, John L. Russell

55

That's the percentage of Minnesota voters who would rather not see their state's governor -- Tim Pawlenty -- seek the 2012 Republican nomination as compared to just three in ten who would like to see their home state governor make a national bid, according to a new Princeton Survey Research poll conducted for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Democrats jumped all over the number. The Democratic National Committee blasted out the poll results early this morning and Minnesota Democratic Party Chairman Brian Melendez concluded that the data "shows that Minnesotans understand how much damage an absentee governor can do by neglecting his home state."

While it's a facile hit -- the people who know him best don't want him to run! -- the numbers insider the Strib poll and a brief history of how native son candidacies are received suggest that things aren't as dire for Pawlenty as Democrats make them out to be.

For example, the same Strib poll showed that 25 percent of Minnesotans said there was a "good" chance they would vote for Tpaw if he ran for president while another 25 percent said there was "some" chance they would support him. Among independents, 54 percent said there was either a "good" or "some" chance they would cast a vote for Pawlenty.

For half of the electorate in a blue(ish) state to say they would at least consider supporting a Republican candidate for president, isn't half bad -- particularly given that Tpaw's numbers on that question were even better among self-described Independents.

And, Pawlenty's job approval numbers remain steady if not spectacular in the state even as he faces increasing criticism for his out-of-state focus. In the Strib poll, 49 percent said they approved of the job Tpaw was doing while 38 percent disapproved; among independents Pawlenty's numbers were even stronger at 54 percent approve/38 percent disapprove.

While Pawlenty's numbers have fallen since this time two years ago -- when nearly six in ten Minnesotans approved of the job he was doing -- the fact that a near-majority of people still look approvingly on how Pawlenty has handled the governorship is good news for him.

One other point: Voters in most states tend to look somewhat warily -- at least at first -- on native son candidates running for the big office. Vast majorities of North Carolina voters expressed their disapproval of former Sen. John Edwards run(s) for the Democratic presidential nod but it had little effect on his actual candidacy. Ditto for former New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and many, many other presidential candidates. (One notable exception: Utahns were broadly supportive of their governor -- now-Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman Jr. -- running for president.)

The natural first reaction for many voters in a presidential candidate's home state is: "That guy?". Oftentimes, the skepticism that said person should run or can win fades into a pride of ownership --- "that's my guy!" -- although sometimes the doubt never fades.

Simply put: It's never a great thing when a majority of your constituents don't want you to seek higher office. But, Minnesota doesn't seem likely to play a critical role in deciding the identity of the 2012 nominee and, even if it did, there is reason for optimism among Pawlenty forces in the Strib poll.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 29, 2009; 12:15 PM ET
Categories:  Most Important Number  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Doug Wilder, Creigh Deeds and the Fix Endorsement Hierarchy
Next: The Best State-Based Political Reporters (2009 Edition)

Comments

Also, much as I would thrill to lebling a Republican Presidential contender TP, and singing the Delsey Tissue song whenever I do, MF is toobland and boring to rate it.

Posted by: ceflynline | September 30, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Surely you remember Minnesota Fats' character in "The Hustler" (The pool pro who set up the character and the shots in the movie once did a pool demonstration at a Service Club on Ft. Lewis. REAL pool hustlers are about as bland as you can get, and NEVER make a more difficult shot than necessary.)

Posted by: ceflynline | September 30, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Minnesota Fatuous, because the boring trio is MR, MH, and MF.

Posted by: ceflynline | September 30, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

@ceflynline: excellent analysis and delivery, but I'm at a loss with the "MF." It'll probably come to me a millisecond after I hit "submit" but at the moment I'm at a loss. ¿what means this MF?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 30, 2009 12:02 AM | Report abuse

I like the metaphor.

Snowbama = Dwight.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 29, 2009 11:24 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"It's never a great thing when a majority of your constituents don't want you to seek higher office. But, Minnesota doesn't seem likely to play a critical role in deciding the identity of the 2012 nominee and, even if it did, there is reason for optimism among Pawlenty forces in the Strib poll."


First, glad to see The Fix is aware of the reality of Pawlenty's less than stellar popularity at home. Dreams of his addition to a national GOP ticket putting MN in play are not realistic. Which brings me to my second point: both golden boys of the GOP that claim to be moderates who can win in 'blue' states are making unrealistic claims about how their home states would treat them on a Presidential ballot. Like Romney, Pawlenty is leaving his state a complete fiscal disaster.

Posted by: bsimon1 | September 29, 2009 10:45 PM | Report abuse

I can't see voters getting excited over Pawlenty. He's lackluster, he's phony, and he's boring. Matter of fact there isn't a one of the GOP saviors we keep reading about here who are likely to inspire anyone to go door to door or man the phones.

And the people who know Pawlenty best don't think he has a shot, so why should anyone?

Worry about your bridges, Governor, and leave foreign policy to those who know something about it.

Can you see Canada from your house?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 10:04 PM | Report abuse

snowbama:

Did you see school children being forced to sing songs to Obama????

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/29/rnc_chairman_compares_kids_sin.html

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

"The advantage of the Republican primary system is that it prevents a long, protracted primary fight. I'm not sure if one way is significantly better than the other. It's not like one party has enjoyed significantly more success than another in the post WWII era. Posted by: DDAWD"

It is intended to prevent any real fight at all. Early primaries have the usual collection of political light weights and party midgets eating up much of the vote, leaving the designated winner to do so by minuscule pluralities. After super Tuesday the sideshow candidates can drop like male mosquitoes an hour after dawn, and whatever die hards are left are now obviously damaged goods, and get voted for in appropriate numbers.

The system doesn't even make for spirited debate as every candidate fights over "the base" and leaves the superstructure, however much an impressive edifice it might be, to fester and decay in obscurity.

Either the party ought to give up on primaries entirely, or set its primaries up to actually permit a real contest, instead of a predetermined WWF type championship. Ideally it would schedule its primaries two or three a week from January, smallest states to largest states, and at least provide SOME interest and suspense. The Republicans haven't done THAT since they stiffed Taft in 1952.

Posted by: ceflynline | September 29, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

"Pawlenty is a non-starter on the national stage. He doesn't have enough of the red meat for far right, and he doesn't have the CEO country club resume for the GOP money men. So where does he find his base?
His thinking is that he will shoot the middle and be the sensible pick. The problem is that primary voters (especially GOP primary voters) don't want the sensible pick. They pick with their hearts, and I don't see anyone hearting T-paw. Posted by: AndyR3"

How much of a non starter is Pawlenty? Well, half way through the posts at this point this is the first post of any length and only about the fourth to even touch on the subject of the thread. The twentypercenters are so oblivious they can't even be botherred to post a half hearted cheer and the anti-s find him so unworthy that the thread is now a cat fight over posting rights. If that is all the discussion Minnestoa Fatuous can raise he will never make it onto the Primary radar in three more years.

His Independent lackadaisical semi support, "Well, I might support him, maybe." are predicated on his not going out of his way to alienate the center, but he has already come to Ohio and tried his level best to do exactly that.

Now IF he were to hog the center, and build real centrist backing for a 2012 run, come the Primaries he would have about a third of the republican voters in his camp because they had no one else to run after, since EVERYONE else is trying to stand on the ultimate farthest right of the party, and before any of the other candidates could adjust the repubs would be past super tuesday, and he would have ALL of the states contested so far, because the other many candidates would have been fighting over sixty percent of the party, and splitting it five or six or seven ways.

Winner take all thus betrays the Conservative wing.

Now the republicans have to decide their next course, scuttle MF to get their guy, (not necessarily a unanimous pick by the far right) or roll over and give the center its day. My bet is they get into a throat cutting contest and the convention becomes a zoo when the Goldwaterites find themselves in the position of Nelson Rockefeller in 1964. After the week of the long knives the Right goes off in a huff and votes libertarian, and NOBODY in particular votes Republican, producing a landslide for Obama and immediate cries from the right that he isn't American enough to merit seventy percent of the vote.

And the t-Paw effect will already have MY readers yawning and reaching for the off switch, because I actually used his appelation just once in the article, which is once too often for maintaining full attention.

Posted by: ceflynline | September 29, 2009 8:35 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD always comes in with the debate idiocy."

I believe the word you're looking for is "ability"

It's ok. Coming from you, I can imagine it's a common mixup.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure advertisers are interested in a blog with hundreds of posts, only 15 posters.

But isn't your new schtick, sorry, contribution, summing the relative counts for each poster. I miss that.

DDAWD always comes in with the debate idiocy.
then there is drindl with her hate
chris fox with the lunatic rambling about pederasty and sarah palin
some other dude checks for plaigerism

this is like "the Office", everyone has a thing.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

So far, there are 298 posts and counting today. Snowbama evidently hasn't realized that there are multiple threads active. I"d do a cum. count, but that's a bit too much copy and paste for me.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 29, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

No, I would not. But that's not what they did. These superdelegates are all known political figures, with a career or at least a legacy of their own to consider. They aren't going to do anything stupid.

However, if the candidate with the most regular delegates had cratered after the primaries, the superdelegates would be correct to "select" someone else.

Hopefully state parties have learned from 2008 that the most influential primary is not necessarily the first, and they will back off the rush--which is what got MI and FL in trouble. My point is that it could have been a big floor fight without the steadying hand of the supers.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"Blarg and DDAWD: I'd say the superdelegates (at some level) provide a needed service. In the case of a closely divided primary, they can validate the winner. Which is what happened in 2008. Can you imagine the struggle over Michigan and Florida delegates if there were no superdelegates??

Posted by: justjoeking"

Would you have considered selecting Clinton as an equally viable option for them as validating Obama?

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Blarg and DDAWD: I'd say the superdelegates (at some level) provide a needed service. In the case of a closely divided primary, they can validate the winner. Which is what happened in 2008. Can you imagine the struggle over Michigan and Florida delegates if there were no superdelegates??

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: Interesting point, but irrelevant. Primaries might not lead to the best candidates, but they're an integral part of the process. Any party that tried to abandon primaries and go back to the old system would be ripped apart by both the voters and the media. Smaller parties are able to choose candidates without primaries, but they're also irrelevant.

You may be right; eliminating superdelegates could be better than just reducing their number. Since it looks bad for a candidate to lose the primaries but still win the nomination, there's a lot of pressure for superdelegates to support the candidate with more regular delegates. So there's little point in having superdelegates at all.

Posted by: Blarg | September 29, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

A lot of GOP hangers on are having a real hard time dealing with the fact that Palin is washed up.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

den put a widdle bip-bip onnat boo-boo baby an' 'top da weepy-weepy

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Harry Truman and Sarah Palin are both small-town bigots. When he became president, Harry Truman managed to rise above his bigotry. Therefore Sarah Palin should be president too.

==

... using her bigotry as her primary appeal

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I didn't say never. We may yet elect Nixon--to Cillizza's Hall of Fame, if nothing else. He lost to FDR in a landslide last time out, but I didn't hear him say he quit.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Also, I'm in favor of 0% superdelegates, not 100%. Just providing a contrary point of view.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

"Harry S Truman was a "small town bigot" who desegregated the U.S. Army. Next canard?"

More "logic" from joked:

Harry Truman and Sarah Palin are both small-town bigots. When he became president, Harry Truman managed to rise above his bigotry. Therefore Sarah Palin should be president too.

Sorry joked, but your pinup girl will never be anything but a small-town hack. And she'll never be president. As you would say, LOLROFLMAOPIMP!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | September 29, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"Harry S Truman was a "small town bigot" who desegregated the U.S. Army. Next canard?"

More "logic" from joked:

Harry Truman and Sarah Palin are both small-town bigots. When he became president, Harry Truman managed to rise above his bigotry. Therefore Sarah Palin should be president too.

Sorry joked, but your pinup girl will never be nothing but a small-town hack. And she'll never be president. As you would say, LOLROFLMAOPIMP!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | September 29, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Imagine the ads in response to a Palin nomination bid.

"I was inspired by the dedication and perseverance of those brave troops so I quit!"

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

justjoeking:

Never say never ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD: I agree that the winner-take-all system didn't work for the Republicans. The Democratic process had its flaws (too many superdelegates, different delegate allocation rules by state, etc.), but at least it was representative. The Republican primary was ridiculous; McCain got 100% of Missouri's delegates with 32.96% of the vote.

I'd like to see both parties take a good look at their primary systems and revise them before 2012, or at least by 2016. The calendar is the most important thing to fix, but both parties can also improve how they assign delegates.

Posted by: Blarg "

I never really got the point of the superdelegate system. I think either you superdelegates should be 100% or 0%. 100% you ask? Well, I read a few articles saying that Democrats actually did better in general elections when they nominated their candidates in closed-door, smoke filled rooms. That's how they got guys like FDR and JFK. It's only after they started letting people vote that Dems started doing poorly in generals. I guess the logic is that the seasoned politicians will have a better idea as to who is more electable in the general. Besides, the way it's set up now, superdelegates are pressured to vote for the guy who gets the most committed delegates like with Barack Obama or Walter Mondale. Some people make the argument that Gary Hart would have been chosen in a backroom scenario and would have had a better chance of defeating Reagan than the more liberal McGovern. (I doubt it, though)

The advantage of the Republican primary system is that it prevents a long, protracted primary fight. I'm not sure if one way is significantly better than the other. It's not like one party has enjoyed significantly more success than another in the post WWII era.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

The fact remains that no one elected Nixon to anything after he resigned from office.

He may have gone away from politics twice. He may even have used the word "quit" to describe his action (something Palin would not admit), but the fact is he hadn't resigned from a position he had been elected to.

I have no doubt that Palin will sell a lot of books (including some comic books). She'll probably land a good gig at Fox News. She may even run for President in 2012, for the publicity, but she won't last past New Hampshire.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: I agree that the winner-take-all system didn't work for the Republicans. The Democratic process had its flaws (too many superdelegates, different delegate allocation rules by state, etc.), but at least it was representative. The Republican primary was ridiculous; McCain got 100% of Missouri's delegates with 32.96% of the vote.

I'd like to see both parties take a good look at their primary systems and revise them before 2012, or at least by 2016. The calendar is the most important thing to fix, but both parties can also improve how they assign delegates.

Posted by: Blarg | September 29, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

And the banned plays merrily on... It's not worth trying to get a word in edgewise. The irony of snowbama and G&T complaining about the return of banned users was delicious, though.

BB

13 GoldAndTanzanite
12 snowbama
7 JakeD
6 nodebris
5 jpgr1967
3 DDAWD
3 justjoeking
2 Gator-ron

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 29, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Harry S Truman was a "small town bigot" who desegregated the U.S. Army. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

If Palin is anyone's idea of a success I'd hate to see what it would take before they'd call one of their own a failure.

Oh well, this is the party of Sanford and Ensign too, so I guess the standards are really really REALLY low.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

... small town bigot

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin, Governor, Mayor, Mother, True American.

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Who's this "successful female candidate?"

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Need I remind you that the election we speak of is three years out. three years before the last election, Barry was out selling books and declaring on TV that he was simply not qualified to be president.

He was right then. but the path to the presidency seems to run through a publishing house now. guess who has figured that one out? hint - she's the one that terrifies the pre-frightened liberals the most. they are not afraid of nuclear bombs from mad killers, but shake in their panty hose when a successful female candidate who is NOT a liberal is mentioned.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

OHIOCITIZEN:

Thanks for the reminder.

justjoeking:

"We" being the majority of American voters at the time (keep in mind that I was simply refuting the false clain: "We don't elect quitters" so I could have gone back to the 1800's if needed ; )

Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue: An American Life"

Barnes & Noble sales rank #4

Amazon Bestseller #246

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Nixon "quit" politics after losing elections. He also resigned from office, but "we" didn't elect him to anything AFTER that.

And "we" didn't elect him twice. Most of "us" were too young and/or not yet born.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Actually the most important number in politics today (to this point in the day) is 5. That is the number of Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee who opposed the Rockefeller Public Option Amendment. The final Committee vote was 15-8 opposed, with five Democrats (Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln, Nelson and Carper) joining all Republicans in opposition.

The more moderate Schumer Public Option Amendment which is currently being debated apparently will have the support of at least two of those five Democrats who opposed the Rockefeller Amendment. Nelson has already endorsed the Schumer Amendment and Schumer mentioned Carper in his opening introduction of the amendment. That would mean a likely 13-10 defeat of the Schumer Amendment.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that party representation on the Finance Committee is not reflective of the entire Senate? Democrats control 60% of Senate seats (that's a ratio of exactly 3:2 of Democrats to Republicans). Yet on the Finance Committee, Democrats control only 57% of the seats (13 of 23). A true 60% breakdown on the Committee would be 15 Democrats and 10 Republicans.

This committee is by its very nature then substantially more conservative than the Senate as a whole in that the partisan balance is tilted more toward Republicans than the balance of the entire Senate. Add to that the fact that the Democratic contingent on the Finance Committee includes a larger proportion of moderates and a lesser proportion of liberals than does the Senate Democratic Caucus as a whole and this might be the most conservative committee in the entire Senate.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | September 29, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Gator-on - you all can avoid the weakness of Obimbo for years. Cc can post meaningless blogs about nothing. But on a daily basis, Fox and the WSJ are running circles around the effete media. they actually make money, have viewers, tell the truth, report news, ask hard questions, cover daily events. you know, old school journalism.

This week Obimbo rushes off to seek approval for the Olympics, while avoiding the health care failure, the climate bill failure, the Gitmo failure, the stimulus failure, the military failure.

I completetly agree that his best skills are at going on TV and reading speeches. But most of us had other expectations as well, as yet unmet.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Ah, I like the comparison of Palin with Nixon. Run with that one, it's got legs.

Posted by: nodebris | September 29, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

If Pawlenty is a lightweight, then Palin is mere ether at this point. That she was tapped by McCain in 2008 was a sign of his desperation, not her abilities. Proof of that is the fact that she quit her responsibilities to the citizens of Alaska in order to cash in on her celebrity before it faded.

Of course she wasn't at the Mackinac conference--no book signing.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

For the record, Richard Nixon "quit" and we elected him President TWICE!

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"Pawlenty is a non-starter on the national stage. He doesn't have enough of the red meat for far right, and he doesn't have the CEO country club resume for the GOP money men. So where does he find his base?
His thinking is that he will shoot the middle and be the sensible pick. The problem is that primary voters (especially GOP primary voters) don't want the sensible pick. They pick with their hearts, and I don't see anyone hearting T-paw.

Posted by: AndyR3 "

It seems to me that McCain had these same problems and yet he won the nomination pretty handily. I do wonder if the Republicans' winner take all primaries bit them in the ass last year. The Democrats' proportional representation extended the process, but gave the candidate that the voters in the party wanted. The Republicans, on the other hand, got their nominee from states like California, New York, and Florida. Especially Cali, where McCain only beat Romney by a few percentage points, but took 90% of the delegates.

I'm starting to wonder if the role of the hard core right in picking the nominees might not be a bit overstated. McCain is pretty conservative on economics issues, but I'd hardly consider him an ideal value voter candidate. George Bush, of course, was very extremist as a President, but he ran as a centrist, bipartisan guy in 2000.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

She’s built a capable staff that’s shielding her and providing her with some basic political professionalism—she made her foreign-policy debut in Hong Kong last week without incident.

==

Yes the capable staff that didn't even answer emails about speaking engagements and who accepted other but then forgot about the.

Her foreign policy debut with her campaign claim that she could see Russia from an island in Alaska.

Her speech went off "without incident" only in that she didn't try to wink her way into their beds.

She's an idiot, and she's finished in politics. We don't elect quitters.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I have never stated anything insulting about anyone here or their family (living or deceased), openly racist statements, openly homophobic statements, off topic on almost every thread with birther rhetoric, Obama assassination jokes, nor wishes for the death of other posters.

==

I'm praying he doesn't survive the anesthesia.

Posted by JakeD | September 10, 2009

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin has delivered her book—biography/memoir/political-tract—early, and that it will be published for the prime Christmas season in a printing of 1.5 million copies, as many as Teddy Kennedy’s posthumous memoir.

While the usual political news sources have seen everything going wrong for Palin—scandal, personal oddness, intra-party hostilities, myriad family problems—everything, in fact, has been going right for her. The Palin plan is working.

She’s built a capable staff that’s shielding her and providing her with some basic political professionalism—she made her foreign-policy debut in Hong Kong last week without incident. She’s touring the country on behalf of local Republicans, building up a bank of politico IOUs. She’s got a fund-raising effort going that’s aping the Obama Internet campaign (she may be the savviest buyer of search terms in politics). And, with her blowout book, she’s going to secure personal wealth as well as mightily advance her brand.

Also, contrary to the early reports of her demise, she seems to be having the time of her life.


Is it possible that Liberals could be wrong about just everything under the sun? the evidence is mounting.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

jpgr1967 wrote: "the equivalent would be the truthers."

How many bills were sponsored in the U.S. Congress requiring Bush to prove that he did not take down the Twin Towers? How many Democratic politicians promoted the notion? How many MSM hours were spent discussing it?

There are always fringe extremists who will say anything. That point is hardly worth making. The problem is one of quantity, and the adoption of those extreme fringe positions by the mainstream of the movement. Indeed, the extent to which they come to DEFINE the movement.

Posted by: nodebris | September 29, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Mitch Daniels is the only candidate that has any gravitas as far as I am concerned. Do not agree with his business-centric concept of government and I would be afraid that he could not form a competent government because so many principles of a conservative government like individual freedom

==

You're thinking of the conservatism of another era. The only personal freedom I've heard championed by conservative today is gun ownership. The real passion is for "economic" freedom, which really distills down to the right to enslave. No thanks.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Post Count (as of 3:02 PM):

GoldAndTanzanite 10 (complaining about my "blog clog" even)
JakeD 4 (incl. this one)

For the record, I have never stated anything insulting about anyone here or their family (living or deceased), openly racist statements, openly homophobic statements, off topic on almost every thread with birther rhetoric, Obama assassination jokes, nor wishes for the death of other posters. I don't shoot little puppies either.

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

"In fact, as John Noonan of the Weekly Standard blog points out, the president has spoken to David Letterman more often than McChrystal."

Snowbama is this your way of saying that Pawlenty is such a light weight he is not worth commenting on? Or do you need a mental health referral for obsessive compulsive disorder?

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 29, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

There are a lot of similarities between the two groups, but the Truthers aren't the left-wing equivalent of the Birthers.

The Truthers were never accepted by the Democrats. Some may have been registered Democrats, or Democrat-leaning independents. Most seemed to be the far fringe left, the Greens and Socialists who'd never vote for a Democrat. And some of them seemed to be completely off the left-right scale, since they also believe in UN conspiracies and the North American Union.

The Birthers are very visible portion of the Republican Party. Republican elected officials speak to them, trying to gain their support. There have even been Birther bills introduced into Congress. The right-wing fringe has far more power in the Republican Party than the left-wing fringe ever had among the Democrats. You really can't compare the two.

Posted by: Blarg | September 29, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

You're not making sense at all.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite


Maybe perhaps you could keep the voices in your head actually inside your own head for a change.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Pawlenty is a lightweight like just about every Republican on the national screen. There is a screening process called the Republican primary that gets rid of good candidates.

Mitch Daniels is the only candidate that has any gravitas as far as I am concerned. Do not agree with his business-centric concept of government and I would be afraid that he could not form a competent government because so many principles of a conservative government like individual freedom would be overwhelmed by those who feel that they have the right to impose their will on another because they are more moral than others. But he is not a light weight.

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 29, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

here aren't many birthers either.

==

No, not at all, just 60% of Republican voters, that's all

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

What elected Democrats are saying Bush arranged 9/11?

You're not making sense at all.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I can't defend the birthers, but the equivalent would be the truthers. Saying Bush took down, or knew of the plan to take down, the towers is as insane (maybe more) than the birthers. I was first responding to the 6+ years of Bush being compared to Hitler vs. the handful of signs saying the same about Obama. I know there aren't a ton of truthers out there, but there aren't many birthers either.

Sorry again Chris, I know. I'm outta here, I will read replies so you get the last word, honest.

JPGR

Posted by: jpgr1967 | September 29, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Seek professional help.

==

That's pretty funny coming from a guy who posts from the day room of a mental institution

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

From the stooge who's sole reason for living is to treat viet house boys like blue dresses.

==

You cool with this stuff too, CC?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

JakeD has been researching me online and has been posting things about my family, including defiling the memory of my father, posting his Navy rank and his full name in the post.
>>>>>>>>>

If you wouldn't post your sordid proclivities in your rantings, no one would know that much about you. and like a typical Dem, you blame the authorities for your own idiocy. and now you call for the same authority to ban someone else.

Yet in the entire history of the Fix, you are the one instance that necessitated a ban. Talk about your cognitive dissonance. Seek professional help.

drivl and zouk have been sparring for years, yet is was when chris fox showed up that the absolute ugliness overtook the blog, driving off most posters.

CC knew this and baneed the fool, yet the WaPo does not have the technology to enforce someone so utterly unaware of their own hate. but the lonely weekend nights spent staring at the screen, desperate for a friend, have taken their toll on poor chris fox's wit. with no one left that will talk to him, he is now ours alone.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I would never defend the bonehead things Bush did, but he was trashed by the liberal media (the MSM) until you have people chanting idiotic things like "Bush lied, people died". (he didn't lie, he was lied to, in my opinion)

==

Crossing from nonsense to idiocy here. Your opinion? Opinions are for ambiguous circumstances. There is no ambiguity here. Bush wanted to go to war, agitated heavily against all doubters, used the baiting language of weakness and appeasement on those counseling caution. The war was On from the start, data massaged to fit policy.

And even had he been lied to, even if the evidence was sketchy, it was his responsibility to decide to pull that trigger and invade, and he did so in the absence of any credible information that there was any reason to invade.

The buck stops there.

Pretending he deserves the benefit of any doubt is revisionist and frankly despicable.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

jpgr1967:

Not only did the left say that GWB was Hitler, but some of them actually think he personally planted demolition charges at the WTC (no one has said anything close to that againsy Obama, yet ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Folks,

I have made clear umpteen times that the people who relentlessly post off topic and engage in increasingly vituperative exchanges with one another do this blog no good.

While I am loath to ban people for comments -- unless the blatantly violate the Post policy -- please don't think it makes me happy that the comments section on a daily basis devolved into off-topic name-calling and snuffs out any real debate.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | September 29, 2009 12:49 PM

So do something about it. Its your blog. Get some balls. Nothing worth reading here but an occasional witty put down. I see nothing has changed...

Posted by: ModerateVoter | September 29, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Pawlenty is a non-starter on the national stage. He doesn't have enough of the red meat for far right, and he doesn't have the CEO country club resume for the GOP money men. So where does he find his base?
His thinking is that he will shoot the middle and be the sensible pick. The problem is that primary voters (especially GOP primary voters) don't want the sensible pick. They pick with their hearts, and I don't see anyone hearting T-paw.

Posted by: AndyR3 | September 29, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

jpgr1967, it took years of exceptionally bad -- and yes, dishonest -- governing for the left to reach the level of rhetoric that the right was applying to Obama before he even took office. And I defy you to find any equivalent to the birther controversy, for just the most egregious example of off-the-wall rhetoric applied to Obama in his first year.

Posted by: nodebris | September 29, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

It wasn't the Dems who defiled the Presidency.

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

by staining the blue dress.


From the stooge who's sole reason for living is to treat viet house boys like blue dresses.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I would never defend the bonehead things Bush did, but he was trashed by the liberal media (the MSM) until you have people chanting idiotic things like "Bush lied, people died". (he didn't lie, he was lied to, in my opinion)

No nonsense here, if you could just go back and see what was said by the far left, it is now repeated (nearly verbatim) by the far right. Again, not a Bush fan, if he was only ridiculed when he did dumb things this wouldn't be happening. I think conservatives like me are ticked for being lumped with Bush so easily. But I would still defend him (and now Obama) when he is wrongfully accused (or in many cases, excessively).

Posted by: jpgr1967 | September 29, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

if chris fox and claudia long are examples of what you are looking for in a blogger, than you deserve to be flushed down the drain of irrelevance CC. no wonder you barely break 100 posts a day anymore with this tired old anti-bush screed.

have you noticed that all thinking posters have long deserted once MoldandManzI'mnot showed up to pollute the air, in the long tradition of drivl?

but I suggest you sell out completely. Become the most extreme far lefty site on the internet. you are headed there anyway. Know thyself. know your audience. all the weak liberals who post here couldn't stage a decent argument or debate with facts if their welfare checks depended on it. Let them cry and scream unabated with an appreciation for rampant emotionalism. this entire body of thought has a little over 10-12 months before it is thrown away like so much other touchy-feely detritus.

surrender, appeasement, weakness, spending, taxing, fake science. Let the liberal mantra go out through the land.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Why wasn't Palin at Mackinac? We can see Pawlenty was there.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | September 29, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Comparing Obama to Hitler"? Well, you can blame that on 8 years of disrespect for the office of the President. It's backlash, pure and simple. The dems created this atmosphere.

==

What nonsense. It wasn't the Dems who defiled the Presidency. Bush richly earned the scorn directed at him ("Bring it on!") and if he'd gotten a lot more scorn and a lot less capitulation we'd be in much better shape today.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"Comparing Obama to Hitler"? Well, you can blame that on 8 years of disrespect for the office of the President. It's backlash, pure and simple. The dems created this atmosphere.

I did not like Bush, I am a real conservative. He wanted to legalize the illegal, he spent like a dem, and the 'tax cuts for the rich' would have been tolerable if they hadn't lasted so long. (they have their place, but it should be a brief injection). As for Katrina, Bush did fail...but the local and state officials are the first response and they failed horribly and just jumped on the 'blame Bush' bandwagon.

As for the right-wing pundits? Yes, they can be unbearable. Glenn Beck, however batty, did go after people with their own words and associations. So, at least on the Van Jones thing, he should get a pass.

I did not attend a town hall and no one I know did, yet we all agree about gov't health care. There are more of us than even the neutral polls expose.

Respectfully,
JPGR

Posted by: jpgr1967 | September 29, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Any other messageboard or mailing list I've ever posted on, for someone to post personal information about another poster is an instant and unconditional ban. JakeD has been researching me online and has been posting things about my family, including defiling the memory of my father, posting his Navy rank and his full name in the post.

Chris C knows about this. And the fact that he knows this and has banned people before yet allows JakeD to remain means pretty much unequivocally that he's cool with this.

Had there never been any bans it would be more ambiguous.

So, Chris, how about it? You want this place to remain in the gutter? You cool with this sick little creep wishing anesthesia death and posting PI? Sure looks like it.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"Want a good blog with real discussion? Get rid of JakeD first and foremost and get rid of snowbama too.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite"

To add to this, Chris. You rightfully took offense yesterday when someone made a comment about your family yesterday. Just so you know, jaked quite often makes insulting comments about posters' family on here including one person's deceased father.

Are you just unaware of this or are you ok with this? If you were unaware of this, then you no longer are.

To go through the complaints against this poster.
-makes openly racist statements
-makes openly homophobic statements
-goes off topic on almost every thread with birther rhetoric (I lump this in with racist, but that's debatable, I guess)
-makes Obama assassination jokes
-openly wishes for the death of other posters
-makes disparaging remarks about the family of other posters

I don't like the idea of banning people, but in my mind, this isn't even debatable.

I'm sure others will back me up on this.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I think CC is right that people in the state don't want their governor out campaigning for president. Also, looking specifically at 2012 against Obama, perhaps Minnesotans don't want to offer up another "favorite son/sacrificial lamb" like Mondale.

That said, a Republican governor from a "bluish" state would have as good a chance as any. See Romney, Mitt.

Posted by: justjoeking | September 29, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"Well a poster can quote right-wing sites too"

Oh, believe me, they do.

Posted by: nodebris | September 29, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"I think Kevin Drum's Chart of the Day has more oomph.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/09/chart-day-3

Posted by: nodebris"

This is one thing the Democrats have really improved on during the post Kerry campaign. They have been a lot better at the long term sustained message. Republicans seem to live from sound bite to sound bite, but Dems have become better at building the larger narrative. They were able to do this with Bush. While he had Katrina as perhaps his big turning point, his popularity just sort of eroded to nothing over his last four years. The same was true with McCain and Palin. Sure, Republicans won over the pundits with the Paris Hilton ad and the lipstick on a pig ad, but Democrats were able to reach the voters better with messaging on McCain being out of touch and Palin being grossly incompetent and with Obama being smart, steady, and with the right direction.

Same thing with health care. Republicans have won over the pundits with their recruitment of people to shout down town halls and to tea party and the death panel stuff, but the country voted in Obama partially because of their health care concerns and this has never really changed. As a result, I don't think the public at large really bought into the Republican message. While pundits love the sight of seeing people screaming on TV, I can't imagine that a bunch of buffoons comparing Obama to Hitler is really all that effective of a message to the general public.

Republicans couldn't really expect to maintain this kind of rhetoric especially now that Obama has been out on the warpath trying to sell this thing. You're seeing the Baucus bill losing support rapidly and liberal groups really pushing back hard against it.

Again, I might be looking at things on too short of a time scale, but public support for health care reform including the public option has been strong and sustained. Politicians are subservient on some level to their special interest donors, but votes are their meal ticket and I doubt these guys can ignore the voters' desires forever.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 29, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't do any good, anyway, Chris. They just come back with another name.

==

Only if they can get a new IP. Zouk would have to wait until the hospital proxy server gets a new one one an ISP reset, and Jake would have to go post at the library or something.

I'm disappointed that Chris remains fixated on "name-calling." That's not ever a secondary problem here. The problem here is blog clog, post after post after post of the same half-dozen JakeD screeds, interleaved with idiot "Obimbo" posts from the mental patient.

Get rid of those two and more people will post. We'll have better discussions and we won't hear about Obama's birth certificate every time his title comes up.

An Ignore Poster would be sweet, I bet 95% would click those two guys the moment they logged on.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Quoting MotherJones 'nodebris'? Well a poster can quote right-wing sites too, but instead check out Rasmussen's independent poll and 56% do NOT want gov't health care. Must be nice in your world. Most doctor's and nurses don't either, even a good friend of mine that is ultra-liberal. I ask everyone to call their own doctor and ask them, liberals will be shocked. (PS: The AMA represents only 18%, so don't put much stock in them).

Sorry, off topic Chris, but it is just a lie that most want this health care fiasco.

Posted by: jpgr1967 | September 29, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Most of those who know him best think Pawlenty's not ready for prime time. Pretty clear to me. Worry about your bridges, Governor Scarecrow.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"While I am loath to ban people for comments"

It doesn't do any good, anyway, Chris. They just come back with another name.

I'm going to again toss up the idea for an "Ignore Poster" button as a more effective alternative. I know the IT people would probably poo-poo the notion as too much work, but it would really improve the community you are trying to build.

Posted by: nodebris | September 29, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I have made clear umpteen times that the people who relentlessly post off topic and engage in increasingly vituperative exchanges with one another do this blog no good.

While I am loath to ban people for comments -- unless the blatantly violate the Post policy -- please don't think it makes me happy that the comments section on a daily basis devolved into off-topic name-calling and snuffs out any real debate.

==

You have the same two people monopolizing every thread with the same crap. JakeD regards these comments as his own personal playground and you have snowbama/zouk posting pastes from trog blogs. These guys are suppressing discussion and driving away real contributors old and new. They're never going to clean up their act, they post garbage, JakeD posts the most offensive stuff by far.

Want a good blog with real discussion? Get rid of JakeD first and foremost and get rid of snowbama too.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | September 29, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

That's too funny that the MAJORITY of Minnesota votes do NOT want Pawlenty to run for President in 2012. That number is HIGHER than his approval rating.

Posted by: maritza1 | September 29, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Mildly interesting, but really the most important number?

I think Kevin Drum's Chart of the Day has more oomph.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/09/chart-day-3

Posted by: nodebris | September 29, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Most Minn residents are liberals, so that 55% don't care for him it's not shocking. Good God, they voted in Al Franken(!?!?!?) albeit by a slim margin.

Posted by: jpgr1967 | September 29, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Chrissy:

"relentlessly post off topic and engage in increasingly vituperative exchanges "

you mean stuff like this:

Here's your savage, primitive, bloodthristy rightwingers. They should be rounded up and sent to a freaking isolated island somewhere. FREAKS AND DANGEROUS LUNATICS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One corrupt, righwing attack dog down:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here's some winger hypocrisy at its best

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Chris, for that clarification : )

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Folks,

I have made clear umpteen times that the people who relentlessly post off topic and engage in increasingly vituperative exchanges with one another do this blog no good.

While I am loath to ban people for comments -- unless the blatantly violate the Post policy -- please don't think it makes me happy that the comments section on a daily basis devolved into off-topic name-calling and snuffs out any real debate.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | September 29, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

For the record, my post went to Mr. Cillizza's "other point: Voters in most states tend to look somewhat warily -- at least at first -- on native son candidates running for the big office." I have no comment on the back-and-forth between drindl and snowbama.

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

If only we could drive drivl away. the IQ of the blog has dropped precipitously with its return.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

YOU SEE, CHRIS CILLIZZA? You have allowed these two morons to drive everyone else away.

Posted by: drindl | September 29, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Alaskans overwhelmingly supported Gov. Palin's bid for VP (maybe they wanted her OUT of the State ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 29, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only. He meant what he said when he called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" -- and now is not necessarily so sure. He meant what he said about the public option in his health-care plan -- and then again maybe not. He would not prosecute CIA agents for getting rough with detainees -- and then again maybe he would.

Most tellingly, he gave Congress an August deadline for passage of health-care legislation -- "Now, if there are no deadlines, nothing gets done in this town . . . " -- and then let it pass. It seemed not to occur to Obama that a deadline comes with a consequence -- meet it or else.

Obama lost credibility with his deadline-that-never-was, and now he threatens to lose some more with his posturing toward Iran. He has gotten into a demeaning dialogue with Ahmadinejad, an accomplished liar. (The next day, the Iranian used a news conference to counter Obama and, days later, Iran tested some intermediate-range missiles.) Obama is our version of a Supreme Leader, not given to making idle threats, setting idle deadlines, reversing course on momentous issues, creating a TV crisis where none existed or, unbelievably, pitching Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. Obama's the president. Time he understood that.

et tu cohen?

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

How about the number of times Obamabi has spoken to his hand picked general -1

In fact, as John Noonan of the Weekly Standard blog points out, the president has spoken to David Letterman more often than McChrystal.

Posted by: snowbama | September 29, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company