Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The most important number in politics today

0

That's the percentage of people who didn't recognize Sen. Harry Reid's name in a new independent poll that shows the Nevada Democrat in deep electoral trouble.

While Republicans immediately jumped on other numbers in the Mason-Dixon survey -- Reid's favorable number (38 percent) is outstripped by his unfavorable (49 percent), he trails former state party chairwoman Sue Lowden (R) and businessman Danny Tarkanian (R) in head to head matchups etc -- the fact that the Democratic leader is totally known within his home state is ultimately the most troubling data point in the poll.

What it means is that voters feel they know Reid and don't like him -- as evidenced by his fav/unfav numbers. It's why Reid's early advertising -- more than $550,000 to date -- has focused not on him personally but rather on what he has done and what he can do for the state.

Reid's best -- and perhaps only -- path to re-election is to turn the contest into a transactional affair. He can't win a personality battle since a near-majority of people in the state view him in an unfavorable light and it would be incredibly costly and likely ineffective for Reid and his team to spend the next year trying to change the way in which he, personally, is perceived.

Reid does have a recent blueprint for that sort of transactional campaign in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) who focused almost exclusively on what he had delivered for the state in his 2008 re-election race. McConnell, of course, had advantages Reid doesn't enjoy: he hailed from a state that was inclined to support his party, and his numbers, while not great, were not as miserable as those of the Nevada Democrat.

The next year will be a test of Reid's vaunted political acumen. While he doesn't face an opponent the caliber of John Ensign (circa 1998), his numbers are far worse than they were a decade ago.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 4, 2009; 2:16 PM ET
Categories:  Most Important Number  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Friday House Line: Open seats in focus
Next: Live Fix: Texas governor's race, Mass. special election and more!

Comments

Fair enough, Washington13. Given that IPA is about as strong a beer before you start looking specifically for high alcohol brews, I couldn't resist a smack down. Of the strong beers, my favorites are the German Doppelbocks, Paulaner Salvator in aprticular.

I've been by the Sam Adams on Boylston, though my preference for a Boston-based beer is Harpoon. Glad to see you like a witbier. My previous slap is withdrawn with apologies. One shouldn't mix politics with good brew.

BB

[With regards to job losses, these were 300K in Sept. 08, 400K in Oct., a steady 600K a month from Nov. through Jan. and hit a peak in March, 2009, just BEFORE the stimulus began to take effect. Notice a trend since then?]

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 6, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

"We have something called the Electoral College."

Right, which is about Electoral Votes won, not states won. Wyoming doesn't get the same number of votes as California, genius, so the raw "states won" total is a red herring anyways.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 6, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"Instead, he got a real troops commitment from Europe for an unpopular conflict."
Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 4, 2009 3:13 PM
-------
Not to mention that since he's been POTUS, over half of the most-wanted terrorists on the CIA list have been killed as a direct result of Obama giving orders to fire.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 6, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Once again, you need to read all the posts to understand how a back and forth evolves. That requires you read everything, but like most liberals, there is no need to read everything. Just look at Congress.

The continuing lie that Obama inherited the worst economy since the depression and has now turned it around rattles around in the empty skulls of the left but does not resonate with average Americans.

Employers started letting people go in massive numbers only after Obama got elected. He has caused unemployment to go to 10.0% after he promised his stimulus would not let it go above 8.0%.

Obama has created conditions and policies that will cause employers to continue to keep either letting people go or not hiring at all.

The American Economy is resilient despite the work of Obama but it will not come back like it did in the 80's with 8.0% GDP and massive hiring well above the 150,000 per month required to keep unemployment down.

So many more Americans are suffering this Christmas than were last Christmas and the leftists who worship Obama are too heartless to notice because only 11,000 Americans had their lives ruined in November along with tens of thousands more who just gave up.

Only lemmings on the left will reward Obama for his "NEW NORMAL" of high and persistent unemployment with soon to be rising inflation.

All this as he sends more troops to die in a war that he does not even believe in himself.

Merry Christmas. Mediocrity and Misery is the "NEW NORMAL".

Posted by: Washington13 | December 6, 2009 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Reading that rambling series of uni-graphs from W3 one would never even imagine that Obama inherited this economy from his predecessor, and that it was yet another in an unbroken string of failures of Republican economics that made this mess.

No idea what the electoral asides have to do with it.

Oh, of course. They're intended to distract. Silly me.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 6, 2009 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Reagan took a bullet for his country. Period. End of Discussion.

==

I would recommend you find some less strenuous place to surf. This sort of logic-offending drivel fails to meet even the most forgiving standard of rhetoric.

Repeat the same crap and declare the discussion closed? I don't think so.

Reagan "took a bullet" because some mental case shot at him. End of discussion.

He was not given a choice in the matter, as is a Secret Service agent who leaps into harm's way and deliberately "takes a bullet."

Given time to consider I would bet dollars to Navy beans that Reagan would rather have leapt to one side and let the round go astray, or better yet, that one of his Praetorian Guard would leap into the path of the stray round and take one for his country.

End of discussion.

Off with you. Shoo!

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 6, 2009 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Also, I like the locals.

I prefer Captain Lawrence Double IPA.

I get it in the Growlers.

Located in Pleasantville, NY

They have a Website.

Posted by: Washington13 | December 5, 2009 11:52 PM | Report abuse

I've been to the Sam Adams Brewery.

I had Imperial Stout two days ago in the free Sam Adams glasses I obtained from Doyle's which you are taken via Trolly from the Sam Adams Brewery. They serve Sam Adams Brick Red there. It's only served in the Boston Area.

The "lightweight" reference was "sarcasm" considering that Dogfish Head IPA has a pretty high alcohol content but not as high as the Utopias. I don't have $150 for a cognac style beer.

Imperial Stout has about 9.2% alcohol content.

I bought a case of the Blackberry Witbier before they went out of season.

I double decker the Cream Stout over the Winter Lager.

There is no place for politics when I'm having a beer with the crew other than to bash the current idiots in charge regardless of party.

The current occupants of D.C. power are stupid on steroids and make for lots of laughs as we kick back and sample a variety of delicious brews.

It beats focusing on the fact that some of my buds have been unemployed for 8 months and we are all draining our finances to try to stay afloat. I'm still working with no OT for now so I pay. They would do the same if reversed. Besides, it's only twice a month if we're lucky enough to have the time. Plus we save money by not going out.

Posted by: Washington13 | December 5, 2009 11:43 PM | Report abuse

@Washingon13 - You have no taste in beer. The high alcohol brews from SA are stunts. I doubt you know anything about fermentation, so lemme splain somethin' to you.

Alcohol is a toxin. Technically, we're drinking waste products. Yeasts used to make beer top out at about 12% ABV. Champagne yeast can go to about 18%. [That's why the hangover. It has nothing to do with bubbles. It's all about the alcohol.]

SA Utpioa is around 27%. That means it's distilled. One way or another. It's not beer. It started as beer. I'd far prefer to have a shot of single malt (preferably Oban) and a pint of 80 schilling. For a real beer with a kick, try an Imperial Stout, Tripl, or Doppelbock.

One more point. It's all about the flavor. Just because you can google a high alcohol beer, doesn't mean you know anything about it. Pretty much says all about your understanding of politics--PREtender, not CONtender.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 5, 2009 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Where are the mensa members that targeted prior Presidents?

They are all loons.

Reagan took a bullet for his country. Period. End of Discussion.

Also, Dogfish Head IPA is for lightweights.

Sam Adams Utopias Please.

Posted by: Washington13 | December 5, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Just had some Dogfish Head IPA this afternoon. Definitely real beer.

As for Washington13, Reagan took a bullet from a loon, not "for this country". Said loon was trying to impress Jody Foster.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 5, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan also took a bullet for this country in his first year in office.

Please, no more false comparisons to Jimmy Carter's twin.

Posted by: Washington13 | December 5, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama received 52.9% of the vote in a 2 way race and won a mere 28 states.

Ronald Reagan won 44 states a was running in a 3 way race.

He then proceeded to win 59% of the vote and 49 states in 1984 in a 2-way race.

This is not a banana republic.

We have something called the Electoral College.

Something Ronald Reagan dominated not once but twice.

Peaked?

We have 10% Unemployment and 17.2% Underemployment.

The Obama Administration is talking about a "New Normal" of persistent high unemployment for years to come.

More Americans are losing their homes under Obama.
More Americans have lost their jobs under Obama.
More Americans have given up looking for work under Obama.
More Americans are working less or no overtime under Obama.
More Americans are making less money under Obama.
More Americans are collecting food stamps under Obama.

You were the genius who began a false comparison between Obama and Reagan.

Do not compare Jimmy Carter's twin brother Obama to Ronald Reagan.

Nothing has peaked and the American people do not believe the media hype of what would normally be considered awful economic news.

They see family still suffering under this President. They shut his inane speeches off and no amount of fake news about gerrymandered jobs figures take away the reality of the pain that he is causing.

Then again the "NEW NORMAL" is "AWFUL IS ACTUALLY GOOD".

Posted by: Washington13 | December 5, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

In 1980, Reagan won 50.7% of the vote.
In 2008, Obama won 53.7% of the vote.

Reagan was dealing with double-digit inflation, Obama is dealing with the collapse of the financial markets, the US auto industry, and dealing with cleaning up the financial disaster that was George W. Bush. Reagan took three years to recover, Obama's economic hardship is already peaking after just 1 year. Stop applying standards if you aren't able to deal with the logical consequences.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 5, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan won 44 States in 1980.

Ronald Reagan was also dealing with double digit inflation.

He cut taxes that spurred job growth and 8.0%+ GDP for one year straight.

He ran for re-election with Unemployment just above 7.0%.

He left office with unemployment under 6.0%

Only historical illiterates would compare Obama to Reagan.

Obama won 28 States in 2008. Only Jimmy Carter who won 23 States in 1976 compares.

Reagan won 49 states in 1984.

Barack Obama will never come close to Ronald Reagan but he is on the path to matching Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Washington13 | December 5, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"6.8% Unemployment when Obama was elected.

10.0% Unemployment after One year of Obamanomics."

US unemployment Rate November 1980: 7.5%
Peak Unemployment Rate: 10.8%, November 1982

Tell me next about the failures of Reaganomics.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 5, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"Also, to all you Palin-haters : point to 1 dishonest thing she has said or written. JUST ONE."

Going Rogue (unless you admit she didn't write it).

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5685965.shtml

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/palins-book-goes-rogue-on_n_357682.html

And FWIW, I stick to single malt scotch or tequila myself, though I will also agree with the Lone Star comment.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 5, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

My, my, so much hatred. As I wrote in a separate post, Sarah Palin didn't lie about death panels. If my reasoning there isn't enough to placate you, then Mark Steyn made an excellent point in the October 5th issue of Nat'l Review: "The entire reform package, not page 1,432, is the death panel, in the sense that it will ultimately put your body under the jurisdiction of government bureaucrats."

As for Palin's resignation, it's a shame that her relentless adversaries managed to win a victory by drowning her in frivolous, politically-motivated ethics complaints, forcing her to rack up 1/2 A MILLION DOLLARS in legal fees and ultimately to leave a job that she could no longer afford. How exactly is she supposed to pay off that debt w/o a million-dollar book deal? At least you must admit that Republicans have NEVER resorted to such dirty, underhanded tactics to drive a high-profile Democratic executive from public office.

Incidentally, I got into a fierce argument w/ some gentleman last night @ a club over something called "LONE STAR". I maintained it was the worst beer you could buy. He argued that I was crazy, but then, he probably lost his virginity to a cow.

Posted by: right-wing_genius | December 5, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

DID OBAMA LIE TO AVERAGE JOES AGAIN?

W.H. Declines to Say Which Obama Family Member Is Unemployed

SCHNECKSVILLE, Pa. - President Obama traveled to the economically hard hit Lehigh Valley region of Pennsylvania to say, "I know times are tough."

To illustrate his message of commiseration, he suggested that joblessness hits close to home. He told a community college audience in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania, "Michelle and I were talking the other day. There are members of our families that are out of work."

Mr. Obama added, "We're not that far removed from struggling to pay bills."

A White House official declined to identify any unemployed relatives of the Obamas except to say, "I don't think they are close close" family members.

Mr. Obama's stop in came as part of his economic touracross the country to discuss job creation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/04/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5891761.shtml

6.8% Unemployment when Obama was elected.

10.0% Unemployment after One year of Obamanomics.

You get a big lump of Obama induced misery under your tree this year.

Merry Christmas

Posted by: Washington13 | December 5, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

BB, do IPAs qualify as "beers"?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 5, 2009 4:05 AM | Report abuse

Oh, genius, pick up a good white beer sometime. Allagash White would be best (out of Portland, Maine).

As for Palin's lies, how about that death panel? First off, Down Syndrome is not a fatal disease. So, Trig doesn't need any life saving care. In fact, Trig is a special needs child who will be eligible services through Child Find. That's a FEDERAL program, bub. I know as a child with Down Syndrome is a classmate of one of my children (who is on the spectrum for autism).

So, Palin claims that the federal government is going to kill her child when in fact he'll be eligible to be in a program with a dedicated teacher.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 4, 2009 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Sure you are, zouk. Home with the wife and kids. Sailing the yacht around the Atlantic. Peering out the turret of your castle in Spain. Sitting on your Galactic Federation throne.

Sure, zouk, sure.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 10:03 PM | Report abuse

I don't expect a lonely pede to
exhibit any respect for her better- à succesful
Woman.

I am home with my wife and kids. You are
camping out, hoping for some attention.

As usual.

Loser. Flamer.

Posted by: snowbama | December 4, 2009 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Another lie: resigning for the good of Alaska. While her resignation was probably good for the state, her given reasons were false. She resigned to cash in on her fame, to stick her name on someone else's writing and get royalties.

Others have enumerated the many lies in the book.

To believe in her veracity, given the solid objective evidence that she lies constantly, makes your own most suspect.

Like I said, you probably, literally, don't know the difference between truth and lies.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Also, to all you Palin-haters : point to 1 dishonest thing she has said or written. JUST ONE.

==

YOUR political persuasion, coupled with the fact that you maintain it at this time, is pretty strong evidence that you are literally unable to distinguish truth from belief. Since you guys are forever trying to shape perceptions by the exhaustive propagation of lies it's safe to say that you have no idea what truth actually is, indistinguishable from what you can get people to believe.

I answered you in the previous thread but once again, Palin spread around talk of euthanasia "death panels" under the Obama health care plan. There never was any such idea even suggested, so that's one rock-solid lie right there.

I don't expect you to concede this (see above).

Anyway I'm tired of hearing about that stupid witch. Her attacking so many GOP electoral luminaries in her book finished her chances in politics even more certainly than her resignation (I bet you bought her "reasoning" there, too), so to hell with her. Let her end up in a donkey act in Tijuana or a hotel room OD like the rest of the attention-hoors.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Gold & Tanzanite.

==

I'll drink to that

(staggers)

waitaminnit ...

(falls)

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

I should have noted that the acronym of your name is the acronym for a drink. Still, that makes me think about what a Gold & Tanzanite could be.

Gold - Hmm. There are some tequilas that qualify. Cuervo Gold, for example. I think a drink with this name needs a little more class. Therefore, I'm going with Patron Tequila Añejo Gold. Definitely a tequila drink.

Tanzanite - Checking it out, strong trichroism with colors of sapphire blue, violet, and burgundy depending on crystal orientation. [Incidentally, I'm a big fan of Blue John.] I'm thinking of Blue Curacao liqueur.

Now, this could be a high end margarita. Top shelf tequila, blue curacao, lime juice and salt. A little something extra is needed. Perhaps carmelize some sugar and put small dropletsinto liquid nitrogen. A few of these "gemstones" could go in the drink or even around the base. Perhaps with some pomegranate seeds.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Gold & Tanzanite.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 4, 2009 8:33 PM | Report abuse

I must inject myself into this booze discussion. Am I the only one who thinks any beer other than dark might as well have been poured from the contents of a toilet in a public restroom?

Also, to all you Palin-haters : point to 1 dishonest thing she has said or written. JUST ONE.

Posted by: right-wing_genius | December 4, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Go into any bar and order a G&T--Gin and Tonic.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 4, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

My moniker is shorthand for a drink? That's a new on on me. Gold I don't need to explain, tanzanite is the fifth precious stone and captivates me like nothing else on this earth. I've literally lost track of time, like fifteen minutes, looking at a good one. Not even sapphire has anything like the mesmerizing effect on me.

Like many kids I snuck sips from the folks' liquor cabinet, figured that some biochemical change happens at puberty and it stops tasting like a petroleum derivative. Then came high school and the usual explorations and no, it still tasted like stealing gas. Haven't touched it since, and no regrets.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Zouk,

Say hi to Mary and Mauricio for me. I'm settled at home comparing a couple of bottles of Vouvray. After you're finished drinking, my recommendation is to head across the street to the Carlyle.

Having worked with the products of gasoline, I'd recommend you avoid gargling it, G&T. You've an ironic handle, given that it's shorthand for a favorite drink of mine.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 4, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Enough dalliance with the mental case .. here's the real MINiPT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/business/economy/05jobs.html?hp

"In the strongest jobs report since the recession began two years ago, the nation’s employers all but stopped shedding jobs in November, the government reported on Friday, and they appeared to be on the verge of finally rebuilding the work force.

The sudden and unexpected improvement surprised even the most optimistic forecasters. Instead of yet another six-figure job loss, only 11,000 jobs disappeared last month and instead of another rise in the unemployment rate, it went down, to 10 percent from 10.2 percent in October."

Crank up the spin machine, Cletus, you're in trouble.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

But that would require a belief in the supernatural and if I believed in the supernatural I would be a fundamentally different person.

Besides, Mormons don't drink coffee or smoke weed.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

If it wasn't for the fudge packing you could be Mormon.

Posted by: snowbama | December 4, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

I knew you were queer but never figured you for a putz. Clearly your entire life is vacant.

==

Yeah not being a boozer is a real social deficit, huh.

Ugh. I tried that crap when I was a teenager and discovered I had no use for it at all. I don't know anyone who drinks more than an occasional glass of wine at dinner. Beer? How plebian.

Yeah I'm a queer putzoid. Don't drink, smoke, watch TV, drink pop, or believe in the supernatural. And your life on Ward D is SO enviable.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

but it is clearly beyond argument that she has proven herself to be a person of far greater honor, integrity & competence than Barack Obama.

==

Only to someone totally warped.

Palin is one of the most dishonest people in America.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I knew you were queer but never figured you for a putz. Clearly your entire life is vacant.

Posted by: snowbama | December 4, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

It's sad how many fools actually think they are voicing their own opinion when in reality they're just shills for the corrupt Democratic machine. I could care less what Sarah Palin thinks or who she endorses, but it is clearly beyond argument that she has proven herself to be a person of far greater honor, integrity & competence than Barack Obama. As to the topic at hand, I've met Harry Reid; I've spoken with people who know him well; he is a scumbag even by Washington standards. For all I know he could be a very nice man - loving husband/father, devout Mormon, etc. - outside of office, but I challenge any of his supporters to point out ONE POSITIVE THING about his career. Furthermore, Silver State Republicans shouldn't fret about the apparent lack of a political heavyweight in the running against Dingy Harry; John Ensign was a freakin' VETERINARIAN aho had never held public office before he soundly defeated an entrenched incumbent to capture the Las Vegas-based 1st congressional district in '94. ... In a climate like this, a political neophyte has the advantage over a corrupt pol who's been in Washington for nearly three decades.

Posted by: right-wing_genius | December 4, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I'll not cast judgment upon Sarah Palin's electability or principles, but it's worth noting that being terrified of her and thinking she has no chance of being elected are not mutually exclusive.

Conservatives don't think Dennis Kucinich has a snowball's chance in Key West of ever being elected president, but don't tell me the words "President Kucinich" don't send chills down a conservative spine.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 4, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Blade. I am at the cap city brew pub. Come over. I'll buy you a beer. The one in shirlington. I know you libs live for free things, especially beer.

==

Alcohol is for disinfecting, not for drinking.

You may as well drink gasoline.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Blade. I am at the cap city brew pub. Come over. I'll buy you a beer. The one in shirlington. I know you libs live for free things, especially beer.

Posted by: snowbama | December 4, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"Well, the non-cohesiveness of the Democrats might be a blessing of sorts. You think the Republicans would be in their current state if the legislature made at least somewhat of an attempt to moderate Bush's extremism?"

Well I think this is the most interesting political problem today. Who are we? Rham Emanuel is no liberal, neither is he a leftist. Should Reid be ferocious? Some say yes, some say the big tent is the D's warranty.

Frankly, I am tired of re-telling Republicans how silly we think Sarah Palin is. The deep structure of the Democratic Party process is where politics is at nowadays.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 4, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

They don't need to overturn the filibuster rule. The filibuster would be a non-issue if the leadership would use the tools at their disposal to keep their members in line. I'm fine with outreach to the opposition, it's necessary. I'm fine with Dems voting NO, it's their right as senators both to vote their conscious and vote with their constituency. But you do not filibuster your own party, especially when you ran on that very platform. The filibuster exists to ensure all points of view are heard, and is also used by the minority party to protect their broader rights to be included in the dialogue presupposing they have enough basic support (40% in this case). No one can seriously argue that the Republicans have not been listened to, have not been given the chance to make counter arguments, and offer counter-amendments. If you still don't like the bill, you vote no on it, but you don't throw procedural hurdles at your own party on your #1 legislative agenda.

Example: Reid said Lieberman was a Dem on every issue except Iraq, Lieberman held up HCR as his main example supporting that in 2006, and Reid reassured Dems he could take away Lieberman's gavel if he strayed too far out of line. Today? Lieberman betrays his constituents and his caucus, and Reid is unwilling to do anything. He is weak and ineffective, and everyone sees it.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 4, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Confusing indeed, but it on both sides. The posters on this blog continually shout the demise of the Republican party but show fear anytime Palin is mentioned,

==

OK, that settles it .. you're not just dishonest as anyone still loyal to the GOP, you're also stark raving nuts.

Show me one (1) piece of evidence that any single solitary (1) Democrat is afraid of Sarah Palin. Yes we are universally offended at her bigotry, her dishonesty, her low intelligence, her apocalyptic religion, and much else, but .. afraid of her?

Like I said, NUTS.

Palin the the nicest gift the Democrats ever had, tearing the GOP apart and forcing it to run people who cannot possibly win elections.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Liberals blame themselves for not being accommodating enough when right wing rage rears its sickening, ugly head. They like a safe process with everyone having felt like they had a seat at the table, they are obsessed with inclusion.

==

Co-sign, adding that Obama seems particularly preoccupied with it, to his ongoing detriment. Like I said, the Dems should be telling the goopers to take it and stick it, overturn the filibuster rule, and just keep fixing things, one after another.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Well, the non-cohesiveness of the Democrats might be a blessing of sorts. You think the Republicans would be in their current state if the legislature made at least somewhat of an attempt to moderate Bush's extremism?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 4, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"Confusing indeed, but it on both sides. The posters on this blog continually shout the demise of the Republican party but show fear anytime Palin is mentioned, among other things related to Repubs, etc. So also which is it? A threat or an ineffective weakling?"

Who is afraid of Sarah Palin? Her rise in stature in the Republican party has been the brightest spot for Dems in the past few months.

"Totally, totally agree. I am not impressed with millionaires out of touch with the common man who will not live under the same laws that they create."

And yet you vote Republican? And which laws have they passed are they not willing to live under?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 4, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"the main wingnuts can't keep their talking points coherent"

This is kind of redundant. Coherent thinking and Republican politics are not exactly fellow travelers. They don't care what they they say as long as it is on the attack.

So it is true, they accuse Obama of having dozens of mutually exclusive faults. He is not just appeasing, he is also predatory. He is the Antichrist, Mr Magoo and Jimmy Carter all in one. Psychiatrists call this a "projective screen".

Posted by: shrink2 | December 4, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Confusing, I thought your central line of attack was he was a rabid partisan socialist who was about to establish a new Socialist States of America, don't really see how you reconcile the two: is he Hitler and Stalin put together, or is he an ineffective weakling?
The big problem with the Republicans these days, again, is they don't know what they believe, and even on this board the main wingnuts can't keep their talking points coherent.
Posted by: kreuz_missile
-----------------------------------------
Confusing indeed, but it on both sides. The posters on this blog continually shout the demise of the Republican party but show fear anytime Palin is mentioned, among other things related to Repubs, etc. So also which is it? A threat or an ineffective weakling?

Posted by: leapin | December 4, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't think the Democrats' unwillingness to ignore the minority party is necessarily a sign of party-specific weakness. It stands in stark contrast with the Republicans' strategy of ignoring everything the Democrats did when the roles were reversed back in that 2001 area, but the intention is the same: Politicians for both parties are trying to do whatever will get them re-elected.

The Republicans figured they'd lose their seats if they didn't ignore and degrade all the ideas the Democrats had, even if some of those ideas made sense. The Democrats figure they'll lose their seats if they blow off any of the Republicans' criticism, even if some of that criticism doesn't make sense.

If the Democrats do muster up the courage to push forward more of President Obama's agenda on things like health care and manage to hold onto most of their seats in 2010, it'll change the dynamic, which will be interesting to see.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 4, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Totally agree. I'm not impressed with the Dem leadership in Congress.

Posted by: bsimon1
-------------------------------------------

Totally, totally agree. I am not impressed with millionaires out of touch with the common man who will not live under the same laws that they create.

Posted by: leapin | December 4, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Ok I'll spell it out...

It is because Liberals are weaklings.
They do not let their kids play smash mouth football and they do not cram their politics down Republican throats.

Liberals blame themselves for not being accommodating enough when right wing rage rears its sickening, ugly head. They like a safe process with everyone having felt like they had a seat at the table, they are obsessed with inclusion.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 4, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"Insert any entity other than Republicans and you have the Republicans' central line of attack on the Obama administration."

Confusing, I thought your central line of attack was he was a rabid partisan socialist who was about to establish a new Socialist States of America, don't really see how you reconcile the two: is he Hitler and Stalin put together, or is he an ineffective weakling?

The big problem with the Republicans these days, again, is they don't know what they believe, and even on this board the main wingnuts can't keep their talking points coherent.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 4, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

You are free to vote against the final bill. You DO NOT block your own party's key legislation in procedural maneuvers, especially (Joe LIEberman) when you campaigned on that very issue, Universal Healthcare and a public option, in your 2006 re-election campaign. A good leader would enforce that, and there would be real consequences for breaking it. Reid's biggest problem: his own party doesn't take him seriously.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 4, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Senate, 107th Congress (2001-2003): 50D, 49R, 1I(D) (Jeffords defection early in session)
Senate, 108th Congress (2003-2005):51R, 48D, 1I(D)
Senate, 109th Congress (2005-2007): 55R, 44D, 1I(D)
Senate, 110th Congress (2007-2009): 49D, 2I(D), 49R
Senate, 111th Congress (2007-2009): 58D, 2I(D), 40R

So, explain to me how Bush was able to get so much that was objectionable to Dems enacted? Why is only now the standard 60 votes for passage? Was overcoming a veto really Reid's only tool? Why could Republicans press their bills through with just a bare majority?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 4, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"Shall not be infringed! Shall not be infringed!!

WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND LIB? WHERE'RE MY PERSONAL NUKES!!!!

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite"

This reminded me of Professor Farnsworth from "Futurama."

"Damn straight! Today the mad scientist can't get a doomsday device, tomorrow it's the mad grad student. Where will it end?"

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 4, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Totally agree. I'm not impressed with the Dem leadership in Congress.

==

It's way past "unimpressed" for me, the way the Dems capitulate to the totally out of power GOP is simply mystifying.

I'm about 90% certain Tom Daschle was physically threatened by Republicans into getting the Patriot Act passed, there are pictures of him from back then with the whites showing all around his eyes.

Even since 2006 the Dems should have been telling the GOP to go stuff themselves, to say nothing of now. Call me tinfoil but I think there's something going on behind the scenes we know nothing about.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

So why, now, after Dems run on this issue, get elected by a wide margin, win overwhelming majorities in both houses, are they still bending over backwards to appease Republicans while getting zero in return? Because they are weak and the leadership is ineffective.

===

Joe Lieberman. Ben Nelson. Mary Landrieux. Probably a few others. One additional factor is that the reason the Democrats have 58 Senators and 2 in their caucus is winning in red states. Although some Republican proposals have been accepted, it's the drive to get to 60 that causing the flexible spine.

Plus, it's a pretty easy vote to cut taxes at a time of record surpluses. The argument between Bush and Gore was how much, not if.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 4, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"bending over backwards to appease Republicans while getting zero in return"

Insert any entity other than Republicans and you have the Republicans' central line of attack on the Obama administration.

Coincidence? I think not.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 4, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

One of the first CDs I bought was the 20 years of Tull boxed set; I think that was about 20 years ago. Has some cool old stuff - early bbc tracks, experiments with the blues, etc.

==

I still think "Benefit" is their very best work. Not as epic or sweeping as the two concept albums I named but dark and mysterious.

Back when I liked to play with overdubbing I recorded the first few minutes of "Brick," up to the point with the 10/8 bass line and the entry of the drums, I don't play drums. I did the bass on a synthesizer but played all the other parts myself, adding and octave-doubled flute which gave it a kind of aboriginal sound, and the voice parts on an alto sax. What fun!

Now all I play with any regularity is classical guitar.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missle writes
"So why, now, after Dems run on this issue, get elected by a wide margin, win overwhelming majorities in both houses, are they still bending over backwards to appease Republicans while getting zero in return? Because they are weak and the leadership is ineffective."


Totally agree. I'm not impressed with the Dem leadership in Congress.


Posted by: bsimon1 | December 4, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile, nice job. ceflynline has a different take though.

He says that for meta-reasons (my nonsense place holder word for a different topic), the D Party is disorganized as a matter of fact. This is to say it can not be disciplined or it would cease to be the Democratic Party. If this is true, then Reid's weakness is structural as opposed to personal or even political.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 4, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

One of the first CDs I bought was the 20 years of Tull boxed set; I think that was about 20 years ago. Has some cool old stuff - early bbc tracks, experiments with the blues, etc.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 4, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"Exactly what is he supposed to do? When Bush was the president, it would take 67 votes to overturn a veto. I remember that Herb Kohl held up Bill Clinton's first budget for some petty measure--I think it related to the gas tax. Gore had to cast a tie vote.

Remember, there was an early threat to use reconciliation to push through health care reform. If it's clear that 60 votes aren't to be had, that goes back on the table."


Bush Tax Cut Vote, flash back to 2000:

"As President-elect Bush has made very clear, he ran on a particular platform that was very carefully developed. It's his program, it's his agenda, and we have no intention at all of backing off of it. It's why we got elected.

So we're going to aggressively pursue tax changes, tax reform, tax cuts, because it's important to do so. [...] The suggestion that somehow, because this was a close election, we should fundamentally change our beliefs, I just think is silly." - Dick Cheney, 17 Dec 2000

Bush's Tax cut passed the Senate 58-33, with 12 Dems voting in favor of it and never a threat of a Filibuster and zero outreach from Bush to the Democrats. So why, now, after Dems run on this issue, get elected by a wide margin, win overwhelming majorities in both houses, are they still bending over backwards to appease Republicans while getting zero in return? Because they are weak and the leadership is ineffective.

Cloture votes in US Senate:
http://norwegianity.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/cloture_voting_u-s-_senate_1947_to_20081.jpg?w=450&h=279

There are numerous tools to defeat a filibuster, and if the Republicans took Reid and the Dems seriously, they wouldn't threaten so many, because a failed filibuster undermines the credibility of the people who launch it. They see Reid as weak, they threaten and succeed on numerous filibusters, ergo he is weak. He has a far bigger majority (even subtracting Lieberman and Lincoln) than Republicans had, yet gets less done and gets blocked far more.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 4, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm hearing Jethro Tull's 'Bungle in the Jungle'.

Is there a better rock flautist than Ian Anderson? I think not.

==

Saw Tull four times, actually met Anderson at the Aqualung concert, Glen Cornick was still on bass back then.

By the time of that album they were pretty much washed up ... he got out all his great ideas in Thick as a Brick and Passion Play, then reverted to dumb songs like Bungle. I didn't buy "Songs from the Wood," there had been too little to like on "Minstrel."

I learned flute playing along with his albums, but even if I had kept it up I could never play as fast as he plays now. Jesus how does he do it?

But I'd rather learn to pick a guitar like he does than play flute that fast.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

you should be grateful that we now have a leader whose priorities are straighter.
But noooOOOooo, he's black so you're in a state of permarage.
Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite
-------------------------------------

“leader whose priorities are straighter’. No, he has been quite open to the gay agenda.

“But noooOOOooo, he's black so you're in a state of permarage” - What does this mean, seems racist, he’s black so we are in some state of permanent nightmare?

Posted by: leapin | December 4, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

And if the next job report shows that unemployment has taken a steep drop, will that be the "Most Important Number in Politics Today?"

No, it'll be some Rasmussen poll showing Obama in trouble, or some insignificant Republican ditzoid whose approval rating went up within the poll's margin of error, or maybe something about Palin or T-Paw.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"the image of the always terrified Dick Cheney hunkered in a bunker is emblematic."


I'm hearing Jethro Tull's 'Bungle in the Jungle'.

Is there a better rock flautist than Ian Anderson? I think not.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 4, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

There's an interesting graph on the article on jobs increase in November. It shows the change in jobs from month to month.

January had the worst job loss since the recession started. February and December were slightly less. March and November of last year were less than that. Like an upside down bell curve. In November, job loss was about zero. If this pattern holds, the jobs should be increasing over the next few months.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 4, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

You allowed Republicans to regularly have their way under Bush, and you allow them to filibuster everything in sight with no credible threat of stopping it.

===

Exactly what is he supposed to do? When Bush was the president, it would take 67 votes to overturn a veto. I remember that Herb Kohl held up Bill Clinton's first budget for some petty measure--I think it related to the gas tax. Gore had to cast a tie vote.

Remember, there was an early threat to use reconciliation to push through health care reform. If it's clear that 60 votes aren't to be had, that goes back on the table.

I think there's a lesson for Senate Democrats. Pick the majority leader from a ***safe*** seat. Does anyone think Pelosi could ever lose an election in San Francisco? Where do you see the Republican leaders? Kentucky. Texas. After Daschle lost, the last place the next leader should have come from was a red state. It's not a job that endears you to your voters.

Now, I'm not sure who should succeed Reid if he does go down. I'll bet good money that there's some quiet electioneering going on right now. Dick Durbin's got the inside track, but could he be challenged? There are a lot of new Democrats in the Senate.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 4, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

We will only be safe when everyone is guaranteed access to nukes...

==

Shall not be infringed! Shall not be infringed!!

WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND LIB? WHERE'RE MY PERSONAL NUKES!!!!

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Hahahalolololol: Thanks I needed that. You must have had to poll all of the socialist, communists and fascists in the Country to get that result.

==

... yeah, the 83% of Americans who don't have teabags dangling in front of their earlobes.

Oh, by the way, if you think Fascists and Communists are in league then you have some semi-trailer-sized holes in your education. Go read an actual lexicon of political terms and learn something.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"When nukes are banned , only the terrorists will have nukes."

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people...

Hitler tried too ban nukes too...

We will only be safe when everyone is guaranteed access to nukes...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 4, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

The Fix seems to be clearing his RNC feeds out of his mailbox first.Bush got the coalition of the unwilling.

Obama, who bows too low, gets NATO to commit 7000 soldiers. That Diplomacy stuff never works!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 4, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Hahahalolololol: Thanks I needed that. You must have had to poll all of the socialist, communists and fascists in the Country to get that result. As they are all now employed as Czars at the White House that would not be that hard to do now. Carter, hahaha. Wow, you are delusional, but Obama will be the one to make Carter look like a pillar of strength and determination.

Carter and Obama are two road apples.
--------


Carter remains one of the most respected men on the globe outside your little nasty band of red-faced screamers. Years after his presidency he is highly esteemed.

Bush will never enjoy that sort of respect, and many of his former officials have to be careful where they travel, facing the possibility of arrest.

How you like them apples, son?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite

Posted by: Bubbette1 | December 4, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Special to: "shrink2" -- Now for the bad news...

THE MILITARY KNOWS THAT MICROWAVE/LASER/PARTICLE BEAM 'DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS' ARE THE 'NEW NUKES.' SO WHY AREN'T THESE SILENT, INVISIBLE, POWERFUL WEAPONS SYSTEMS COVERED BY THE S.T.A.R.T. TREATY?

Could it be that the militaries, secret services, and intelligence agencies of the world, Western democracies as well as China, aren't letting the diplomats in on the dirty high-tech secret -- the scientific fact that these weapons systems are operational, and are capable of silently, invisibly targeting, harming, impairing, or slow-killing, entire nations -- or selected "targeted individuals"?

Wake up, diplomats of the world. Your mission has turned into Kabuki Theater. You are fighting the last war. And the generals and secret services and intel chiefs behind a globalist military order know it. When will they tell you all about it? Maybe never -- unless you demand the truth.

For the rest of the story:

http://nowpublic.com/world/obama-wrong-west-point-u-s-does-torture-its-own-citizens
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR (if link is corrupted): NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 4, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm proud of Reid. Instead of betraying his party and making a bunch of gestures in order to perhaps secure reelection he has decided to use his leadership position and the skill that come with seniority to get this important legislation passed.

I think Reid is showing a lot of character.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 4, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

When nukes are banned , only the terrorists will have nukes.

==

You're not even trying to make sense, are you.

The only way "the terrorists" will have nuclear weapons is if they take over Pakistan. George Bush was more interested in getting cozy with Musharref and creating flightsuit-wearin' opps in Iraq than in doing anything about the instability in AfPak .. you should be grateful that we now have a leader whose priorities are straighter.

But noooOOOooo, he's black so you're in a state of permarage.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

The two best ways to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists is (1) to have fewer of them and (2) excellent control of the ones that already exist. America is finished with Republicans, the image of the always terrified Dick Cheney hunkered in a bunker is emblematic.
Posted by: shrink2
----------------------------------
When nukes are banned , only the terrorists will have nukes.

P.S. Speaking of terrified, it looks like E-Gore will be bunkering down for a few days.

Posted by: leapin | December 4, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Then it’s also not prejudice to note that the dependent, free lunch base is going to go hungry after the tax paying class leaves the voting pool permanently.

==

You go on nurturing your silly caricatures as long as you and your party of bigots stay out of the way of the Democrats doing the nation's business

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

More good news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/world/europe/05arms.html?hp


"A senior American official, who was not authorized to speak to the press and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said negotiators in Geneva “are focusing on getting final issues solved” and expressed optimism that a new treaty would be completed in the coming days.

In a statement, the Russian foreign ministry also offered a positive take.

“The future treaty should become another milestone in disarmament and nonproliferation,” the ministry said, “marking the transition to a higher level of interaction between Russia and the United States and reaffirming the common goals of the two countries in the promotion of mutual and global security.”

The two best ways to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists is (1) to have fewer of them and (2) excellent control of the ones that already exist. America is finished with Republicans, the image of the always terrified Dick Cheney hunkered in a bunker is emblematic.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 4, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Reid's biggest problem is he is completely ineffective and everyone sees that. He's been criticized for years for not pressing for a Democratic agenda, and his big defense has always been that he is good at building up the party, the primary evidence being the 2006 and 2008 elections. My reaction - big deal, that's the campaign committee's job, your job is to get the agenda through Congress. You allowed Republicans to regularly have their way under Bush, and you allow them to filibuster everything in sight with no credible threat of stopping it.

Overall, though, with a 4% MOE, recovery is possible, but unlikely; 51-41 or 48-42 aren't insurmountable, but as was noted merely attacking opponents won't do it. His only hope is passing HCR and pivoting rapidly to pressing through a number of issues to help at home, emphasizing to Nevada voters the advantage of having the Senate Majority Leader as their senator rather than a backbencher from the minority party. That's about his only hope, and were it a more real possibility in 2004 that Dems would have a majority following the election, it is a strategy that may have saved Daschle. That said, it's an uphill strategy, and one that few Dems I know of care much to fight for until he starts fighting for us. We know he's the Republican Party's #1 target for the symbolic value, and if taking him out saves us one or two other seats and gives us a capable Senate leader, I'll be happy with it.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 4, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

It's not prejudice to note that the GOP base is going to shrink as its core members leave the voting pool permanently.
Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite
-------------------------------------------
Then it’s also not prejudice to note that the dependent, free lunch base is going to go hungry after the tax paying class leaves the voting pool permanently.

Posted by: leapin | December 4, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

The Most Shameful Number in Mainstream Media Today: ZERO.

That's the number of mainstream reporters who have connected the dots between a new generation of powerful, silent, telemetry-delivered electromagnetic radiation "directed energy weapons" and credible reports of torture and impairment from unconstitutionally "targeted" American citizens and their families.

***

SECRET MULTI-AGENCY FED PROGRAM TORTURES, IMPAIRS, PERSECUTES THOUSANDS OF U.S. CITIZENS WITH NATIONWIDE SILENT MICROWAVE / LASER WEAPONS SYSTEMS, LOCAL VIGILANTISM: VETERAN JOURNALIST

* Did this covert program target, and help incite, the Ft. Hood shooter?

• Gov't-enabled community "watch" vigilantes infiltrate health care system, compromise care of unjustly targeted Americans and their relatives, says journalist-victim.

http://nowpublic.com/world/obama-wrong-west-point-u-s-does-torture-its-own-citizens
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 4, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

There are are number of persons outside the States that enjoy American weakness.

==

Wow, really?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

How you like them apples, son?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite
--------------------------------------
There are are number of persons outside the States that enjoy American weakness.

Smell the coffee Goldie?

Posted by: leapin | December 4, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by your racist, age discrimination and prejudice against towns that are size-challenged.

==

(*chuckle*)

Oooh, lookit the gomer trying on the language of 70s radical egalitarianism.

It's not prejudice to note that the GOP base is going to shrink as its core members leave the voting pool permanently.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed NATO is sending 7000 soldiers to the AfPak campaign. Maybe getting along with 'Old Europe' isn't such a bad idea after all.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 4, 2009 11:40

Yeah all that bowing and scraping, selling out the Poles and the Czechs, pandering to the the Russians who are now, truly incredibly, letting us overfly their country to supply our effort against the vicious people we helped fight them and their own puppet government (overthrown by the Taliban in what was it, 1992?)...no matter, everything would be a lot better if McCain/Palin were running the war effort.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 4, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Also awarded Jimmy Carter whose family is overjoyed by the prospects of Barrack Obama moving him to the penultimate president.

==

Carter remains one of the most respected men on the globe outside your little nasty band of red-faced screamers. Years after his presidency he is highly esteemed.

Bush will never enjoy that sort of respect, and many of his former officials have to be careful where they travel, facing the possibility of arrest.

How you like them apples, son?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Funny, innit, how the only people in the world you regard as authentic are a few million white-haired small-town rednecks. Everyone else is a "socialist" or a "homo" or "ghetto trash" or a "muzzie."

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite

------------------------------------------
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by your racist, age discrimination and prejudice against towns that are size-challenged.

Posted by: leapin | December 4, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Awarded by a panel of long time Euro socialists who, of course, have no political agenda.

==

"sour grapes"

Remember when your party of allegiance had so much power? When they were calling all the shots?

Bet you reminisce for those days a lot. Bet you daydream all the time about their return.

Funny, innit, how the only people in the world you regard as authentic are a few million white-haired small-town rednecks. Everyone else is a "socialist" or a "homo" or "ghetto trash" or a "muzzie."

The next Republican president is probably someone who hasn't even been born yet.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Instead, he got a real troops commitment from Europe for an unpopular conflict.

==

There's a honey / vinegar lesson there if anyone was open to learning it, which they aren't.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse


Al Gore and Barack Obama (Democrats) have both been awarded Nobel Prizes.
George W. Bush (Republican) is widely regarded as the worst president in our history.
No wonder the gomers are punching walls
----------------------------------------
Awarded by a panel of long time Euro socialists who, of course, have no political agenda.
Also awarded Jimmy Carter whose family is overjoyed by the prospects of Barrack Obama moving him to the penultimate president.

Posted by: leapin | December 4, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I was a little surprised as I thought that the end of dropping job #'s was THE domestic story of the day. Wall Street certainly thought so. I considered offering 11,000 as an alternative (# of jobs lost in Nov.)

What's the primary criticism of Obama on foreign policy? That all of this bowing and "apologizing" will get him absolutely nothing. Instead, he got a real troops commitment from Europe for an unpopular conflict.

Then, how about this number of the day? 1. The number of pandas leaving Washington, DC.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 4, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Nice one, bsimon1.

Echoing shrink2 and G&T, I'm surprised CC didn't use "48" -- BHO's approval rating in the latest CNN poll. Down 7 points since the last one!

Posted by: mnteng | December 4, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore and Barack Obama (Democrats) have both been awarded Nobel Prizes.

George W. Bush (Republican) is widely regarded as the worst president in our history.

No wonder the gomers are punching walls.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

If Reid's team thinks they can beat up their eventual opponent to the point where they can win then they are just taking his money. If they think Corzine would have won if he'd gone negative sooner they are fools.

An incumbent with re-elect and approval numbers in the 30s can NOT win. He would need his opponent to fail the live boy/dead girl test to lose if Reid's standing with the Nevada Electorate doesn't improve.

Posted by: estuartj | December 4, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

The most important number.

3000

The number of refunds that E-Gore must make for his cancellation of Dopenhagen. The cancellation is could be due to inconvenient emails or the high priest might not have enough carbon credits to make the flight.

Posted by: leapin | December 4, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Most important number in politics today:

2 - the number of governor's races that have already occurred yet are mysteriously still on The Line.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 4, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Yeah the day unemployment drops the "most important number" is a Senate race in Nevada ... the election a year away.

I remember a very different Chris Cillizza, a guy who did great reporting before the election. What was it? Major head trauma? A PCP binge? Or a silkily sinisted memo from Hiatt when Froomkin was jettisoned?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

If the Democratic health care reform plan is not popular in Nevada, that will only make it worse for Reid. He's also going to be involved in a lot of ugly battles over the next few months. If it does pass, the Republicans can easily claim that all it means in 2010 is new taxes and few benefits, and where are the jobs.

thecampaignseason.com

Posted by: BradTempleman | December 4, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Reid deserves his negative rating. For a guy who was once a boxer he's an astonishingly weak leader, capitulating to pressure from Republicans who don't have the national prestige to do anything.

Reid lost my respect with his NIMBY response to the attempted closing of Guantánemo, dutifully echoing absurd GOP talking points about imprisoned accused terrorists walking through walls. I'd rather see him lose his seat in the primaries than in the election but even the loss of one seat to get a majority leader with some spine would be worth it. As long as disgraces like Lieberman are counted in the caucus the Dems don't actually have 60 votes anyway.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 4, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Hah! FB wondered whether NATO adding 7000 soldiers to Obama's AfPak war of necessity or the surprise to everyone, lower unemployment numbers, would make today's pick.

Nope, lets get real, the "most important" number is more bad news for the Democrat party.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 4, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company