Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Do Democrats need to choose between George W. Bush and the Tea Party?

By Aaron Blake

Democrats have made little secret in recent days that much of their 2010 strategy revolves around casting their Republican opponents as throwbacks to the unpopular administration of George W. Bush.

But when Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine stepped in front of reporters at a press conference Wednesday, his goal was to attach the GOP to a decidedly post-Bush movement: the Tea Party.

Can the two strategies co-exist? Can Republicans be tied to the policies of Bush when the party is, in the words of Democrats, being "taken over" by a new movement altogether in the form of the Tea Party?

In a blog post this morning, Nate Silver makes the case that while the Tea Party might burden the GOP with candidates who may be too conservative for their states in some races (like the Senate races in Kentucky and Nevada), on the whole it has helped them move forward.

"In the macro view, the Tea Party has been a huge asset to the Republicans in the way that it facilitated a 'rebranding' of conservative ideas," Silver wrote.

After the press conference Wednesday, Kaine disagreed, saying the Tea Party and Bush can effectively be tied together.

"It's forward-or-backward," Kaine said. "And so, the Tea Party policies are largely to repeal the things that the Democrats have been doing and go back to what the Bush policies are. So I do think that it connects."

Former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Martin Frost comes in somewhere between Silver and Kaine.

"The Tea Party continues to be a mixed blessing for the GOP," Frost said, "and it alone does not mean that the GOP will be able to move beyond Bush and his policies."

But which should be the focus of Democratic attacks this fall? The former president or the current Tea Party movement?

Say what you want about certain elements of the Tea Party (the NAACP got the ball rolling on that); it's still less unpopular than the Republican and Democratic parties.

A recent Quinnipiac poll showed about one-third of voters favored each of the three, but many more had unfavorable views of the GOP (42 percent) and Democrats (49) than the Tea Party (31).

Bush's unfavorables, meanwhile, are higher than all three: 51 percent in a new Gallup poll.

That's largely because people know where they stand on Bush, whereas they generally don't know enough about the Tea Party movement to form hard and fast opinions.

And really, that's what it all boils down to: the devil voters know versus the devil they don't. Bush has proven a pretty effective devil in the past (see 2006 and 2008 elections), whereas the Tea Party is still pretty amorphous and undefined.

One Democratic pollster said focus group participants offer blank stares when asked what the Tea Party stands for, but when it comes to Bush, they know exactly what they experienced in the first eight years of this decade.

"For the most part, we're still keeping this pegged to Bush, where impressions are much more formed and negative," the pollster said.

Democratic efforts to go after the Tea Party are more geared toward using it to rally their base in advance of the fall elections. On Wednesday, Kaine sought to attach mainstream Republicans to Tea Party priorities like privatizing social security and ending Medicare, releasing a 10-point platform for the new Tea Party-GOP "alliance".

But at least for now, the Tea Party association isn't turning off voters in the same way Bush is, and indeed, there's still plenty of valid debate about whether the movement is a net positive for the GOP.

A recent poll from the Third Way think tank by the Democratic Benenson Strategy Group provided some of the best new insights into the GOP's ties to both the Tea Party and Bush.

When a candidate who favors President Obama's economic policies is matched up against a candidate who favor's Bush's, Obama wins decidedly, 49 percent to 34 percent. But when the choice is between a candidate who favors Obama and "one who will start from scratch with new ideas to shrink the government, cut taxes and grow the economy," the swing is drastic. Voters prefer the latter candidate 64 percent to 30 percent -- a 49-point net loss for Obama.

The latter candidate is, in effect, the Tea Party model. The description differentiates the candidate from Bush in a key way, though, by using the phrase "new ideas" -- something voters are unlikely to associate with the word "Bush."

Polling shows that criticizing Bush is a more viable strategy for swaying the independent voters who could swing the election, and that's likely to be much more of a focus over the next three months.

Press conferences and web videos about the Tea Party may get Democrats some cheap coverage, but when it comes to dollars spent this fall, they are much more likely to spend them using Bush as a cudgel.

With Felicia Sonmez

By Aaron Blake  |  July 29, 2010; 5:31 PM ET
Categories:  Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Jim DeMint endorses Dino Rossi in Washington State
Next: Change comes to the comments section!

Comments

For all the Obamaites: "Let me make this clear." As a proud and I say proud supporter of George W. Bush, we say, bring it on. You may think we 'run' away from President Bush,and, yes, as Conservatives, we had some issues with Pres.Bush on fiscal matters, we are quite proudly standing with Pres. Bush. You can bash him all you wish, you can hope for the great divide within the 'tea' movement - but to no avail. Come November, you will see that we are not alone. As you can see now, a overwhelmingly majority of Americans have gone through media detox, the Obama kool aid has been drained from their veins - and they are realizing that what they allowed to happen in November of 2008 was indeed the worst decision of their citizen lives.
The next Presidential election begins on the day after the November elections of 2010 - and I would check the U-Haul rates for the Obama's, and all his politburo - Executive and Congressional alike.
It is not about party, it's about country - no longer red state blue state; it's red citizen/blue citizen - think political French Revolution. Our Madame Defarge needles are working overtime and we will never surrender another foot of this great nation to the socialists within - carry on.

Posted by: RWells2 | July 30, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Blert.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 30, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Beating up on Bush is beating a dead horse... so passé. Get a life. He will probably go down as the second worst president in history - right after Obama.

This election should focus on Pelosi and Reid. This elderly pair of corrupt and scheming politicians will keep us in a depression for only a decade - if we are lucky. This old pair of crooks are only concerned about their own jobs.

Posted by: alance | July 30, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jjedif
"Everything Bush stands for is crap and everything he did was a disastrous failure. Everything the Tea Party stands for is crap and will lead to even more anarchy and chaos and more disastrous failures. The question is, Will the majority of American voters realize this in November?"

Wow...I guess that's one of the deepest piles of manure I've ever read through. You can tell dyed-in-the-wool Democrats..I mean the "I'll only ever vote for Democrats" morons. They can't see past their own noses far enough to see what Obama is doing to this country.
His track record is the worst of any president so far; he's done *nothing* to actually improve America. For you to way ALL bush did was "crap" shows a complete lack of intellect!!"
Yes, Im Republican, and as much as I disliked Slick Willy, I can honestly say he did some good things. The fact you can't do the same for Bush shows how far your head is some up inside of some orifice it didn't grow out of.

You have a lot of gall talking about anarchy, what with the way Obama is using a so-called "medical reform" bill to tax us to death, and his intended takeover of America by Islam is a serious threat...but I guess you're too narrow-minded to see either for what it is.
Medical people are threatening to retire or resign once that bill takes full effect; it's going to be that big a disaster for the medical profession. NOT just the rip-off pharmaceutical companies, but practicing physicians. Didn't you know the bill also makes unlimited bailouts available for mismanaged corporations...or can't you read those words and understand them?
Obama promised to lower the national deficit by 50% over 10 years (AND while lowering taxes), yet he has either spent or earmarked for expenditure the full amount of the deficit already. There's no way he can lower taxes and push this program through, and that's his intention...to bankrupt America. From the beginning of his reign, he's also *strongly* been pushing for support to Islam. Why do you think he's soft on illegal aliens coming in and helping themselves to OUR benefits? Du-uh...he IS giving the country away, and your ignorance won't make that go away. He intends to put America into such bad shape that even Islam won't seem so bad to the ignorant public.
I really was hoping Obama would prove me wrong in what I saw in him before he was elected POTUS, but everything he does proves everything I thought; he's literally out to destroy America.
"Anarchy"? If Obama has his way, what America turns into will make the former Soviet Union's breadlines look like summer camp.
Do yourself a favor: open your shut-down mind and READ something for a change but Democratic propaganda. Pay attention to not only our economic conditions, but what CAUSED them to worsen so badly since Obama took office, and *perhaps* you'll wake up to reality.

Posted by: flipper49 | July 30, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Everything Bush stands for is crap and everything he did was a disastrous failure. Everything the Tea Party stands for is crap and will lead to even more anarchy and chaos and more disastrous failures. The question is, Will the majority of American voters realize this in November?

Posted by: jjedif | July 30, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

as if the dems are not a bunch of losers too...please.

Posted by: californicationdude | July 30, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Since some other commenters have also brought up Charlie Rangel as evidence that Democrats have failed to "drain the swamp," I have to ask what planet are you people living on? What do you THINK draining the swamp would look like? Here's what the headlines of mainstream media outlets should look like:

"Courageous Democratic leadership DEMONSTRATE their integrity and commitment to ethics reform by putting on trial one of their own."

The first paragraph would then mention that "ethics reform" wasn't a cynical tool to conduct endless investigations/smear campaigns on political enemies, unlike Newt Gingrich's Clinton-era tactics. Nor was the Democrat on trial some meaningless backbench fall guy, but an elder "statesman" of the party.

So much for liberal bias, Fox News zombies. Wake up. Please?

Posted by: hayesap8 | July 30, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"Lets see
Bush = the mess we’re in
Tea Party = GOP’s answer to the mess we’re in (i.e.: no answer).
Seems a viable plan especially considering that the GOP stands no chance of rehabilitating the Tea Party into something Mainstream America (even if they agree on some points) will accept as long as their lunatic fringe is still out there ranting and raving in the media (and they show little sign of stopping)
Truth be told there are still going to be battles within the Tea Party/GOP coalition and some will be nasty (Bachmann and the Missouri Tea Parties) and worse will play out in the media exactly in the swing states where the GOP hopes to make pickups.
Posted by: notthatdum | July 29, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse"

people don't care about that...
all they know is...
with dems in charge of the goverment...
their jobs have dissappeared...
so...
you want our votes...
get us jobs...

Posted by: DwightCollins | July 30, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

It's stupid to pick one and ignore the other. Democrats should take advantage of the Republican infighting and the creepiest reactionary rhetoric getting spewed with a campaign message like so:

"Alllllllll you hear from the Republicans is that they're going to 'take back the country, take back the country, take back the country.' Well of course they do. 'Establishment' Republicans like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove want to take us back to the Bush years, and the Tea Party wants to take us back to the HOOVER years. That's the kind of stewardship of the economy you get when the Republicans are in charge." Cue a clip of the All In The Family theme.

Posted by: hayesap8 | July 30, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

ULTRA RIGHT-WING CONGRESSMAN PAUL BROUN GA CAUGHT RIDNG DIRTY ON OPEN
SATTELITE FEED!!! -EXCLUSIVE-

http://www.youtube.com/user/chipshirley

-Broun's office has denied the validity of this video but does notdeny that he does use the 'N' word and that he has bought marijuana from his son. Broun's son was arrested on pot selling charges last
year and Broun still refers to the Civil War as the 'War of Northern Aggression'.

Posted by: ChipShirley | July 30, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

>>But when the choice is between a candidate who favors Obama and "one who will start from scratch with new ideas to shrink the government, cut taxes and grow the economy,"

What new ideas does the Tea Party have? I haven't heard any of substance.

Posted by: wdrudman | July 30, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

If I had to pick between Obama and the NeoComs and Marx/Lenin/Stalin and all, I would choose Marx/Lenin/Stalin. They were more open and transparent.

Posted by: leapin | July 30, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Does this mean that voters don't want to return to the days of 750,000 jobs lost per month, initiating & fighting cluelessly 2 wars of choice and leading this country to a state of economic decline?

Geesh!

Posted by: dc1020008 | July 30, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

They are NOT upholding the Constitution - they are ORGANIZING TO HELP PEOPLE BREAK FEDERAL LAWS.


This has become a joke - these are CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES


The idea that these CRIMINALS are hiding behind our Constitution is unbelievable - it is OFFENSIVE.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis |
-----------------------------------------
Not enforcing the law allows drug runners and gangs free access across the borders besides plain, ole illegal immigrants. The Obamanites say they can't secure the border. Does that also mean that they can't secure the borders against an organized military invasion? If so, the C-in-C should resign.

Posted by: leapin | July 30, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Your two newer contributors are excellent. It was a great idea to expand your shop.

Posted by: MikeK3 | July 30, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

I would not speculate in advance of the facts on whether Sherrod's case is a winner. I have not even read her pleading, if it has been filed.

Did Breitbart comment about Sherrod? Did Breitbart possess a copy of the clip for hours, days, or weeks? Does Breitbart's protestation that he was out to prove the NAACP is "racist" provide a motivation to recklessness that a jury could, with other facts, amounted to willful disregard of the truth with respect to Sherrod?

Posted by: mark_in_austin

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

Mark,

To see how Breitbart framed the Sherrod video, go look at Breitbart's website. Do a search for biggovernment.com and Sherrod or something like that. His original post, with a single correction highlighted at the top, is still up for viewing.

Breitbart did not appear to post the video himself. He merely linked a YouTube video posted by someone else. If this is the case, then Breitbart only commented and publicized it, and he had no hand in editing or posting it. His comments do not seem like the sort of stuff that would get one in trouble for libel. The one error he made, that Sherrod worked for the Agriculture Department at the time of the video, was quickly corrected. Beyond that, he is merely commenting on what the video shows.

And the video does show what Breitbart says it does. That it is missing the next few seconds is what skews the context and causes the problems. Still, Sherrod admits to acting in a racist manner by not giving her full help to a white farmer, and NAACP audience members cheer at these statements. Sherrod's real beef has to be with the person who cut the video to slice off her full realization of her error. Does this materially change the fact that Sherrod's first reaction to the farmer was racially discriminatory? Eh...dicey question. Her subsequent conversion certainly changes the thrust and context of the story, but the story still hinges on her initial racial response, and that's what Breitbart had in front of him to base his comments on.

To make a libel case, Sherrod's lawyers would have to prove that Breitbart had a responsibility to find the full video before commenting on it, and if that is the new standard, then just about every blogger on the internet had better run for cover.

In the end, Sherrod will have a much better lawsuit against her former employer than she will against Breitbart. Perhaps if this were Britain with much stricter libel laws, she'd stand a chance, but the likelihood of Sherrod's case not being thrown out on insufficient grounds seems slim to me.

Posted by: blert | July 30, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

What's the difference? Both are mindless claptrap. Bunch them together.

Posted by: jckdoors | July 30, 2010 1:03 PM
=====================

This gets my vote as the post of the day...


Posted by: demtse | July 30, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

What's the difference? Both are mindless claptrap. Bunch them together.

Posted by: jckdoors | July 30, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Can the strategies co-exist, of course they can, very simple -

Bush = Mad Hatter
Mad Hatter = tea party

The policy positions between the Bush/Cheney junta and the Bush deadenders that make up the tea Party are the same, the connection is obvious.

Posted by: pblotto | July 30, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

staying on topic here...

there is a tea party to bush connection. polls have shown that a lot of tea party members agree with bush's national security approach. many of these same tea party members who rail about debt now didn't make a peep when bush went to war using a credit card. they didn't make a stink about sacrifice for the common good back then when it counted. the democrat voters when opposed the iraq war back then will come out to vote if you remind them of the debates they had with Bush-supporters back then who are hypocritcal tea-party supporters now.

Posted by: wampdaddy2 | July 30, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Since the two overlap so strongly, why would the Democrats have to choose? The tea party is like a jilted lover, who is so loyal to the one who jilted them, they just blame the one who replaced them. So, there is no significant difference between the tea party, the GOP, or the policies of the Bush administration. If a Democrat proposes or supports an idea, all three "groups" hate it. If a Republican has/supports the very same idea, all three "groups" love it. Uber partisan hypocrisy by any other name smell just as foul.

Posted by: wd1214 | July 30, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Why would anyone have to choose between those two choices suggested by a Republican Strategist?

Let's see what the Republicans brought us over the last decade with their Contract on America:

The Great Recession of 2008
TARP bailout of the big banks
Tax Cuts for the rich
(which did NOT create jobs)
Outing of a CIA spy for revenge
Torture in Abu Ghirab
The War for Oil in Iraq
They didn't fight the War in Afghanistan.
(see Michael Steele's ignorant comments)
10% unemployment and obstruction in fixing it.
Obstruction of Health Insurance reform
Obstruction of Financial reform
Obstruction of Unemployment Benefits and the painting of the Unemployed as lazy.

The Republicans are merely ruthless thieves; pilfering from honest, hard-working Americans so they can have all the wealth and power they want.

And they did this while hiding behind the cross.

It was a sham.
There was no 'Trickle Down'

Let the Bush tax cuts expire
and
STOP ALL Oil and Gas Industry SUBSIDIES!

Posted by: vigor | July 30, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure why we need to discuss this. The republicans have major problems that have to be kept in the minds of the voters. The voters are smart enough to not forget two years ago GW Bush ran the country into the rocks and, at the same time, extremists elements of the republican party, the tea party people, want to introduce wild policies we don't want.

Why should the nation be either confused or not clear on the choices in the fall?

Posted by: BobSanderson | July 30, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

mibrooks: "But, you also get Sarah Palin (and I don't know what to make of her - I can't decide if she is a breath of fresh air and common sense or a far right wing lunatic NeoNazi and some very weird Fundamentalist groups, too."

You might be the only person on the planet who still doesn't know what to make of Sarah Palin.


Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 30, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

The upcoming midterm election will likely go down in history as one of the most meaningless elections in history. If, as projected by so many out-of-breath pundits, the GOP enjoys a wave election, what do you think is actually going to change. Notwithstanding Chris Cilliza's and so many other media pundit's enchantment with the so-called Tea party,, they are going to suffer precisely the same tortuous frustrations that the democrat's are facing right now. Why? Because the problems we face are not ideological and will not respond to the silly ideological fantasies the Tea Party types imagine. Just as the left has become disillusioned because Obama's election and the takeover of both Houses by the democrats did not bring about the hoped for political realignment, so too will the Tea Party become disillusioned when their victory sours in the face of structural economic realities they are no more prepared for than were the democrats.

And the American people are in for a shocking rendezvous with reality as well. All of the anti-Obama squealing in the world and all of the throw-the-bums-out emotional release following the election will stick in their craw as they slowly figure out that the bums they put into office are a hundredfold worse than the ones they threw out.

Posted by: jaxas70 | July 30, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

The poll that Berensen cited tells me something of which I was already pretty much convinced: That American voters really are as H. L. Mencken described them as a pretty good gambling bet on their consistent lack of intelligence. The poll frames the Tea Party as a party of "new ideas". Just what are these new ideas. Well, just go to a typical Bush campaign speech in 2000 and you will get precisely the same sort of overgeneralized pap that the Tea Party is selling and presumably millions of American voters are dimwittedly buying: The same tired old goblolley of "lower" taxes, more "freedom" and a return to Constitutional principles of government which Obama, it is assumed, promptly abolished as soon as he somehow illegitimately entered office.

Look. Let's face realities here. The Tea Party gets its sustenance from two major factors: A mainstream media that slavishly gives them outsized attention unwarranted by their numbers and a silly, lazy, uninformed American electorate that for all of its educational achievements is still easily lured by wily con artists into ridiculous shell games.

The problem is that the cure to all of this is worse than the illness itself. Just as with Bush's ill gotten rise to office, this lamentably stupid electorate must suffer Tea Party candidates in office like Rand Paul and Susan Angle before they get the message yet again that they have been had.

Posted by: jaxas70 | July 30, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

The ruling party should only look at achievement and results.. not continue to loop the same old Beta format tape.. time to move one with, you asked for the job, you got the job.. just do the job and the rest will fall into place..you won, act like you won.

Posted by: newbeeboy | July 30, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

When your own accomplishments can't stand on their own merit, you look for scape goats!!!!
NOV 2010 is coming and it's gonna be bad!

Posted by: Jimbo77 | July 30, 2010 7:29 AM | Report abuse

jimbobkalinka lays it out pretty plainly: the Bush Republicans and the TEA Party are the same group of people with the same ideas for gov't.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 30, 2010 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Brigade, you may know more facts than I about Sherrod v. Breitbart.

I would not speculate in advance of the facts on whether Sherrod's case is a winner. I have not even read her pleading, if it has been filed.

Did Breitbart comment about Sherrod? Did Breitbart possess a copy of the clip for hours, days, or weeks? Does Breitbart's protestation that he was out to prove the NAACP is "racist" provide a motivation to recklessness that a jury could, with other facts, amounted to willful disregard of the truth with respect to Sherrod?

Your point that accurately quoting, but out of context, is an everyday event is interesting, but usually the victim is a public official who is virtually precluded from winning a defamation case under NYT v. Sullivan. Was Sherrod such a person? I think not. I think her standard of proof is as low as yours and not the restrictive high standard that would apply to a Senator or a General or a President.

Again, I do not know enough.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 30, 2010 7:00 AM | Report abuse

mbrooks, bet ya Breitbart looks to settle before this gets filed by Mrs. Sherrod. They don't want disclosure of the network of folks involved in these wingnut antics and how it all works. My sense is this is going to be a BIG deal unless it settles early.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 29, 2010 7:15 PM
----

Someone posts an unaltered excerpt from a speech given by Shirley Sherrod before the NAACP. What? He has a legal obligation to post the whole speech or none of it? This stuff happens all the time. It was the reaction by Vilsack and the NAACP that was in error; they should have watched the whole video before opening their mouths.

Maybe she'll extort a few bucks because it's cheaper than going to trial. I can't see how she prevails in court. Take off the hate goggles. Mark? Leichtman1? Weight in.

Posted by: Brigade | July 30, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

MikeB wrote:

"he legislation proposed had no guarantees of American ownership, even American residency for those small businesses. That would mean, for example, CITI could establish a small business in India or a Chinese outfit could establish a small business in this country, employing only Chinese "guest workers", and he taxpayer would pick up the bill!"

Mike, I do not think either example is a likely outcome on the lending side of the bill. On the tax break side, it may be. I do not have time this morning to re-read the tax break provisions, but assuming that there is a small Chinese owned import-export biz [say, for example] in Portland, that pays American taxes, I think it will get the tax benefit. To me, that is a small price to pay, if [for example] construction industry subs can get their interim financing flowing again, so they can bid jobs and not lay off workers.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 30, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

Somebody above asked where were the T-baggers when Bush was wrecking stuff? They were then going by the name of republicans. After the Bush experiment, many call themselves idependents or baggers. They are the same people. And they will do the same things Bush did. Tax cuts for wealthy, wars for the poor, deficit and debt for the nation. You cant start two wars (one completely unecessary)and cut taxes. Thats just plain foolish.

Posted by: jimbobkalina | July 30, 2010 5:18 AM | Report abuse

Democrats may want to attack on both fronts, and given that political attacks often get away with defying logic, they probably will do so without many repercussions. However, the charges that 2010 Republicans are W clones on one hand and teabaggers on the other really ought to cancel each other out. The Tea Party started in protest of the bank bailout which was passed by...Bush! Tea Partiers started out as Bush critics, while most mainstream Republicans (and Democrats) went along with the bank bailout.

So maybe the Republican Party has renounced Bush and embraced the Tea Party, or else it is holding onto Bush and keeping the Tea Party at an arm's length, but it really cannot be both.

Democratic talking heads, though, won't feel constrained by logic. Any mud that sticks, they will throw it.

Posted by: blert | July 30, 2010 2:09 AM | Report abuse

"Do Democrats need to choose between George W. Bush and the Tea Party?"

No. Democrats have this choice. Kick those losers to the curb or kick those losers to the curb. Decisions...decisions....

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Who said that the Democrats can't paint GOP candidates as both Bush supporters and Tea Partiers? If you think about it, these "new ideas," are just ideas brought back from the past administration like phasing out Social Security. Tea Party backed Republicans such as Sarah Palin have also publicly backed the Bush Administration.

Posted by: pinwizard39 | July 29, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Mark, there's an election in 3 months. Do you think the Republicans are going to let the Democrats pass any more legislation? So what if it hurts small business, increases unemployment, supresses purchasing, risks deflation and hurts the economy?

That Bill imperiled Republican chances in November! There's no way it was going to make it out of committee. Much better that the Republicans should gain an extra 3 or 4 seats off that increased misery. Despicable.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 29, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin - Mark, I was disturbed by that, too, but was made to understand that the legislation proposed had no guarantees of American ownership, even American residency for those small businesses. That would mean, for example, CITI could establish a small business in India or a Chinese outfit could establish a small business in this country, employing only Chinese "guest workers", and he taxpayer would pick up the bill! That is completely unacceptable. We need small business loans but they need to be for businesses on American soil, American owned, and employing ONLY US citizens.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 29, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

"you only comment on it because it upsets you that you know I'm right."

hee, hee, oooo, you could just spit

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

I have voted for many Rs in the 45 years since I turned 21. Rs were traditionally the friends of small biz.

But now:

"Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected a bill to aid small businesses with expanded loan programs and tax breaks, a procedural blockade that underscored how fiercely determined the party’s leaders are to deny Democrats any further legislative accomplishments before November’s midterm elections.
The small business measure, championed by Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, had the backing of some of the Republican party’s most reliable allies in the business world, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business. Several Republican lawmakers also helped write it.

But Republicans leaders filibustered after engaging for days in a procedural fight with Democrats over the number of amendments they would be able to offer during floor debate, and what issues the amendments would cover. A last-ditch offer by Democrats to allow three Republican amendments was refused by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/us/politics/30cong.html?hp
===============
I have been here criticizing the BHO Admin for favoring Wall St. over Main St. and big banks over community banks. When the Admin finally got around to helping small biz, the Rs stab us in the back. I think the Ds can run on this. Not GWB, not TEA, just plain bad for biz, bad for America.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 29, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

When you have a record as piss poor as the Democrats do after 18 months of complete control, they have nothing else to run on. Tea Party? Bush? Give me a break.

Posted by: conservativemaverick | July 29, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

George W. Bush and the Tea Party ?

Wow, said Socrates, I guess I will take the hemlock.

Posted by: gannon_dick | July 29, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Remember your childhood memories of Tarzan movies and the talking drums?

It take two hands to drum out a talking drum message, and two drums, one high pitched and one low pitched.

So the message goes out by Democratic Drummers, T-s at one pitch and Georgie at the other. and the rhythm and music of the drums rolls across the land with its two tone message Georgie did it to you then and the T-s want to do the same old thing to you when they get to be in charge.

We run both messages, varying the pitch and cadence, modulating the chords, transposing major themes and minor themes and for syncopation repeating again and again Tea People Tea People.

An effective message in a most pleasing symphony.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 29, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Shrink2,
No, I'm saying the democrats are completly void of anything to run on (besides the fact that they've spent us into debt and used these first two years to pass bills no one but the extreme wing of their party wanted), hence they resort to race baiting and name calling to try and get re-elected. And you know that's what I meant and you only comment on it because it upsets you that you know I'm right. But maybe in the next reply, you can call me a name or tell me I'm a racist,and feel like a big boy.

Posted by: AnnieP1 | July 29, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

The baggers' cover argument is they oppose BHO because of their opposition to high taxes and big government. Problem is BHO LOWERED their taxes, and baggers on average probably receive more government benefits than non-baggers. What's more the taxes are no higher and the government is no bigger than they were under the prior administration, yet the baggers had no complaints during that previous regime.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 29, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Annie, we know the Republicans and the tea people are one. You don't have to help with that.

"Calling people names is something you resort to when you are completly (sic) void of anything real to run on."

Are you saying the Republicans are completly (sic) void of anything real to run on?

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm 100% in favor of the Tea Party getting a tremendous amount of publicity, so that no one in American can say they don't know what they stand for. Making fun of the TP will NOT be necessary. My biggest concern is that the TP candidates will continue to hide as they are now doing, and Americans won't get a good look at their partisans.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 29, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

The democrats make fun of the Tea Party at their own risk, just like they blame Bush for everything at their own risk (that's getting really old by the way). Calling people names is something you resort to when you are completly void of anything real to run on. All I can say is, "The Republicans are coming, the Republicans are coming! Hide your children and cover their ears!"

Posted by: AnnieP1 | July 29, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

They're stupid stupid people.

Posted by: pdxgeek | July 29, 2010 8:20 PM
----

So how long have you been a member?

Posted by: Brigade | July 29, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

"I don't see how you run against the Tea Party"

They hold up signs like "Get your government hands of MY MEDICARE!"

They're stupid stupid people. The problem is they get used by smart evil people.

Posted by: pdxgeek | July 29, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

I don't see how you run against the Tea Party. They haven't done anything other than act obnoxiously. It's not like they have any kind of record to run against. It still needs to be about Bush policies. If a candidate wants to go back to those policies, the opposition needs to point that out.

Remember that in the end, these are all a bunch of one-on-one races. The candidates need to attack their opponents based on their individual weaknesses. Reid and Conway aren't going after their opponents for being a part of the Tea Party. They are going after their opponents for taking the positions that being in the Party entails.

That's the best way to go. Make this into a bunch of heads up matches and go after the opponents for their weak positions. EZ game.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 29, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek's post at 8:01 PM
_______________

Hilarious. Totally cosign.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 29, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm not saying that all Tea-Baggers are racist... But here is a question: What political movement would a white supremacist KKK member most likely belong to?

Just Sayin.

Posted by: pdxgeek | July 29, 2010 8:01 PM
----

At one time they were all Democrats. I haven't taken a poll lately, but I'll bring it up at the next Klan . . . er, Tea Party meeting.

Posted by: Brigade | July 29, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

@mibrooks: According to the article, at one point, Ron admitted writing the newsletters but then later denied it. We guess Ron was for them before he was against them. :)
_____________

From journalist Casey Gane-McCalla's article in newsone.com, which, BTW, features PDFs of some pages from the newsletters:

"Many people have pointed to Ron Paul’s Newsletters as proof of his racism. Paul has previously admitted to writing the newsletters and defended the statements in 1996, then blamed them on an unnamed ghostwriter in 2001 and then denied any knowledge of them in 2008. He has given no explanation, for how the racism entered his newsletter. If we are to take Paul at his word, he is guilty of at least promoting racism on a large scale. Paul earned almost a million dollars a year from the racist, conspiracy theorist newsletters."
______________

All the best.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 29, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Tea Baggers...

Some liberal talk show hosts have been talking about this trend but it seems a theory that holds some water...

The tea party really seems interested in...
Saying Obama's not a citizen
Rev. Wright
ACORN
Black Panthers
That awful "satirical" letter the guy wrote about the NAACP
Sharon Sherrod

Hell there are a few more ludicrous "news" stories I can't even think of all of which have some racial element.

I'm not saying that all Tea-Baggers are racist... But here is a question: What political movement would a white supremacist KKK member most likely belong to?

Just Sayin.

Posted by: pdxgeek | July 29, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

I see a great deal of hatred toward the Republicans here.

Hate words.

Slurs are used against the Republicans


Sterotyping

Very little detail on policy disagreements.


It's all about the relative merits of one mischaracterization over another mischaracterization - WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THAT?

This discussion does NOTHING for our political system.


The democrats ARE NOT SURE HOW THEY ARE GOING TO SMEAR THE REPUBLICANS THIS YEAR - BUT THEY WILL BE SMEARING.

Disgraceful.


Amazing that one mentions that this behavior is inappopriate - and more and more democrats come onto this board with more hate speech and more sterotypes.

.


To the democrats


How much more money do you want to spend?


What are the taxes going to be to pay for it all??


Do you even KNOW the totals on the money you want to spend ?

Do you even KNOW how much your town, county, school boards, State and federal governments spend ???


Have you ever LISTED those 5 levels of government and just PUT DOWN HOW MUCH EACH IS SPENDING ?????


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"Joe and Noacoler say the incessant harping about Haley's name isn't bigotry but merely an effort to show that Nikki is attempting to snooker a bunch of racist rubes by disguising her true heritage ...."

_____________

Yep, brig, that's about right. Good summary. And, again, an Indian-American former writer for the NY Times, Neela Banerjee, raised this concern about "Nikki"'s campaign in her thoughtful article "Nikki, aka Nimrata." I'll defer to Miss Banerjee's perspective. You should, too.

Beyond that, unlike Al Pacino, they will not "pull me back in" regarding further discussion of name-gate.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 29, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe


I wonder if YOUR father said something 20 years ago - would it be fair to use it against YOU now ?

You are trying to smear Rand Paul based on newsletters of his father 20 years ago.

Well, we have volumes of sterotyping and false charges which you make on this board - so we dont need anything else to make you look bad.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe - That's pretty awful stuff, but Ron Paul has repeatedly denied that he ever wrote that stuff. Likewise, the Black One News has a history of inventing this sort of nonsense. That site features stories about the Twin Towers being a CIA conspiracy that sought to place blame on Muslims, they report that the D.C. snipers had white accomplices that did the actual shootings, etc. They appear to be the left's version of birthers.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 29, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

So Republicans are either:

Insiders (aka Bush Supporters)
OR
Tea Party Activists (aka Nut Jobs)

The Tea Baggers used to be taken advantage of by the Insider Oil Monger Robber Barons... and now they are sick of it. Well frankly I'm sick of the lot of 'em.

It's because of all of these jerks we can't have single payer health care and we're all held hostage to employment for fear of getting sick or injured. There's lots more reasons why they suck, but that's the main one for me.

Posted by: pdxgeek | July 29, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks, take a look at Ron Paul's newsletters, in which expresses his unique "philosophy," and get back to us.

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 29, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe wrote,
Commentator Janeane Garofalo on the baggers, from wikipedia:
"In April 2009, Garofalo drew criticism when she denounced the Tea Party protests, saying: "It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up."
----

This from someone who delights in talking about Nikki Haley's name. FairlingtonBlade and Mark_in_Austin were exactly right. Playing racial politics is no more palatable when it comes from the left. Joe and Noacoler say the incessant harping about Haley's name isn't bigotry but merely an effort to show that Nikki is attempting to snooker a bunch of racist rubes by disguising her true heritage---BB and Mark just don't understand nuance. Hogwash!

Joe is obsessed with racial angles. It's vitually all he ever posts about. He does the very same thing people accuse 37th of doing but as a sort of alter ego to 37th. And spare me the gibberish that 37th is racist and Joe only calls it out. Joe rants about people of whom I and, I'll wager, many others here have never even heard. All for the same reason. He seems genuinely outraged that politicians like Haley and Jindal don't know their proper place; they should be Democrats running on affirmative action and social programs. They are obviously victims of the Stockholm syndrome.

If only those South Carolina bigots KNEW Nikki Haley's given name, if only they could SEE her skin tone, they couldn't possibly support her. And Joe would do just about anything to get the word out. He's even found an opinion by another Indian-American (probably a rabid Democrat) whom he quotes as an authority on what name Haley should be using. Sellout!

Hell, Noacoler actually lived in the South at one time. At least he could see it from his house. Who could possibly know more about the situation than him?

But, as Mark and BB pointed out, the world in which Joe and Noacoler grew up is fading away. This complicates matters and is difficult for them to accept. They can't believe that some voters actually consider factors OTHER than race. How can this be? If your not a bigot or a fool, you MUST be a liberal. If Haley wins, there just HAS to be some reason other than voters accepting her for who she is and what she stands for---just as Joe implied BB must have an unknown, hidden agenda for challenging him.

Surely Republicans wouldn't have nominated Tim Scott over a Strom Thurmond descendant if they had known he was (gasp) black! The least they could have done was use the Democratic method of selecting nominees in alphabetical order. Poor Joe and Noacoler---members of two different minorities and an alternate reality, blind to their own bigotry and prejudices.

Toward the evening of a gone world, two lonely stragglers, disillusioned and full of bitterness . . .

Posted by: Brigade | July 29, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Drindl is correct the last sentence of this piece is so bad, it is awesome. It is the Democrats getting cheap coverage from the Republican stunts. O....k.....

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Bush was a disaster; the tea-baggers will be worse.

You also need to ask yourself "Where were the tea-baggers when Bush was turning the ship of state into the Titanic?"

Answer: "Nowhere to be seen. It took a black Democratic president to bring them out from under their rocks."

See?

Zero problem linking the goobers to President Drydrunk.

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | July 29, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27


I'm not sure about the damages Sherrod has - she has been vindicated in the press - so she really has little damages there.


She has been offered her job back - so the damages there are minimal.

In fact, Sherrod could go on a speaking tour - and make speaking fees now - so she is now more marketable.


So, has Sherrod been damaged in terms of earning power ? Not at all.

The key to the case will be the damages - where is the injury ??

The record has been corrected, little injury there.

AND Breitbart is probably not the one she has the case against.

Sherrod does not really have a good case.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

"

On Wednesday, Kaine sought to attach mainstream Republicans to Tea Party priorities like privatizing social security and ending Medicare, releasing a 10-point platform for the new Tea Party-GOP "alliance"."

And yes, once people hear more about this agenda, the teabaggers will start sinking like a stone.

And Aaron dear, the cheap shot about Democrats getting 'cheap coverage' is so thoroughly unprofessional it belongs in a tabloid.

You all appear to be vying for a spot on Fox, the republican propaganda network. How low can you go?

This is the Washingon Post? No wonder no one reads it anymore.

What utter, useless crap.

No wonder 538 is beating the hell out of you.

Posted by: drindl | July 29, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

citizen4truth1 - Just stop it, okay? The Tea Party IS NOT racist. There are a few nut cases hanging onto the Tea Party who ARE genuine racists. There are also people calling themselves Tea Part members who are "birthers". Every movement as loosely knit as the Tea Party is going to have a few lunatics. I've read some stomach turning anti-Semitic remarks from people calling themselves Democrat's, too. That does not make all Democrat's racists nor does it make the Democratic Party some sort of haven for racists.

It is simply too early to tell if the Tea Party will be a constructive force or a destructive one. There are some very intelligent and decent people associated with that movement, like Ron Paul. But, you also get Sarah Palin (and I don't know what to make of her - I can't decide if she is a breath of fresh air and common sense or a far right wing lunatic NeoNazi and some very weird Fundamentalist groups, too.

If Paul and his people end up guiding the Tea Party, their anti-free trade, common sense use of tariffs to end outsourcing, their foreign policy of not getting involved in wars for ridiculous things like nation building (or oil), might just save us all. I also happen to like the pro-choice, pro-gay rights leanings of that group, but that's me. The ONLY stand that really matters is their opposition to free trade and their understanding that we are in a fight for our very survival.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 29, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

"If Ron Paul is the only one who can save us, I fear we're lost. Posted by: Brigade"

Group hug!

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

The democrats REALLY do not want any discussion of racism at all - complete with Rev Wright, affirmative action - and the conduct of those who make false charges.

The democrats JUST want to throw out the FALSE CHARGES - start up their SMEAR CAMPAIGN - and then they want to STOP right there.


It has become abundantly obvious that the democrats ONLY want political benefit from makeing false charges - RACIAL PROGRESS IS REALLY NOT ON THEIR AGENDA AT ALL.


This is what is sickening - on this board - we have FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM ALMOST EVERYDAY.

And the same people - the same group of people seem to continue to do it -

It is a disgrace, it is shameful - but it goes on.

Apparently, these people will NOT stop the smear campaigns UNTIL Obama leaves office - they see Obama as an EXCUSE TO SMEAR PEOPLE -


This is NOT racial progress - it is a halting of racial progress.


These people either don't care - or are too stupid to care.


The democrats should be shamed.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

mbrooks, bet ya Breitbart looks to settle before this gets filed by Mrs. Sherrod. They don't want disclosure of the network of folks involved in these wingnut antics and how it all works. My sense is this is going to be a BIG deal unless it settles early.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 29, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats are toast. The real issue is, will their twisted sisters the Neocon's replace them and continue the madness, or will we roll the dice on the Ron Paul's and maybe survive it. I simply don't know, but you are going to witness the worst series of upheavals in Western history over the next few years. Good luck surviving it if you side with rats that created it.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 29, 2010 6:22 PM
----

If Ron Paul is the only one who can save us, I fear we're lost. I don't give him much of a chance.

Posted by: Brigade | July 29, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Lets see

Bush = the mess we’re in
Tea Party = GOP’s answer to the mess we’re in (i.e.: no answer).

Seems a viable plan especially considering that the GOP stands no chance of rehabilitating the Tea Party into something Mainstream America (even if they agree on some points) will accept as long as their lunatic fringe is still out there ranting and raving in the media (and they show little sign of stopping)

Truth be told there are still going to be battles within the Tea Party/GOP coalition and some will be nasty (Bachmann and the Missouri Tea Parties) and worse will play out in the media exactly in the swing states where the GOP hopes to make pickups.

Posted by: notthatdum | July 29, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

"But when the choice is between a candidate who favors Obama and "one who will start from scratch with new ideas to shrink the government, cut taxes and grow the economy," the swing is drastic. ...
The latter candidate is, in effect, the Tea Party model.
_____________

This is a false narrative unworthy of a blog sponsored by our national political paper of record, the Post. Most mainstream journalists who have studied the Tea Party "movement" discovered early on that "big government" and "low taxes" are just bogus cover issues to hide the racism and intolerance that animates much, if not most, of the their membership.

Seriously. have you even read the pieces about the baggers written by Post columnists, some of whom have won Pulitzers? Eugene Robinson? E. J. Dionne? Ever check out Frank Rich at the NY Times? Do you even know who Rich is?

Katherine Graham, wherever you are, look away...
_________

Commentator Janeane Garofalo on the baggers, from wikipedia:

"In April 2009, Garofalo drew criticism when she denounced the Tea Party protests, saying:

“Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.”

In response to the controversy Garofalo has continued to criticize Tea Party protesters, and has been reported to open her shows with "If there's any tea baggers here, welcome, and as always, white power.""

Strong tea from Janeane.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 29, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27


Yea - there is something going on there - last week there was a massive outpouring of support for Sherrod.

EXCEPT the Obama people seemed to hold back WHY?


Maybe the Obama people know more about Sherrod than we do - and maybe the comments by her husband are part of it.


Obama was EXTREMELY reluctant to get involved.

They want the NAACP to throw out false charges of racism - reap the political benefits from those charges - but to get Obama out there on a racial issue is like pulling teeth.

Real problems here.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the Tea Party: "on the whole it has helped them (GOP) move forward." Yes, if you call racism, intolerance and taking up arms against society moving forward then I guess you must be correct. It has certainly defined the new GOP. If the Democrats cannot use this as election ammo they are totally inept.

The Tea Party represents a fringe element of society that has been over-hyped by the right wing media. There is no way this group represents mainstream America, thank God.

What the Dems need to emphasize is that in the GOP world those who are not millionaires will have vastly inferior medical care, no retirement plans, a race unfriendly society and a business model where most jobs pay less than a living wage. Seems like a pretty easy strategy to me for the Dems.

Posted by: citizen4truth1 | July 29, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

lindalovejones


I have no idea why you think it is appropriate for you to come on this board - and call millions of people racist.

That is wrong - it is sterotyping.

You have no idea who these people are - you know nothing about who they are, or what they think.

I don't see you calling out Rev. Wright - or Obama for bringing his children to that church week after week, month after month, year after year.

Are you ever talking about black racism ???

You are a racist - I have your comment as evidence.


In contrast, you know nothing about the millions of people who you accuse.

It really is sickening.

Is this what we can EXPECT from the democrats until Obama finally goes down in defeat two years from now ? A constant stream of racist charges ?


Is that what your definition of post-racial is ???


Sickening.

In a post-racial world, Obama's skin color should be irrelevant. Instead, you use Obama's skin color as a reason to ATTACK.

That is sickening.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Joe, the Breitbart thing is history. His phone is just about to stop ringing, he was on The Savage Nation this week, the end of the line. He is a right wing noise maker, nothing more, nothing less. But the real news...

"...you are going to witness the worst series of upheavals in Western history over the next few years." mike27

The run up to WWI, the great horror of imperialism, sorry does not compare to this time. Napoleonic era, Holocaust, Dark Ages...nope. Cuban missile crisis, the rise and fall of the Roman empire...nope, all just weak tea...

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Lindalovejones


You are sterotyping millions of people - and you are falsely accusing millions of people of racism.


That is what is sickening - your comment.

You are a racist - you are going to black people - and calling out the racism that they show.

NO - you are reserving all your charges for white people.

That is racist.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe _ I cannot imagine a more stupid move by Sherrod. I *listened* to all 45 minutes of the speech under question and it WAS racist. Far far worse, though, are some of the comments and speeches by her husband. The guy is an out and out bigot. I realize she is merely trolling for money, but barring some nutjob of a judge, that will all be allowed in court and it will set back racial relation in this country by 75 years.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 29, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Unless the Tea Baggers just landed on this planet, they were here when Bush borrow and spent us into oblivion.

They were also here earlier this week, when WaPo published an article about how the Bush Administration is claiming they "lost" $8 BILLION AMERICAN TAXPAYER DOLLARS somewhere around Iraq.

Not one single Tea Bagger and not one single Republican expressed ANY outrage at the Republicans' claim to have "lost" $8 BILLION DOLLARS.

That's why I am convinced that the Tea Baggers and/or Republicans are NOT as outraged as they pretend to be about overspending, they're outraged at there being a black man in the White House and it's just sickening.


Posted by: lindalovejones | July 29, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

One has to question the honesty of the immigration groups - what these groups want is to STOP all enforcement of federal immigration laws - and get amnesty for ALL illegal aliens.


It is time that the country is honest about what these groups really want.


"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" does NOT mean that - it means they WANT AMNESTY FOR EVERY ILLEGAL ALIEN.


I really can not believe these groups - trying to LECTURE Americans on the 4th Amendment and the division of Federal and State powers - WHEN IN FACT THEIR REAL OBJECTIVE IS TO EVADE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS.


These people are AIDING AND ABETTING people who are breaking FEDERAL laws.


They are NOT upholding the Constitution - they are ORGANIZING TO HELP PEOPLE BREAK FEDERAL LAWS.


This has become a joke - these are CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES


The idea that these CRIMINALS are hiding behind our Constitution is unbelievable - it is OFFENSIVE.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

SHIRLEY SHERROD IS GOING TO SUE BREITBART.

@Fix intern:

Here's a NEWS story you might want to follow after you finish with the Dino Rossi posts. Mrs. Sherrod has decided to sue Andrew Breitbart of Sherrod video-gate fame. Because Breitbart will be forced to testify under oath about his destructive antics, her suit threatens to tear the lid of the rightwing media network dedicated to undermine the administration of our 44th President.

"SAN DIEGO – Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist."

Developing ...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 29, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Democrats have a choice, all right, but not in quite the manner you are speaking to Chris. The choice is between Barak Obama and the Democratic leadership who are *exactly* like George W. Bush and his advisors and between the Tea Party or something rather like it that will end those disastrous policies. I wish it were not the case, but the choice before us is national and personal suicide and the hope, and only the hope, of a different way out of the current nightmare. This President and the past three Administrations have all but destroyed our economy. The parties have broken the voters up into polarize special interest groups that they appear to cater to, a least around election time. They ignore the voters otherwise. Obama promises to re-open NAFTA, curb free trade, end guest worker visas and LIED. Bush promised to unite us, put curbs on banks and Wall Street, undoing the worst of the Clinton legacy. and instead presided over the wholesale dismantling of our industrial base, shipping it off to Asia. The economic and foreign policies, heck the advisors, are all the same. And you expect us to mindlessly go rah-rah, blindly support a political party, when we can full well see with our own eyes the damage they have done? During the next year, the models predict that the economy in this country will completely and totally collapse. Wall Street will NOT be immune to this and it is going to flat crash. It has been artificially inflated with hot air for over a year now. Obama DID NOT prevent a depression, he merely put it off for another day and made the looming disaster far worse. There isn't even a shred of a chance that the multiple disasters heading our way will be avoidable before the November election. The Democrats are toast. The real issue is, will their twisted sisters the Neocon's replace them and continue the madness, or will we roll the dice on the Ron Paul's and maybe survive it. I simply don't know, but you are going to witness the worst series of upheavals in Western history over the next few years. Good luck surviving it if you side with rats that created it.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 29, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Do the democrats have to choose between one mischaracterization and another mischaracterization ???

No, they can tell the truth.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 29, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I think the explanation is that these two hideous elements of the Republican party are really the same element because a Republican will say anything. These are merely the stages of running and serving for a Republican.

Think how many Republican candidates spend their time up to the primary talking about their Conservative bona fides: pro small gov't and low taxes, anti-gay marriage, Gawd fearing, and pro life. Then they get into the General election and they present themselves as a reasonable moderate, not exteme at all, and with a great plan for government to move us all forward (think Virginia).

Then the Republican gets into power and he finds that smaller gov't is hard to achieve and lower taxes? Geez. Next thing you know that Conservative agenda is dropped and you have another Republican working the power structure to fund what he wants to fund, regardless. The only thing that gets smaller is the tax bill of the businesses and people who own him and the government agencies that oversee their business practices.

I think Reagan, Gingrich, Bush I, DeLay and Bush II would be the examplars here.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 29, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

"...the Rangel problem as the does not want to upset the liberal/progeressives who predominant..."

I make my share of typos, but I just have to ashk, have you been drinking?

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

It appears that Chris is going to avoid speaking about the Rangel problem as the does not want to upset the liberal/progeressives who predominant on this site. My opinion is that Rangel is an old-time crook and should go and also that Maxine Waters has significant ethical problems.

Therefore the promise that Nancy Pelosi made about "draining the swamp" was bogus!

Posted by: mwhoke | July 29, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"Can the two strategies co-exist?"

Yes!

Well that takes care of that.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 29, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company