Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Cook, Rothenberg move Mass. Senate to "toss up"

Update, 10:18 pm: A new Suffolk University poll shows state Sen. Scott Brown (R) leading state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) by a 50 percent to 46 percent margin, a stunning result that shows the momentum Republicans have built in the contest. Look for more on this poll in tomorrow's "Morning Fix".

Original Post
In a sign that the Massachusetts special election is moving in state Sen. Scott Brown's (R) direction, the two leading political handicappers in Washington have moved the contest into their "toss up" category today.

Stu Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, made the move first, writing:

"Whatever the shortcomings of the [state Attorney General Martha] Coakley campaign (and they certainly exist), this race has become about change, President Obama and Democratic control of all of the levers of power in Washington, D.C. Brown has "won" the "free media" over the past few days, and if he continues to do so, he will win the election."

Late this afternoon Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report and former Fix boss, also put the race in his "toss up" category. Of the move, Cook wrote:

"This race call is one of the toughest we've had in a long time. The modern electoral history of federal statewide races in Massachusetts argues strongly that while state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, could have a close race, at the end of the day it's unlikely that she ends up losing. After all, no Republican Senate candidate has won in the Bay State since 1972."
"But the non-quantitative arguments are quite strong. Republican Scott Brown has been the superior candidate with, by a long shot, the better campaign."

While those outside the Beltway -- particularly on the Democratic side -- are sure to pooh-pooh the moves by Rothenberg and Cook, their twin decisions to rate Massachusetts as a jump ball is sure to fuel the perception among the chattering class that Coakley is flailing while Brown is surging.

Insiders in both parties acknowledged privately that the race is almost certainly closer than the eight-point lead enjoyed by Coakley in a Research 2000 poll conducted for Blue Mass Group, a liberal blog.

Republicans believe if the election were held today, they would win. But, four days remain before voters head to the polls and, in that time, Democrats will do anything and everything to activate their party base -- from an expected appearance in the state by former President Bill Clinton to a new web video released today by President Obama.

This is a race Democrats should win -- period. If they don't, it will be a colossal political upset -- and upheaval -- the likes of which we have not seen since Harris Wofford (D) upset former Gov. Dick Thornburgh (R) in a 1991 Senate special election that presaged the election of Bill Clinton as president the following year.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 14, 2010; 10:18 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Shadegg retires, 14th Republican out in 2010
Next: New poll shows Brown ahead in Mass. Senate special election

Comments

Another, really - really bad day for the DEMOCRUDS.

Posted by: stephenwhelton | January 15, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Headquarters...we possibly have a neocom statist down..repeat..neocom statist down...do you read me...need additional ACORN reinforcements..backup unit of panthers...please advise frequency patch to Sheriff Joe

Posted by: leapin | January 15, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

qlangley


You make some good points on turn-out.

One additional factor:


For people to actually be motivated to go to the polls, they have to think that their candidate has some chance, no matter how remote - Scott Brown this week has achieved "Viability" - people believe he can win if enough people come out.


That is important.


The major factor here is Obama - Obama has been overplaying his hand in a way that angers people. Obama made all sorts of commitments to the American people that he would be bipartisan - that he would rise above the partisan differences in Washington.

THAT means it is on Obama to make the bipartisanship happen - Obama has to go out of his way.

THAT also means that Obama commited to a health care plan that the Republicans can agree with - not to hold the bill hostage to the Republicans - but Obama commitment to bipartisanship committed Obama to a bill which is a COMPROMISE NOT A BILL THAT ONLY DEMOCRATS WANT.

This is a fundamental breach of trust that Obama has made with the American people.

And it is not a breach with the Republicans - it is a breach with the people who voted for him.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Jake D -

Thanks for the info in the other thread. I have the PVIs for each district in the 1990s, which were rounded to the tenth of a point, if you or anyone else is interested.

Posted by: joeyjoejoe | January 15, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse


DrainYou

First of all, I take issue with your desire to take partisan benefit from a horrible natural disaster in which thousands of people died.


That alone makes you sick.

Next, nothing will damage America more than the perception of weakness around the world - this you will not understand until something really bad happens, because you are so convinced you are right.


Finally, you forget about what President Bush did in the tsunami disaster. Like it never happened - and like Obama is the only one to respond to a disaster. NOW Obama is beginning to see how difficult these things are with the bottlenecks and other problems encountered - so many Bush will get a different review on New Orleans when this is all over.

Again, take your partisanship and stuff it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

THE TRUTH ABOUT AMERICA

WWW.AMERICAWAKEUPNOW.NET

Posted by: machelle_18 | January 15, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Cillizza,
Why is JakeD still on here? He's been using YOUR BLOG as his personal right wing propaganda outlet for over a year now.

Are you trying to be like that hack Drudge or something?

Posted by: DrainYou | January 15, 2010 1:59 AM
_______

While you were away, the blog was renamed "Jake's Place." Just fillin' you in.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 15, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

noa, posting at 2:24am. You're a better man than I am Gunga Dun. :) Get some sleep, 'mano.

@drain: welcome back.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 15, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

The polls seem to be consistent that the lower the turnout, the better are Scott Brown's chances. His supporters are, quite simply, better motivated and, this is Massachusetts, the Democrats are complacent.

The more often it is reported that this race is looking close, the higher the turnout is likely to be. I suspect that the best way for a Republican to win in MA is by stealth. Brown may have peaked a week too early.

Posted by: qlangley | January 15, 2010 4:26 AM | Report abuse

Nurture = nuttier darn spellchecker winky winky winky

and oh, chris drudge will say that Coakley's win is bad new for Democrats and means TPaw wins in 2012

Posted by: Noacoler | January 15, 2010 2:24 AM | Report abuse

We'll be hearing a LOT about ACORN on Wednesday.

And the Constitution. And teleprompters. And SIEU. And arch conspiratorial warnings about some great impending backlash.

And denial, defiance, and paranoid fury. They'll say the voters are deluded, they'll talk about Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, they'll gnashing teeth and stomp feet and hold breath till blue. And they'll demand that future candidates be even nurture, or else. This is how cults operate.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 15, 2010 2:19 AM | Report abuse

I'm going to love looking at all of the sour Repug Teabagger faces after they lose this race.


Naked Scotty Brown isn't going to win, mark my words. I don't care how much the right wing noise machine (The Fix etc) wants it to happen.
.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/scott-brown-nude-in-cosmo
.

Posted by: DrainYou | January 15, 2010 2:05 AM | Report abuse

Absolutely outstanding, DrainYou. First class post.

While NOLA drowned Bush strummed at some shindig.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 15, 2010 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Cillizza,
Why is JakeD still on here? He's been using YOUR BLOG as his personal right wing propaganda outlet for over a year now.


It's one thing to have a political blog, it's another to have a political blog and allow a right wing troll like JakeD to spend 24 hrs a day on here pushing the nutty Republican agenda.


Are you trying to be like that hack Drudge or something?

Posted by: DrainYou | January 15, 2010 1:59 AM | Report abuse

Hello again Wingnutters,


George Bush, we all know, did a lot of damage to US image around the world. He actually managed to take a worldwide hug after 9/11, and in mere few years turned it into disdain and even hate.


One aspect especially damaged, was America's well-earned reputation of a country full of compassion. Suddenly, Dick Cheney - Irrefutable evidence that indeed there is evil in the world - became America's face around the globe. And then thousands of Americans - mostly black, mostly poor, begging their OWN government to come and rescue them before drowning in New Orleans - were ignored.


I can't remember even one occasion, when Bush - Or anyone in his administration for that matter - moved me, even by the smallest gesture of compassion or real sympathy towards the most unfortunates. Even if Bush himself is considered to be a nice man and far from the dark soul of his VP - with every passing day, he made America look more and more like an evil empire, and less and less like what made this country so beloved to begin with - A beacon of hope, love and compassion to the world.


Fast forward to this morning. The US president - Surrounded by his top cabinet members, who cancelled all their other plans - Not only detailed what he called "one of largest relief efforts in our recent history", but also closed his remarks with a moving address straight to the miserable people of Haiti, promising them: "We will not forsake you".


And suddenly, once again, the world can look at America and see that beacon of hope, love and compassion.


This is how humanity is done, Wingnuts.


Amen.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nieQJrP6CnA
.

Posted by: DrainYou | January 15, 2010 1:52 AM | Report abuse

Just click your heels three times and say "Massachusetts will elect a Republican senator."

Gates a radical? By what measure?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 15, 2010 1:46 AM | Report abuse

Once again a " HopeChanger" you know the lambs who voted for H&C, arrogantly stated what GOPer could garner 61% of the vote. My question is, who needs to? BHObozo was rewarded with 52% of the vote for running a very good campaign, albeit a very misleading one I might say, which stated it was moderate, but after further review.Was anything but! An extreme liberal wolf disguised in moderate sheep's clothing. The worst kind of deception.
The moment BHObozo attacked the "White" Cambridge police officer who went to defend a citizen and BHObozo ran to side with his radical friend Gates, itbecame a 1 term presidency... That was the beginning of the end. The silent majority, the independents who decide every election all jumped off the "Hope &Changer" bandwagon. neither the liberals who number 21% or the conservatives who number 41% can get elected with out the independents who make up 32% of the electorate nationwide.
Bad news for Democrats in Mass. Those folks usually elect a Democratic legislature, but go with a Republican Governor for balance. Only 14% registered Republicans in Mass. and 35% Democrat. That leaves 50% Independents. Sorry Senator Teddy,the man you endorsed for President has been a complete utter failure, who has no clue on how to govern...Looks like the citizens of Mass. are trying to level the playing field...

Posted by: purcellb777 | January 15, 2010 1:39 AM | Report abuse

They need their myths. Just look how Reagan's stature has grown as he fades from memory and assumes divinity.

But the compulsion to manipulate perception seems to have taken eternal route. They'll pick out the most skewed poll they can find and call it the solitary truth. They are unable to learn from failure. Yeah Scott will lose but the postmortem will call it a win for some brain charred reason that only makes sense to the sort of person who can't do algebra.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 15, 2010 1:35 AM | Report abuse

The media loves the "Republican Might Win" narrative; it's so exciting! And the right-wing loves it because, well...they're close to orgasm with this fantasy of winning a senate seat in the Bay State.

So the story continues to get fed on a daily basis. After all, it's the only election out there. People love a "race"; don't they?

But the reality is that this race really won't be very close once the actual votes are counted. Expect Martha to win by about six to eight points.

Remember, Massachusetts voters are smart; they'll elect Republican governors, but they know a Republican senator will be in bed with the big lobbyists and the senators from Mississippi and Wyoming. And they won't let that happen, no matter how disappointed they might currently be with the Democrats.

Posted by: snesich | January 15, 2010 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Let me try to explain it to you, Chris.  I wouldn't call myself a political junkie, because I've seen real junkies and it's not a laughing matter.  But I do like talking politics and I like conversations with people who live in a world of ideas.  That is a small subset of those who post here.
 
Fewer all the time, as more and more are driven off by the posters who live in a world of gossip and personal conflicts. 
 
If you cared about having good debates here it's not me you'd be whining about, it'd be your little butt-kisser and his alter-ego 37th.  They don't contribute here, they bust up the debates, but you have nothing to say to them.
 
It's not me lowering the discourse here, not lately anyway, I was a nutcase on here eight months ago, but lately?  You're demented.
 
You stood by for months while I was being called a pedophile.  You had nothing to say when butt-kisser savaged the memory of my dead father.  You have nothing to say with butt-kisser and his alter-ego do the same post a dozen times apiece in four threads.
 
The reason I don't honor your bans is because you don't apply the rules evenly, fairly, or honestly.  Repeat, honestly.
 
That cheesy little self-pitying whine you just posted is the fifth I've seen.  "If they don't like me why do they keep coming back," WHIMPER!!! Balls.  If I didn't like the place I would go surf somewhere else. 
 
But to be honest, Chris, as long as we're talking, I don't like you.  You were once a good columnist but something happened, maybe you got the word when Dan got fired, or maybe having a black man in the White House has the same effect on you it has on so many Republicans, you've snapped.  Your Rising columns are an insult to the intelligence, your cherry-picking of polls is Soviet in its dishonesty.  I iked you during the campaign and have said so many times, but now you're just a shameless booster for a rotten and obstreporous party of losers and nutjobs.  Giving ink of Palin and Pawlenty, dissing the president .. fine, I don't read the columns anyway, not anymore.  You've become a stenographer for the RNC.
 
Show me some even-handedness; ban the f*cking trolls, and sit back and watch.  If I got banned after the real noisemakers here I would stay away.  As it is, I don't care how many IPs you put into the Apache filter, I'll keep getting around them until I decide on my own to move on. 
 
 

Posted by: Noacoler | January 15, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Things are looking up, when even the people in Mass. have figured out that Comrade Barack Obama and the Democrap Socialist Party is trying to impose a Socialist Communist society on us, and is following Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" to the letter.
Hopefully the people of Mass. will keep an eye on the ACORN and union goon crowd, that'll steal an honest election if they can get away with it.

Posted by: armpeg | January 15, 2010 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Show me just one instance where I've violated the rules. You're making this up, just like you intelligence-insulting Rising columns. I'm more courteous than most of the posters here, not that it matters.

Never a word to the trolls. Now why us that?

And if I agree with zouk on anything, take note: he's right about you needing to learn to write. You punctuate like a kid.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 15, 2010 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Cilizza

it does not seem possible that a bigger putz could be assigned a blog at a major paper and have them be so clueless.

You're days are numbered. To assign blame to two individuals indicates you are way over your head.

Perhaps childrens books is more your speed.

The days we are away are the worst. Get a grip.

Read strunk and white for gods sake.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 15, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Mr. Cillizza.

Posted by: JakeD | January 15, 2010 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler and moonbat,

Still don't understand why after being banned multiple times under different names (and IP addresses) you guys keep coming back.

It would seem that moving to some other blog/message board on which to post would make sense since you refuse to follow the rules on this one.

For those regular posters who want to punish these repeat offenders, I would ask you simply ignore their (many) posts.

Since they are committed to end-running our good faith efforts to ban them due to their bad behavior, I think it is our best recourse.

Thanks,
Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | January 15, 2010 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Too bad this election could not remain under the radar, because the Dems are on full alert now. I know that MyBarackObama.com and MoveOn are making a big push, but the NRSC and MassGOP are right there too. We'll see who can GOTV.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

I want the moon.

Coming from me that is especially pertinent.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 14, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Not AMERICAN history, you'd have to go back to Caligula.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

I would like to say for the record that Barry is the cleanest, most articulate light skinned Negro we have seen for quite a while.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 14, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Has there ever been registered in our history a greater abuse of power than is ongoing with the Chicago union liberal democrat machine we are now under?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 14, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm in the pew with Brother Simon.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

It may be too little, too late for Martha Coakley at this point, if Brown has indeed succeeded in convincing MA voters that he is a social moderate. He isn't and she's done a miserable job in challenging his bogus credentials as such. That having been said, I'll wait until Rasmussen comes out with its polling data on January 18. They're always the most accurate of the bunch.

Needless to say, Coakley has been uninspiring. Teddy Kennedy never took anything for granted. He was always out there, pressing the flesh, fighting for every vote.

Posted by: jaysit | January 14, 2010 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Interesting update from the Fix, for those who've missed it. A Suffolk poll gives Brown a larger lead.

But might Brown have peaked too soon? Here's a comment from Mark Blumenthal from a post on Sunday:
"Conservative Republicans are angry and ready to walk on hot coals if necessary to register their discontent with the direction of government. If he enthusiasm gap narrows, it will be because Democrats come to believe that Martha Coakley shares their priorities, Scott Brown threatens those priorities and the outcome of the election is in doubt."

As the Herald notes of the Suffolk poll, an enormous number of respondents think Coakley will win. As these poll results are publicized, watch for Coakley to surge in the final days, as her supporters realize they'll have to show up if they want her to win.

(Blumenthal's post at pollster: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/massachusetts_polls_divergent.php )

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Notice the days of advancing liberal causes or advocating dem ideas are long gone. What could you say?

Instead they spend their time viciously attacking palin and beck not even elected. Remember peloony was going to clean out the swamp. Not one action. Bipartisanship. Transparency. Frugality. Lobbyists. Competency. Foreign stature. Tax cuts.

All an empty promise. Fool me once twice.

Even the voters have figured it out. Only pre k has not caught on.

Imagine mass has turned the corner.

That is hope for change indeed.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 14, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Jake

The liberals on the blog basically can not handle it - they see their guy Obama sinking fast and they don't even know what to say.


Apparently no amount of name calling is going to help them.

Obama is to blame - he has committed FRAUD against his own campaign themes.


The thing is: BLAME OBAMA.

Don't blame us. We didn't tell Obama to write all that stuff into his speeches - stuff that any reasonable person knew he wasn't going to live up to.


You can blame yourselves for believing it.

It really is your own fault for believing it.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

"I'd love to know which GOPer they claim would get 61% of the vote against BHO. Newt? Morning Joe? Cheney? The Marist poll says Palin (the one who, pre debate, couldn't remember Biden's name after multiple tries so she just gave up) would get beaten by 23% if the 2012 race were instead held today. I can't wait for the real poll in 2012.

Posted by: broadwayjoe"

Well, according to the poll, it doesn't matter who runs. It could be the love child retarded chimp and JakeD with Down's Syndrome and it would still get 61% of the vote.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 14, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

The ped marches on with the mindless attention trolling spam.

A sad life indeed.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 14, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who think the Mass senate race will be close, check out this article. Some very interesting information in it suggests that it won't be close at all. Brown will trounce Coakley.

http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2010/01/14/ma-senate-race-poll-scott-brown-trounces-martha-coakley

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 14, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

broad___joe


Are you still here ???


You should have been BANNED.


You are WRONG about the polls - people want to make a statement that they do NOT want Obama's health care plan.


In fact, there isn't much about Obama's agenda THAT ANYONE WANTS.


OBAMA'S APPROVAL RATING ON THE ECONOMY IS DOWN TO 40.


You can add that number to your list twice.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Part 2

KBH asks Medina if prop taxes went down according to her campaign feedback.

Medina: No. [counters Perry on reduced prop taxes]. Elim prop tax; only sales tax.

TX advanced directives act

KBH -did not know it existed and does not like it. Thanked questioner, Perry agreed. Medina turns on Perry for denying care for 9 years and taking people off ventilators under the act.

Medina asks KBH whether she will be bound by state const as gov since she does not seem bound
by fed const. in Senate

KBH: will be bound, and she opposes going outside constitution.

KBH slams Rick on margins tax and something else and property taxes.

Rick says TX is #1 for biz and its got be good.

RP asks Medina about legalizing drugs

Medina slams drug war says it should be local and not federal and local cops know this is stupid and she will open dialogue as gov.

Medina on balancing budget: Eliminate property tax expand sales tax. Exempt food and medicine from sales tax.
KBH on balancing budget: [-$17B proj deficit next year] consolidate agencies. 45 health care agencies to be consolidated. TxDOT lost $1B and does not know how.
Perry on balancing budget: I balanced budget. KBH let fed budget balloon.

KBH - Ds did it. Perry spent all stimulus in one year.

undocs I/As

KBH - TX should use e-verify. Perry: KBH supported sanctuary cities. KBH: I did not!
Medina: National Guard to border.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 14, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

AggieMike, for you in the Phillippines! I kept running notes but they probably will not format here. I will try:

They are all proud of the military. Medina says vets get raw deal, however. Perry and KBH want out of the Highway Trust Fund. Medina wants to end the EPA.

Unemployment

Medina: no big govt. solutions. Get govt. off our back. Eliminate property tax and EPA.
Perry: best state to live in. low taxes. no lawsuits. skilled labor. 100k new jobs. Seems to deny increased unemployment.
KBH hits the margins tax [a bad tax]. We lost 300k jobs this year. Higher unemployment [8%] than our border states.
Medina says only jobs added in TX are in public sector.
Perry says he lowered biz tax to 1%. KBH says margins tax biggest increase in history.

Abortion

KBH lists her votes ag expanding abortion. Says Rowe is Sup Ct biz. if it is overturned there will be abortion havens.

Arms
Medina: I understand Constitution. Founders=arms+property. Eliminate gun registration. People should be better armed than the government.

Farm Bureau opp to Perry

Perry: I am only rural person on stage. I am good on eminent domain and I vetoed the bill b/c it allowed atty's fees - stifle the lawyers. This state grows b/c I stifled the lawyers. No atty's fees! KBH: farmers cn't fight eminent domain if attorney's fees are not allowed.

Perry asks KBH about Roe and bailout and consistency

KBH: says GWB came to her and Cornyn and said we needed it and Perry wrote saying we needed it. Perry says he did not mean it in his letter he meant something else.


Medina asks Perry why we should take his word on anything

Rick says he made the great economic state we are in. Medina says debt tripled and taxes rose 49%

End of Part 1

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 14, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Whenever Palin talks about the pry-vit secter she should have her mouth washed out with soap

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Suzy


Suzy makes a really good point. There is a basic sense around the country - even in liberal Massachusetts that Obama and the democrats in Washington are abusing their power - and people do NOT like it.

Obama was elected promising transparency - LIED -


Obama promised to be post-racial - but he gave Reid a pass on his remarks

Obama promised to be bipartisan - but the Republicans are not even in the health care meetings.

NOW IF YOU ARE ELECTED THE PRESIDENT AND YOU PROMISED TO INCLUDE THE REPUBLICANS YOU GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO GET THEM TO THE MEETINGS AND YOU NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE CAN AGREE.


THAT IS WHAT BIPARTISANSHIP IS.

Obama has been a FRAUD.

Now, the democrats on this blog are going to complain ????


COMPLAIN TO OBAMA - HE IS THE ONE WHO LET YOU DOWN.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

From Media Matters, this is what happens when dumb and dumber get together and discuss the news:

"From the January 13 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: Did you see that the Fed made the -- you know, Exxon had their record profit a couple years ago. It was $45 billion. The Fed just had record profit, over $50 billion. Nobody's having hearings on the Fed, nobody is looking for a windfall profits tax on the Fed. Nobody seems to -- we can't even open the Fed's books.

PALIN: Yeah. Yeah.

BECK: Where do you stand on the Fed?

PALIN: That -- it's so ironic there too, especially that you bring up this private-sector company, Exxon, because in Alaska we saw what was going on with Exxon, and we did have our own hearings on what was going on with this private-sector company and how could the state of Alaska adjust some things to make sure that there was a share of the resource -- yet you're right. Nobody has even lifted a finger to go that route with the Fed.

Wash. Post: Federal Reserve "returns its profits to the Treasury." While Beck complained that "nobody is looking for a windfall profits tax on the Fed," The Washington Post reported on January 12 that the Federal Reserve "will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009," which were "the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury." The Post added that these profits "are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful, at least so far, in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy -- though there remains a risk of significant losses in the future if the Fed sells some of its investments or loses money on its stakes in bailed-out firms."


These two don't realize that this money already, all of it, comes back to the gubmint.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to know which GOPer they claim would get 61% of the vote against BHO.
Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 9:12 PM

That's easy. No GOPer because BHO won't run. Hillary will challenge him, he'll pull a Lyndon Johnson and drop out. She can read the polls, you know.
The question is who will get 61% of the vote against HRC. Answer: any republican that runs.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 14, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

broad___joe


You are beginning to sound like a crybaby


If you want to post, post.

But stick to the issues - talk about something of substance.

Instead, you are obsessed with other posters, calling them names, creating a hostile atmosphere.


Like any bully, you don't like it when someone stands up to you.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

DD posted: "Even The Fix hyped up some random poll yesterday saying that Obama would only get 39% of the popular vote in 2012."
__________

I'd love to know which GOPer they claim would get 61% of the vote against BHO. Newt? Morning Joe? Cheney? The Marist poll says Palin (the one who, pre debate, couldn't remember Biden's name after multiple tries so she just gave up) would get beaten by 23% if the 2012 race were instead held today. I can't wait for the real poll in 2012.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

Where are all the libs now, huh??? Hopefully, it is as quiet around here next Wednesday too!

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 6:45 PM
_______________________-

If your goal is silence on this blog, you've gone a long way toward that goal.

We used to think your and the fake 37's record of most consecutive posts on one Fix thread without any intervening post by anyone else was a record that would never be broken. Now I'm not so sure. You two may break your own record. In fact, you guys may end up as the only posters, period.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Here's something to mull. If republican Olympia Snowe hadn't allowed the Senate to advance the health care bill last year, the dems wouldn't have this mess in Mass. Brown would never have the upper hand with the voters on the (health care) issue driving Coakley way down in the polls. Remember, Brown will win because of his very strong stance opposing the bill.

I used to think very little of Snowe. I'm a snowboarder and I always referred to her as (yellow) Snowe. You know what that is! My boy friend says to lay off but I'll rub it in instead.

Thank you Olympia!

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 14, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

This is the baseline:

Barack Obama (D) 1,891,083 62%


John McCain (R) 1,104,284 36%


Obama won every county and every congressional district - Obama only dipped below 55% in one county.


Brown certainly has a difficult, difficult road ahead of him.

SO ANYTHING ABOVE 36% FOR SCOTT BROWN IS A BLACK EYE FOR OBAMA ----

This is Ted Kennedy's seat we are talking about - Coakley should be getting closer to 99% for Ted Kennedy's seat, right???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm definitely not an Obama supporter, but after seeing the video he released today to promote Coakley, I have to say I'm very impressed. Obama convinced, motivated, and energized me to.....vote for BROWN!

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 14, 2010 8:44 PM
___________

Your Von Brunn fan club card is in the mail, BTW. All the best.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

I really don't know the breakdown of voter's in Massachusetts....do the sensible and intelligent residents outnumber the minorities and illegals? They have kept Barney in office too long and certainly gave Kennedy a lifetime job...I can't even imagine a state that would even consider allowing the current administration maintain the status quo we are all suffering from right now for the sake of cheap politics. This bullet proof Congress must be made accountable before they run our country into the financial abyss we are currently headed for. How can fellow Americans in this state burden our kids and seniors with any additional bills we can't ever pay back? You people should do the responsible thing and break up this horrific monopoly.

Posted by: Scotty5 | January 14, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

DD, part of it, IMO, is wanting to create a horse race where there isn't one, the other part is the personal agenda of BroderWorld. Universal health care, BHO, fair distribution of wealth, multiculturalism, etc., aren't big among the Palm Restaurant crowd...IMO.

But I tell you someone is going to have to clean up the polling game: the NYT has pointed out that NONE of the polls showing this to be a horse race (which makes NO sense given that Dems out number GOPers by a huge margin in the district) meet commonly accepted journalistic standards for polling. At least some--e.g., the NYT articles on the bogus pro-Brown polls and the politico.com piece that ended forever Rasmussen's credibility in the political world--are starting to call this junk out.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

GO SCOTT BROWN

MAKE HISTORY


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Jake @645 -- so ad hominah-hominah of you. Breandan isn't allowed to post here because he's in Ireland? WHAT WOULD OUR GRACIOUS HOST SAY? You'd drink his bathwater. We know you would.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm definitely not an Obama supporter, but after seeing the video he released today to promote Coakley, I have to say I'm very impressed. Obama convinced, motivated, and energized me to.....vote for BROWN!

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 14, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

That is because your IQ is below 75 and you have trouble with higher concepts, bless your heart.

_________________________
I can’t understand why anyone with an IQ over 75 would favor the GOP, unless he was a defense contractor or an investment banker. It’s emphatically contrary to the self-interest of anyone who has to work for wages to have the GOP in power, as has been shown more conclusively than a lot of universally accepted scientific facts. They get us into wars for weird reasons, they don’t even *believe* in government, their ideas about money are just plain nuts, and oh, they’re about as officially racist as any party could be without having an formal KKK liaison.

Oh, wait, maybe the latter part explains it.

The first part too.

Posted by: Noacoler

Posted by: Bubbette1 | January 14, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

broad___joe


Are you still here ???


You should have been BANNED.


You are WRONG about the polls - people want to make a statement that they do NOT want Obama's health care plan.


In fact, there isn't much about Obama's agenda THAT ANYONE WANTS.


OBAMA'S APPROVAL RATING ON THE ECONOMY IS DOWN TO 40.

You can add that number to your list twice.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews is OUT OF HIS MIND


He just said "I wonder how people are going to view a black President going to help a black country - with alot of exciting action."


First, Matthews should not be trying to make political hay out of fatal natural disaster.


Most importantly - relief work is not "exciting action"


These are the kinds of outrageous remarks the democrats are making - AND the other democrats are listening to -


Chris Matthews will do ANYTHING to portray Obama as a hero - Matthews is sick.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

I have heard the same rumor... slurs Majorteddy has.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure why the press is so invested in pumping up the GOP. I suppose it's the FOX News business model.
 
==
 
I can’t understand why anyone with an IQ over 75 would favor the GOP, unless he was a defense contractor or an investment banker.  It’s emphatically contrary to the self-interest of anyone who has to work for wages to have the GOP in power, as has been shown more conclusively than a lot of universally accepted scientific facts.  They get us into wars for weird reasons, they don’t even *believe* in government, their ideas about money are just plain nuts, and oh, they’re about as officially racist as any party could be without having an formal KKK liaison.
 
Oh, wait, maybe the latter part explains it.

The first part too.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Remember the original Rasmussen poll saying the Coakley race was close? You know, the crazy outlier that came out of nowhere to jumpstart Brown's previously moribund candidacy?

Turns out that poll was BOGUS, too. From the New York Times:

"The poll that suggested Ms. Coakley’s lead was narrowing, which was conducted by Rasmussen Reports and does not meet the polling standards of The New York Times because it relied on automated telephone calls, suggested Mr. Brown had strikingly strong support among independent voters. But most of them are unlikely to come out for a special election at an odd time of year, Ms. Marsh said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/us/politics/08massachusetts.html?hp

Thank you, New York Times

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

No problem, BWJ. This has really become funny.

It actually reminds me of a few months back when the Washington Post had a front page headline saying that their poll showed that people favored the public option.

Well, yeah, the public option had been popular for a long time. It's just the press that had been ignoring all the polls showing this.

Same thing going on here. The press is trying to make this seem close despite the fact that four out of five polls have Coakley crushing Brown. Heck, they did the same thing with the 2008 Presidential election. Obama was crushing McCain for the last two months of polling, but the press would jump on every random poll that said that it was close while ignoring the ten other ones saying it wasn't. Even The Fix hyped up some random poll yesterday saying that Obama would only get 39% of the popular vote in 2012.

I'm not sure why the press is so invested in pumping up the GOP. I suppose it's the FOX News business model.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 14, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Courtesy of a Kos poster:

"Research 2000 for Blue Mass Group. 1/12-13. Likely voters. Moe 4%.

Martha Coakley (D) 49%
Scott Brown (R) 41%

A look at Pollster.com shows significant consistency in Coakley's numbers -- over the past 10 days polls have put her between 47% and 53%, and this is obviously no exception. Brown's numbers have bounced around more, from 36% to 48%, with the last two public (as opposed to internal) polls putting him at the top of that range."

Welcome, Senator Coakley.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

37th, you're a buffoon.

Considering the state of the economy, 40% approval is like winning the lottery twice in a week. That's every single American who pays attention to details, for example "he didn't make this mess."

You are way over your head here.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

@3_: The same polling service cited by Fix as authority, Research 2000, has Obama at 56 approval. You 'sputin' Fix?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Nor has anyone else

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Nor have I ever "profess[ed] to hate [Cillizza] and the blog". Nice try twisting his words though.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"Hah, Brown is trying to distance himself from the teabaggers.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 14, 2010 7:32 PM"
____

Hope Brown got rid of his official Tea Bag Party n-word sign and BHO-as-the-Joker poster, er, if he ever had either. :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Stick your tongue in a little deeper and wiggle it and maybe he'll make you a moderator!

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse


broad___joe


Are you still here ???


You should have been BANNED.


You are WRONG about the polls - people want to make a statement that they do NOT want Obama's health care plan.


In fact, there isn't much about Obama's agenda THAT ANYONE WANTS.


OBAMA'S APPROVAL RATING ON THE ECONOMY IS DOWN TO 40.


You can add that number to your list twice.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

I'm not the one who has been BANNED!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

grunk wrote:
Coakley should do a "Weekend At Bernies" deal. Pull Teddy out of the grave, stick some sunglasses on him and tote him around Massachusetts this weekend. He could endorse Coakley for "his" Senate seat.


1/14/2010 8:41:33 AM
Recommend (9)


Oh, my goodness!! The DID pull him out of the grave:

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/

Posted by: grunk | January 14, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"...go to such lengths to ensure they can keep returning to the blog."

Jake, that's you. Good going.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, DD, I posted before I saw your dailykos post. Hey, it's worth posting twice. :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

"Folks,

Just wanted to let you know that I am well aware that some of the people we have banned for bad behavior are back under different names.

I have checked with our IT people and aside from banning people by username AND IP address there isn't much else we can do.

If someone is committed to commenting -- and disrupting -- the only way we as a community can truly stop it is by a) ignoring them and/or b) shaming them into better behavior.

I continue to be amazed by the fact that these people, who profess to hate me and the blog so virulently, go to such lengths to ensure they can keep returning to the blog.

Thanks to everyone who is working hard to abide by the rules and make the comments section a worthwhile endeavor.

Thanks,
Chris"

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | January 7, 2010 11:46 AM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/-1-2-3-a17-democrats-lose-majority-in-poll.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Not as sick as the attention-starved adolescent who needs to post the same drool in every f*cking thread

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews is OUT OF HIS MIND


He just said "I wonder how people are going to view a black President going to help a black country - with alot of exciting action."


First, Matthews should not be trying to make political hay out of fatal natural disaster.


Most importantly - relief work is not "exciting action"


Matthews will do ANYTHING to portray Obama as a hero - Matthews is sick.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

"If Scott Brown wins, the democrats are threatening to create a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS by attempting to delay the seating of Scott Brown.

Posted by: 3__thand0street | January 14, 2010 6:24 PM"
_______________
@3__:

If? LOL. If pigs could fly... It's Coakley by 7 points... not even close. But for the free pub generated by bogus polls and Fix/DrudgeWorld, Brown would be down 20.

Where did you get this conspiracy theory from? The Von Brunn fan club?

BTW, a Daily Kos post reported that Brown IS tied to the Tea Bag Party, regarded by many as a "racist proxy" movement (see, e.g., Tea Party President Dale Robetson's n-word sign and Janeane Garofalo's analysis). Brown had earlier tried to deny his affiliation but the Kos folks found a video of him giving a speech to the baggers. New Coakley ads are exposing Brown as a far-out teabag sympathizer.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/14/824925/-MA-Sen:-Video-exposes-Browns-false-tea-party-claim

Oh, and...

34, 35, 36, __, 38, 39...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Hah, Brown is trying to distance himself from the teabaggers.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 14, 2010 7:32 PM

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Coakley needs to distance herself from the dirtbaggers.

Posted by: grunk | January 14, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews is OUT OF HIS MIND


He just said "I wonder how people are going to view a black President going to help a black country - with alot of exciting action."

First, Matthews should not be trying to make political hay out of fatal natural disaster.

Most importantly - relief work is not "exciting action"


Matthews will do ANYTHING to portray Obama as a hero - Matthews is sick.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/13/824820/-MA-Sen:-Scott-Browns-naked-ploy

Hah, Brown is trying to distance himself from the teabaggers.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 14, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

noa, check out the NY Times article. It makes clear Drudge/FixWorld is reporting in a parallel tea bagged universe. Brown is not tied with anyone in any legit poll.
Case closed.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

There have been only two legitimate polls on this race: the Boston Globe's has Coakley up 15, and Research 2000 has her up eight. Both blowout results. Cook's blowing smoke.

The NYT today pointed out that the polls that showed the Coakley race too close too call -- thus feeding the false narrative pushed by Drudge/Fix/Cook -- did not meet basic journalistic standards because they were based on AUTOMATED calls. In other words, they were bogus agenda-driven polls designed to influence opinion, not meadure it.

We are seeing this over and over: some tea bag candidate is hopelessly behind. Suddenly, Rasmussen or some other bogus poll comes out showing -- against all reason or logic -- that the guy is tied! That allows Drudge/Fix/Faux News world to scream (non-factually) "horse race" and "GOP upset looming." The MSM gets then gets suckered into giving the teabagger millions of dollars worth of free publicity. As a result of the free pub, the candidate does get some artificial bump in the polls.

We're glad that the New York Times doesn't play that. See below:

"But the poll of 554 likely voters, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, found those who were “extremely interested” in the race virtually split between Ms. Coakley and Mr. Brown. And Democrats are clearly unnerved by other recent polls that found the two neck and neck.

Some of those polls do not meet the standards of The New York Times and other news organizations because they relied on automated telephone calls. But they have energized the Brown campaign and brought it new support, not least from the antitax Tea Party movement and other conservative groups."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/us/politics/14massachusetts.html?hpw

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 14, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

majorteddy:

What are you talking about?!

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

JakeD---How're things in Mississippi. How's Haley Barbour doing? Did she get her breast implants yet?

Posted by: majorteddy | January 14, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Breandan: welcome. Pay no attention to JakeD, he's held in very low regard around here.

Not all Americans are complete pricks.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Breandan:

How about you let us worry about our elections and you worry about Ireland's?

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Even if Brown does win (which I don't expect), there's not much chance he'll get re-elected in 2012, right?

Posted by: Breandan_from_Ireland | January 14, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

Where are all the libs now, huh??? Hopefully, it is as quiet around here next Wednesday too!

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

The 17th Amendment states:


When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

___________________________________-

Once the "people fill the vancancy" that is it - no more shenanigans.

The temporary apppointment of Kirk is OVER NEXT WEEK ON TUESDAY WITH THE ELECTION.

The democrats do not have the vote of Kirk after Tuesday - anything else would create a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WHICH WOULD WARRANT MARCHES ON WASHINGTON.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

If Scott Brown wins, the democrats are threatening to create a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS by attempting to delay the seating of Scott Brown.

How crazy can they be???


This would be such an abuse of power that it would warrant a public outcry. The democrats have already changed Massachusetts law in order to provide for an interim Senator - if they continued to change the rules midstream, it will hurt their public standing significantly.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Massachusetts is even in play should leave Democrats feeling very uneasy about the fall. If they are having trouble winning on their home turf, then expect a lot more upsets come November.

The message seems pretty clear, too. A lot of people are unhappy with Obama's policies so far.

Posted by: blert | January 14, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Wofford versus Thornburgh! Shout out to the Keystone State.

I'll be really surprised if Brown can match the beat down Wofford put on Thornburgh. Anyone remember who ended up beating him?

Bueller? Bueller?

(Ans: Santorum)

Posted by: mnteng | January 14, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

TexasProud1


It's pretty simple - people want to send a message to Washington and to Obama - they do NOT want the health care bill.


Obama has been overreading his election all along -

Obama has been a complete FRAUD to all of his campaign themes - transparency, bipartisanship, being post-racial.

Obama is sickening even the democrats with his soft policy on terrorism.

Not that hard to understand.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

The only way the GOP could top this would be to win the next mayor's race in San Francisco

Posted by: TexasProud1 | January 14, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Call me a doubting Thomas, but I just have a hard time believing that a GOP candidate could win a US Senate seat in the most liberal state in the country unless his or her opponent had a miserable record that would make Corzine look popular because Senate races are more likely to mirror Presidential voting tendencies than Governor races where you get GOP Govs in RI, CA, HI, and VT and Dem Govs in WY, KS, TN, and KY. Scott Brown has run an impressive campaign, but Coakley is still popular in a state that she should win by 20 points at a minimum. Scott Brown doesn't have the aura that Rudy has in NY so I just can't see how this race ends up on the GOP side. I will say that having the DNC, DSCC, DCCC and every left-wing group emptying their bank accounts to protect what should be the safest seat out there is a victory in itself. My guess would be a 8-10% win by Coakley, which would be a 15% win if it was held on the same day as the midterms. If Brown gets within 5%, he should be the frontrunner in the governor's race this fall.

Posted by: TexasProud1 | January 14, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"While those outside the Beltway ... are sure to pooh-pooh the moves by Rothenberg and Cook"


Guilty as charged.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to say it again - because it is so HILARIOUS. PUTTING THOSE COMMERCIALS ON IS THE WORST THING THE DEMOCRATS COULD DO


Coakley is a disaster

The last thing she wants to do is to remind everyone to vote, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

GO SCOTT BROWN

MAKE HISTORY

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

While neither Cook nor Rothenberg are even close to infallible, it's pretty tough for Dems to spin these 'tossup' decisions away the way they've tried to explain away Rasmussen and other tight polling results. I suspect Cook/Rothy are basically correct - the race is a tossup in the sense that right now, nobody really knows which way this thing's gonna go. It's also a tossup in the sense that a lot of seasoned politicos simply can't believe what's happened in this race, because the 'surging Republican in Massachusetts' narrative violates every political instinct they know and trust. They don't know what to make of it, and that's got them radically unsure of their instincts, and the narrative that's making them doubt their instincts. It's turned most of them more into spectators than analysts. That alone is great sport for people like me.

Posted by: mbcnewspaper | January 14, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

WOO HOO!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Now if we can get messiah to go on up there and read some teleprompter pieces, we could get this into the "leans Republican" column.

Posted by: drivl | January 14, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company