Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Republicans, examined

The Fix is still on a bit of extended Thanksgiving vacation but the new Washington Post poll on the state of the Republican party -- released today -- is something every political junkie worth the name should check out.

The good news for Republicans in the data is that opposition to President Barack Obama and his agenda has united them.

Write Post pollster Jon Cohen and senior political reporter Dan Balz in their piece on the survey:

"Republicans and GOP-leaning independents are overwhelmingly negative about Obama and the Democratic Party more broadly, with nearly all dissatisfied with the administration's policies and almost half saying they are 'angry' about them. About three-quarters have a more basic complaint, saying Obama does not stand for 'traditional American values.' More than eight in 10 say there is no chance they would support his reelection."

But, that good news comes with a dose of bad too. Again, Cohen/Balz:

"Fewer than half of the Republicans and Republican-leaners surveyed by The Washington Post see the party's leadership as taking the GOP in the 'right direction,' down sharply from this time four years ago. About four in 10 are dissatisfied with the policy proposals being offered by congressional Republicans, and similar numbers see the current crop of GOP legislators as out of touch with their problems and personal values. Nearly a third say the Republicans in Congress are not standing up for the party's core values."

The clearest winner in the poll is former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin who is identified not only as the leader of the Republican party but also receives the highest percentage when GOPers are asked for whom they would most likely vote in the 2012 presidential primary and caucus process.

As we've written before and this poll reveals, Palin has a huge political opportunity given her standing among the base of the party. And yet, she seems to be entirely uninterested in broadening that base -- via policy and political stands -- to soften the opinions of critically important independents voters about her.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 30, 2009; 10:38 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2012 , Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: MA-Sen: The Globe goes for Khazei
Next: Tanner to retire

Comments

@BB: I think you can put the deterioration of Virginia schools, road, and bridges in the bank. McDonnell's age-34 thesis wasn't an academic exercise, it provided the template for his career in government and the fact that he put on a moderate mask to win election should, please tell me so, should not fool you into thinking he's going to govern for the good of the state where doing so conflicts with ideology. He has shown himself to be very much an ideologue, which is the opposite of a pragmatist.

Full disclosure: being a Navy family we moved every 2-4 years but if there is one state I can claim as the one I "grew up in" it would be Virginia. Hampton in 61-64, Portsmouth in 68, Norfolk 69-75. Norfolk Academy '72. I left westward in '75 but my roots are in VA.

Anyway, McDonnell claimed to be a uniter not a divider to win the moderate vote in a moderate state, and yeah he might turn out like Romney and the Terminator and govern only annoyingly right, but if I had to lay down a bet it would be that the next four years are going to mean a lot of pelvic politics and a lot of deterioration in the important things.

I know you think I'm narrow minded about Republicans but, well, I see no reason anywhere for years to give them the benefit of any doubt.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 3, 2009 2:33 AM | Report abuse

The point is that McDonnell greatly softened his connection to his party and entirely misrepresented his views to win. He's not only a Republican, he's a social conservative of the Palin stripe, antiabortion, antigay, progun, who pretended to be a decent fellow instead of the roll-back-the-clock troglodyte he is.

==

Now that's what I call attacking the argument. Not that I entirely agree with you--McD soft pedaled the social conservatism and emphasized economic arguments. He never backed away from being a Republican. As a resident of VA with kids in public school programs, I hope that he won't take action to gut those. I suspect that he will at the least be fiscally responsible. Gilmore managed to trash the party's reputation for that.

Well, time to put the Blade in his sheath.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 3, 2009 1:31 AM | Report abuse

"No, I must just be afraid of change and despise anyone who disagrees with me. Also, I'm probably a Jew."

Can you people who call yourselves conservative understand this? This person is your Republican voter.

C'mon you thin skinned Republicans, I want to know what you make of this. Is s/he a Jew? What is going on in the minds of Republicans as regards this thing, this unfortunate political monster?


Posted by: shrink2 | December 2, 2009 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Is genius here a Colbert parody? It's so darn hard to tell.

==

Well these are the people who regard Palin as intelligent, and Bush as a brilliant leader. Pret-ty low bar with these guys.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 2, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Also, does anyone honestly think Obama is any smarter than his predecessor?

==

I call troll

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 2, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Is genius here a Colbert parody? It's so darn hard to tell.

Posted by: nodebris | December 2, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

I reluctantly join the cacophony of nonsensical chatter on this web page to point out that the DEMOCRATS who drove our economy into the ground are seeking to effect a "recovery" through the same old policies that have failed miserably in the past and arguably contributed to our current suckfest of an economy. Also, does anyone honestly think Obama is any smarter than his predecessor? A more clever politician, sure, but that's not saying much. Bush is clearly more intelligent than Obama. At least W didn't try and mask his folksy repartee with arrogant, divisive rhetoric that only accentuates the idiocy of the moron spewing it.
If I sound the least bit hateful, then I must be a racist, right? It's not that I've gotten sick and tired of the mendacity profferred by the prez and his lickspittle on a daily basis. No, I must just be afraid of change and despise anyone who disagrees with me. Also, I'm probably a Jew. Even worse, I watch Glenn Beck, and not just because I'm retired and have all this time on my hands. This is why I need to stop reading blogs, or at least ignore the comments of pathetic drones who have no idea what they're talking about.

Posted by: right-wing_genius | December 2, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

At least one thing is clear, they are all so damm corrupt that they can't find one person in the group except Failin. Now either she left office just ahead of the firing squad or the heat was turned up so high she had to get out of the kitchen!!!??? MY! MY! MY! the elite would have it even better under her than Bush and he was dumb as they get.

Posted by: SWAMPYPD | December 2, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

When I hear that phrase, I always wonder what just the right amount of education is supposed to be.

==

Just educated enough to do their part to create wealth for the people who matter, the few dozen families who actually run this country.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 2, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Exactly, the over-educated notion emanates from those without enough of it.

This is part of the explanation for why and how Republicans are allowed to wear the mask.
With the anti-elitist meme, they put on a show of caring for the "average" American. They stoke inferiority fear driven bigotry.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 2, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

When I hear that phrase, I always wonder what just the right amount of education is supposed to be.

Posted by: nodebris | December 2, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

My opinion, informed by some facts and experience, is that there is such a thing as working too hard and no such thing as being over-educated.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 2, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"my opinion is nothing more than that just an opinion and the all opinions are equal and the same"

If you're talking about music or the taste of food, you can make a case that all opinions are the same, sure.

But if you're talking about surgery, or nuclear physics, or economics, or military strategy, or climate change, or a world of other topics, surely you agree that opinions that are informed by the most facts and experience are probably better than others? Not always -- the economic meltdown has clearly given evidence that greed can overcome the best education -- but in general.

Funny, my parents thought there was no such thing as working too hard or being "over educated."

Posted by: nodebris | December 2, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

armpeg: i agree with your november 30th posting and another thing i hear see and read a lot of postings by overeducated liberals calling me and other independent voters republican leaning when that could be so far from the truth it is not even in the same galaxy it might be naieve to expect honesty from the current class of mafia like politicians. who think they speak for all of us when the truth is they don't and they only care about themselves and not ordinary citizens or what the opinions and problems are they just keep spending money that is coerced from the people of this country by fear lies and intimidation from the irs and other governmental agencies but that aside i am a former mississippi born and raised keep it simple stupid person that appreciates honesty and truthfullness and hates double talk and despises people who dengrate us for the mistakes of our past, who cannot look to the past incompetence of their own selves and remember their opinions are nothing more than that just like my opinion is nothing more than that just an opinion and the all opinions are equal and the same as an a{@#holes they all stink

Posted by: bittingtomcat2001 | December 2, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Scary article. The right wing nut rhetoric is working.In respect to Obama's policies - just what is their (Repubs)idea as to what to do after Jr. drove our country into the ditch? claudiatucsonaz

Posted by: claudiam1 | December 2, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

If you enjoy the deception and corruption that society is displaying, throw the Bible out of the Courts, Hire the bus driver that is a sexual criminal or drug addict, no corey needed to get the job. Let all say I do no matter homosexual, trans sexual, bi-sexual or polygamist. If you like the way things are going let the doctor work on you drunk, high or stoned. Why not send children to war, or to buy the daily drugs, let them pay for them with sex, who would now the difference? If you like the rapes and murders on the daily news so be it. Let's have abortion, acorn can take the children to the clinic, or better yet the adult that was responsible for the pregnancy. If you like deception and corruption, fine we can self destruct at anytime. But if you want to aim high, it take truth, honesty, good sound judgment and faith. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we seek to deceive.

Posted by: boski66 | December 2, 2009 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Then be off with you. Problem solved.

We don't like you, either.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 2, 2009 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Cilizza - what a waste. The moonbats have taken over. Now the incoherent voices are arguing with themselves about how loony and nasty they are.

Precious

the flaming ped gets back to recipes. The mutual kookoo admiration society has ruined the blog. Like Obama, no adversaries will be tolerated.

Posted by: snowbama | December 2, 2009 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Sorry meant that for the other thread. I plead insanity.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 2, 2009 1:24 AM | Report abuse

I donated more to Obama's campaign than to all others combined and I am getting tired of his incessant hewing of a path between the parties. He should have shown the political courage to face down the GOP and start a full disengagement. Now more troops will die to support a crooked oil executive in a country that no longer hosts AQ. I'm with Bob Herbert on this one.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 2, 2009 12:56 AM | Report abuse

No BB he didn't justify his use of the word, he threw up a distraction. As a practicing scientist he is one of a vanishingly small minority (6% IIRC) willing to compartmentalize the offense to logic of the GOP from his training.

The straw man over the web page is tiresome, surprised you took the bait.

The point is that McDonnell greatly softened his connection to hid party and entirely misrepresented his views to win. He's not only a Republican, he's a social conservative of the Palin stripe, antiabortion, antigay, progun, who pretended to be a decent fellow instead of the roll-back-the-clock troglodyte he is.

Give him credit for being smart enough to not run as a caveman in purple Virginia, but the state isn't going to like it when he shows his real colors.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 2, 2009 12:47 AM | Report abuse

So much fun while I was cooking...

@DDAWD - "You're being dishonest here and I think you know it."

No. It just seems that some relatively mild dissent got under your skin. I didn't think the term metric quite worked, though the late post by sliowa explained his/her reasoning fairly well. [Incidentally, glad to see you here! I'm a research physicist, though much of my work could just as well be described as physical chemistry.]

Incidentally, did someone say risotto? I adore butternut squash risotto (and many other types as well). Hmm... a bit too late to watch Big Night.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 2, 2009 12:27 AM | Report abuse

DDAVID

"I find your metric the word “Republican” a rather silly measure. In short, your metric was rather juvenile."

You responded to my post by saying McDonnell web site is a clone of Obama and GT responded that he did a word search and could not find the word “Republican” and accused me of lying. In an earlier email, he also responded to someone as a toddler. My comment was a play on his two posts combining both the term “In short,your lying” and his reference to toddlers. I stand by my statement that a word search for the word “Republican” is a poor measure to judge if someone stands by their party. I actually went to McDonnell’s web site and I found numerous references to “GOP”, which has the same connotations as Republican. Why is Republican a better metric than GOP? My point was to point out the weakness of his argument.

“Now if he is going to be insulting and he is going to use words like metric and juvenile in nonsensical ways, then if I feel like insulting him back, a a thesaurus comment seems like a good way to do it. If someone wants to write like an eight year old, then he can have at it. If he's going to be insulting while writing like an eight year old, then people are perfectly justified at coming back at him.”

How was my use of the word metric nonsensical? In the scientific field (I am a research chemist), we base our observations on things we can measure. We use the term metric to refer to the criteria that we use to make our overall observations. Knowing someone’s metric one can than agree or disagree based on evidence. Again how is that nonsensical? Hence when I asked you about your metric, I wanted to know why you thought both Obama and McDonnell web sites were clones since both have different philosophies in the role of government and how to get the economy rolling. Exactly what were your criteria that you judged both web sites as clones? I also stand by my statement that a word search for the word “Republican” was a poor metric and extremely amateurish. I only added the juvenile part since I was writing to GT who calls people toddlers. I thought he would appreciate my vernacular since he uses it so often.

Posted by: sliowa1 | December 1, 2009 9:31 PM | Report abuse

I will lay odds that if I invented a new handle and posted some positive thoughts about Republicans, G&T would be flaming me and others would post various doubts about my intelligence and state of mind.

==

Assuming for the sake of argument you could come up with anything good to say about the GOP of 2009 that was true, you're wrong. I would likely agree. But since the GOP became the party of torture, secessionist baiting, and paranoid fury I don't think you could.

I'm not the reflexive boor you paint me as, nor are you the font of reasonable sagacity you paint youself, as that "metric epithet" thing indicates.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 1, 2009 9:20 PM | Report abuse

ddawd, thanks for the dionne link.

i have this pumpkin risotto recipe.. hey, the pumpkin is a great thing. think of how much it figures into our holidays, our traditions, it's really integral to our culture. Halloween, Thanksgiving, it's a symbol of the coming of the dark season, harvest, of what the native americans gave to us [or we stole, depending on your point of view] but there it is, a native, nutritious fruit that helped keep both the native people and the colonials alive.

So I salute the Great Pumpkin.

Posted by: drindl | December 1, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Well that was quick.

Hey 37th it's pretty clear that Obama meant innocent as opposed to naive, not innocent as opposed to guilty. I'm prett sure you knew that but just wanted to pivot on a deliberate misunderstanding to issue another tiresome "apology" screed.

We're pretty tired of the America can do no wrong shtick too, you know. Maybe you could work Bill Ayers into it too?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 1, 2009 9:08 PM | Report abuse

"Hey, we got sick of the samo' pumpkin soup that tastes like so much extra pie filling too! Over the past five days in a coastal cabin, off-line, no TV...cooked up a storm. One favorite was a Haitian (creole) Pumpkin based stew featuring greens, various root veggies and a hot-spicy/savory flavoring combo."

Sounds good. Speaking of which, I got 15 minutes to hit up my local Subway. Damn late night experiments!

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2009 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama tonight in his speech said this country "is not as innocent" as when FDR was President.


Here we have it again.


The OBAMA at West Point TAKING A SWIPE AT THE COUNTRY


I AM TOTALLY SICK OF OBAMA PUTTING OUR COUNTRY DOWN.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 1, 2009 8:42 PM | Report abuse

"trep1@ 4:00, thank you for the link to that really thoughtful, well-written piece. It was a beautiful read and I recommend it to everyone here.

Posted by: margaretmeyers"

EJ Dionne also did a piece on Leach yesterday. On how he's making an attempt to rise above the cacophony of the talking heads that dominate the right wing mediawaves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112902014.html

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2009 8:42 PM | Report abuse

"I didn't say I agree with the post or the use of the term, but didn't realize that metric was a epithet."

You're being dishonest here and I think you know it.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

trep1@ 4:00, thank you for the link to that really thoughtful, well-written piece. It was a beautiful read and I recommend it to everyone here.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 1, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey, we got sick of the samo' pumpkin soup that tastes like so much extra pie filling too! Over the past five days in a coastal cabin, off-line, no TV...cooked up a storm. One favorite was a Haitian (creole) Pumpkin based stew featuring greens, various root veggies and a hot-spicy/savory flavoring combo.

Talk about flaming the visitors!

Posted by: shrink2 | December 1, 2009 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Let us propose a test run for civil discourse here. If a conservative [and I use that term not because it's accurate, but that is the apparently agreed-upon label] comes on here and posts a civil argument, or coherent defense of their belief system, I promise I will be nice.

Provided they do not refer to birtherism, fascism, communism, socialism, appeasement, dithering, 'bowing to our enemies', Democraps, death panels, teleprompters, Islam, Rev. Wright, watermelons, assassination, armed revolution, secession, 'freedom', Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Let's see, what have I left out? There's so much material that simply insults our collective intelligence.

We really can't have a sane discussion until this stuff stops.

Posted by: drindl | December 1, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

As I said, I don't know about the ground game in NJ, but the signs of Deeds didn't scream DEMOCRAT either. The claim that McDonnell played down his Republican affiliation is just making stuff up. McDonnell soft-pedaled the social conservatism and emphasized jobs, the economy, and taxes. Only a moron would think he might be a Democrat. Deeds tried to hug Kaine & Warner dear, so it was pretty clear where he came from.

And, DDAWD, I did read the original post. And I think you're being pretty juvenile in posting it three times. Score one point for sliowa. I didn't say I agree with the post or the use of the term, but didn't realize that metric was a epithet.

I rarely get flamed by the likes of Jake and Zouk. I was amused by the Maggie Moo comment the other day (it's called Mixers by the way). It's an indication that Zouk lives in Arlington or Alexandria. 37th&O tried to provoke me, but I ignored it and bored down on the point (he/she was misrepresenting information on climate change).

Well, I've got kids who need to get to bed and some dinner to make. Pumpkin curry tonight. Pardon me while I dismount.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 1, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

And I imagine that the "good old days" that zouk reminisces about were the heyday of the now-gone GOP trolls like the original 37th.

Halcyon days, no doubt. Not.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 1, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Reminds me of when people were saying how JakeD is intelligent and a breath of fresh air. I was baffled as to how people seemed to overlook the blatant racism. Yeah, I think I'll find some other opportunity to flout my "open-minded" bona fides.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I don't quite get this either. Rightwingers come on here every day and savagely attack democratic posters here, often quite personally, and without any provocation. Yet 'left-leaning' posters are admonished to be nice, or the rightwingers will go away.

==

Perspective point: this is the same blog where zouk, posting under three known monikers and probably several others, refers to other posters as pedophiles.

Compared to that routine everyday norm, the rebukes under discussion don't amount to squat.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 1, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Hey Fairlington how about you unsteeple your fingers for a moment and come down off that high horse. The sliwota poster (or whatever his moniker is) is hardly new, he's very familiar in the comments sections of articles here and in the other blogs, and no he doesn't do a light of civil and well-reasoned posts, mostly he posts just like that Charko guy sans the all-caps.

I found his crowing about the gubernatorial victories to be dishonest as he deliberately ignored the *essential* fact that the two who won did so by playing their Republican affiliation WAY down. I don't live on the east coast anymore, didn't see their yards signs but have read that they didn't blaze "GOP!!!", and I did see their web sites, where anyone would have thought they were Democrats.

The one of the three who ran under the Palin banner lost a seat that had been GOP for seven generations.

That's not exactly the kind of data that supports Christie and McDonnell as evidence that the GOP stands poised to regain all three houses.

As for getting some quality conservative posters in here, I'd welcome that. When 37th did his unexpected non-vomit post I responded with civil disagreement, neither flaming him nor hooting as his momentary respite from screaming.

But in general to ask for clear conservative debators is like asking for chickens with teeth and turtles with fur. That's just not how it works.

That's just not how things are.

It wasn't true a quarter century ago before the GOP went completely spla and it isn't true now. Conservative posters are almost invariably, repeat, almost invariably, angry, baiting, sarcastic, nasty, and clannish.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 1, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"@nodebris - A new poster shows up and was called a liar and the mental skills of a toddler. I know it was G&T, but it struck me as a deliberate attempt to flame off a new poster. DDAWD was amazed that he or she actually has a vocabulary. Pretty much insinuated the opposite and had to use a thesaurus. Then, there was the comment "his posts were at least as moronic as he claims everyone else's to be.""


Did you read the line that I quoted there? I'm assuming you didn't, so I'll write it again. I'm assuming you missed it since if you had seen it, you wouldn't say that he was simply daring to disagree.

"I find your metric the word “Republican” a rather silly measure. In short, your metric was rather juvenile."

In case you missed it in the original post, when I coppied and past it the first time, and when I copied and pasted it just above, I'll put it down again

"I find your metric the word “Republican” a rather silly measure. In short, your metric was rather juvenile."

Now this is obviously not the most egregious insult. But it isn't simply daring to disagree. When you consider

1)no one proposed a "metric" It was simply an observation.

2)he is taking this observation to an obvious extreme. No one is saying that McDonnell collected every ballot and redacted the word "Republican" next to his name. The argument was that he was somewhat hiding his party affiliation as well as his more extremist views.

Oh, in case you missed it in the original post, the first time I copied and pasted it and the two times I pasted it above, here it is again.

"I find your metric the word “Republican” a rather silly measure. In short, your metric was rather juvenile."

Now if he is going to be insulting and he is going to use words like metric and juvenile in nonsensical ways, then if I feel like insulting him back, a a thesaurus comment seems like a good way to do it. If someone wants to write like an eight year old, then he can have at it. If he's going to be insulting while writing like an eight year old, then people are perfectly justified at coming back at him.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Can't we all just get along?

I wish I had a taser!

You people should be
p*ssing your pants!!

Posted by: simonsays1 | December 1, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

This is off the current topic, but worth a look.
http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/speeches/11202009.html

Posted by: trep1 | December 1, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

'At least I was able to engage 37th in a conversation, even if I was characterized as arrogant and insecure in the process.'


and why is this worth the trouble then, if you have to allow yourself to be insulted in the process?

Posted by: drindl | December 1, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't quite get this either. Rightwingers come on here every day and savagely attack democratic posters here, often quite personally, and without any provocation. Yet 'left-leaning' posters are admonished to be nice, or the rightwingers will go away. Frankly, if they are rude and insulting, I hope they go away. And the truth is, eventually almost all of them are.

Posted by: drindl | December 1, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

@nodebris - A new poster shows up and was called a liar and the mental skills of a toddler. I know it was G&T, but it struck me as a deliberate attempt to flame off a new poster. DDAWD was amazed that he or she actually has a vocabulary. Pretty much insinuated the opposite and had to use a thesaurus. Then, there was the comment "his posts were at least as moronic as he claims everyone else's to be."

All sliowa dared to do was disagree with a few of the residents who were claiming something utterly unbelievable. Focusing on the economy and jobs is no more running away from being a Republican than Bill Clinton ran away from being a Democrat in 1992. I don't live in NJ, but it seems that Christie ran on being not Corzine and on a law & order rep.

As to why my post was directed to the left, it was because a new poster showed up, made a few comments that were well reasoned, and got flamed. I figure that zouk, leapin, and armpeg are beyond reason, so it's not worth the trouble. I haven't made up my mind about the new 37th. At least I was able to engage 37th in a conversation, even if I was characterized as arrogant and insecure in the process.

I will lay odds that if I invented a new handle and posted some positive thoughts about Republicans, G&T would be flaming me and others would post various doubts about my intelligence and state of mind.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 1, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I think the last white paper conservative guy I could really stand was that Washington guy. Of course I disagreed with his points and wasn't shy about saying so, but he didn't say anything really moronic and as far as I remember wasn't insulting.

I'm not sure how this Iowa guy became the poster child for intelligence and civility. I suppose it's all relative.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I knew it, CC, I JUST knew it! Nothing could drag you away from your 'vacation' except Sarah Palin. I can set my watch by your columns now. Does Mrs. Fix know about your fixation???

Posted by: DRFJR | December 1, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

GJonahJameson, what you consider being "set upon" I considered polite encouragement. A massive change in tone and content after months of consistently vituperative posting is bound to spark amazement. Past behavior has consequences, on blogs as in real life.

And I would ask, why is this admonition for politeness being directed solely to "left-leaning posters?" If you wish to propose a standard, than address it to all, please.

Posted by: nodebris | December 1, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Pointing out that Chris tends to write almost nothing but positive stories about Rs and negative ones about Ds is not harrassing him. It is urging him to step away from the conventional beltway 'wisdom' and not simply echo Dan Balz or worse, David Broder. He can be better than that, if he would get into a little more depth. Don't you agree that he often sounds like a republican press release?

Or worse, like his old pals Allen and VanderHei, who were happy to act as stenographers to give Dick Cheney a megaphone to spew his treasonous bile on the day Obama is giving an important foreign policy address.

"Despite Cheney’s well-known and worn-out attacks on Obama, Politico’s Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei secured an interview with the former vice president in order to inform their readers today of the shocking revelation that Cheney thinks Obama is projecting “weakness” on Afghanistan. The paper’s top reporters sat down with Cheney for a 90-minute interview and transcribed Cheney’s attacks without challenge, criticism, or rebuttal"

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/01/politico-cheney/

This is the Big Joke -- that the media is liberal, when in fact, the MSM has been leaning right for years now. Recognizing this is not harrassment.

Posted by: drindl | December 1, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to echo the comments of FairlingtonBlade and mark_in_austin about not scaring off the less abrasive conservative posters here. If this board's more left-leaning posters attack all the right-leaning ones, the only conservatives who'll stick around will be the trolls, who thrive on being insulted, while the more level-headed will leave for greener pastures.

Along the same lines, I wish some posters wouldn't badger others into changing their ways, then insult them when they do. Earlier on this thread, 37thand0street made a perfectly reasonable post, and he was almost immediately set upon with comments to the effect of, "Wow! I can't believe you aren't being the total imbecile you usually are!" That's not going to encourage him to continue being reasonable. Same with harassing Chris for months about not writing enough smiles-and-sunshine posts about the Democrats, then when he did write something to that effect a week or so ago, immediately responding with, "Oh my gosh I can't believe CC stopped being an evil right-wing shill for a few glorious moments!"

I was originally drawn to this blog and its comments section because it was one of the few places I could find conversations about politics that featured both sides with minimal flaming. I'd hate to see either of those things change.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 1, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Tweets on the link between Mike Huckabee and Maurice Clemmons are running about 3-4/minute, or about 5000 per day. That's a lot of negatives for him. That's why Sarah Palin resigned as Governor, didn't want to face any more parole/commutation decisions.

Posted by: mesondk | December 1, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Family Members:

Current Elected Officials
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wy.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.
Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C.
Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn.
Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C.
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.
Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.
Other Notable Members
Gov. Mark Sanford, R-S.C. – caught visiting mistress in Argentina.
Rep. Chuck Pickering, R-Miss. – had sex with mistress at C Street house.
Chuck Colson – Watergate felon.
Late Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. – provided classified documents to cult leaders.
Late Sen. Absalom Robertson, Dixiecrat-Va. – father of televangelist Pat Robertson

The mainstream media avoids referring to the Family as a cult, but check out this description of the group’s belief system from Jeff Sharlet and decide for yourself:

'They have a very unusual theology in the sense that they think that Christ had one message for an inner circle and then a kind of different message for a sort of slightly more outer circle. And then the rest of us, Christ told us little stories because, frankly, we couldn’t handle the truth. And the core members are those they think are getting the real deal.'

In other words, only they, the members of the Family, truly know what is best for the rest of us.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/11/25/the-family-c-street-group-tied-to-uganda-death-penalty-for-gays/

If it walks like a cult and talks like a cult…

Posted by: drindl | December 1, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

This was rather surprising to me... anyone else heard of The Family? From NPR:

"With their reported $13 billion tax-exempt financial empire, the Mormons may be the wealthiest cult in America — and Scientology may be the big thing among the rich and powerful in Hollywood — but when it comes to political power neither of those sects holds a candle to the Family, the Christian extremist political group that operates the now infamous C Street house on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Members of the Family have occupied seats in both houses of Congress going back to the 1930s, but for all but its most recent history, the hallmark of the Family has been secrecy. In the past year, however, three sex scandals involving highly placed associates — Gov. Mark Sanford, R-S.C.; Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.; and Rep. Chip Pickering, R-Miss. — have thrust the group and its C Street house into the national spotlight.

But what many people may find surprising is that the Family has branches around the world. In fact, yesterday, Jeff Sharlet, author of “The Family: Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power,” reported on NPR’s “Fresh Air” that it was a Family member in the Ugandan parliament who introduced a bill that would increase the punishment for homosexuality from life imprisonment, which is the maximum sentence today, to death:

SHARLET: [The] legislator that introduces the bill, a guy named David Bahati, is a member of the Family. He appears to be a core member of the Family. He works, he organizes their Uganda National Prayer Breakfast and oversees a African sort of student leadership program designed to create future leaders for Africa, into which the Family has poured millions of dollars working through a very convoluted chain of linkages passing the money over to Uganda…"

The article details the records and archives of large sums of money funneled from The Family into Ugandan politics...

Posted by: drindl | December 1, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I'm just mystified by the use of Bacon's first name. Are PBJ and KateM close friends or something?

But I don't think it's a big stretch to assume that the minority vote will be down. There's no Obama to vote for. Minorities are a relatively unreliable voting group as it is. Furthermore, I think Democrats in general will be less motivated to go out and vote in comparison to the Republicans.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Interesting poll, drindl. Particularly given the distribution in California and Texas. Florida is complicated by the large Cuban population. I would find it difficult to imagine the TX seat flipping, but perhaps it could be in play.

Well, off to work. Have fun in the playpen, everyone!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 1, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

@katem - "Perry is so stuck in the past conventional wisdom, just like CC here, and thinks minorities are going to not vote next year."

I read the chat (BTW - nice question) and what he said is that turnout will be down, not that minorities won't vote. I don't have numbers offhand, but certainly the prospect to elect the first AA president drove turnout in the AA community. I doubt Bob McDonnell in VA won the minority vote, but a combination of lower turnout and inroads was adequate for a whopping victory over Deeds.

"Plus he figures the GOP will make some progress with minorities. Could he be anymore insulting to minorities? They worked hard to get Obama elected, just to see all these white people, Republicans, deny the legitimacy of Obama with the "birthers" and the tea partys, and the Hitler and Holocaust images at 9/12 rallies."

I would argue that by casting them as a single, monolithic bloc, your comment is the insulting one. W nearly won the Latino vote--much of that goodwill was spent in the backlash against illegal immigration. I read plenty of comments that were broad attacks on all Latinos. There were minority voters who shifted from R to D in '06 and '08. It isn't logical to assume that they will never shift back.

"That's okay, just like the '08 election, old school politics guys like CC and Perry will eventually "get it", the times they are a changin', and polls showed last year that the election would be a lot closer than it actually was. 1306 people do not an accurate reflection of 130,000,000 voters make."

Which polls are these? I followed the poll averages on RealClearPolitics last year and most polls showed a solid lead for Obama. Consider this. The economy was in the dumps, he faced an at times dysfunctional campaign by his opponent, and there is a natural tendency in the electorate to shift parties after one party has held the presidency for several terms (not since 1948). Given all that, Obama still only took 53% of the vote. A solid win, but nothing Reaganesque.

Shrink covered LinkedIn. I'm on it, but haven't been active. It seems potentially valuable, but I'm busy enough as it is.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 1, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

" Perry is so stuck in the past conventional wisdom, just like CC here, and thinks minorities are going to not vote next year. Plus he figures the GOP will make some progress with minorities."

katem -- who's Perry? yeah, I know, the pundits never leave the past, where a republican resurgence is always just on the horizon. How the gop will make progress with minorities when we've seen and heard so many racial slurs from them this year -- from sotomayor to obama, well, the gop is driving minorities away faster than ever.

Among Latinos, the fastest growing demographic group, approval of Obama stands at 74% in a new poll.

http://latinodecisions.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/health-care-poll-nov09/

Posted by: drindl | December 1, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Linkedin is a well-respected professional website. If you post previous positions and time frames, it will allow you to connect [with their permission] with your colleagues at the time. I have reconnected with some good old friends I had lost touch with this way, and also landed a few freelance assignments, so I recommend it.

Nothing daring or faddish about it.

Posted by: drindl | December 1, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

yesterday on the Pol chat, I asked Perry if this poll had been broken down into ethnic groups cause minorities are needed to win a national election. Perry pointed out that Bush had won in '04 without, (if you can call winning by 3,000,000 votes really winning) but I countered with how minorities now know how important their vote is. Perry is so stuck in the past conventional wisdom, just like CC here, and thinks minorities are going to not vote next year. Plus he figures the GOP will make some progress with minorities. Could he be anymore insulting to minorities? They worked hard to get Obama elected, just to see all these white people, Republicans, deny the legitimacy of Obama with the "birthers" and the tea partys, and the Hitler and Holocaust images at 9/12 rallies. So in other words Perry, and Chris with his constant GOP cheerleading think that minorities are going to ignore this and maybe even join the GOP. Palin stirs up the Dem base too, as do the theocratic racial slurs and vomit like white southern preachers praying for the death of the duly elected President. And do you really think that the Barack the Magic Negro CD is forgotten about? and how white was the big tent of the RNC in Aug/08? That's okay, just like the '08 election, old school politics guys like CC and Perry will eventually "get it", the times they are a changin', and polls showed last year that the election would be alot closer than it actually was. 1306 people do not an accurate reflection of 130,000,000 voters make.

Posted by: katem1 | December 1, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

"Incidentally, a note to the liberal posters on the blog. Sliowa is actually taking the time to present an opinion, not copy from elsewhere or post cheap taunts. If all you want is an insult fest with Zouk, Jake, armpeg, and the like, be my guest.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade"

It was actually the cheap taunting that led to my sarcastic reply. I guess if we're being relativistic about it, then yeah, at least he didn't say "Democrap"

I tend not to be relativistic about these things, however, and his posts were at least as moronic as he claims everyone else's to be.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, shrink.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 1, 2009 10:23 AM | Report abuse

http://www.linkedin.com/

This is a kind of Facebook,
marketed to professionals.

I have tons of affiliates (not "friends", that would cause a lawsuit for sure) and I have experienced no negative consequences..so far.

It looks like a fad to me, judging by the people in my field from whom I have received invites.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 1, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

BB, that was a fine post at 8:41A. This page has been threatening to become a self-reinforcing echo chamber since vbhoomes left. We have the occasional analysis of reason5 and sliowa from the rational right but if they draw enough attempted intimidation from flamers like CF8 [who wrote of sliowa "you have the reasoning skills of a toddler"] we will lose them, too.

A blog can have the character of an open discussion or of a flame fest, but not both. If I believed that I could post an opinion so compelling that I would change your mind in two paragraphs, I would. If I believed that insulting any of you would change your opinion to be parallel to mine, I might try it. However to me, inviting discussion is good blogging, while trying to stifle it is counterproductive.

bsimon is a nearly perfect blogger. BB and sliowa are very good bloggers. Which brings me to this point.
Perhaps one of you can explain to me what "Ellen Brandt, PhD", meant by "Please contact me at Linked In for an invitation" . I would like to know if she knows enough not to invite armpeg and CF8 and I do not know how to contact her or what is meant by "Linked In" or whether she is just soliciting, in the conventional sense. If "Linked In" is a social website, of course, I will not expose any computer of mine to it. Perhaps one of you is more daring and can report back.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 1, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

The loon world view becomes more twisted every day. According to them republicans can only get elected by wearing fake mustaches. Also no one on the Internet eats lobster, has a wife or kids or owns a boat. Jobs are for losers and taxes get paid by them. You can post chanting lefty ignorance all day yet be smart.

Can someone explain the four month dance of confusion whereby Barry ended up back where he started? Can anyone explain anything these kooks do?

Posted by: snowbama | December 1, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

here's another hypocrite:

"On Saturday, DoingItLocal.com’s David Smith interviewed former Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT), a candidate for the Senate in 2010. Simmons, who is facing a crowded primary for the Republican nomination, has lurched to the far right to accommodate his party’s tea party base. He has renounced his support for progressive policies like cap-and-trade and the Employee Free Choice Act, and now proudly displays an actual tea bag tucked away in his copy of the Constitution.

Most recently, Simmons has tacked to the right on health reform as well. He attacked current legislation as a “government takeover” and denounced government interference in health care as placing “bureaucrats between patients and doctors.” But during his interview with Smith, Simmons went off his conservative script, stating that unemployed workers should seek the government-sponsored program of Medicaid:

SMITH: One of the aspects of the economy that is taking a very serious toll on families is of course healthcare. When people lose jobs, typically they lose they lose their health care. […] What do you suggest, what kind of answers do you have for people who are facing the all too real, daunting situation of not having health care?

SIMMONS: Well back in my part of the state and I know throughout the state you have community health centers or clinics that are available. Obviously if you lose your job and you fall within the income limits, you are eligible to sign up for Medicaid. "

Oh my god, not all that government health care!

Posted by: drindl | December 1, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

"He downplayed his social conservatism, taking a page from Bill Clinton, but never hid the fact that he was a Republican."

I beleive what is meant is exactly that -- that he ran as a moderate, as did Christie, downplaying their party. Yet the victories have been touted on the right as victories for the radical rightwing policies of movement conservatives, which is patently untrue.

And not mentioning your party affiliation on your website or signange? I 've seen a lot of that where I live too, in the last couple of years. But only from repubicans.

Posted by: drindl | December 1, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

BB and Sliowa, I think GandT has overstated something that was pretty obvious. McDonnell and Cristie both presented themselves to the voters as "Moderate Republicans" despite their history as conservative Republicans (especially McDonnell -- Christie had no legislative history, merely his years with the Bush administration). They both ran as 'reasonable moderates' against the 'radical and unreasonable' administration of Obama. They both distanced themselves from Palin and the Bush administration. It was pretty clear they were gaming the voters, and the voters went along with being gamed.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 1, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

"It's not believable to claim that McDonnell didn't run as a Republican"

I don't think anyone is saying that. But it is fair to say he did not highlight his party affiliation.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 1, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

The only ways Sarah Palin will get into the White House are:

1. Get in line for the tour like any other tourist.

2. Crash a party.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 1, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

It's not believable to claim that McDonnell didn't run as a Republican, particularly when you weren't even IN Virginia during the campaign. He downplayed his social conservatism, taking a page from Bill Clinton, but never hid the fact that he was a Republican.

Incidentally, a note to the liberal posters on the blog. Sliowa is actually taking the time to present an opinion, not copy from elsewhere or post cheap taunts. If all you want is an insult fest with Zouk, Jake, armpeg, and the like, be my guest.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 1, 2009 8:41 AM | Report abuse

For a list of Obama's accomplishments for those who only watch Fox:
http://www.slate.com/id/2236708/

Let the harping begin.

Posted by: trep1 | December 1, 2009 7:25 AM | Report abuse

McDonnell had been pressing his thesis-outlined legislative plan to put more Regent U-type religion in government the whole time he was a legislator in Virginia. He didn't get much passed into law -- a reflection of how socially conservative his outlook really is.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 1, 2009 6:39 AM | Report abuse

"In terms of his thesis, it had nothing to do with current policy so why bring it up."

Um, yeah. His legislative record is pretty much an attempt to implement the ideas espoused in that thesis.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2009 6:09 AM | Report abuse

"I find your metric the word “Republican” a rather silly measure. In short, your metric was rather juvenile."

The word juvenile is not short for the word silly. Literally, juvenile has more letters.

Congrats on your ability to use a thesaurus. I expected less of you.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2009 6:06 AM | Report abuse

G&T

“I saw their web sites. As DDAWD points out McDonnells was a clone-copy of Obama's and a search for the word "Republican" on the main page turned up "Phrase not found."

In short, you're lying.

Republican? Thought so”

Let see your logic you ran a word search on the word “Republican” on their web site and you did not get any hits, which proves they did not embrace R party, yet they both ran as R (strange). I find your metric the word “Republican” a rather silly measure. In short, your metric was rather juvenile. Please get yourself a better search engine. McDonnell did embrace R ideas of less government and growth for small business. He also ran against big government polices associated with Washington, DC so he did run as a R.

Posted by: sliowa | December 1, 2009 5:08 AM | Report abuse

DDAVID
“How do you get that these two people embraced their Republicanism? I looked on their websites. I couldn't find it. Especially on McDonnell's website that was a clone of Obama's. Christie sure never mentioned his ties to the Bush administration. McDonnell sure didn't embrace that thesis. Blowing it off as something he wrote as a kid in college? He sure didn't embrace his legislative record either. Why? Because he knew he couldn't win if he embraced his conservative past.”

Exactly what is your definition of embracing R standards? I find it rather lame to say I visited their web site and I determined they did not embrace R values, but you offer no metric as to why you ascertained that they ran from their R party. I have seen both Obama’s and McDonnell’s web site and they are not clones in terms of issues, how did you fathom that account. Again what is the metric you use. McDonnell’s campaign was about economic issues and railed against Obama policies hardly running away from R party. In terms of his thesis, it had nothing to do with current policy so why bring it up. I saw Obama distance himself from his past during his campaign does that mean he was running from the D party. Please your logic is rather weak. I would say it again if the voters had so much trouble with McDonnell past something Deed brought up often (hint when you lack ideas attack you opponent…see Corzine and Deeds election strategies) why did he beat Deeds so handily.

In terms of Christie, what fool would seek out the least popular president in modern history for an endorsement? If I use your logic why did Corzine not talk about his business experience especially following all the bank bail-outs. I am sure that would have gone over just as well. Look Corzine could not even talk about his own accomplishments since they were so poor so he attacked and attacked. Christie won because he was not Corzine, but he hardly ran away from R party.

Posted by: sliowa | December 1, 2009 5:03 AM | Report abuse

I follow the same strategy reading the posts here, PgUp is your friend. Harder with forward chronology because one ends up reading some of it most of the time.

But I give in once in a while. I know it's not healthy but we don't get a lot of chances to see malevolence of that intensity, usually it's locked away somewhere or so self-marginalizing that one'd never run into it.

Anyway it really was a serious question, not a goad .. why spend so much time in a forum where you deeply and viscerally despise so many people? I just don't get that, but then I don't get the whole "joy of being a nuisance" thing, whether it's the trolls or the drivers on the road who enjoy holding people up.

His trying to shape perceptions with CC isn't going to work, but christ he sure works hard at it.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 1, 2009 2:08 AM | Report abuse

"Which brings us to the point: why are you here?"

Well, he wants to be recognized as smart. It's kind of the strategy of the pundits. They are constantly telling us how much the US hates Obama and how Democrats are going to lose all but five members of Congress and so forth. They seem to think that if you keep saying something, it will be true.

That's zook's plan. If he keeps telling everyone how smart he is and how dumb everyone else is, then eventually will believe him.

Whatever, I don't even care. I've just trained my mind to skip over people. That's the nice thing of the bottom up order of the posts. It's automatic. See a zook post, just scroll up to the next name. I'd have no idea what he says if others didn't refer to it. It's how I deal with racists in real life. Just ignore them and let them find other ears for their bigotry.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2009 1:52 AM | Report abuse

It is truly amazing that any conservative or Republican could possibly possess the gall to criticize the Obama Administration's level of competence after the nation was subjected to eight years of the complete and total incompetence of Bush II.

==

Even more hilarious is their denegrating Obama for the stimulus, the new passionately responsible fiscaloids ... after Bush MasterCarded two wars we didn't even need to fight, snickering as he shifted the costs by some spurious accounting trick, the frat boy who turned a huge surplus into an even huger deficit.

If the average voter had the memory of a cockatoo then Republicans would be handing from lampposts while torchlight-bearing crowds beneath waited for them to stop kicking.

How they will scream and squeal and rage when Obama passes a jobs stimulus package.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 11:37 PM | Report abuse

CC - your blog has turned to raw sewage at the hands of these losers.

==

(*chuckle*)

this from the guy whose posts are universally understood to be "vomit on the sidewalk."

Hey ZOUK/zouk_/zouk-/snowbama/Dog-knows-how-many-others .... look, we get it. You hate us. You especially hate me, drindl, and koolkat (or is it broadwayjoe, I don't really keep track), to the point that at least three out of every four of your "postings" are about how much you hate us.

And, just to close the loop, nobody here cares about you, and hardly anyone ever reads your savagely angry posts. You're beneath notice.

Which brings us to the point: why are you here?

And the only possible answer, given that reading our posts is so painful for you, has to be ... the envelope please! ...

... because you have. Nothing. Else. To. Do.

Why don't you request a lobotomy?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 11:32 PM | Report abuse

did notice that the resident loons stopped defending Obimbo some time ago and now simply troll around for gossip on any Repub they can find, elected or not.

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

I dare you to find something positive about Obimbo from any of these losers.

envy, hate and spite, the MOE of The fix under the new Stooge regime with drivl as the minster of propoganda, Loud and dumb in charge of nifty sayings and the villiage idiot G&T/CF8/NAMBLA.

CC - your blog has turned to raw sewage at the hands of these losers.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

It is truly amazing that any conservative or Republican could possibly possess the gall to criticize the Obama Administration's level of competence after the nation was subjected to eight years of the complete and total incompetence of Bush II. The irony of course is that Bush II's incompetence further destroyed Americans' confidence in the national government, which actually now works to Republicans' advantage, since they are now the party so deservedly out of power.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | November 30, 2009 10:22 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to imagine a more dysfunctional set of misfits than the three headed loons called CF8, drivl and Loud and dumb, now seriously in danger of losing the third stooge position to DDawg. Add in the circus clowns that occasionaly make a little sense and you have The Fix. Never an intelligent or original word, but loads of ranting and raving about nonsense.

I did notice that the resident loons stopped defending Obimbo some time ago and now simply troll around for gossip on any Repub they can find, elected or not.

If you had so little to go on, what would you do? brag about the speedy decision on the dog? I know, I know, how about the hiccup decision on the war, the all new way, followed by the wait until I decide, then, finally, the new, all new, same as before, method. the guy is a joke and the world knows it. you have got to be a moonbat fix stooge not to see it.


I can't wait until they rename "dead soldiers". they renamed everything else they wanted to market as a good. how about previously patriotic americans. as in, the Pentagon announced today that the toll in afghanistan of previously patriotic americans reached 10,000 today, four years after present ident Obambi promised to finish the job. More man caused disasters are expected in the overseas contingency.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 10:06 PM | Report abuse

@OHIO: nice analysis, especially the listing of names, many of which I'd forgotten.

But even as recently as Bush the Greater the GOP was far right but still a legitimate party .. under the other Bush and especially since losing to a nonwhite president they've gone not just further right but totally over the edge. The party of Sarah Palin is too angry, too irrational, too loopy, too irresponsible to be trusted with power.

When we have mainstream politicians calling for insurrection, blocking the nation's business with no regard for the nation's well-being, they aren't a political party anymore, they're a cult.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 9:33 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party has moved steadily and demonstrably to the right over the past 30-35 years. The Republicans inhabit a much narrower slice of the political spectrum than they did in the 1970s. During the 1970s the Senate Republican Caucus included liberals like Edward Brooke, Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Lowell Weicker, and Charles Matthias as well as moderates like Mark Hatfield, Hugh Scott, Robert Stafford, Richard Schweicker, Robert Packwood.

When Richard Lugar was first elected in 1976 he fit as a rather conservative Republican. Lugar's politics have not changed in the past 30 years yet now instead of being considered conservative, he is now considered moderate-to-conservative with a voting record more moderate and less conservative than all but three or four of his fellow Republican Senators. When Orrin Hatch was first elected in 1976 he instantly became one of the most conservative Senators, yet now his voting record positions him toward the center of the Senate Republican Caucus. Hatch is as conservative today as he was 30 years ago, but he no longer approximates the right pole of the Republican Caucus. Instead he now appears to be a fairly mundane typical conservative, while at least 12-15 other Republicans have Senate voting records that are even more conservative than his, which is in fact staunchly conservative. Hatch is not nearly so far right as the Senate's current fringe element that includes Inhofe, DeMint, Coburn, Sessions and Vitter.

The Democratic Caucus is quite similar to what it always was---a mixture of Northern Liberals primarily hailing from the Northeast, Upper Midwest and Pacific Coast---and a collection of moderates and moderate-conservatives hailing primarily from Southern and Border states, the Plains and the Mountain West. Liberal Democratic Senators of today are no more liberal than were their predecessors of the 1960s and 1970s, though the Caucus lacks the Southern segregationist conservatives it had in those years. What has really disappeared from the Democratic Caucus are the Southern Liberals---the Senators like Lyndon Johnson, Lister Hill, Ralph Yarborough, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright, Dale Bumpers ---who despite how they may have voted on Civil Rights issues, had quite liberal voting records on other issues.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | November 30, 2009 9:16 PM | Report abuse

37th and O, I hear you about the candidate "having his turn" in the GOP. But I think this is only true when the party knows it isn't their year -- so you get Bob Dole and John McCain. No one expected Dole to be elected, and I don't think the party thought McCain would win, either. I think they were happy to let someone who is near the end of their political career (Dole and McCain) use-up their political currency and reserve the younger candidates who still have prospects for a better year.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | November 30, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

OK, so the 20% of the electorate that is Republican, plus what percent of the Independents leaning Republican, don't like Obama and can regurgitate every Party eruction (that's a belch, for the WAPO's less than erudite dictionary) on a moments non thought.

How does that relate to the 75% of the people who want some sort of health care and are watching McConnell declare himself the majority in opposition to it?

You have a majority of a decided minority in favor of SP? Hooray! (really) let her run.

And now it turns out that the dithering allowed Obama to make his announcement on Afghanistan as a TRUE coalition action, with NATO and maybe Eurocratic backing. THIS TIME we go in without coerced allies.

So all you thirty percenters, stick to gether and remember your leader.

We move on without you.
Does that add up to as many as 35 % of the electorate over all?

Posted by: ceflynline | November 30, 2009 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Wow, 37th and 0, a post with no snipe or insult thoughtfully pondering a real issue without merely repeating Limbaugh or Beck. Well done.

==

This is a first for this blog, can you imagine JD / zouk / armpeg / leapin writing a coherent post?

It's to be encouraged.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Wow, 37th and 0, a post with no snipe or insult thoughtfully pondering a real issue without merely repeating Limbaugh or Beck. Well done.

I think Romney comes as close to what you're describing as anyone for the GOP. But the party is all over the map lately, it's hard to say.

Posted by: nodebris | November 30, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

My thoughts are these: traditionally Republicans like to give the nomination to the person who it is "their turn."

It is a vague concept, but it makes sense.

Even last year, McCain won the nomination, even though he was down for a while.

==

No, it doesn't make sense at all. The choice of president should be based on something more salient than musical chairs.

McCain got it last time because the rest of the guys who wanted the job were even more boring than he was, and McCain disgraced himself and his party not only by elevating a ditzy fundamentalist woman to national politics but also by lying his head off, time and again.

This year four out of ten Republicans have no idea whom they would want to vote for next time. They're Republicans but there are no leaders in the party for them.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

My thoughts are these: traditionally Republicans like to give the nomination to the person who it is "their turn."


It is a vague concept, but it makes sense.

Even last year, McCain won the nomination, even though he was down for a while.

Now, who's "turn" is it? I think that is the point, there is no one really to point to.


Both parties have experienced a massive turn-over - both in leadership and policies.


If one studies it closely, I believe it will come down to the increase demands of raising campaign cash - It is hard to break-in, the demands of raising cash are greater in the larger states which traditionally supplied leaders.


We are choking off our leaders down the ladder.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 30, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Could they put a little of it towards the I-68/I-70 intersection? Hoo boy, what a mess last night! One more thing for which to be thankful: GPS. We dodged the worst of the traffic by taking US40 from I-68 to I-70. Still almost an hour of delays last night.

==

The map applet showing current traffic conditions gets more use on my iPhone than any other app 'cept the Vietnamese dictionary. Absolutely THE most useful current information there is.

I don't think it's GPS-based though, I think it uses cell tower triangulation.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

When I visit family in Central Pennsylvania I am endlessly amazed by the extensive, wide and beautifully maintained highways there, and how you sail along, unencumbered by any traffic at all! If it wasn't taking highway money away from places that could use it I would laugh.

===

Could they put a little of it towards the I-68/I-70 intersection? Hoo boy, what a mess last night! One more thing for which to be thankful: GPS. We dodged the worst of the traffic by taking US40 from I-68 to I-70. Still almost an hour of delays last night.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 30, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

One really REALLY needs to wonder about that 28% who think Palin should be president.

Of course they're the same people who show up at the extremity of every poll, the same number. But this isn't Bush approval we're talking about here, it's the potential to put a scattered and manifestly irresponsible woman with apocalyptic beliefs in reach of nuclear weapons. That's just alarming.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

If anyone wants something to read before the Saints game...

http://www.slate.com/id/2236604/

On the illogic on comparing Palin's favoribility ratings with Obama's job approval ratings. Includes some history on the systems as well as polling bias inherent in the questions.

Slate.com rocks, by the way.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 30, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse

"I don't think Mark Pryor is by any means representative of the right pole of the Senate Democratic Caucus, as a previous poster implied."

I just kind of picked someone from that part of the spectrum. Didn't mean that he is the most right wing Democrat. I probably would have put Landrieu except that Vitter was my Republican bookend and I didn't want to seem all homerish with two Louisiana Senators, haha.

Enjoyed your analysis of the positioning of the Senators, though.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 30, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

When I visit family in Central Pennsylvania I am endlessly amazed by the extensive, wide and beautifully maintained highways there, and how you sail along, unencumbered by any traffic at all! If it wasn't taking highway money away from places that could use it I would laugh.

Rep Bud Shuster chaired the House Committe on Highways and Infrastructure for years, and did he bring the bacon home to his district. They are still working on projects he lined-up before he "retired" in 2001. His boy Bill followed him in the seat (no political dynasties or anything like that on the Republican), and he keeps the Federal tax dollars flowing into his district. Rep Bill Shuster is in NO WAY a fiscally conservative Republican. His counties feed off tax dollars from their highway projects to their food stamps. Like NY's CD 23, Federal money is what keeps their economy afloat and his posturing against the stimulus money is only made possible by his shamelessness.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | November 30, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Mark Pryor is by any means representative of the right pole of the Senate Democratic Caucus, as a previous poster implied. The right pole of the Democratic Caucus is basically represented by Ben Nelson on most domestic issues, whether economic or social in nature, and by Joe Liebermann on matters of foreign policy and national defense. Pryor is indeed a moderate, but he is clearly to Nelson's left, as well as to the left of Senators Lincoln, Landrieu, and probably Bayh on most domestic socio-economic concerns, though perhaps not to their left on certain social/cultural issues. And there is no Democrat who can possibly get to the right of Liebermann on foreign policy issues. I will agree that Bernie Sanders of Vermont basically represents the left pole of the caucus on almost all issues.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | November 30, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Drindl@409. Jane Fonda and Bill Ayers.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | November 30, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I think it's more that the Republicans have become a niche party and the Democrats have swelled to include everyone else. The only reason the moderate Dems have so much power is because of the overrepresentation of small states in the Senate. Pelosi can really do what she wants in Congress since she doesn't face the filibuster and the representation is more indicative of the actual preferences of the country. Reid has a tougher job since a Senator from Montana has the say pull as a Senator from California.

It's much more preferable to be in the Democrats' position than the Republicans, but having such a large coalition does present its difficulties. Remember that the Democratic caucus spans from Bernie Sanders to Mark Pryor. A far larger span than the one from Olympia Snowe to David Vitter.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 30, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

It's only a matter of time before the political vacuum growing between the two parties leads to the formation of a centrist party to serve the needs of the rapidly growing -- and dissatisfied -- independents. Will the political pundits and junkies see this coming? 2012 should be the GOP's swan song as a major national party, methinks. Afterward, it will become regional and rural, white and old, like a Shaker community waiting to die, pure to the end.

==

We don't need a "centrist" party, we already have two far-right parties, even the most moderate Democrats sign on to ridiculous ideas like market forces and supersized military spending.

What we need is a party to the left of both, one with no roots in appeal to racists or to Wall Street. I don't see that coming.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Palin discovered that governing is more work than she wishes to perform and I believe she is more motivated by money and celebrity than political drive.

==

Based on her behavior since her introduction to national politics by that contemptible liar John McCain I'd say that Palin's number one imperative is to be the center of attention. Good or bad attention, doesn't matter, as long as people are talking about her.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

What McDonnell and Christie both did brilliantly that contributed hugely to their wins was they both convinced voters that they had nothing to do with the little c conservatives in the GOP. Time will tell us how true that is.

==

I'm guessing Christie will hew toward what we laughably refer to as "the center," while McDonnell will spend more time in office worrying about what gays are doing in bed, about poor women getting abortions, and about the fairer sex getting too uppity about wanting careers and lives of their own.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

One of the ways you can tell that the composters are a dying race is their obssession with the past and figureslike george w bush who almost everyone, especially the young, really cares about.

==

Yeah GWB was really ancient history, wasn't he.

Carter's presidency ended almost THIRTY YEARS AGO, W's ended less than ONE year ago.

You are completely effing demented.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

If you want zouk to like you, call him Ace McNumbnuts. He really seems to like that name.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | November 30, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Christie's ties to the Bush Administration are long and deep -- it's a huge part of his resume. He worked as Rove's shining boy for several years, and then when those US Atty's that had to go? Yeah, one of them had to go because Christie wanted to launch his career in Arkansas. That lasted only 6 months, and he set his sights on NJ instead.

What McDonnell and Christie both did brilliantly that contributed hugely to their wins was they both convinced voters that they had nothing to do with the little c conservatives in the GOP. Time will tell us how true that is.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | November 30, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Neither McDonnell nor Christie ran from being R and it was Deeds who ran from being a D.

==

I saw their web sites. As DDAWD points out McDonnells was a clone-copy of Obama's and a search for the word "Republican" on the main page turned up "Phrase not found."

In short, you're lying.

Republican? Thought so.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Palin discovered that governing is more work than she wishes to perform and I believe she is more motivated by money and celebrity than political drive. Whatever she does in the future it will be on her terms or not at all. Public office does not seem to be in her future but she remains enigmatic. This is interesting because she offers herself as a simple person, but her actions belie that designation.

Posted by: Gator-ron | November 30, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"And to add to the irony, the attack is being led by Republican Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), who has now hosted multiple job fairs in his district filled with employers hiring directly because of the stimulus.'

Posted by: drindl"

Meh, this nonsense is so commonplace now that I would hardly use ironic to describe it anymore. It's just called being Republican.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 30, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

While the person you belittle may not match your supposed reasoning skills (LOL), I see that you are no student of current events. Neither McDonnell nor Christie ran from being R and it was Deeds who ran from being a D. Corzine embraced his party fully and in a state with a heavy D presence “lost the easiest of D state in the nation.” It was also Deed’s who ran on McDonnell’s social conservative background, but still got trounced at the polls. While you may have great reasoning skills, you are a lousy student of both history and current events.

Posted by: sliowa

How do you get that these two people embraced their Republicanism? I looked on their websites. I couldn't find it. Especially on McDonnell's website that was a clone of Obama's. Christie sure never mentioned his ties to the Bush administration. McDonnell sure didn't embrace that thesis. Blowing it off as something he wrote as a kid in college? He sure didn't embrace his legislative record either. Why? Because he knew he couldn't win if he embraced his conservative past.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 30, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

'Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) is a vocal opponent of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act who not only voted against the stimulus, but goes out of his way to mock it as “going nowhere” and doing “nothing to encourage growth.” Using the “failed” stimulus as his evidence, Shuster has been claiming that the government is incapable of reforming healthcare. But while Shuster tries to gain political points by bashing the stimulus, he has been quietly claiming credit for its benefits in his district, as well as advocating for an expanded role for Recovery Act money in his community:

– Last week, Shuster attended the groundbreaking ceremony for a sewage treatment plant for the Blairsville Municipal Authority. Republican State Senator Don White noted that the project was only possible because of the stimulus, which allowed the state Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) to provide a $10.4 million grant and a $3 million low interest loan for construction.

– On November 4, Shuster asked Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) to use some of the state’s stimulus money to reopen the Scotland School for Veterans’ Children. Shuster noted that using the Recovery Act money for the school would save 134 full-time jobs.

– In July, Shuster joined 14 Pennsylvania lawmakers — including fellow stimulus-opponents Reps. Glenn Thompson (R-PA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), and Todd Platts (R-PA) — in writing a letter asking that stimulus money be used towards public universities.

– In June, Shuster hailed the stimulus-funded initiative to build a high-speed rail line between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The Post-Gazette quoted Shuster praising the project: “I believe we are about to experience a new era in passenger rail in this country. I want Western Pennsylvania to participate in this new era and to enjoy the benefits of increased and expanded passenger rail service.”

Today, Roll Call reports that Republican lawmakers are planning this week to announce the GOP’s new “December Attack Plan,” which will focus on denigrating President Obama’s stimulus. Presumably, rank-in-file members like Shuster will participate in the attack, even though they have taken credit for the stimulus’ success. And to add to the irony, the attack is being led by Republican Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), who has now hosted multiple job fairs in his district filled with employers hiring directly because of the stimulus.'

Posted by: drindl | November 30, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"While you may have great reasoning skills, you are a lousy student of both history and current events."

I had a liberal education.

Posted by: leapin | November 30, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

One of the ways you can tell that the composters are a dying race is their obssession with the past and figureslike george w bush who almost everyone, especially the young, really cares about.

It's the Neocom Statist Destructionist Party (age discrimination encouraged).

Posted by: leapin | November 30, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

G& T (aka Chrisfox)
“Did McDonnell and Christie trumpet their political affiliation? Take endorsements from Palin?
No, they ran screaming from any reference to the Republican Party, and wore Halloween masks of moderates. If McDonnell governs as by his actual beliefs, he won't win re-election.
The only candidate who ran as a staunch social conservative lost the easiest GOP district in the nation.
You have the reasoning skills of a toddler’
While the person you belittle may not match your supposed reasoning skills (LOL), I see that you are no student of current events. Neither McDonnell nor Christie ran from being R and it was Deeds who ran from being a D. Corzine embraced his party fully and in a state with a heavy D presence “lost the easiest of D state in the nation.” It was also Deed’s who ran on McDonnell’s social conservative background, but still got trounced at the polls. While you may have great reasoning skills, you are a lousy student of both history and current events.

Posted by: sliowa | November 30, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Many of us believe that as extremists at both ends of the political spectrum become more vociferous and divisive, more Americans will move towards the Center.

If any form of extremism or "political correctness" is abhorrent to you, please consider joining our brand-new Centrists Group at Linked In. We welcome all who believe consensus is not only desirable, but possible, whatever their party affiliation or lack thereof.

Provocative, but cordial and respectful, discussions and debate on national and international issues. No Flamers, ranters and ravers, script bots, or clandestine political operatives allowed.

Please contact me at Linked In for an invitation.

Thank you so much.

Ellen Brandt, Ph.D.

Posted by: venerability | November 30, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

One of the ways you can tell that the gopers are a dying race is their obssession with the past and figurers like jimmy carter who hardly anyone, especially the young, really much cares about.

It's the Cranky Old Man Party.

Posted by: drindl | November 30, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to the club, BB. It's a badge of honor.

Wonder if CC will note this at all:

"Let's get one thing out of the way quickly: It never mattered all that much, really, whether President Obama's approval rating, as measured by Gallup, was a percentage point or two below 50 percent. From a statistical perspective, in fact, it was impossible to say for sure that his rating had changed at all -- the swing was within the margin of error.

But the latest Gallup survey has him back above the 50 percent mark, with 51 percent of respondents now saying they approve of the job he's doing. It took him just 10 days to get back to positive territory.'

And Gallup consistently oversamples Republicans.

Posted by: drindl | November 30, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

This was the happiest Thanksgiving ever for the Jimmy Carter family. Imagine the joy, relief, and thanksgiving, that BO took you off the hook of being the worst and weakest US president.

And what’s up with the security at the state dinner. I thought Sherriff Joe has BO’s back.

Posted by: leapin | November 30, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

It is a real honor to know you have irritated an ape like Zouk so much he has a pet name for you, BB.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | November 30, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

The WSJ really is going down the terlit. They've gone from being a newspaper that you just had to accept viewed everything from the Street, to an unreliable source for financial news to being an unreliable source for general news. Like Fox, the line between opinion and reporting no longer exists.

==

Wasn't that long ago their news was the straight dope and in some ways likeable with the cool woodcut illustrations instead of the four-color glitz everywhere else. It was the editorial page that was off-limits to everyone but the moonbats.

Now the whole paper is garbage.

And it's not like the US has so many great papers that we can afford to lose a major one, but we've definitely lost the WSJ as a news source.

Did anyone believe Murdoch when he said he would leave the news alone? What does anyone expect from a right winger other than lies, lies, lies?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

G&T - You can rest assured that McDonnell will not win re-election. We have one term governors in Virginia. Kaine vs. McDonnell would have been an interesting match, though it would more likely have been Warner going for a 3rd term.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 30, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I feel blessed. I think I've made Zouk's honor roll of idiots. Since there was a 4th stooge, call me Shemp.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 30, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The WSJ really is going down the terlit. They've gone from being a newspaper that you just had to accept viewed everything from the Street, to an unreliable source for financial news to being an unreliable source for general news. Like Fox, the line between opinion and reporting no longer exists.

My dear old Dad now calls me with alarming simplifications,exaggerations and false causalities form the WSJ -- it used to be he just called with this alarmist BS from Limbaugh. What is a loving daughter to do?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | November 30, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

but feces-boy is not that much different from most of them:

From the Moonie Moonbat Times:

"This latest national edition of the Washington Times features a full-page ad that claims that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. The ad was purchased by the anti-Obama website ProtectOurLiberty.org. While the group has placed several birther ads in the Washington Times in recent months, the version that ran this morning contains far more inflammatory imagery — three monkeys, apparently intended to represent the U.S. Congress, courts, and the media:

The hardly intelligible ad copy claims that under a 60-year-old British law, President Obama is a citizen of Britain and “is currently also a British protected person and/or a British citizen to this day.” The Center for American Progress’ Ian Millhiser points out that if this rule were actually applied to the presidency, every foreign nation would have the power to remove the President of the United States simply by granting the president citizenship.

The website promoted by the ad is run by Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., a plaintiff in a birther lawsuit filed against President Obama in New Jersey."

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/30/birther-ad-monkeys/

Posted by: drindl | November 30, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

'dunce' is far too kind, GAT. that seething, infantile berserker is nothing but a feces-flinger.

Posted by: drindl | November 30, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The good news for Republicans and patriotic Americans, who don't subscribe to Comrade Barack Obama's Socialist/Communist agenda

==

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a dunce.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The good news for Republicans and patriotic Americans, who don't subscribe to Comrade Barack Obama's Socialist/Communist agenda to turn our country into a George Orwell '1984' one, is that not only are the Republicans turning against Comrade Obama, but the Independents as well. Since it's the registered Independents who elect presidents, it's the Democrap Socialists and the Obama worshippers who should be very worried.
What the Democrap Socialist Party--controlled Washington Post, and their shills like Chris Cillizza and other erzats journalists like him consiter "bad news" for the GOP though, is actually good news. According to what they consiter "bad news" for the GOP is that: "Fewer than half of the Republican and Republican-leaners surveyed by the Washington Post see the party's leadership as taking the GOP in the 'right direction', down sharply from this time four years ago".
This is actually very good news for Republicans, because what we're doing is (hopefully) change our leadership from the wishy--washy, can't--we--all--get--along--pretty--please liberal Republican--controlled one, that goes along with whatever the Democrap Socialists and their minions in the MSM demand of them, to a Reagan--like conservative leadership with principals and a backbone to stand up to the Democrap Socialists big--brother and government--uber--alles agenda, that would make our Constitution and Bill of Rights null and void. This is "good news" because we usually win elections when we run Reagan--like Republicans, and lose when we run liberal ones like McCain, who run like Democrap Socialist--lite ones (the reason the Democrap Socialists and the MSM just love guys like McCain).
On another tack.
It's no surprise that the Democrap Socialist Party--controlled Main Stream Media hasn't reported another interesting poll, this one by Gallup (that's the one that always over-samples Democrap Socialists). According to their president approval numbers daily tracking poll, Comrade Barack Obama has "...the largest second to third quarter drop of any elected president in (US) history" and that: "... even in Europe Obama's rating drop is the worst in 50 years".

Posted by: armpeg | November 30, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Murdoch owns the sock puppets.

Posted by: nodebris | November 30, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

From the WSJ

==

... an unreliable source, owned by a Fascist Australian propagandist without a passing concern for truth.

Why don't you quote the Star and the National Enquirer while you're about it.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

you mean like NJ and Va?

==

Did McDonnell and Christie trumpet their political affiliation? Take endorsements from Palin?

No, they ran screaming from any reference to the Republican Party, and wore Halloween masks of moderates. If McDonnell governs as by his actual beliefs, he won't win re-election.

The only candidate who ran as a staunch social conservative lost the easiest GOP district in the nation.

You have the reasoning skills of a toddler.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

'Their only hope (and their entire platform) is to keep the government gridlocked, broke and inefficient.'

yes, and to keep amuricans stupid. but with 'leaders' like this, that should be easy:

"Al Franken once said that the easiest job in the world was being a fact-checker for Rush Limbaugh -- but now that title has to go to the fact-checker for Going Rogue:

As the epigram to Chapter Three, "Drill, Baby, Drill," Palin assigns the following remarks to the Hall of Fame hoops coach:

'Our land is everything to us... I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it--with their lives.'

Only the quote wasn't by John Wooden. It was written by a Native American activist named John Wooden Legs in an essay entitled "Back on the War Ponies," which appeared in a left-wing anthology, We Are the People: Voices from the Other Side of American History, edited by Nathaniel May, Clint Willis, and James W. Loewen."

Posted by: drindl | November 30, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

finally Mo, where ya been? I can't wait for advice for the lovelorn tonight. Plus the endless regurgitated swill you post here hour after hour, day after day. If a single intelligent thought graced this thread, I think I would fall out of my chair.

with the advent of the loony hour, I retire and leave the insanity to the loons.

drink up!

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

The GOP has litmus tested itself out of contention except regionally and in rural districts and states.

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

you mean like NJ and Va?

Another Lib howling at the moon.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Rallying around a know-nothing like Palin is pretty indicative of a GOP that has utterly lost its way. Newsflash, hot off the presses: the Emperor is marching buck naked through the streets. Palin really is the vacuous thin-skinned boob she appears to be, proudly ignorant, reflexively dishonest, and anyone who wants an apolyptic fundamentalist nutjob like her in reach of the nuclear codes needs to go where zouk is for ninety days of observation.

The delicious truth: with the enraged base demanding someone as dirt-ignorant as Palin get any open nomination, and not enough GOP identification to win without the full support of these nasty loutish people, the GOP is stuck between a rock and a very hard place, having painted itself into a corner of unelectability with successive lurches to the right.

Now they're just nuts. Read the posts here by their loyalists if you think I'm kidding.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 30, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"optymyst -- who is calling for 'centrists'? What 'centrists' there are in the R party, like graham, are being crucified by the base."

Exactly. This is the vacuum to which I refer. By the time the results of the 2010 and 2012 elections are in, it will be clear that the GOP is not viable in large swaths of the country, including most importantly, national contests. That will be the tinder. I'm not sure yet where the spark will come from, but it is inevitable that politicians and money will combine to fill the void. The GOP has litmus tested itself out of contention except regionally and in rural districts and states. Their only hope (and their entire platform) is to keep the government gridlocked, broke and inefficient.

Posted by: optimyst | November 30, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Blade, didn't I see you skulking around Bradley center outside Atlantis? I thought you were trying to get free ice cream from maggie Moos' or whatever that place is called now.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

URGENT TO:
NY U.S. Rep. Peter King (staff, pls. fwd.)

Rep. King: You can help rescue this nation from an ongoing descent into officially-enabled domestic torture and terrorism by asking Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan what he knows about this "multi-agency coordinated action program," and what role his agency apparently has played in carrying it out:

***

SECRET MULTI-AGENCY FED PROGRAM SILENTLY TORTURES, IMPAIRS, PERSECUTES U.S. CITIZENS WITH MICROWAVE/LASER RADIATION WEAPONS AND LOCAL VIGILANTISM, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

== DID THIS COVERT TORTURE MATRIX TARGET, INCITE FORT HOOD SHOOTER? ==

* Thousands of Americans, deemed to be "dissidents" or undesirables, targeted by Bush legacy program for debilitating microwave/laser assault, held hostage in their own homes to fed-supported vigilante "community policing" stalking units, equipped with warrantless GPS devices, who vandalize and terrorize as local police look the other way.

* "Directed energy weapons," portable units and a nationwide installation employing cell towers and satellites, induce weakness, exhaustion, mood changes, head and body aches, physical and neurological impairment, strokes, aneurysms, cancer -- and many victims do not realize what is making them sick.

* Regional Homeland Security- administered "fusion centers" reportedly serve as command centers for covert electromagnetic radiation attacks, pervasive surveillance, financial sabotage of those identified as "dissidents," "trouble-makers" or slandered as threats to society.

* Use of microwave weaponry to torture and impair political opponents recently confirmed by deposed Honduras President Manuel Zelaya.

* Pleas for justice, to local police and FBI, go unanswered -- as do demands for a Department of Justice Civil Rights Division investigation and congressional hearings.

"These are crimes against humanity and the Constitution, being perpetrated under the cover of national security and 'safe streets' by multiple federal and local agencies and commands -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight, enabled by the naivete of those who think 'it can't happen here.'" -- Victor Livingston, former reporter for WTXF-TV Philadelphia, Phila. Bulletin, N.Y. Daily News, St. Petersburg Times; producer/host, MSG Network Sports Business Report; columnist, NowPublic.com/scrivener.

JOURNO TO FBI: TAKE CONTROL OF DHS-RUN FUSION CENTERS
TO STOP SILENT MICROWAVE / LASER ATTACKS ON U.S. CITIZENS

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-tortures-me-silent-microwave-weapons-ousted-s-prez
OR (if links are corrupted / disabled): NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | November 30, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I thought this was key, bsiimon:

"Younger Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in the poll are more apt to say they are satisfied with today's political system, less likely to be angry with the policies offered by President Obama (and more likely to say Obama shares their positions on some issues) and are more supportive of working with Democrats in Congress in order to work some GOP ideas into new legislation - a pattern that holds even on the contentious issues of health care reform and energy policy currently under consideration in Congress."

Chief reason the R party today is doomed as it drifts to the right -- they're driving away the young and the their future as a result.

Posted by: drindl | November 30, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Rationally?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 30, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

'He talks too much," a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory. He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment.

From the WSJ. Welcome Back Carter in full swing now.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Rupert Murdoch is actually leading the party, but it doesn't serve his purpose to brag about it.

Posted by: nodebris | November 30, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse


How Blade frames the world:

episode of Family Guy

Understandable considering the years of thnking like a liberal

How the moonbat drivl must interpret the world:

simple schizophrenia...subhuman intelligence...Not enough self-awareness.

Poor old bird. you gotta play the cards you're dealt. Out of work, uneducated, village voice reject is no way to go through life Bluto!

you should alert the authorites and get yourself some help. It is what liberalism was designed for. although for the payoff involved, Obamacare would likely suggest euthanize... I mean the body, the brain is clearly already gone.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

74% of these same people also watch Fox News. I would say that this data shows that the people who are still calling themselves republicans are only the far-right. The further they move to the right the more and more people they are going to alienate.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 30, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bsimon1 | November 30, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112902717.html?hpid=topnews

Wow, someone actually got paid to write that fans of Limbaugh and Beck tend to like Palin.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 30, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Republicans Examined?, pretty soon you'll need a microscope, or better yet, a telescope.

Posted by: JRM2 | November 30, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

It's just simple schizophrenia, Blade. The first thing he always does is rant about how there's no one on here but those with subhuman intelligence, and then he stays on here all day. Not enough self-awareness to understand the irony.

Posted by: drindl | November 30, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Reading the Climategate archive is a bit like discovering that Professional Wrestling is rigged. You mean, it is? Really? The archive - a carefully curated 160MB collection of source code, emails and other documents from the internal network of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - provides grim confirmation for critics of climate science.


Wow, Lib science is a lot like Lib economics. garbage in, garbage out. cooling is warming. saved is created. what's next - jurisprudence based on skin color and how disadvantaged you were born?

before long we'll have a present ident with no qualifications and no experience.

SAY WHAT??????

you go out of town for week or two and the dogcatcher, I mean dog decider, steps in.

Well at least he stopped unemployment at 8%.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

So, that would make 4 Zouks:

king_of_zouk (since banned)
snowbama
ZOUK...

and now

king-of-zouk

It's like that episode of Family Guy when Stewie cloned himself.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 30, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

the mental level of kindergarten

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

which appears to be sufficient to observe the travesty of liberalism.

however you will note that the loons on this thread are not that advanced.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not sure that the Republican party has the will to challenge them with candidates that can win general elections."

Or perhaps it's the 'wit'.

Facebook, a website site at the mental level of kindergarten, is certainly the the right place for Palin to disperse her childish attempts at 'policy.' Among her recent cowardly and divisive antics is is this:

On her Facebook page Sunday night, Sarah Palin posted a letter from a 95-year-old veteran named Harold B. Estes.

"I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son," Estes wrote. "Do your job. '

The former Alaska governor linked to the whole letter, which adds: "I don't think you like America nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do for the obvious gifts this country has given you. ... Shape up and start acting like an American. ... I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle."

The president doesn't like America? Could have come right out of the mouth of Glen Beck. More hate, more bile -- that's all palin is about.

Posted by: drindl | November 30, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

First the impostor calls himself snowbama.

Now it's ZOUK (like the all caps will make a difference).

Get outa here ya punk!

Or is this the "Virginia way"?

Posted by: king-of-zouk | November 30, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

@bsimon - Indeed, that was a driving force behind the Reagan Revolution. I was in college for most of the 80s* and the young Republicans ruled the roost. It set the cycle for about 25 years, until the combination of incompetence in the executive branch and greed in the legislative ended it.

That doesn't mean the minority party can't survive during that time. Clinton won two terms, the second easily. The House stayed with the Democrats from 1980 - 1994, though Republicans could put together a working majority with ease on issues such as defense, taxation, and social spending.

Plenty of Democrats are vulnerable. I'm not sure that the Republican party has the will to challenge them with candidates that can win general elections. Joe Wilson won't play well north of the Mason-Dixon line.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 30, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Politico is on to the truth. quick, hush them up.

Here are seven storylines Obama needs to worry about:


He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money

Too much Leonard Nimoy

That’s the Chicago Way

He’s a pushover

He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe

President Pelosi

He’s in love with the man in the mirror

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"The clearest winner in the poll is former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin who is identified not only as the leader of the Republican party but also receives the highest percentage when GOPers are asked for whom they would most likely vote in the 2012 presidential primary and caucus process."


This is drive-by analysis. Palin's 18% as person who most embodies the GOP was outscored by 'No Opinion' at 20. 'Other' scored 9, while 'there is no leader' scored 8. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of former Gov Palin as the party's leader. Then, for the voting question, a smaller percentage (17) say they'd vote for her in a primary than say she best represents the party's values - further underscoring her status as a celebrity rather than a political leader.

Posted by: bsimon1 | November 30, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Stand by for the drivl fest of cut and pastes from the far left loon-o-sphere,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

right on cue. day after day, screaming at the cat. poor creature.

Where's moe to finish the trimverate of stupidity and finish off all semblance of taste?

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"Palin certainly has built up a following with these two hosts and their audiences. She's not ruled out a Palin-Beck ticket in 2012 -- though Beck has ruled it out with some very colorful language.----

"But just a few hours later on his radio show, Beck shot down the idea, saying he was “absolutely” ruling out a Palin-Beck ticket. He explained that if he had the number two job, Palin would always be “yapping” like they were in “the kitchen”:

Limbaugh has praised Going Rogue as "one of the most substantive policy books I've read." And no less a voice than Bill Kristol, a frequent advocate of Palin's, has said that the GOP's "center of gravity, I suspect, will instead lie with individuals such as Palin and Huckabee and Gingrich, media personalities like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh."

This is just sad, tragically sad. The 'center of gravity' of the Republican Party is Limbaugh, someone who beleives in a 'final solution' to the 'liberal problem' in america. Gee, who does that sound like?

And the rest of them? Just radio and TV con artists and hucksters. CC, you need to stop legitimizing them as if they had any ideas other than how to grab more money for themselves.

Posted by: drindl | November 30, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Looking at the enthusiasm numbers, I'm reminded of a quote from Yeats' "The Second Coming."

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."


Posted by: nodebris | November 30, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

optimyst writes
"2012 should be the GOP's swan song as a major national party, methinks. Afterward, it will become regional and rural, white and old, like a Shaker community waiting to die, pure to the end."


Your comment underscores an important point the Fix chose to ignore: the kids don't like the GOP. How long can a political party survive if it doesn't attract new voters? The Balz/Cohen piece focuses on how existing party leadership is apparently inclined to respond to their more motivated supporters, which are the more conservative voters. Doing so will close the door to moderates who will be left with the options of 1) staying home; 2) protest votes for unviable 3rd parties; or 3) voting for the Dems.

Posted by: bsimon1 | November 30, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

when you live out past the left field line, even the foul post looks to be to the right. Center field is in another ball park.

the chanting continues. No new instructions from THE ONE on how to defend themselves for quite some time now. I guess they will stick with ""inherited it, Fox news lied, unprecedented, decision pending, jobs saved, new czar, foreign trips, teleprompters and speeches, photo ops, aren't those girls cute, surrender and apology, etc.""

Just don't try to ask any questions. He's already answered, like 8?

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

optymyst -- who is calling for 'centrists'? What 'centrists' there are in the R party, like graham, are being crucified by the base.

Unfortunately, all the energy is coming from the very far right -- and it's all negative with a strong undercurrent of racism and incipient violence. What are they for? They don't know, but they know what they hate. Nodebris and several others are right in saying that all we are hearing from them is incoherent rage and calls for armed revolution.

"Republicans and GOP-leaning independents are overwhelmingly negative about Obama and the Democratic Party more broadly, with nearly all dissatisfied with the administration's policies and almost half saying they are 'angry' about them. About three-quarters have a more basic complaint, saying Obama does not stand for 'traditional American values.'

Posted by: drindl | November 30, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is now nothing but an angry white mob. So sad.

Posted by: koolkat_1960


another day at the Fix with the hackneyed moonbattery of the three stooges.

anyone wonder why the traffic is at historic lows and the average intelligence is sub human?

Stand by for the drivl fest of cut and pastes from the far left loon-o-sphere, followed by the bird lady at drive time with recipes and love advice.

Maenwhile, in the real world, still no word on a single Obama accomplishment. Unprecedented frivolity in the executive branch. Oh wait, he did pick a dog.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 30, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Optimyst, if we were a parliamentary republic we would have more than two parties. But the run for the WH and for every state governor's office seems to force the matter to fragment as 'for" and "against". TR made a credible run in 1912 and Perot did in '92. But if the greatest president of the 20th Century [IMHO] - the man who invented the modern presidency - could not win as a third party candidate, the chance we will find such a person in a century is slim.

To follow your thought, the third party would have to arise spontaneously in several large states. Have you seen the graph of the political spectra of the state legislatures? It looks to me that CA especially is so divided that there is no place for a third party in the middle, even if it is sorely needed in a "civics" sense.
The scatter pattern of elected legislators in CA is only far left and far right, which indicates that while a moderate like Ahnold can run and win as a R, and probably as a D, there is no path for one to rise up through the ranks. It just seems daunting to me.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 30, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

The GOP is now nothing but an angry white mob. So sad.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | November 30, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

It's only a matter of time before the political vacuum growing between the two parties leads to the formation of a centrist party to serve the needs of the rapidly growing -- and dissatisfied -- independents. Will the political pundits and junkies see this coming? 2012 should be the GOP's swan song as a major national party, methinks. Afterward, it will become regional and rural, white and old, like a Shaker community waiting to die, pure to the end.

Posted by: optimyst | November 30, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Chris: your last paragraph isn't exactly what the Balz/Cohen said. What I read was that 18% of republicans and republican-leaning independents see Palin as representing party's values and as the party leader. 18% surely isn't the ringing endorsement that your last paragraph indicates.

Posted by: lenstewart | November 30, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

It's a bit disappointing that such a base attack--Obama does not have American values--appeals to the Republican base as well as RIABNs (Republicans in all but name). What values are these that he doesn't share? He is married and a devoted father. Worked hard to get a good education. Even a church goer (yeah, yeah, I know). As far as I can tell, it's code for race and ethnicity. Tiger Woods probably would be characterized the same way if he weren't an athlete.

Incidentally, I saw one of those infamous billboards on my drive back from KC to Virginia. It's pretty much an incitement to insurrection.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 30, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

The fact that Palin is extremely popular with the shrinking base and extremely unpopular with everyone else just underscores what an ideological ghetto the GOP has become.

Expect to see nothing but obstructionism from the Congressional GOP, since the only broad area of agreement among conservatives at present is an inchoate, angry sense of denial and rejection.

Posted by: nodebris | November 30, 2009 10:43 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company