Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Is the Senate majority now in play?

The victories in Illinois by Rep. Mark Kirk (R) and state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) coupled with former Indiana Sen. Dan Coats' (R) decision to challenge Evan Bayh (D) in the fall is likely to stir chatter about the possibility that Republicans could challenge for the Senate majority come November.

In Illinois, Republicans had been privately hoping that Giannoulias would be the Democratic nominee -- believing that his ties to his family's struggling bank and connections to the Chicago political world made him a very vulnerable general election candidate. The National Republican Senatorial Committee moved quickly to begin framing Giannoulias as a corrupt insider with a web video launched last night that highlights his alleged mafia ties. (Kirk, of course, has significant vulnerabilities of his own including his flip-flop on cap and trade.)

Coats' decision in Indiana gives Republicans a serious candidate against Bayh for the first time since the Democratic wunderkind swept into the office in 1998. And, while Coats' background as a federal lobbyist is far from ideal in this outsider political climate -- the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has already slammed him this morning for "working the system to gain special favors for the banking industry at the time of financial collapse" -- he is a known commodity in the state with a history of electoral success.

With the developments in Illinois and Indiana over the past 24 hours, the Cook Political Report now carries 10 Democratic-held seats in their most competitive categories -- meaning, theoretically, that if Republicans ran the table (and lost none of their own toss up seats in Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio) they could get to 51 seats and the Senate majority.

Is it a longshot? Absolutely. But, remember that recent history has shown that in a national political landscape tipped in favor of one party a strong majority of toss up contests tend to fall that party's way.

At the end of the 2008 election cycle, Cook rated six Republican-held seat as tossups. Democrats won four of the six. Cook also rated three Republican seats as leaning toward Democrats. Democrats won all three of those.

Go back to the 2006 cycle and a similar trend is apparent. Cook had five Republican-held seats ranked as toss up and Democrats won four of them. Cook's two Democratic-held toss ups were also won by Democrats.

So, it's clear that inside straights can happen in Senate races. Back in 2006, it seemed unimaginable this far out from the vote that Democrats could get to the 51 seats they needed to reclaim the majority. And, the idea that Democrats could get to a filibuster-proof 60 seat majority in 2008 was considered even more outlandish. (And, in truth, Democrats needed a little help to get there in the form of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's party switch last spring.)

Will lightning strike for a third straight cycle this November? It's too early to tell. But, let's break down the 10 Democratic seats Cook ranks as competitive to give you a sense of how Republicans could get there. The races are group from most likely to switch to least likely.

Delaware/North Dakota: Republicans are in very good shape in both of these open states. Rep. Mike Castle has been in elected office in Delaware for more than three decades and has built a reputation as the sort of moderate Republican First State voters like. The decision by state Attorney General Beau Biden not to run robbed Democrats of their strongest candidate and while there is a level of excitement about Newcastle County Executive Chris Coons, he starts far behind financially and otherwise. North Dakota John Hoeven (R) is the most popular politician in the state and Democrats don't have a candidate yet.

Arkansas/Nevada: In both of these states, Democratic incumbents are running well behind their potential Republican opponents. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) got some bad news this week when Rep. John Boozman (R) decided to run, a move that should slim down a bloated Republican primary field. With polls showing her trailing even her little known GOP opponents, it's not clear what Lincoln's path is to re-election in a conservative-minded state where her health care vote is seen as a major political misstep. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Nev.) problems are well documented. He faces a very weak Republican field and yet trails the two GOP frontrunners -- former state party chairwoman Sue Lowden and businessman Danny Tarkanian -- by double digits. Reid has insisted he will not retire but the money he has spent on television ads touting his power in Washington seem to have made things worse, not better.

Colorado/Illinois/Pennsylvania: This trio of states are rightly regarded as genuine jump balls. Appointed Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet has done everything right since coming into office last year but he faces a primary challenge from former speaker of the state House Andrew Romanoff and a general election fight against likely Republican nominee and former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton. The Illinois race between Kirk and Giannoulias is the early frontrunner for nastiest race of the cycle as millions are going to be spent on negative ads against each man. National Democrats privately acknowledge that former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman, who placed second to Giannoulias in yesterday's primary, was a better profile for the general election. And, in Pennsylvania, Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak are headed for an epic Democratic primary fight in May while former Rep. Pat Toomey continues to raise -- and store -- cash for the general election to come.

California/Connecticut/Indiana: These contests are the long shots for Republicans as each features a well known/well funded Democrat. Polling suggests that California Sen. Barbara Boxer is potentially vulnerable -- she hovers around 50 percent in independent surveys -- but winning a statewide race in California is a huge endeavor. National Republicans would probably prefer former HP executive Carly Fiorina as their nominee since she has enough personal money to compete with Boxer. But, Fiorina is no sure thing in the primary. In Connecticut, the retirement of Sen. Chris Dodd (D) and the candidacy of state Attorney General Dick Blumenthal give Democrats a clear edge. Republicans have to hope Blumenthal, who hasn't run a real race in decades, stumbles and hands them an opening in this strongly Democratic state. Finally, in Indiana, Republicans believe that Bayh's votes for President Obama's health care and economic stimulus bills won't play well in this conservative-minded state. And, in Coats, they have a credible alternative if voters are looking to fire Bayh. But, Bayh is sitting on $13 million in his campaign account and a golden last name in Hoosier politics.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 3, 2010; 10:27 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Former Sen. Dan Coats to challenge Evan Bayh in Indiana
Next: Winners and Losers from the Illinois primary

Comments

I'd be willing to bet that out of Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon and New York, one or two will develop into a race. It's indeed a longshot for Republicans to gain the Senate this time, but they'll certainly have a more robust minority after November, and Reid's successor won't be able to ram through backroom deals among Democrats to pass key legislation anymore.

Posted by: srdshelly1 | February 4, 2010 6:22 AM | Report abuse

Since unemployment will probably be around 9.5% by early November, Republicans should, despite Obama continuing to blame everything bad on Bush II, win a net four or five Senate seats and twenty or so in the House of Representatives. Republican gains could be greater if Obama and Democrats in Congress fail to pass any health care bill, showing to a majority of independents, progressives alike, utter political incompetence.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | February 4, 2010 1:34 AM | Report abuse

We are in wars on two fronts, a volunteer army and due to a campaign promise, it is time to pick a fight.
It seems to be a lame attack/attempt to divide the tea party movement. Or, should I say their perception of the movement. MSNBC needs better strategic planners.

Posted by: RayOne | February 4, 2010 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Sure the democrats will lose eleven seats in the Senate this fall. That will happen the same day that I will be flying to the moon!! Can we get back to reality please and not to the wet-dreams of Chris? How about a reasonable discussion of all the republican seats at stake. Republicans (and Chris) give far too much credit to Massachusetts and forget that the lady democrat did not even campaign. The electorate punished her for her attitude far more than they blamed democrats. ...
Posted by: Opa2 | February 3, 2010 10:12 PM
________________

Change in majority. Likelihood? About the same chance that BHO will appoint Chip (Magic N_gro CD) Salsman to be ambassador to Nigeria.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 3, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Sure the democrats will lose eleven seats in the Senate this fall. That will happen the same day that I will be flying to the moon!! Can we get back to reality please and not to the wet-dreams of Chris? How about a reasonable discussion of all the republican seats at stake. Republicans (and Chris) give far too much credit to Massachusetts and forget that the lady democrat did not even campaign. The electorate punished her for her attitude far more than they blamed democrats. Hell, I would not have voted for that lazy b**** and I have voted a straight Dem ticket for 58 years.

Posted by: Opa2 | February 3, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Most observers assume Barbara Milkulski’s seat is quite safe. However, the GOP has never nominated anyone serious to challenge ole Babs , a cliché-yammering socialist whose base consists of the (government) bureaucratic classes of Prince Georges & Montgomery Counties as well as the permanently dependent underclass within Baltimore City.
Marylanders believe they have always voted “straight Democrat”, but closer examination shows that may be inaccurate.

Posted by: AdamSmith2 | February 3, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

The dems say Obama's on a roll! Here's proof.

http://thehathos.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/obamatp.jpg

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 3, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

How does a D.C. political blog not cover the James O'Keefe story involving an (alleged) break in into a U.S. Senator's office? Just askin'.

According to some sources, Keefe was hardly a "kid" pulling a "prank." He is a 25 year old adult whose (alleged) agenda is...is too disturbing to re-post here.

The latest (alleged) development from Internet journalist Charles Johnson:

http://trueslant.com/charlesjohnson/2010/02/03/james-okeefes-race-problem/

Scary...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 3, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Another good week for the Democrats. First Obama says you shouldn't go to Las Vegas. Then Ray Lahood says you should stop driving a Toyota. And the week ain't even over yet! Tomorrow, Janet Napolitano will tell everyone to stop flying.

The Democrats could wreck the pyramids.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 3, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

The republicans have a secret weapon to win the back the majority in the Senate this fall - Obama.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 3, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

SEAT SCOTT BROWN


SEAT SCOTT BROWN


SEAT SCOTT BROWN...


The Constitution says "Until the Election."

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 5:38 PM


37, you have to do your triple posts to push this thing along.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 3, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Further, as he proved in 2008, Obama is one of the most skilled politicians and campaigners around today. Not just a candidate and not a candidate, this time he will have the full force of the presidency behind him wherever he goes.

Posted by: unchurch1 | February 3, 2010 4:20 PM


What happened to the force in VA, NJ, and Mass? Whoops, I see you mentioned 2008. Sorry.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 3, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Six checks today.

Transcription of this week's RNC talking points. Check.
GOP comeback. Check.
Dems in trouble. Check.
No positive mention of BHO. Check
Free ad for Cook Report. Check.
Citation to unnamed cherrypicked polls (re Boxer). Check.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 3, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

37th, from yesterday's Boston Globe

"Massachusetts election officials had to wait until at least 10 days after the Jan. 19 election to allow overseas ballots to arrive. Those results have now been tallied and all but three communities – Salem, Springfield, and Westfield – have submitted final results to the secretary of state’s office. Those three are expected to have the final results turned in before the Governor’s Council meets Wednesday at noon.

There were about 1,900 ballots sent overseas, which won't alter the results but still must be tallied.

“We’ve followed the book on this,” Secretary of State William F. Galvin said in an interview. “We’ve proceeded as we would with any other election.”

After the Governor’s Council approves the results, it needs signatures from the governor and the secretary of state. The certificate will then be given to Brown and provided to the Secretary of the United States Senate.

If Brown wanted, he could fly down Wednesday or Thursday and be sworn in almost immediately. He has been planning, however, to have the ceremony on Feb. 11 and a spokesman, Felix Browne, said this afternoon that is still the plan."

STATE ELECTION LAWS OBSERVED,

BROWN CHOOSES TO WAIT!


LESS HEAT

MORE LIGHT,


please


.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 3, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

I have to support the democratic party. Not because they're my party, not because each of their individual candidates is better than any or all of the individual republican candidates, but because the republican party is a proven endgame.

Posted by: seabelly1 | February 3, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

. . . and the Demagouge Party is any less predictable or any less beholden to special interests? Must be some SWEET Koolaid!!

Posted by: UncomfortableTruths | February 3, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

37th - The election was certified today and he's being seated tomorrow. No need to get your knickers in a twist.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 3, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

37th seems to just go by the current meme or what he "hears", no intellectual curiosity or investigation, a lazy mind with a conservative bent, even when you put the facts before him he still gets it wrong.

We really need to improve our education system to at least teach our students to have some modicum of independent thinking.

Posted by: JRM2 | February 3, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

"So WTF why is Scott Brown getting different treatment ???
The democrats are such jokers.
Posted by: 37thand0street "
--------
I repeat, because HE ASKED TO NOT BE SEATED UNTIL FEB. 11th so he could have time to hire staff.

Now he has asked to be seated tomorrow and that is going to happen.

Why is that so hard for you to understand dumba$$?

Posted by: JRM2 | February 3, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

JRM2


Ted Kennedy was seated the next day after his election


Ms. Tsongas was seated the next day.


So WTF why is Scott Brown getting different treatment ???

The democrats are such jokers.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

SEAT SCOTT BROWN


SEAT SCOTT BROWN


SEAT SCOTT BROWN


SEAT SCOTT BROWN


SEAT SCOTT BROWN.

The Constitution says "Until the Election."


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"THE DEMOCRATS ARE CONTINUING TO DENY THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS THEIR PROPER REPRESENTATION IN THE US SENATE

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 2:21 PM |"
----
Maybe because Scott Brown asked to be seated Feb. 11th, then just recently changed his mind to being seated tomorrow, which apparently is going to happen.

So, WTF is your problem?

Posted by: JRM2 | February 3, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin;

Sounds like a great group. It is a wonderful thing for people of differing views to discuss things together, civilly and constructively. One of the things that bothers me most about the republicans and the democrats is that they only seem to be able to argue within their parties. And I mean 'argue' in the sense of reason constructively. Right now, if there's a difference of opinion between the two parties, it's regarded as unbridgeable. I think that's deplorable.

I'm on Long Island, by the way, about sixty miles or so east of New York City. It's good to know that people all over are having these kinds of conversations. It would be nice if our government could take a hint and do the same.

Posted by: seabelly1 | February 3, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

The Senate races are, no doubt, the most important.

For instance, I think the corporations look at the Senate as a much better investment than the House; in the Senate, the limit of two Senators per state gives them a lot more bang for their buck, making the increased price of a Senator cost-effective.

Rather like shopping at Tiffany's instead of Kay Jewelers (and their dining room is nicer too, eh? lollll...)

Posted by: ibsteve2u | February 3, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

mark you stated that the Ds in the Senate failed to lead when they had 60 votes which has become the super majority test for every piece of legislation.I am glad you pointed out how Rs are now walking away from their own bills they co-sponsored Al Franken was sworn in on July 8, 2009. As for healthcare Baucus and Reid allowed Grassley to play games with a bill he had no intention of ever supporting. Lengthy R delays of a month time period were demanded in Sept and again around December. Since Ds in the Senate had a tenuous 60 votes for maybe 5 months exactly why is it unreasonable to expect legislation that has been debated during 10 POTUS administrations over 70 years to take longer than 5 months when every day we heard R leadership yelling you are going to fast on healthcare. It is obvious that Senate Rs were not acting in good faith and I fault Baucus for trusting them when he and Reid agreed to R delays.

I compare the US Senate to running the state of Ca. Both have become dysfunctional and ungovernable. Unless the Senate seriously looks at changing the filibuster rule it is conceivable that absolutely nothing will ever pass the US Senate again until the next economic crisis.

Expect another absolutely nasty general election campaign by Perry.

Posted by: leichtman | February 3, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I got your point, beeker25 - I just wanted to ensure that you had plenty of ammunition to fire back with in the future for the next time some rightie tries to foist the lie that this economy is the Democrats' fault.

That housing scam had an additional purpose beyond the transfer of billions of dollars to the "right" people: Concealing the damage that "flood-up/trickle-down" economics, deregulation, and inequitable free trade were doing to the American economy - to the American people.

Given that those are all Republican policies (no matter which duplicitous politicians of other Parties also supported them), of course a Republican President would be interested in using a false housing boom to conceal their catastrophic damage.

Posted by: ibsteve2u | February 3, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I believe that whenever you think of "Clinton" and his actions, you really need to consider his rise to political power in Arkansas (Wal*Mart's corporate home) as well as his wife's job (six years on the board of directors of Wal*Mart) and who benefited immediately and the most from the granting of MFN to China and Clinton's advocacy of inequitable free trade (duh...Wal*Mart?).

Just because it says "Democrat" on the outside doesn't mean it is "Democrat" on the inside.

lollll...if you find that difficult to believe, you'd do well to also consider Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: ibsteve2u | February 3, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Many may suspect that the administration does not appreciate how hard it is to be self-employed — an understandable conjecture when neither the president nor many in his Cabinet have had careers outside government or academia. Tenure and near-automatic annual pay raises do not exist in the world of the insurance agent, farmer or trucker.

Instead, when employers listen to the president's grand ideas for healthcare reform, they must quietly cringe at increased costs per worker. When they hear soaring rhetoric about cap-and-trade energy policy, they must silently fear higher power costs.

Worse still has been the promiscuous talk this past year about all sorts of higher taxes.

During the 2008 campaign and the president's first year, we heard Obama promise new income taxes that would revert to the higher rates of the Clinton administration. But that would now come on top of recent new tax hikes by the states that have often upped their own income and sales taxes by considerable margins since 2000.

During the healthcare debate, there were also promises of a special surcharge on "Cadillac health plans," as well as making the upper brackets pay a surcharge to fund the care of others.

And don't forget Obama's inheritance-tax proposals that would have reversed the scheduled one-year repeal (with what many expected would become permanent) of the inheritance tax to a 45 percent tax rate on anything that an individual leaves to his heirs beyond $3.5 million in value — capital that was already taxed during its acquisition.

As a result of all this tax-talking frenzy, business owners have no idea what their new aggregate tax obligations will be or when they will kick in. They can only sense that the Obama administration wants to go after successful entrepreneurs to fund more federal entitlement for others — as if the 5 percent of Americans who fork over 55 percent of the aggregate income tax revenue don't pay enough already.

If President Obama really wants to foster job growth, he needs to get specific. Stop the borrowing and instead tell the business community exactly what income, payroll and surcharge taxes he proposes, when they will begin — and how much he appreciates those who will pay them.

When it comes to creating a psychological climate to encourage employers to start hiring again, a little certainty and a little praise are lot better than uncertainty and talk of taxing even more those who now already pay the most.

Posted by: leapin | February 3, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ibsteve2u

That's my whole point.....

Posted by: beeker25 | February 3, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Chris, I think you are behind the curve on this one. While it's only my opinion, I think the Republicans have peaked and will be headed downhill. Why? The political operatives in the White House, after snoozing for a year, have realized that they need to be in campaign mode 24/7 and they will once again be doing that. Further, as he proved in 2008, Obama is one of the most skilled politicians and campaigners around today. Not just a candidate and not a candidate, this time he will have the full force of the presidency behind him wherever he goes. Even though he campaigned for some who fell short, this was a halfhearted effort on his part. Once he gets back into campaign mode, it will be like a locomotive headed down the tracks: you can see it headed your way, but stopping it now will be a different issue.

Posted by: unchurch1 | February 3, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

It was Clinton who pressed for all the free trade deals which are not hurting the middle class.
-----
He had help with the Republicans to get it passed after all they advocated it and the Democrats opposed it on the ground that there were no safeguards to ensure workers are treated fairly. Seems you forgot about that?
==============

It was Clinton who pressed to repeal the Glass Steagall Act - which contributed to the banking crisis.
------
Actually it was Phil Gramm who pressed to repeal it because he's Wall Street man to boot as well as other legislations that is the contributory to what we are facing today. Again cherry picking results. Incidently, Reagan advocated deregulation that contributed to the S&L crisis that ended up costing taxpayers billions to fix. Here we are again ....
============
It was Clinton who cut back our intelligence budget to the point where we did not really know what was going on in the Middle East - and contributed to us being blind intelligence-wise before the terrorist attacks.
-----------
If you recalled in the 1992 election what the campaign theme? Deficit and the exploding debt. Who was the candidate putting out charts showing the problems that we should be solving that never got fixed? Ross Perot. As a result he had to do something because Perot pushed for it. Here we are again, we haven't made a lick to fix it except to blame people (both parties) for the mess we are in.
Posted by: 37thand0street

Posted by: beeker25 | February 3, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Ya mean like "Mission Accomplished"?

By the way, I'm an Independent...never liked the idea of being bound to one Party, and there are more than enough corporate stooges among the Democrats to convince me to stay that way.

And the Republicans...lolll...if the money is right, they'd sell the Constitution.

Posted by: ibsteve2u | February 3, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Wow, you Libs put a lot of stock in speeches.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: beeker25 "you should look back to Bush after all he promoted the HomeOwnership society in a speech in 2005 that he directed FNMA to look for ways to offer easier credit and the banks took notice to lower the credit standards to reflect that."

Actually, Bush, the bankers, and the Wall Street investment/bankers started the scam well before that.

Go read this Bush speech from June of 2002, and you'll see what I mean:

http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/presremarks.cfm

lollll...particularly enjoyed the part about "creating" $440 billion in capital out of thin air.

That may well mark the birth date of the "creative" - if corrupt - financial instruments.

Posted by: ibsteve2u | February 3, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

.Dodd and Frank allowed the ACORN group and other "community organizers" to dictate the requirements for securing a loan and easing credit. The housing debacle followed.

Posted by: tsapp77

Boy do you have insider information that I don't know? That's a patently false and research by economists have bear this out.
It is much more than Franks and Dodd, you should look back to Bush after all he promoted the HomeOwnership society in a speech in 2005 that he directed FNMA to look for ways to offer easier credit and the banks took notice to lower the credit standards to reflect that. As a matter of fact, Robert Schiller, an economist, wrote abook about the coming housing bust back in 2005 and nobody listened except for me.

Posted by: beeker25 | February 3, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Seabelly, where are you located? I ask, because your post excoriating the parties in Congress echoed my informal men's group on Monday night. Two liberals [one is a liberal hawk], two ticket splitters, and one conservative all agreed on exactly what you said - Ds cannot get their stuff together to lead and Rs are a broken record of often duplicitous leadership - see their cosponsors who bailed on Gregg and on PayGo, b/c the Prez showed some affinity for their own ideas.

We are in TX and all five of us are likely to vote for Bill White[D] for Gov. at this point; at least he has a track record of getting stuff done in Houston. Our disgust with Congress was amazing in its cross ideological appeal. Ds will argue that they could not get it done against a bloc vote in the Senate - but whatever "it" was, say health care, Ds failed when they had sixty votes. Ds are bad, Rs are worse, the money will chase all of them after "Citizens United", and if a third party emerges that is not bound to a special interest or two to begin with it will sell out in four years, and tough problems will get kicked down the road, sacrificed to campaign fever and financing considerations over the next election.

That is not a very pretty picture, is it?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 3, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

A year ago Barack Obama inherited a recession brought on by financial panic following the collapse of the housing bubble. The market crash was made worse by Wall Street shenanigans and recklessness at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Job losses followed.

In response, Obama pushed through a stimulus bill that went well beyond the borrowing done by George W. Bush in his last months in office. In fact, Obama and the Congress borrowed an additional $787 billion to infuse the economy with fresh job-creating cash.

The president warned us that without this borrowing, unemployment might reach double digits. Yet with the stimulus, unemployment has soared from 7.6 percent to 10 percent. That translates into over 4 million jobs lost in 2009 alone.

In reaction, an embarrassed administration continues to cite hypothetical jobs saved, rather than the actual number of jobs lost this year. Just this week senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, press secretary Robert Gibbs and senior White House adviser David Axelrod variously claimed "thousands and thousands," "1.5 million" and "2 million" jobs saved. If the White House insiders can't get their theoretical numbers straight, how can anyone else?

Why the continual job losses?

First, the government can create only so many jobs by borrowing and spending. It is less efficient than private enterprise in reacting to market needs — new products, new services and new consumer tastes. Higher federal budgets eventually translate into more bureaucrats to shackle the private sector with more regulations that discourage innovation and experimentation.

In contrast, the U.S. Small Business Administration claims that small businesses employ about half of all working Americans. Yet building contractors, orthodontists, local real-estate agents and small software companies (to name just a few types of small businesses) in the last year have not been convinced that it is time to start buying new equipment and hiring more employees to gear up for increased consumer demand.

Posted by: leapin | February 3, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse


Barry's Radical agenda has been rejected. His failed attempt to Nationalize Health Care with his party a majority in Congress is a huge defeat. His inability to force Cap / Tax revealed how ignorant and out of touch he and the Lib Dem Socialist led Congress are. His delegating not only the failed health care but the Liberal Load of Lard Stimulus Scam to Pelosi et al was the beginning of the end of his Presidency and the Lib Dem Congress. They literally have collapsed under the weight of the own arrogance, ignorance and liberalism. Without Checks and Balances the Lib Dem party and Radical in the White House have proven themselves to be irresponsible and unfit to hold the positions they do.

Elections of 2010 & 12 Cannot Come Soon Enough!

Posted by: jas7751 | February 3, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I have a question...

Do political commentators in the media feel that their jobs are at risk, now that the Supreme Court has unleashed corporate propaganda, putting not just the Senate but the nation into play?

I mean, it is going to be kind of hard to pretend that you don't know what the outcome will be, once you find out who the corporations intend to support.

That makes prognostications on the eventual winner something akin to idle gossip.

Posted by: ibsteve2u | February 3, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

There is a huge change that the Senate will go conservative and the house will be very close to a conservative majority after this election... and then a conservtive majorty will be seated in 2012

Posted by: markandbeth92
-----
Actually only in your dreams because you have a mix of states where Independents outnumbers both parties and could decide the races in mix ways because in some states the Independents can not vote in the primary but in the general election. Besides, looking at Cizilla's article about some of the Republican candidates have many baggage issues that contradicts their claims of being the outsider (reality:playing as one, when get in office contradict what you said).

Right now there's a unprecedented anger at BOTH parties not one; something many pundits like Mark Shields and David Brooks have pointed out and that is not going away. As a matter of fact, they mentioned that despite the fact that the polls that shows the Democrats falling, the Republicans are falling even further.

The way I see it, you are a follower of the Republican party where "honesty" is not their strong suit to begin with. So far they have been caught in making false claims of misrepresentation as reported by Factcheck.org and PoliFact.com and several other sources.. It is the same thing for the Democrats.

Posted by: beeker25 | February 3, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

seabelly1 -- an "independent" can't "strike" if he/she votes for the incumbant party down the line. That is what you're proposing to do. Sorry, you're not an independent.

Posted by: STLHawkeye | February 3, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler - Very good. Really interesting points; I suspect you are quite right. Thank you.

Posted by: seabelly1 | February 3, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

In 2006 the country was weary of the Iraq war and the Democrats regained the House and the Senate. Obama's chief of staff recruited moderate Democrats to run in conservative areas by promising that these moderates would vote as Republican once they were elected.The decision to bestow power to this avaricious group proved to be disastrous for the country and the economy.Dodd and Frank allowed the ACORN group and other "community organizers" to dictate the requirements for securing a loan and easing credit. The housing debacle followed.

Last year after voters realized that Obama was a disciple of Saul Alinsky, they began rejecting his socialist agenda and his scheme to nationalize the health care industry. Now these moderate Democrats are in a quandary. Do that support Obama's socialism or do they listen to their constituents? If they want to be reelected, they should renounce Obama's Marxism.

Posted by: tsapp77 | February 3, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

37thandO: "If you can not get the basic grammar correct..."

If you cannot get the correct spelling of cannot correct...

LOL nice try, ace!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | February 3, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

It's New Castle County, not Newcastle.

Posted by: MPersow | February 3, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

A roadside bomb killed three U.S. soldiers and partly destroyed a girls' school in northwest Pakistan on Wednesday in an attack that drew attention to a little-publicized American military training mission in the al-Qaida and Taliban heartland.

==

pity president flightsuit was more interested in Iraq and in playing toilet footsy with Musharref than in, you know, actually doing anything about the terrorist threat.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 3, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

markandbeth92 - Marxist? Socialist? Come on, talk like a grown up and maybe we can get something accomplished.

Posted by: seabelly1 | February 3, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

But the republican party is so corrupt and it has so inextricably enntwined its goals with those of the religious right, that the idea of wasting my vote on a republican today is repugnant to me.
 
==
 
Well I’d say your heart is in the right place but it’s not the RRR that calls the shots for the gomers, it’s the wealthy.  Personal and corporate.  They exploit the RRR for votes but even those snake-handlers are starting to notice that they haven’t gotten anything they want.  Think about it .. GWB had a packed Supreme Court, he had both houses of Congress, he himself was a fundamentalist prig, and did he manage to get abortion outlawed?  Anything significant against gays?  Any deeper entrenchment of fundamentalist Christianity into law?  Nope, not a thing.  Republicans like to take advantage of fundamentalists’ low intelligence and stubborn determination but they don’t actually *give* them anything.
 
And they’ve probably missed their chance.  The new generation of evangelicals embraces a lot of ideas that have traditionally been strong only among liberals .. social justice, communitarian virtues, even environmentalism.
 
The real threat from Republicans is that hey will allow corporations to dictate law, as Dick Cheney did; wouldn’t be long before smoking was back in the workplace, consumer protection was  a memory, and jobs were moved out of the country a million at a time and with tax breaks for doing so. 

Posted by: Noacoler | February 3, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The administration's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, called the tens of millions of dollars in AIG bonuses being doled out today ''outrageous,'' but said the insurance giant was legally obligated to pay them. (

Everything is working just fine.

---------
Actually, it is the way they crafted the deal to insure they pay it. Coincidently one of the attorney in one of those bank took the bonus and left the company when in fact there were a clawback if she decided to leave before a particular date.

Posted by: beeker25 | February 3, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

America has gotten a really good look at how the new democrat statist work and what damage they intend to do to America. Barack Obama has a stated goal of FUNDEMENTALLY changing America. That means change us from our founding of small government and more right to the people... to a large government controled socialist marxist country where people have very little control of their every day lives.

There is a huge change that the Senate will go conservative and the house will be very close to a conservative majority after this election... and then a conservtive majorty will be seated in 2012

Posted by: markandbeth92 | February 3, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Iran announced Wednesday it launched a menagerie of animals — including a mouse, two turtles and worms — into space on a research rocket, a feat President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said showed Iran could defeat the West in the battle of technology.

The Iranian space program has worried Western powers, which fear the same technology used to launch satellites and research capsules could also be used to build long-range intercontinental missiles and deliver warheads.

A U.S. defense expert said there was no scientific purpose to launching such animals into space and that the launch was likely more aimed at boosting Iran's prestige.

"The launch was clearly part of Iran's effort to advance military technology and assert political dominance in space," said Lewis "It's also a show of confidence. Space rockets give you prestige and influence, and that is what Iran seeks."


Everything is working just fine.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Some rank and file Democrats in the House are trashing President Barack Obama's plan to give businesses that add workers a new $5,000 tax credit for each job they create.

everything is working just fine.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

A roadside bomb killed three U.S. soldiers and partly destroyed a girls' school in northwest Pakistan on Wednesday in an attack that drew attention to a little-publicized American military training mission in the al-Qaida and Taliban heartland.

Everything is working just fine.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

At least Napolitano didn't ignore an explicit warning, and at least Obama didn't freeze up for eight minutes while planes whisked their way toward targets.

Everything IS working just fine. Better, anyway. I doubt Obama will invade the wrong country like Bush did.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 3, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

STLHawkeye - Independents don't swing, baby. We strike.

Posted by: seabelly1 | February 3, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The five senior leaders of the U.S. intelligence community told a Senate panel Tuesday they are "certain" that terrorists will attempt another attack on the United States in the next three to six months.

Everything is working just fine.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Napolitano: Shortly after a few brave passengers thwarted Abdulmuttalab's underwear detonation, Secretary Napolitano proclaimed on CNN: "..the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action." This prompted widespread ridicule and bipartisan calls for her resignation. She subsequently backtracked, stating that the system clearly had not worked, and that her comments to the contrary were taken out of context.

Given that Napolitano began her tenure by replacing the word "terrorism" with the decidedly sterile phrase "man-caused disasters" in the DHS lexicon, and then proceeded to issue a report indicating that soldiers returning from service in Iraq or Afghanistan were a security threat, it is perhaps not surprising that, consistent with her inverted view of the threat landscape, this near-catastrophe was seen as a demonstration of success.

everything is working just fine

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Joining the D party has been a mixed bag for Osama bin Laden. He’s happy to join Al Gore in the goal of eliminating global warming but is distressed that BHO and the statists are beating him to the punch in destroying America with crushing debt, taxes, and spending. He had envisioned a more “explosive” ending.

Posted by: leapin | February 3, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I just want to say you are doing a miserable job in this moment of national crisis and while you yourself should be in your prime.

Let's look at it. When everyone is complaining about the terrible 24 hour news cycle, you are it. That is not your fault so far; everyone is doing it. You are assigned to write lively horse-race 'buzz' pieces. You do that part well, so where is the crime?

The crime, your crime and Howard Kurtz's crime, is to have zero perspective, as if your historical political perspective went back only as far as five minutes ago. But the greater crime is that you actually do not CARE about the issues! That is not objectivity. It is called slavehood. You are a tool of the Republicans at this moment--I can't believe without knowing it--but you could be the tool of Democrats 5 minutes from now or Al-Qaida or Hitler 10 minutes from now. You don't care as an American what these issues you write about mean to your country, your society, and ultimately your own pathetic soul. Get real in the context of your journalistic assignment or quit.

Posted by: walden1 | February 3, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

37th

GET A JOB!!

GET A JOB!!

GET A JOB!!


GET A JOB!!


GET A JOB!!


Posted by: Noacoler | February 3, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

As a resident of Indiana for nearly 25 years, I have voted for Sen. Bayh in many elections. Indiana is a fiscally conservative state. The state government rarely runs in the red with the exception of the last two years. The population has requested the elected representatives to focus on spending less and cutting benefits. Until this current term, Senator Bayh had crafted a legacy of being a fiscal conservative, social moderate. However, he followed the line exactly for Sen. Reid and Pres. Obama when asked during 2009 to support Stimulus II (i.e., Payola I) and the proposed legislation on Health Care Reform. When it became known following the vote by the Senate to support the legislation that Bayh was instrumental in 'cheerleading' the process...his base eroded. Frankly, his phone bank at the Senate has rung off the hook. It really does not matter who the Republicans pick as their nominee for Senate, Bayh has lost the vote of nearly all independents in a state that runs fairly even D v R in registered voters. HE IS TOAST come November.

Posted by: jhpbriton | February 3, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

The administration's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, called the tens of millions of dollars in AIG bonuses being doled out today ''outrageous,'' but said the insurance giant was legally obligated to pay them. (

Everything is working just fine.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told Toyota owners Wednesday they should stop driving their vehicles, then quickly took back his words, adding to confusion over the safety of millions of recalled cars.

It seems everything is working just fine. Another boob in the cabinet clearly way over their head.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Ha ha ha! I love it!!

Posted by: mary3211 | February 3, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

SEAT SCOTT BROWN

SEAT SCOTT BROWN

SEAT SCOTT BROWN


SEAT SCOTT BROWN


SEAT SCOTT BROWN.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Where was your anger when the democrats were using the filibuster to hold up Bush's judicial nominations?"

I was blogging that Rs should be given their nuclear option that they would soon have regreted. Unfortunately Lieberman caved and insisted on a standard of extraordinary circumstances to filibuster which R Senate leadership has conveniently forgotten.

Incidentally Ds in the Senate did not filibuster EVERY piece of garbage bill Rs proposed and often to their regret crossed over and voted with Rs. Curious how many times we have seen that from any R Senator since last Jan?

The answer NONE.

And when was the last time we heard McConnell with his famous chant: We demand an Up or Down Vote.

Thank goodness that it was a R POTUS when Paulson had to save the economy from eminent collapse in Dec 2008 otherwise McConnell would have filibustered the bank bailout and we would all be pushing shopping carts in our Hoovervilles today.

Posted by: leichtman | February 3, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

writinron - I'm all for moderate republicans; if it weren't for the fact that they come with the republican party, I might vote for them. But the republican party is so corrupt and it has so inextricably enntwined its goals with those of the religious right, that the idea of wasting my vote on a republican today is repugnant to me. If the moderates would leave both parties and start a third, I'd be right there with them, but barring a better alternative, I have to support the democratic party. Not because they're my party, not because each of their individual candidates is better than any or all of the individual republican candidates, but because the republican party is a proven endgame.

Posted by: seabelly1 | February 3, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Edwards hit wife during
heated fight: report

a real class act

what is it with Libs?

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Rahm Emanuel to meet
with advocates for disabled
in wake of 'f---ing retarded' comment

a real class act.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

seabelly1 -- you're blaming the Republicans right now for the Democrats' failures? The Democrats had total control of the White House, Senate, and House, then you're not an "independent." Independents are not those who choose between the Democrats and the Socialists. Indpendents swing between the two major parties. Sorry.

Posted by: STLHawkeye | February 3, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Correction:

It was Clinton who pressed for all the free trade deals which are NOW hurting the middle class.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

What will happen in the senate is that the Dems will retain close to their current majority, and they will redo the rules. The Repukeliscum have abused the rules. The senate is non-functional due to repukeliscumian obstructionism, and the filibuster rules are going to be reduced.

Posted by: snortz_the_cat | February 3, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

lunetrick


Nice name - however I have to point out a few things.


It was Clinton who pressed for all the free trade deals which are not hurting the middle class.


It was Clinton who pressed to repeal the Glass Steagall Act - which contributed to the banking crisis.


It was Clinton who cut back our intelligence budget to the point where we did not really know what was going on in the Middle East - and contributed to us being blind intelligence-wise before the terrorist attacks.

It was the democrats who did vote for the Iraqi war.


It was the democrats who kept on voting to FUND the Iraqi War - even after Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker.

SO WHO REALLY IS YOUR ENEMY ?? THE OTHER SIDE,

OR THE PEOPLE WHO SAY ARE ON YOUR SIDE BUT REALLY ARE NOT ????


Think about it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

There is no doubt in my mind that the Republican Party will regain power soon. Americans don't possess any patience, we want things to get better NOW! And we have the collective memory of Alzheimer's sufferers. Americans have bought into the GOP's eternal "We are the Party of Patriotism" chorus, forgetting what the Party of Patriotism brought us during their most recent rule. We deserve the leadership we get if we can't be more analytical then that. Politicians have been pushing the patriotism button for hundreds of years, long before there was a USA. Politicians have been calling out anyone who doesn't agree with them as treasonous going back to antiquity. It's really nothing new. But some Americans just have to prove Abe Lincoln right: You can fool some of the people all of the time.

Posted by: curtb | February 3, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

One story seems to be overlooked here--the return of the moderate republican. The republicans have been dominated by extremists lately, and they lost. Now that they're desparate to win . . .

Posted by: writinron | February 3, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Fiorina is not going anywhere in CA. CA is filled with many IT professionals. They know what a f.ucking disaster she produced in both Lucent and HP. She destroyed the careers of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of IT people, and they are desperate to do whatever it takes to scuttle Carli the Tu.rd's career.

Posted by: snortz_the_cat | February 3, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are going to EXPAND their majority this time. IF IF IF they get the balls to actually run on Democratic ideas, instead of away from them.

Americans do not want Repukeliscum turds to take over like they did in the past. This would be a huge disaster. We are not a theocracy, which is the Republican idea of government.

We Democrats will win in OH, NH, DE, MO, and several other states. I can see a democratic Senate with 65 Democratic Senators.

Posted by: snortz_the_cat | February 3, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what will happen in November, but I know that right now, I'm paying attention. I've been unhappy with the strangely discordant non-work the democrats have playing at in congress this year, and the stonewalling and pouting of the republicans as well. So I tuned it all out. My bad. But I've snapped back now. I think Senator-Elect Centerfold deserved to beat Attorney General What's-My-Motivation, but all this talk of a republican resurrgence is frightening. Things could be much, much better, but the only thing worse than what we have right now is what we had before. That's why this Independent will be contributing to and working for the campaign of every democrat running for the House or Senate that he can. The only choice I see right now is between the democratic party and the republican party. I especially like neither, but I dislike the republican party far, far more. And the past decade shows me that they can not and should not be trusted with the power to run this country.

Posted by: seabelly1 | February 3, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

'something tells me dribbl, that the Ped will climb the wall, pole vault or parachute if necessary to get his twisted hateful views out of his dark soul.

can a person live with all that anger and resentment bottled up inside them?

Posted by: drivl'

i don't know, zouk, you tell me.

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

jackjburke

You state:


If you can't get basic grammar right, can the reader be sure about anything else?

_____________________

If you can not get the basic grammar correct, may the reader be sure about anything else ?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

jackjburke

You state:


If you can't get basic grammar right, can the reader be sure about anything else?

_____________________

If you can not get the basic grammar correct, may the reader be sure about anything else ?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"The Republican Plan, I: People Will Die

So the Republicans have a deficit reduction and a health care plan, all wrapped into one, the “Roadmap for America’s Future.” It’s being pushed by Paul Ryan, in part because he’s the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, in part because he’s good-looking and articulate, in part to provide the party plausible deniability if it flops (like Bobby Jindal a year ago). The CBO says that it will balance the budget and even eliminate the national debt by 2080. Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias have commented on it. Klein says, “I wouldn’t balance the budget in anything like the way Ryan proposes. His solution works by making care less affordable for seniors. . . . But his proposal is among the few I’ve seen that’s willing to propose solutions in proportion to the problem.” Yglesias says “it’s totally unworkable.” But they’re both being much too kind."

Baseline Scenario, James Kwak

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 3, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Cilizza made it on NR.

Taking Back the Senate?
By Daniel Foster

With the Illinois Senatorial primaries producing a competitive general election matchup, and the decision by former senator Dan Coats (R.) to challenge Sen. Evan Bayh (D.) in Indiana, the Cook Political Report now has 10 Democrat-held Senate seats in play in 2010. This leaves Republicans with what Chris Cillizza calls "a longshot" chance of running the table and taking a 51-seat majority.

Is it a longshot? Absolutely. But, remember that recent history has shown that in a national political landscape tipped in favor of one party a strong majority of toss up contests tend to fall that party's way.

At the end of the 2008 election cycle, Cook rated six Republican-held seat as tossups. Democrats won four of the six. Cook also rated three Republican seats as leaning toward Democrats. Democrats won all three of those.

Go back to the 2006 cycle and a similar trend is apparent. Cook had five Republican-held seats ranked as toss up and Democrats won four of them. Cook's two Democratic-held toss ups were also won by Democrats.

Republicans are, at the moment, in strong shape to pick up Democrat seats in Arkansas, Delaware, Nevada, and North Dakota, and face "genuine jump balls" in Colorado, Illinois, and Pennyslvania. Though Bayh has a big war chest a record of selective centrism to appease conservative Indiana voters, the Coats challenge could send Indiana into the toss-up pile as well. Only California and Connecticut — where Republicans face a well-funded incumbent and a hugely-popular state official, respectively — are long shots.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

The victories in Illinois by Rep. Mark Kirk (R) and state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) coupled with former Indiana Sen. Dan Coats' (R) decision to challenge Evan Bayh (D) in the fall is likely to stir chatter about the possibility that Republicans could challenge for the Senate majority come November.

Try: "The victories ... are ..."

If you can't get basic grammar right, can the reader be sure about anything else?

Posted by: jackjburke | February 3, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Segueing on zouk's obsession with all things homosexual:

“In 1993, when Bill Clinton tried to do the right thing by allowing gays and lesbians in the military to be themselves, a predecessor of Mullen’s, Colin Powell, directed the embarrassingly public and retrograde rebellion by the generals against it, leading a conga line of heavy brass over to the White House to tell the president not to exercise his authority as commander in chief and order an end to one of the last vestiges of discrimination in the armed forces. Powell helped shape the gutless compromise that those who protect our country must live by a code of honor even while they’re legally bound to be less than honest.

Still traumatized by the 1993 pummeling Clinton endured, the Obama White House is inching forward, like soldiers under attack crawling on their bellies through the dirt, trying to avoid friendly fire from gay groups that want the law changed now and hostile fire from conservatives that want the law left alone.

Before Admiral Mullen and Secretary of Defense Bob Gates even made their opening statements, John McCain went on the attack against overturning the policy. Noting that gays and lesbians had served “admirably” and even given their lives, he said: “I honor their sacrifice, and I honor them.” Just as long as they deny their identity and pretend to be something they’re not.

The conservative senator who has always been known for honor and clarity cited “vast complexities” as a reason not to change the hypocritical policy, whatever that means, as well as the fact that “the Senate vigorously debated it in 1993.” (One complexity was our failure to realize that, with two wars in the Middle East, we might need some talented gay translators fluent in Arabic and Farsi.)

Yeah, nothing’s changed since 1993.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/opinion/03dowd.html?hp

 

Worth noting that it’s Bush’s defense secretary prepared to overturn Bill Clinton’s suppression of candor in the armed forces. 

 

What do opponents have?  Squeamishness.  Oooh, look, crowded showers.  Eeeewww.  Eeewwww.  Echoes of racial integration.  Eeeewwww.  And I really need to wonder why *anyone* pays any attention to John McCain.  His marbles are leaving him and his bitter fury at losing his election have turned him into a Mr. Magoo cartoon.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 3, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Hey Libs:

What part of NO don't you get? It is not that it hasn't been explained. It is that it has.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

With Obama squandering valuable time and energy trying to kiss Republicans he has lost the initative. Pass the public-option before this week is out and he'll regain the upper hand.

Posted by: Maddogg | February 3, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

something tells me dribbl, that the Ped will climb the wall, pole vault or parachute if necessary to get his twisted hateful views out of his dark soul.

can a person live with all that anger and resentment bottled up inside them?

Consider that fact that Ped has spent the most quality time in all his human relations this year sparring with Jake over who is a bigger idiot.

what does that tell you? all you need to know about chrissy Foxxy.

It is beyond deviant. It is pathological.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I knows reporters like this make a good living by talking up republicans versus democrat like this as if this is going to change the course of history. This is more designed to mask the real nature of our society that is cleverly ruled by the economic elite of this country while making us pay for the machinery. There is not political freedom or play in this country. The elite controls both parties, and through controls rest of the governmental and judicial institutions. This is all a sham, an empty show.

Posted by: kevin1231 | February 3, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The President has been doing a really good job of calling the republicans out. If they don't come to the table now they can kiss any major gains goodbye. The American people aren't as dumb as they think and they will not be rewarded for doing nothing, even worse being obstructionist.

I know democrats used the filibuster too but nowhere close to the abuse as the republicans. Their main goal is to slow government down to a halt. That's not helping people get back to work, that's not fixing our debt problems. They even voted against more money for our troops, and people are so busy watching Obama's every move you let them get away with it.

Posted by: whatdyousay | February 3, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Voters will remember who wrecked the Country from 2000 to 2008. Just go back and look at the figures on employment, economy, wars. The Rebulican'ts distroyed the middle class and gave away millions to the corporations during their rain of terror. Check the profits of Exxon Oil Co. for 2000 to 2008, then check out 2009 profits! The voters will remember the Bush years and his Party for a number of years.

Posted by: lunetrick | February 3, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

. . NEWS FLASH


THE DEMOCRATS ARE CONTINUING TO DENY THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS THEIR PROPER REPRESENTATION IN THE US SENATE


The People of Massachusetts have sent their Senator to Washington and Harry Reid, Obama and the other democrats CONTINUE TO DISRESPECT THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS by refusing to seat Scott Brown.


What is their problem??


The Constitution is clear - the term of the replacement is "until the election"


Anyone complaining about the Constitution should look into this.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

If we have a repeat of 1994 in terms of congress, I wonder what that will mean for the White House intern program? Is there a Monica Jr. lurching in the background?

Posted by: kenpasadena | February 3, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

the nickname ped refers to a certain poster who is pedantic and pedestrian.

where did you get the idea it was something else?

Oh wait, I think I know.

kind of like when I refer to brain dead liberal idiot, we all know exactly who the person is.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

It's sad that the Post lets an idiot on here every day to obssess about his pedophilia. You'd think they'd want to stop that.

==

you'd think they'd at least ban the sickie who wants to see millions of his fellow citizens rounded up and murdered, too. Yeah like that would really be hard. Just block the account.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 3, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

chrissy foxxy has been banned several times dribbl. what do you expect Cilizza to do when the prime stooge doesn't hear the word? Maybe it is just not being explained to him properly?

you're the head stooge. deal with it.

Jo moe, listen to curly.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I have submitted a 3.8 Trillion dollar budget, which will result in a 1.56 Trillion Dollar deficit. I don't believe washington can keep spending americans hard earned taxpayer money like it is monopoly money! that's all... oh wait,
yeah, I forgot the fight for you.
I will fight for you, and you and you.
ok. I have a 2 oclock tee time.

Posted by: simonsays1 | February 3, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

It's sad that the Post lets an idiot on here every day to obssess about his pedophilia. You'd think they'd want to stop that.

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Right now it's just kind of funny that Murray Hill is going to run in Maryland as a R. But, what if another corporation decides to run against Murray Hill? And another corporation runs as a Democrat?

I see that the various Tea Party spokesmen (including the famous guy with the n***gar sign) are starting to speak out against the SCOTUS decision.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 3, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

What happens when Obama is 'bipartisan':

'And when Obama backed a bipartisan commission to find ways to cut the long-term deficit – including reexamining popular entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security – a handful of Republican sponsors switched their positions and joined in filibustering it, the president said.
“This failed by seven votes, when seven Republicans who had cosponsored the idea suddenly walked away from their own proposal after I endorsed it,’’ an exasperated Obama told the crowd. “I said, ‘Good idea.’ I turned around, they’re gone. What happened?’’

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

In ped's world, it is everyone ELSE who is crazy. EVERYONE.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Liberals, you see, are desperate to avoid discussing the mountain of failures since The One took "charge". Instead they fall back on the only thing they really know, personal attacks, innuendo, dirty deeds, backstabbing and nasty name calling.

The three stooges lead the way here on the Fix.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama calls out Teabaggers'
Raum calls dem's "F ing Retards"
Reid calls Repub's '' Racists ''
Much name calling and infighting
among the party that
never met a tax dollar it could
not spend twice'

welcome the Democrats,
all the firepower to airRaid Innocent
Villagers,
and all the spin to pass
spending bills to reduce spending.

hoooha'

Posted by: simonsays1 | February 3, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

'Obama had led by example and sought to engage in meaningful bipartisan negotiations, things would be much different right now'

LOL. You apparently have the same view of bipartisanship as most republicans -- which is, democrats bend over.

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Two stooges shift into hyperdrive.
I hope it's not a toyota.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler -- the narrative you just posted is exactly why the Democrats are losing independents 3 to 1. Keep it up, and the Republicans will retake Congress.

Posted by: STLHawkeye | February 3, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

and he always does it exactly the same way, every single day, noa.

children love repetition -- it makes them feel secure.

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

The Democrat leadership in Congress, in both the House and the Senate, has pursued a strategy of isolating and excluding Republican ideas, and Obama has been too weak-kneed to call for a change in tone. As a result, Democrats are trying to ram through bills on straight party line votes using their majority. If instead, Obama had led by example and sought to engage in meaningful bipartisan negotiations, things would be much different right now and Obama would likely have a number of victories under his belt. It seems like much more gets accomplished with divided government, as each side is forced to reckon with the other. Too bad Obama is much more of a talker than a listener, more of a follower than a leader. He's being led right off the cliff by Congressional leaders, and the consequences are just starting to show.

Posted by: Illini | February 3, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I sure hope the Senate majority is in play, if the last 20 some years have taught us anything we should know that bad things tend to happen when one party, Democrat or Republican, controls both houses of Congress and the White House.

Posted by: wolfcastle | February 3, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Just another rising young conservative charged with felony invasion of a Senator's Office:

'Long before he showed up at various ACORN Offices in a Pimp Suit (Although he never actually wore his Huggy Bear Outfit inside the buildings) James O'Keefe had a long history of racial pranks and advocacy - including attendence at a Button-down White Supremacist Conference so toxic - not even his employers the "Leadership Institute" wouldn't touch with a ten-foot dead fish.

His right-wing admirers don't seem to mind that O’Keefe's short but storied career has been defined by a series of political stunts shot through with racial resentment. Now an activist organization that monitors hate groups has produced a photo of O'Keefe at a 2006 conference on "Race and Conservatism" that featured leading white nationalists. The photo, first published Jan. 30 on the website of the anti-racism group

One Peoples Project shows O’Keefe at the gathering, which was so controversial even the ultra-right Leadership Institute, which employed O'Keefe at the time, withdrew its backing. But O'Keefe and fellow young conservative provocateur Marcus Epstein soldiered on to give anti-Semites, professional racists and proponents of Aryanism an opportunity to share their grievances and plans to make inroads in the GOP.

But here's the thing O'Keefe didn't just attend the Conference as a bystander who may have simply been curious but didn't necessarily agree with the most radical of the attendees there - O'Keefe was manning one of the tables and pushing Racist Literature to the other participants.

According to One Peoples Project founder Daryle Jenkins, O'Keefe was manning the literature table at the gathering that brought together anti-Semites, professional racists and proponents of Aryanism. OPP covered the event at the time, sending a freelance photographer to document the gathering. Jenkins told me the table was filled with tracts from the white supremacist right, including two pseudo-academic publications that have called blacks and Latinos genetically inferior to whites: American Renaissance and The Occidental Quarterly.

The leading speaker was Jared Taylor, founder of the white nationalist group American Renaissance. "We can say for certain that James O'Keefe was at the 2006 meeting with Jared Taylor. He has absolutely no way of denying that," Jenkins said. O'Keefe's attorney did not respond to a request for comment on his client's role in the conference."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/3/833486/-OKeefes-Racial-Animus:-White-SupremacyBaked-Goods

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Zouk always notes my arrival. I feel like Norm walking into Cheers.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 3, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

And the downward spiral into brain dead liberal egos begins for the day.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

No, the Senate majority is not “in play.”  Once again Cillizza is reciting phony narratives to paint a rosy picture for his party of allegiance.  Hoping I guess for back-pats from Mitch McConnell and attaboys from Matt Drudge. 
 
And I really need to wonder why someone would so despise his country that he would rather see it trashed by crooked incompetents than see people he doesn’t like remain in power.  There is zero doubt that Republicans will screw up everything they touch.  They have unshakably strong beliefs in ideas that are not true, like the power of the marketplace to solve problems, trickle-down theories, international bluster, and a denial of science and logic.
 
And significant majorities (!) of voters who identify as Republican maintain unshakably strong beliefs in ridiculous conspiracy notions that belong in mental hospitals .. Obama not a citizen, Obama a Socialist (oh, if only), Obama a racist, global warming a fraud.  These people belong under inpatient psychiatric observation, not in the voting booth.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 3, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Just remember it makes little difference who the candidate is and what they say when the party line vote is what happens when they get to Washington.

Posted by: Wildthing1 | February 3, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

wouldncha know it?


Zachary Roth | February 3, 2010, 1:15PM
Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Read More
BAE Systems, Campaign Contributions, Campaign Finance, Citizens United, Defense Contractors, Justice Department, Mitch McConnell, Supreme Court
Share
Digg This

'In the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been quick to denounce a bid by Democrats to stop foreign corporations from pouring money into U.S. elections, claiming current law already bars such spending. As we've reported before, that's far from true -- but McConnell should know: The GOP Senate leader has raked in campaign cash from a subsidiary of a major foreign defense contractor that's currently being investigated by the Justice Department for bribery.'

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

'Time to grow up.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street'


Precious.

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

And if the Senate ends up being 51 Repubs then you can bet your butts that they'll ram through whatever awful legislation they please utilizing the hive mind.

Maybe a 5% tax cut for the super rich and an elimination of food stamps for the poor to pay for it. Some new work program to make sure that the middle class is finally buried in debt and has no chance of upward mobility.

The yokels will lap it up because while the policies would directly hurt them now....when Bubba Gump in Georgia makes it and runs a multi-billion dollar company they'll be getting those tax breaks they voted for when they were poor. yeaaaaaaa

Posted by: theobserver4 | February 3, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are going to EXPAND their majority this time. IF IF IF they get the balls to actually run on Democratic ideas, instead of away from them.

Americans do not want Repukeliscum turds to take over like they did in the past. This would be a huge disaster. We are not a theocracy, which is the Republican idea of government.

We Democrats will win in OH, NH, DE, MO, and several other states. I can see a democratic Senate with 65 Democratic Senators.

Posted by: snortz_the_cat | February 3, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Looks like 7 sure things and three big maybes.

that ought to stop socialism dead in its tracks for now.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING NEWS:

http://murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html

Supreme Court Ruling Spurs Corporation Run for Congress

First Test of “Corporate Personhood” In Politics

Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it was filing to run for U.S. Congress and released its first campaign video on www.youtube.com/user/murrayhillcongress

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office. As Supreme Court observer Lyle Denniston wrote in his SCOTUSblog, “If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate “persons,” treating them — under the First Amendment free-speech clause — as the equal of human beings.”

Posted by: B2O2 | February 3, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

heyaz - actually, Chris is right to ignore WA's seat.

Dino is a three-time loser, and he's up against an incumbent with a deep war chest.

Not only that, in November, on our ballot, you'll see an initiative to legalize MJ sales at our state liquor stores and treat it the same way we do hard liquor.

The turnout numbers from that one thing alone mean that anyone with an (R) for Radical after their name has zero chance of winning the seat.

By the way, how do you like that new income tax on Millionaires and Big Corporations in Oregon?

The West is turning Blue faster than the Socialist Republic Party of No realizes.

Posted by: WillSeattle | February 3, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

John Galt? LOL.

teapartiers not too bright, apparently..

'Republican partisans — aided by lobbyists and corporate front groups — are exploiting the legitimate feelings of anger and distrust among many struggling Americans. These operatives and profiteers, many of them experienced public relations professionals, have set up sophisticated social networking portals and online solutions to control the flow of information within tea party organizations. As gatekeepers to ostensibly open forums, these political operatives and profiteers have been able to set the political agenda of the tea parties and hand out marching orders. And tea party profiteers are making millions cashing in on the movement. They are selling tea party support to candidates and policies which continue the legacy of Bush-era unregulated capitalism and corporate bailouts.'

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

WillSeattle


Where was your anger when the democrats were using the filibuster to hold up Bush's judicial nominations???

It has worked both ways.

Time to grow up.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Wow, so there is a person or two who still reads the NYTimes. three max.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

'I'm in agreement with you. Once Scott Brown was elected, that sealed the deal for nothing to happen. How depressing to come this close, and then to miss the brass ring.

Now, I see that Paul Ryan has a GOP proposal that privatizes medicare, essentially moving the risk of the price of healthcare off the shoulders of government to the shoulders of each and every older American.'

Yes, 12Bar, it's pulling the plug on Granny and death panels...for real this time.

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"Tea Party activists might find it infuriating ever to be compared to the nation they consider the anti-America. But French observers of our country may be forgiven if they feel a certain déjà vu when they see a movement that brings nothing to the ballot box except anger."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/opinion/03zaretsky.html?pagewanted=1

Posted by: shrink2 | February 3, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

What Republicans need to re-gain the Senate is for Obama to keep making speeches.

In his latest speech fest, Obama has - in the State of the Union and the Budget Proposal - overwhelmed the system with doubtful claims, flimsy premises, and assertions that are doubtful, to say the least, or outright lies, to be frank.
A site has found the solution.

To know who will win in November, just ask the American people one simple and fair question:
What Recent American President Has The Most Capacity and Ability to Distort the Facts?
Reagan; Clinton; W. Bush; Obama.

Vote at: http://www.robbingamerica.blogspot.com

This will tell us who will win in November. The loser of this measurement is the Loser in November!

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | February 3, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The Senate majority is NOT in play.

The US Constitution says ZILCH about a 60 vote requirement - it only refers to a majority of votes.

Force them to physically filibuster and let the public shout their anger at their behavior as the Republic Party of No that carries the water for the Too Big To Fail banks and the Bonus CEOs.

Posted by: WillSeattle | February 3, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"Is the Senate majority now in play?"

Good morning, America!

Posted by: greg3 | February 3, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

The Senate isn't incompetent. The problem is that the Democratic bills are insanely radical. President Obama misread the election as a mandate for radical healthcare reform, just as President Bush did when he wanted to privatize social security. That is why the Democrats had to do multiple back-room deals to get 60 votes. Again, Americans did not vote for this. A supermajority of Americans oppose this agenda. That is why they are punishing Democrats at the polls.

Posted by: STLHawkeye | February 3, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse


We all have to understand. The Senate is incompetent. They can't get anything done. They had whole year on health care.

I think it violates my rights as a voter that 51 senators who were voted for by a large majority of the voters in the nation can't pass anything. It requires 60. That just means that the rich corporations only have to buy 41 which they have done with a few more added.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | February 3, 2010 1:01 PM
-----------------------------------
I'm in agreement with you. Once Scott Brown was elected, that sealed the deal for nothing to happen. How depressing to come this close, and then to miss the brass ring.

Now, I see that Paul Ryan has a GOP proposal that privatizes medicare, essentially moving the risk of the price of healthcare off the shoulders of government to the shoulders of each and every older American.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 3, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

The Demoncraps are going to be crippled in the fall and then sent packing in 2012, with Odumbo screaming "Race!" as he and his pockets-filled-with-pilfered-items relatives are kicked out of the White House. Good riddance.

Posted by: tjhall1 | February 3, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Harry the horse's asp Reid will be ousted from the Senate 9 months from today.

Way to go Barry, insult the people and businesses of Las Vegas at a national press event AGAIN like you did yesterday in Nashua, New Hampshire. Way to go. Nevada is going to vote out Reid for sure now.

Posted by: screwjob11 | February 3, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I thought the Democrats lost their majority when Scott Brown was elected. Now they're a powerless minority with a pathetic 59 votes.

Posted by: Blarg | February 3, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"All of this assumes Democrats don't get off their derriers & pour money & talent into every house & senate seat up for change." No, it doesn't. That's just your imagination. Cilliza is a competent and respected political analyst. There's no evidence that he failed to make the necessary assumptions. In fact, though, the polling evidence is uniform that Dems are under-enthusiastic this year.

"If Obama gets back up to 58-59% approval ratings." No president (since Gallup started in the Eisenhower admin.) has ever had approval ratings rise DURING his second year.

New York is in play because there will be two Democratic incumbents on the ballot in a very anti-Dem, anti-incumbent election. Schumer will win; Gillibrand will not.

Posted by: Posteroid | February 3, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Another loon about to bite the dust.

MSDNC down 50% in a year. Fox up 50%. who watches the mindless leftists on that fake news channel? no one really.

...from one of the 'most worser worstest' people in the world, a contributor to the Los Angeles Times...

...Olbermann's showboat is sinking. Listing in you-know-which direction.

It's as if he thinks talking LOUDER will keep his low cell battery from dying.

Worst, Olbermann's network president, Phil Griffin, is publicly praising him, always an ominous sign in television. While referring to his host almost in the past tense. "Keith has been our tentpole," Griffin says, adding later, "I'm pleased with where we are."

Where they are, as Jeff Bercovici points out over at Daily Finance, is way behind the big boys over at Fox News, Bill O'Reilly and gang. In fact, Keith is so far behind Bill, he can't even make out the state of the license plate, let alone the numbers. Bercovici thinks Americans may be outgrowing Olbermann's schtick.

In the most desirable TV demographic of 25-54, which Keith will soon outgrow himself, "Countdown" lost 44% of its audience from the beginning of President Obama's term until this year. It could have been worse -- say, 45%.

Olbermann averaged 268,000 viewers last month in that sector. That's just several thousand sets of those eyes more than Campbell Brown over on CNN. According to one count, Keith even finished in that time slow behind Nancy Grace. Nancy Grace!

And she's on Headline News, Headline News, the repetitious TV channel the repetitious TV channel inflicted on all U.S. airline travelers within any boarding area around the clock so that when, at least an hour late, each person is finally crammed into plane seats between professional wrestlers, they actually feel relieved.

On the bright side, which everyone knows KO is fond of spotting, his MSNBC audience was only 696,000 viewers 24-54 behind O'Reilly, whose audience has grown 55%, according to Bercovici. Of course, it might be worse this month.

In the immortal words of Edward J. Smith, captain of the Titanic, "What iceberg?"


Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

And Washington state isn't even mentioned! If Dino Rossi (lost to Gregoire for Governor by less than 1%) runs against Murray (who polls in the 40s as an incumbent) he should win it.
In New York, Gillibrand loses to Pataki or even Kudlow, should either of these guys run.
That's 2 more, added to your 10.

Posted by: heyaz | February 3, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

And Washington state isn't even mentioned! If Dino Rossi runs against Murray (who polls in the 40s as an incumbent) he should win it.
In New York, Gillibrand loses to Pataki or even Kudlow, should either or these guys run.
That's 2 more, added to your 10.

Posted by: heyaz | February 3, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Finally, something could move forward on healthcare! Removing anti-trust exemption from Health Insurance. From CNN, today:
--------------------------------------
House to take up one piece of health care reform
February 3, 2010 7:57 a.m. EST

Pelosi said the House plans to vote next week on a measure to strip the health insurance industry of its anti-trust exemption involving practices such as market allocation and price-fixing. Many Democrats believe removing the exemption will inject new competition into the industry, leading to lower prices for consumers.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 3, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

We all have to understand. The Senate is incompetent. They can't get anything done. They had whole year on health care.

I think it violates my rights as a voter that 51 senators who were voted for by a large majority of the voters in the nation can't pass anything. It requires 60. That just means that the rich corporations only have to buy 41 which they have done with a few more added.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | February 3, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

did I predict that the loons would swiftly move from "fascicts are running against us" to " they are practically Dems anyway"?

What else would they say? voters are done with Libs?

Dribbl will keep posting this empty talking point regardless.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

If Bayh doesn't retire and gets 100% committed to winning reelection, I think he'll hold on. He's certainly done enough to tick off the mouthfoamers in the liberal base to boost his independent bonafides in a state like Indiana. Coats may be closer aligned to where Indiana is on the issues (though I'm not entirely sure about that), but I don't think the recent Bayh has done enough to get a majority of Indiana voters to clamor for a change.

The other thing to consider in all this is the danger of Republicans and pundits reading too much into the Mass special election. It's no doubt true that Scott Brown's election was seismic, because it largely represented a statement that voters even in a deep blue state saw the need for a check on the Dems agenda. But that doesn't mean people are clamoring for Republicans to gain out and out control in Congress. Voters who were/are motivated to stop the Dems are not necessarily equally motivated to put Republicans in charge. If, by Sept/Oct, there's some chance that Republicans have a shot at getting to 51 in the Senate, there's a real chance that Scott Brown-type voters in places like Illinois, Pennsylvania, California, and NH might think twice about supporting the Republican candidate. This, I believe, is a major overlooked current that works against Republicans getting to 51.

Posted by: mbcnewspaper | February 3, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Republican partisans — aided by lobbyists and corporate front groups — are exploiting the legitimate feelings of anger and distrust among many struggling Americans. These operatives and profiteers, many of them experienced public relations professionals, have set up sophisticated social networking portals and online solutions to control the flow of information within tea party organizations. As gatekeepers to ostensibly open forums, these political operatives and profiteers have been able to set the political agenda of the tea parties and hand out marching orders. And tea party profiteers are making millions cashing in on the movement. They are selling tea party support to candidates and policies which continue the legacy of Bush-era unregulated capitalism and corporate bailouts:

– Eric Odom: Odom, who appears regularly on Fox News and on other venues as a spokesman for the tea party movement, is at the center of tea party profiteering. Odom maintains dozens, possibly hundreds of tea party websites and community forums which he controls through a “Ning” technology based social networking platform. Odom’s vast online control of county, state, and issue oriented tea party websites is done through his two for profit consulting companies: American Liberty Alliance and Strategy Activism, LLC. His American Liberty Alliance has served as a hub between disparate tea party groups and right-wing front groups.

In a biographical video he posted on YouTube, Odom explained that he has worked for years on local and statewide Republican campaigns developing “stealth type marketing…some say ‘attack sites.’” He boasted that he built “sites behind the scenes, many of them to this day no one today knows I took part in, some of them were actually very effective in defeating the opponent.” While it is unclear exactly who is paying Odom now for his tea party profit ventures, Odom has delicately straddled independent populist rhetoric while proclaiming that his network will work exclusively for the election of Republican candidates this year.

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Andy, Scott Brown ran as a moderate, and so did all the other 2 or 3 recent goper wins -- and none of them trashed obama either. That's how they won. We'll see if the rest of them learned that lesson once the campaigning starts.

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/mcgop-virtues-and-vices-of-sameness.html

Column on the homogeneity of Republicans across age groups, ethnicity, and geographic location. Gender too.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 3, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

As an independent in MO, I normally would vote for Carnahan without blinking an eyelash (particularly when she is running against Blunt). Not this year. For the first time in my life and while holding my nose doing so, I am going to vote a straight Republican ticket. The Democratic base just doesn't get it. We didn't vote for President Obama to triple President Bush's fiscal deficits. Instead, we were promised that the deficits would go down (without huge tax increases). We didn't vote for a massive overhaul of the healthcare system. We instead only voted to bring down the costs of healthcare (which the Democratic bills do not do). The Republicans do not need a supermajority in the Senate. Their bills are typically incremental and have broad support from more moderate Democrats. I thought that I'd never say it, but I miss Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich!

Posted by: STLHawkeye | February 3, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

It takes allot of cowardice, hypocracy, delusians, bigotry, ignorance and lack of caring for anyone but self to be a republican today. Everytime these clows got any power; they did a huge ammount of dammage. While everyone is whining about the underwear bomber; they forget that thousands were whiped out under the watchful eyes of a republican president and congress...

They are like irrational children.

Posted by: ukangitmynutz | February 3, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have no solutions for the nation's problems -- just harebrained ideas to enrich themselves and their corporate benefactors and bankrupt the rest of us:

Last month, Center for American Progress Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden released a report on “how to spot a deficit peacock,” which he described as people who like to “preen and call attention to themselves” as deficit hawks “but are not sincerely interested in taking the difficult but necessary steps toward a balanced budget.” Linden wrote that those who “say that the solution is to simply freeze discretionary spending, are just peddling fiscal snake oil.”

In his Human Events column today, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich embraces the term, claiming that it was created to describe “Washington liberals posing as budget cutters.” In fact, if Gingrich actually paid attention to what Linden wrote, he would realize that he fits the definition perfectly of a deficit peacock who prefers “scoring political points to solving problems. According to Linden, the number one way to tell that someone “isn’t taking our budget problems seriously” is if “they never mention revenues”:

'Increasing revenues is going to have to be part of the solution for meeting the fiscal challenge. Any suggestion that we can solve this problem solely by cutting spending reveals an utter misunderstanding or ignorance of the budget numbers.

Balancing the budget without raising any additional revenue 10 years from now would require cutting every program in the entire budget by more than 25 percent, including all defense spending, Social Security and Medicare benefits, air-traffic-control funding, veterans’ benefits, aid to schools, job training programs, highway maintenance, and everything else.

In his column, Gingrich explicitly denounces “tax increases” to “pay for all that spending” in the federal budget and calls for spending cuts only. Linden also notes that deficit peacocks “support policies that make the long-term deficit problem worse.” In January, Gingrich released a “jobs first” plan consisting completely of proposals that would hurt the long-term deficit.'

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

In addition to the health care transparency and spending restraint he has failed to deliver, Obama has broken promises to reduce the influence of special-interest lobbyists, to refrain from raising taxes on households earning less than $250,000 a year, to cut earmarks to 1994 levels, to take a more modest view of executive power and the "state secrets" privilege, to close Guantanamo by last month, to end medical marijuana raids, to allow five days of public review before signing bills and to recognize the Armenian genocide. PolitiFact.com counts 15 broken promises so far, and its standards are conservative

In his SOTU Address, Obama bemoaned "a deficit of trust -- deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years." He blamed the public's "disappointment" and "cynicism" on powerful lobbyists, reckless bankers, highly paid CEOs, superficial TV pundits and mud-slinging politicians. Conspicuously missing from the list: a president who breaks promises while pretending he isn't.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Not to give a short answer but No it isn't. You and Charlie Cook will be eating your predictions in 6 months especially when unemployment is at 8%. New monthly numbers come out on friday and they are expected to show that the US actually gained jobs. I have said it before Scott Brown was the peak of the GOP resurgence.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 3, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

What about reports that Charlie Crist may run as an independent? What does the Cillizzanator think of that?

Posted by: Garak | February 3, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

What about reports that Charlie Crist may run as an independent? What does the Cillizzantor think of that?

Posted by: Garak | February 3, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Lib hypocrites at it again:

The premier of Canada's east coast province is undergoing heart surgery in the United States this week because the treatment he is seeking was not available in his home province. The announcement about of Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams' plans has triggered a debate since Canada prides itself on its universal health care system.

Posted by: drivl | February 3, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans should get voted in to office. Let them clean up their own mess. They will do it on the backs of the least among us, wait and see.

Posted by: clairevb | February 3, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

All of this assumes Democrats don't get off their derriers & pour money & talent into every house & senate seat up for change. The Dems need to pour on the money, talent, & high powered assistance from Obama in every race. Nothing should be left for an easy Republican win.
It is also important for the Obama team now to list every single attempt Democrats have made to seek out compromise solutions to the nation's problems. I hope that Dems get a break in the Toyota scandal, and that American companies can shave, say, 1% or 2% off Toyota's normal sales, on the models up for inspect. If American auto companies begin rehiring to replace Toyotas with American cars & trucks, the ripple effect could add more jump start to the economy.
It would be great if American auto companies would offer a bigger trade in for Toyotas right now. Anything to exploit that weakness.
I hope that President Obama also looks @ 3 very easy ways to jump start more green jobs in the country: 1. Establish how many light bulbs the typical American household contains (different for single & married individuals); 2. Provide American tax payers, with, say, 5 LED lights per single person; 8 per couple; 10 per business -- for as many years as it takes to replace existing bulbs; 3. effectively & safely "retire" flourescent bulbs which have some mercury content; 4. Undertake a massive tree plating program throughout the country, to replace areas logged or deforested say, by wild fires; 5. Urge rooftop gardens in all major American cities. These two efforts, combined, could, with the LED lighting, significantly lower our carbon emissions in the next few years. Forest replanting, as well as eradicating water sucking invasive species along western rivers & streams could also address the "next shortage problme" -- water. These measures should offer jobs to unskilled or underskilled workers who may have been laid off for some time. Those measures, too, would help the unemployment rates begin to drop. The workers who have fallen behind in competitive skills, might also launch green businesses, to cope with these openings in the labor market.
Upticks in the states mentioned above could be assisted by these measures. At this point, getting those unskilled/underskilled workers back to work is very important for the mid-term elections, & Democrat success in holding firm against the part of "NO."

Posted by: zennheadd | February 3, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Don't you need a super majority in the Senate now?

Posted by: camasca | February 3, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Way too early to tell what is going to happen. If Obama gets back up to 58-59% approval ratings, it will help the Dems. If Unemployment starts to dip, it helps the Dems. If th Repubs obstruct...helps the Dems. Also watch the primaries, foe example in NH, Ayotte is a better general candidate than Binnie, same with Crist vs Rubio.

Posted by: jjj141 | February 3, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

New York is really really tricky - on one hand you have a great deal of anger over the Wall Street bonuses - on the other hand you have the fundraisers and the people giving money in New York City who like the bonuses and who believe that the bonuses will get the local economy going again.

So it is classic - fundraisers v. voters.

Remember there are two seats up in New York this year -


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

As a total non-expert in Illinois politics -- but a strong supporter of the Democrats -- I was hoping for Giannoulis to win and am glad he did. The challenger, Hoffman, sounded like the type who appeals to primary voters overthinking "electability". Let's just say we tried that in Virginia with Creigh Deeds and it didn't work out quite as we hoped. In this case, once the dust settled, the Democrats would have been backing a political neophyte, with no experience as a vote getter, up against an experienced congressman. Only someone who believes politics is an unskilled profession would like those odds. I'm so glad that's not the scenario now.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | February 3, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Latest poll from NY shows Sen. Schumer UNDER 50% approval rating!

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 3, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Yes, CC, a Senate majority for Republicans is now in play in 2010. On top of those 10 races, I also believe that Wisconsin, Washington and New York are also in play if Republicans get the right candidate. Who are the right candidates? Well, recent polling showed who the NRSC is going after to recruit. In Washington, in a recent poll of a hypothetical match Dino Rossi lead Senator Patty Murray 45%-43%. I think Dave Reichert is not going to run, so the ideal candidate is Rossi. In Wisconsin, former Governor Tommy Thompson leads Senate Russ Fiengold 47%-43%. Finally in NY with Guiliani out, the ideal candidate is George Pataki. In a recent poll, Pataki leads Gillibrand 49%-43%. Hopefully Cornyn can get Pataki to run. If these 3 states get great candidates, a possible 13 pick ups should be in play.

Also CC, I don't consider Kentucky or Ohio a toss up anymore, I think they both lean Republican. The real race in Kentucky is the Republican primary, between Rand Paul and Trey Grayson. The winner will win the GE. In Ohio, Rob Portman has a huge fundraising edge and the political winds in Ohio are blowing strong at his back. Lt. Gov. Fisher is a fundamentally flawed candidate just trying to beat out Sec. of State Brunner. Portman has huge sums he can spend against the Strictland/Fisher regime, which Strictland is in a losing effort against Frmr. US Rep. Kaish as well. Ohio & Kentucky lean Republican I believe. Democrats still have a shot in New Hampshire & Missouri. Frmr. Attorney General Kelly Ayotte is the favorite right now. She is challenged from the right in R primary and from the left by Democratic US Rep. Paul Hodes in the GE. If Ayotte loses the GOP primary, the race stays competitive. If Ayotte wins the GOP primary, the race goes to leans Republican. Finally, Missouri, is definately a toss up. Democrats got their dream candidate in Sec. of State Robin Carnahan and got the primary field cleared for her. Republicans got US Rep. Roy Blunt, who could not quite clear the primary field. He has a challenge from St. Sen. Chuck Purgason. Blunt should finish him off early to focus on Carnahan. An advantage for Blunt is the progressive party is running a candidate in the GE, which will take some votes from Carnahan.

Still yet, Republicans do have a shot to win as many as 13 seats.

Posted by: reason5 | February 3, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Based on the most recent experience, anything less than a supermajority is not worth much, is it.

Posted by: smcgaughey1 | February 3, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Chris


In your last category, I would make it Wisconsin/Indiana/New York

Those are difficult ones.

If the Republicans pick up the first 7 seats, then it sets them up to take control of the Senate in 2012 - when 23 democrat-controlled seats are up for election.


The mix of states this year helps the democrats.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 3, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company