Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

What Marco Rubio's TV ad tells us about 2010

Former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio is set to air his first television commercial in the Senate primary fight against Gov. Charlie Crist, an ad that tells us much about the political environment in which races -- primaries and general elections -- will be run this year.

Let's first take a look at the 60-second ad, which was produced by Scott Howell & Company.

What does the ad tell us?

1. Authenticity, Authenticity, Authenticity: Rubio speaks to the camera for the entire 60 seconds of the ad, surrounded by his (undeniably cute) family. Part of that strategy is born of his campaign's belief that he is charismatic and letting him talk accrues to his political benefit. But, another element of the strategy is that voters are carrying a deep skepticism about politicians and want to hear directly from the man (or woman) asking for their vote. One of the main problems for state Sen. Creigh Deeds in his unsuccessful race for governor in Virginia last year was the fact that his campaign didn't feel comfortable allowing him to speak directly to camera in ads. As a result, the only time you heard Deeds' voice was in negative ads by then state Attorney General Bob McDonnell, ads that painted an unsavory caricature of Deeds as short tempered and flip-flopping that played a major role in his defeat.

2. Anti-Washington: Even though Rubio nor Crist has ever served a day in office in Washington, you wouldn't know it from watching the ad. Rubio is running against the nation's capital in ways both spoken and unspoken. He speaks in the ad from his home, in an open necked shirt without a tie. (Make no mistake: every element of ANY political ad is pre-planned and intentional including what the candidate wears.) Just in case you missed the visual cues to send the "he's-not-from-Washington" message, Rubio tells viewers: "Washington is broken and too many politicians don't get it." (Expect to hear that line A LOT more in ads across the country this year.)

3. Children are the future: National polling has suggested an increasing concern about the growing national deficit and the financial burden being left to future generations. Rubio goes directly at that in the ad suggesting that if things continue on their current path "my children and yours will become the first generation to inherit a country worse off than before." Elections are ALWAYS about the future and, if Rubio's ad is any indication, the Republican message will be that the current policies endanger that future. The Democratic pushback? That the future depends on continuing the course of action begun by President Obama.

4. American exceptionalism: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is touring the country at the moment promoting his 2012 campaign, er, book in which he makes the case that America should not apologize for its exceptional status. (The book is, in fact, called: "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness".) Rubio seeks to tap into that idea by acknowledging the difficulties facing the country at the moment but noting: "We cannot and will not allow America to fail." It's far from a Republicans-only message; President Obama, in his State of the Union speech in late January, channeled this sentiment by insisting "I do not accept second-place for the United States of America." Politicians know that doom and gloom doesn't win elections (just ask Jimmy Carter). Rubio -- and other ambitious politicians like him -- are first trying to empathize with the problems facing the country but then pivoting to draw on a communal sense of patriotism/exceptionalism to rally voters.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 10, 2010; 4:00 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Meg Whitman's odd press strategy
Next: Organizing for America's big test

Comments

Rubio is right on and we need a Washington D.C. filled with people like Rubio, Paul Ryan, etc. to get this country on track and stop the out of control spending. We need to move from the Obama-Welfare Plan, to the Conservative-Enablement Plan, which we must formulate and execute.

==

yeah great idea. Enable the exporting of jobs to "Low Cost Countries," deregulate everything to enable the magic of the markets, automatic weapons in airport vending machines, and of course tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts, arithmetic is for thin-blooded elitists.

Go back to sleep.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 11, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Rubio is right on and we need a Washington D.C. filled with people like Rubio, Paul Ryan, etc. to get this country on track and stop the out of control spending. We need to move from the Obama-Welfare Plan, to the Conservative-Enablement Plan, which we must formulate and execute.

Posted by: osbuck64 | March 11, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Yeah how can the free market operate without dishonesty and secrecy

Posted by: Noacoler | March 11, 2010 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Noooo!

Obama really f ucked up!

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association "might be" "reluctant" to "participate" in "the market".

I was wrong. Gotta buy gold, even more ammo, pull kids out of school...

Posted by: shrink2 | March 11, 2010 12:12 AM | Report abuse

People, partisan politics aside,
just for a second.

This is scary.

"The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, which represents the big Wall Street banks, says that if large dealers are forced to show their prices and trading positions in public, they may be reluctant to participate in the market — and the resulting drying up of liquidity would force up costs."

Well when the ISDA is worried about its costs, America better realize who butters the bread.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 11, 2010 12:04 AM | Report abuse

"The American military does not routinely confirm drone operations, but analysts say the US is the only force capable of deploying such aircraft in the region."

Spurious allegations!

Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031003944.html?hpid=topnews

Politics, shaky economy create no rush to restructure Fannie and Freddie

*sigh*

Posted by: DDAWD | March 10, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


Obama was completely rude during the State of the Union address. Obama has no idea what proper conduct is. He is a disgrace to the nation.

In addition, lying to Congress is out of bounds as well.

This sort of conduct would not be tolerated in any other era. Obama should be impeached for his actions - he has no business in the position he now holds.

Many people have said that Obama is unqualified and inexperienced.

It is another thing watching Obama wallow in such disgraceful conduct.


Aren't you embarassed?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone watch the Jon Stewart on the Massa/Beck interview? Really different take than what Chris C gave it. The highlights were on how Massa didn't have any of the dirt that Beck wanted on Emmanuel, Obama, or the unions. Massa basically refused to confirm Beck talking points. He said that he wasn't forced out. He admitted to the groping incidents. In fact, he went as far as to deride people who throw around terms like "socialist" or "communist" and criticize teabaggers for acting as if there was no deficit before Obama and to say that progressives can be fiscally conservative.

I still haven't watched the video. Was Massa really that bad or is that more of a Republican talking point?

Posted by: DDAWD | March 10, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


Are you flirting with me again?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

More post post modernity from the BBC.

"More than 700 people have died in nearly 80 drone strikes since August 2008.
Pakistan has publicly criticised drone attacks, saying they fuel support for militants, but observers say the authorities privately condone the strikes."

Observers are right. Funny thing is, no one wants to say they lead the Taliban anymore. Taliban leader?

Hell o? The Taliban needs to step up to the plate. We need more Taliban leaders.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

BWC, sorry for not responding earlier.

But my main objection was your wording of Roberts' words as tyranny. I think Roberts has a right to say what he is thinking just as much as Obama did. And Roberts made it very clear that Obama has a right to say what he thinks.

But I disagree with Roberts that the forum was inappropriate. First of all, Roberts described it as being ganged up on by the other two branches. Nope, just like any cheering point, it was a Democrat vs Republican. And this was a political decision on a court that has become increasingly political. When Dems stay silent for Bush points, it's not a legislative vs executive matchup. It's D vs R. Same as this. And I think the decision had a place in the SOTUA. Remember that part of it was a call to congress to do something about it.

So yeah, I think Roberts is wrong.

But let's not call it tyranny.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 10, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

News for stupid liberals:

"Up to half the food aid in Somalia is routinely diverted to corrupt contractors and militants, a leaked UN report says."

Somalia? The free market example for the World?

Surely the other half of the food goes to the good children! Darn corrupt contractors. Who knew Somalia had routine corrupt contractors?

Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

37, what you need is a large print hardcover copy of "Audacity of Hope." It'll do you good.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 10, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Health update:

"Republicans have vowed to do everything they can to thwart the plan, and to go after Democratic supporters in next fall's midterm elections. In the Senate, the GOP rank and file issued a letter pledging to strip out any provision that does not adhere scrupulously to complex rules.

In addition, GOP leaders sought to stoke the fears of House Democrats who worried that the Senate would not approve the second bill. Even so, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the second-ranking Senate GOP leader, conceded, ''We can't delay a bill for months. We might delay it for a few hours.''


Well, if I were a Republican I would strip out rules or complex provisions or stoke fears or at least scrupulously strip for a few hours.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


You can't even get your stupid references to bad movies correct.


What use are you?

Do you have a life? Or do you spend all your time with an Obama blow-up doll?


,.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Correction, 37. You may have to say "Candyman" FIVE times in the mirror. Then, as before, just wait awhile. All the best.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 10, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Drain the Swamp, Nancy, drain the swamp...

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 9:17 PM


37, it's a long process. Drip, drip, drip...

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 10, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

When the Mark Foley scandal erupted, did the democrats start to list all the other scandals, to show they were guilty too?


How about with Larry Craig????

NOOO it was all about how bad the Republican party was.

Now, faced with democratic scandals, all the democrats want to do is distract the issue from their party.

BUT THE HYPOCRISY IS TOO THICK - RANGEL IS STILL IN OFFICE, PATERSON IS STILL IN OFFICE.

Drain the Swamp, Nancy, drain the swamp - but when it actually comes to telling Rangel to resign, Nancy doesn't do it.

Murtha too - should have resigned as well.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Watch Ensign sidestep the latest news...
And watch Republicans defend him, blame his dilemma on a "liberal witchhunt," and, well, you know the drill.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 10, 2010 9:06 PM

He was groped by Massa, Noacoler. Give him a break.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 10, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

I have previously declaimed
the post-post-modern era.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8561247.stm

Here, surely we have hard evidence.

A vicious little country adapted to permawar goes out and kills a guy who deserves to be killed. They use a novel, laughably indescrete style, showing off.

A comedic advertisement for a food store follows. Justified? Senseless? Absurd? Anarchy? Nihilistic? Notatall.
It is the post-post-modern era.
I'll work on a better name for it.


Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

We have to pass the health care bill so that the American People can find out what is in it


- Nancy Pelosi, trying to explain why her approval numbers will rise after she spends another 3 trillion dollars.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Shrink2 was trying to flirt with me today because I said I liked Governor Moonbeam.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the link, shrink.

Watch Ensign sidestep the latest news of his corruption with some unhinged religious babble, a capitalized pronoun or two, the Lord this and Our Savior Jesus Christ that.

And watch Republicans defend him, blame his dilemma on a "liberal witchhunt," and, well, you know the drill.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 10, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Even IF this health care bill gets passed, Obama has failed - because Obama did not get bipartisan support for the bill and therefore it will be de-funded and repealed.

To get major social legislation, one needs bipartisan support, so when the parties switch power, the programs don't get repealed.


THAT is why no one has seen programs get dismantled - because both sides agreed.

This time NO ONE agrees - and it is Obama's fault - IT IS OBAMA'S FAILURE.

Broadwayjoe, just trying to tell you what is wrong with your egotistical support for Obama.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

We have to pass the bill so that later we can find out what's in the bill.

- a moonbat

Posted by: Moonbat | March 10, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

So this is where all the idiots are gathering.

Posted by: Moonbat | March 10, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

No prob, M-I-A.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 10, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

In the interest of "bipartisanship," will the DNC or any Dem candidate get any free ad placements in this space in the future? Just askin'.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 10, 2010 7:45 PM


___________________________________

Don't you think that Obama gets enough play on tv and in the papers? What do you want, Obama 24/7.

Joe, do you have Obama dishes that you eat off of for every meal???


Do you have Obama sheets on your bed ???


Do you have Obama pictures on your wall???

Do you have Obama coffee table books?

How much do you love Obama?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

In fact, Republicans are u abashed and open in their hopes that his presidency fails and are doing everything in their power to see that nothing gets done.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 10, 2010 8:46 PM


Noacloer, his presidency has already failed and nothing has been done. Two checks for that. Broadwayjoe concurs.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 10, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Oh no, not more evidence of corruption.
It is hard to be an idealistic Socialist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/politics/11inquire.html?hp

Tomorrow CC will go through yet another handwringing exercise about the bad news for Republicans.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

In the interest of "bipartisanship," will the DNC or any Dem candidate get any free ad placements in this space in the future? Just askin'.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 10, 2010 7:45 PM

No they won't, broadwayjoe. The Post has already lost enough readers.
Who wants to see a DNC ad anyway?

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 10, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

BWJ - thanx for the "Atlantic" link.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 10, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign pledge of bipartisanship failed to account for the
possibility that Republicans were goi g to react to their
loss with infantile behavior. But that's what's happened. In fact, Republicans are u abashed and open in their hopes that his
presidency fails and are doing everything in their power to see that nothing gets done.

People who persist in their original beliefs in the face new new and contradictory information have a name. We call them Republicans.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 10, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


Obviously that doesn't qualify Obama to do much more than fool people like you.


It certainly doesn't make him a good President.


Look at the last 14 months.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Great commercial. Charlie Crist should just hang it up right now. Even if Crist runs as an independent after losing the primary, Rubio would still easily win a three way race in November.

Charlie should have never hugged obama last October. It was Halloween, after all. I guess Crist didn't need a costume to spook the electorate. He had obama. Sorry Charlie.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 10, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama ran around the country for two years telling everyone how he was going to bring Washington together in a bipartisan way.

That's who Noacoler.

Obama is stuck with his own words.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh look he's up to seven blank lines now.

How cute.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 10, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

What kind of IDIOT would want Obama to be bipartisan?!?

Real people want him to get things done. That is antithetical to being bipartisan. Mr. President, go before the Congress and tell the Republicans to go f uck themselves. Your approvals will skyrocket.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 10, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

...and you were President of the Harvard Law Review in what year, 37?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 10, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

37, say "Mister Mxyzptlk" backwards, please.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 10, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


I can see you are crying in the corner - but that is what you get when you put in a completely inexperienced person who has NO IDEA what they are doing.

It is incompetence.

Look at Obama's resume - he hasn't DONE one job given to him - all he did was jump from one AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM TO ANOTHER AFFIRMATION ACTION PROGRAM.

Until Obama turned the democratic delegate selection process into an affirmative action program.


You can cry all you want about Obama - until you realize he was NOT THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE JOB.


The two most important parts of the job are the economy and national security - and Obama doesn't really want to do either. He isn't even trying. It is a joke.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

We won't be hearing any more from Rep. Massa.

The current Atlantic Magazine says his Navy days weren't as uneventful as he made them out to be...It's too disgusting to excerpt so I'll just link to the article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/eric-massas-navy-files/37309/

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 10, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


I will say it again - bipartisanship is meeting IN THE MIDDLE - FINDING CENTRIST POLICIES BOTH PARTIES CAN AGREE TO.

Picking off one or two votes really isn't bipartisanship, it is silliness.

Obama made a commitment to the American People to be bipartisan - which meant he would work for CENTRIST POLICIES.

THIS IS OBAMA'S FRAUD ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


I know you are comfortable with that fraud - and you have a bunch of excuses.

However, this is NOT what the American People voted for - they did NOT vote for a far left agenda.

If Obama wants to abandon his promises to the American People, he should LEAVE OFFICE.

Instead, he wants to pretend that the election meant something - something that it clearly did not.

Then he has morons like you running around telling him that he isn't far enough left.

It would all be hilarious if it wasn't the American government which is being MISMANAGED at the heart of all of this.

Obama is a horrible President, perhaps the worst since James Buchanan.

History has been made.


AND if the health care bill does get through, the Republicans will re-take the House and de-fund the bill - the bill will be picked apart for years.

Why would a House democrat end his career for a bill that is going to be taken apart next year ???

Lemmings in a Toyota - why why why ?


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Had BHO had not wasted a year seeking "bipartisanship" -- consisting of begging, unsuccessfully, for the votes of two Senators from a state with a population of 5 -- he would have had health care reform months ago. And he could have eliminated the filibuster. Now, his political capital used up and his Senate majority reduced, 44 is trying to squeak over the goal line with a bill gutted of the most important part, the public option.

Not a great time in O-Nation.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 10, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


What kind of fool are you - whining about "bipartisanship" after Obama's display over the past 14 months ???

Are you kidding?


AND you seem to have an attitude about it.

If you want to complain about lack of bipartisanship - look to Obama - you have got to be a complete idiot.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe -- the day before that it was a free placement for Uncle Charlie and the day before that it was a free placement for the American Future Fund.

This morning he *almost* linked to the DNCC Red to Blue list

but

instead he linked back to his own "bad news for Democrats" July column and then to the Blue Dog Coalition. I laughed out loud when I realised that! Cillizza's bias is showing -- wouldn't want to actually link to the DNCC product this part of his column is supposedly based on.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 10, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe


Tell us how Obama offered to meet the Republicans IN THE MIDDLE at the health care summit - if you want to talk about being bipartisan.

What a joke


Saying that he would throw a few Republican ideas into a 2400 page bill is not being bipartisan.

Can you be serious?

Did Obama ONCE during that summit offer to meet the Republicans IN THE MIDDLE. They know where the MIDDLE GROUND IS.

Don't even TRY to claim that you are entitled to anything bipartisan.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe


Tell us how Obama offered to meet the Republicans IN THE MIDDLE at the health care summit - if you want to talk about being bipartisan.

What a joke


Saying that he would throw a few Republican ideas into a 2400 page bill is not being bipartisan.

Can you be serious?

Did Obama ONCE during that summit offer to meet the Republicans IN THE MIDDLE. They know where the MIDDLE GROUND IS.

Don't even TRY to claim that you are entitled to anything bipartisan.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

37, say "Candyman" three times in the mirror and then wait awhile. All the best.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 10, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

"Rubio speaks to the camera for the entire 60 seconds of the ad, surrounded by his (undeniably cute) family. Part of that strategy is born of his campaign's belief that he is charismatic and letting him talk accrues to his political benefit."
____________

This is unbiased "Political News & Analysis"??? Cute? Charismatic? Ugh.

Craig Crawford, move over, you may have company soon on that park bench....

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 10, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

no one beleives a thing any drivl says anymore. His record of honesty and compliance is vacant.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 10, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


Stop whining about what the Post does.

And tell your boy Obama to be bipartisan.

You have nothing to stand on.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Good grief.

The other day it was a free post of an RNC ad attacking BHO health care reform.

Today, it's a free placement for a Marco Rubio campaign ad.

The RNC and Rubio must be ecstatic they don't have to pay the Washington Post to feature their ads in a Post-sponsored blog.

In the interest of "bipartisanship," will the DNC or any Dem candidate get any free ad placements in this space in the future? Just askin'.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 10, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

This is absolutely perfect:

"In a sign that the global economy could be seeing signs of improvement, the average net worth of the world's billionaires is now $3.5bn, up $500m from last year."

Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Ahhh the free market.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8560731.stm

I can walk down the street an no one's there.
I feel free.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


When are you going to leave the country?


That is the one way you can improve America.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

put on a tie? how completely idiotic

The purpose of a cravat is to cut off oxygen to the brain to enable better business decisions. Let Mitt Romney wear a tie to go with that Touch Of Gray, his audiences get wet seats when he adjusts the knot.

We need a president with a functioning brain, not another idiotic CEO type.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 10, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Al Queda is VERY WELL KNOWN for using multiple bomb plots - and multiple planes in its attacks.


So, instead of questioning the Detroit bomber on the possibility of additional bombs, Obama gives the terrorists a lawyer.


We have to wait 5 weeks for any intelligence.


THAT IS PUTTING THE LIVES OF AMERICANS AT RISK UNNECESSARILY.


Obama SHOULD RESIGN IMMEDIATELY FOR JUST THAT.


This is not an impeachable offense ??? Yes it is.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama was RUDE during the State of the Union address to the Supreme Court - and Obama knew what he was doing.

Obama was also LYING about several provisions of the health care bill - and Obama knew what he was doing.

Obama knows how to act - he just doesn't want to -

And if he wants to be President, he should put on a tie.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 10, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Sort of like some pud who yanks it to a cartoon character

alas the continuing saga of peds shortcomings and aberrations.

Do you ever interact with actual humans? I mean outside the queeny juice bar?

Posted by: Moonbat | March 10, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

DDawd, question, and all I am doing is trying to extend the discussion - I am not taking an absolute position.

But when the Dems for example refused to clap at something Bush II said during his State of the Union, was that not a form of dissent? Isn't this what makes us such a great nation.

I love when the minority party goes silent during a State of the Union - it tells me Freedom is still alive and well in the halls of congress.

Posted by: bobbywc | March 10, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

DDawd, thanks for your approach to my post - I can certainly understand your position, but for me for a very long time I see this decorum issue as celebrating form over substance - what better time to dissent than when the entire world is watching.

Local governments are using this decorum BS as a basis to silence dissent at city commission meetings - the Supreme Court has made clear content is never decorum - Roberts knows this and is playing games.

But again, I think it is important that you brought forth his argument in context.

And one more again, thank you for your approach to my post

Posted by: bobbywc | March 10, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

BWC, to be fair, Roberts wasn't criticizing Obama for expressing dissent.

"First of all, anybody can criticize the Supreme Court without any qualm," he said, adding that "some people, I think, have an obligation to criticize what we do, given their office, if they think we've done something wrong."

Then he says

"On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

So his problem was not that Obama criticized the court, but the venue he chose to do it in and he was more critical of the event than of Obama, actually.

The yahoo link didn't include the first quote and it's pretty screwed up that it didn't since it provides some very important context.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 10, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Hate to pass judgment before all the evidence is in but it sounds like zouk has a big problem with liberalism.

Or, much more accurately, with a comic book caricature of liberalism. Sort of like some pud who yanks it to a cartoon character. Oh Lois Lane forget Superman and marry me.

Guess it was a liberal judge committed him.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 10, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Aid from the Pakistani scientist could have accelerated Iraq's quest for a weapon if the Iraqi leader had not run out of time,

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

no chance of Iran running out of time with the policies of barry (it takes a year to pick a dog) at the helm.

how many deadlines has it been already?
not one friend in the world, not even France, Germany, Israel or UK. china and Russia are laughing at him. Brazil and turkey are now annoyed. I don't think it could be any worse over a year.

What a joke his hand out is.

He should keep his handouts to his union and ACORN friends only.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

House Democratic leaders said on Wednesday that they would no longer dole out budget “earmarks” to profit-making companies,

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

they also said they would Paygo, until the next spending opportunity arrived.

no one beleives a thing any liberal says anymore. their record of honesty and compliance is vacant.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"Simple simon, that article is in today's Post. It is considered news by definition, despite your fingers in ears willfull ignorance."


How typical of you to misrepresent what I wrote. I did not say it was not news, I said it did not absolve the Bush/Cheney administration of distorting intelligence in their justification for invading Iraq in 2003.

If that is not the "pillar of liberal idiocy" to which you referred, please do explain yourself further. I'm all ears.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 10, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

stupid liberals:

But Iraq lost the chance to capitalize when, months later, a multinational force crushed the Iraqi army and forced Hussein to abandon his nuclear ambitions, according to nuclear weapons expert David Albright, who describes the proposed deal in a new book.

Iraqi officials at the time appear to have taken the offer seriously and asked the Pakistanis for sample drawings as proof of their ability to deliver, the documents show. "With the assurance of [Iraqi intelligence agency] Mukhabarat . . . the offer is not a sting operation," an Iraqi official scrawls in ink in the margin of one of the papers.


But the newly uncovered documents suggest that Khan's offer of nuclear assistance was more comprehensive than previously known. A 1990 letter attributed to a Khan business associate offered Iraq a chance to leap past technical hurdles to acquire weapons capability.

At the time of the 1990 offer, Iraq was embarked in a crash program to develop nuclear weapons in the face of a threatened U.S.-led attack over its occupation of Kuwait. By that date, Iraqi scientists had acquired a limited amount of weapons-grade enriched uranium but lacked several key components, including a workable design for a small nuclear warhead.

Aid from the Pakistani scientist could have accelerated Iraq's quest for a weapon if the Iraqi leader had not run out of time, writes Albright, a former U.N. inspector who now heads the nonprofit Institute for Science and International Security.


But it is possible that the lonely Ped, staring at his monitor day and night knows more about these sorts of things.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

More interference in the free market:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/politics/11earmark.html?hp
 
WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders said on Wednesday that they would no longer dole out budget “earmarks” to profit-making companies, wiping out one of the most lucrative and controversial means of awarding no-bid contracts to private firms.

The ban is the most aggressive step yet in a three-year effort in Congress to curb abuses in the awarding of earmarks, which direct that federal money be spent in a very specific way. The move follows criminal investigations, ethics inquiries and political embarassment linked to the use of earmarks.

If the ban had been in effect last year, it would have blocked some 1,000 earmarks, many of them for military contractors that received multi-million-dollar contracts, leaders of the House Appropriations Committee said in announcing the decision.

The move came less than two weeks after the House ethics committee cleared seven members of a defense appropriations subcommittee of allegations growing out of their awarding of earmarks to political contributors.

==
 
Distort away, and it’s about bloody time.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 10, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

do you still deny that you are committed to a mental institution by court order?

"wanted and was pursuing WMDs" means nothing. If he had wistful daydreams about having nukes that would qualify. NOTHING to support the lies Cheney spoke to the VFW on August 26, 2002.

Go clean up your ward room, freak

Posted by: Noacoler | March 10, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Ped, shouldn't you be under a bridge somewhere counting your gold?

I understand the market is too mysterious for you, but some of us are have a bumper year. Maybe we'll stay in your inn for a few weeks on all the capitalist money we are amassing.

I hear the gyms are air-conditioned.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Simple simon, that article is in today's Post. It is considered news by definition, despite your fingers in ears willfull ignorance.

do you still deny that the surge worked, like barry?

do you still deny that a democratic Iraq is a good thing?

do you still deny that Saddam wanted and was pursuing WMDs?

Do you still deny that global warming data was fraudulant?

do you still deny that Al gore lost the election?

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

bobbywc, I agree, I have been banging this drum and it is a greater threat to this country than...wait for it...dare I say it...microwave tower laser radiation, no of course I was just kidding.

But seriously,

"Funny thing on the path towards tyranny - it is not wrong for the Supreme Court to extend the speech of corporate America, but it is wrong for President Obama to denounce the Supreme Court for extending the free speech of corporate America."

How can I honor you for saying this? No really.

This is why I think the House races in 2010 are unimportant. The Bush/Cheney voters damaged America more than they know.

The Roberts court is doing all it can establish America as a corporate shill.
After the Haliburton/Xe blood for oil war is over, the regional war will begin and Republicans will gloat over how important it was that we tried to prevent all that bloodshed. Justice Roberts and Cheney (or if he dies, his daughter) will run for office.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Ped!

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

he added two new ones. doof and suzyccup.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 10, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Did Chief Justice Roberts give the Dems an issue to call for a new super majority in the Senate

Each Branch of government in the U.S. is independent of one another. Every year the Supreme Court says to Congress you got it wrong and we are voiding the law as made by the Congress and signed into law by the President. This is a good thing.

What is not good, and dangerous and in fact evidence of tyranny is the Chief Justice blasting the President for expressing his dissent towards the Supreme Court's rulings. It is interesting that John Roberts blasts the President for chastising the Court for going too far in allowing for corporate speech. Funny thing on the path towards tyranny - it is not wrong for the Supreme Court to extend the speech of corporate America, but it is wrong for President Obama to denounce the Supreme Court for extending the free speech of corporate America. Is there any doubt in any one's mind the Supreme Court is now controlled by a corporatist driven to take away our rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1231

Posted by: bobbywc | March 10, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

You know that is interesting bsimon.
The Democrats are inchoate, but they can cut losses. I wouldn't give a frozen head of lettuce (the most worthless thing I can think of) to protect corrupt Democrats.

Republicans have decided to protect, even venerate anyone, everyone who carried their banner, no matter what. They have taken terrible (political) losses as a result.
Honor Tradition, it can be wonderful, it is conservative, but it is bad politics.

Pretending the country is going to miss Bush/Cheney a few years from now is not conservative, it is stupid.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 10, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

if Rubio's ad is any indication, the Republican message will be that the current policies endanger that future. The Democratic pushback? That the future depends on continuing the course of action begun by President Obama.
 
==
 
Bilgewater.  Not too subtle with your biases, are you, Chee-leetza?  
 
The future depends on not returning to Republican free-market fundamentalism that got us into this mess and will make it worse if restored, because Republicans believe a whole lot of junk that isn’t true.  Junk like free-market economics, junk like tax cuts stimulating the economy, junk like invaders being welcomed as liberators, junk like disbelieving in science will nullify scientific findings.
 
Nasty, stupid, snide way of writing.  Channeling drivl?

Posted by: Noacoler | March 10, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"zouk's latest chestnut ... "

for those unfamiliar with his long history of inchoate rants, plagiarism, spamming, antagonism and stalking on this blog, a person who used to post here as king_of_zouk, but was subsequently banned still posts under names that include but are not limited to drivl, snowbama & moonbat.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 10, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

zouk's latest chestnut is a doozy. There's a reason, of course, that his cut 'n paste job didn't include a link. The document in question is from 1990, before the first persian gulf war. That problem, of course, was solved shortly thereafter. The embarrassed fools who bought into Bush 43's misrepresentations of fact are apparently still trying to cover his backside. At least the Dems learned to stop defending Carter.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030903775.html

"The offer, made in 1990 by an agent linked to disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan..."


Posted by: bsimon1 | March 10, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

""Politicians know that doom and gloom doesn't win elections (just ask Jimmy Carter)""

Normally I would agree, but GWBush only won on Doom and Gloom/Smear and Fear. If he would have had to run just on his own merits he would have gotten crushed. But it was all about "Don't change horses", "terrorist are coming", "Kerry is weak", etc. Maybe the exception to the rule I suppose.

Flash
http://centrisity.com

Posted by: anokaflash | March 10, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

actually Deeds ran a commercial quite often filmed while he was driving his truck in the Va countryside. He was an absoluely terrible candidate but if you are going to make a point about political commercials please be accurate. Deeds stuttering was certainly unhelpful and likely there why were not other commercials where he spoke directly into the camera. Sometimes being pretty or telegenic is more impt than the actual content of the commercial.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 10, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Darn, another pillar of liberal idiocy falls:

The Washington Post reports the persian Gulf war halted Saddam Hussein's plan to buy a full nuke package from A.Q.Khan: As troops massed on his border near the start of the Persian Gulf War, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein weighed the purchase of a $150 million nuclear "package" deal that included not only weapons designs but also production plants and foreign experts to supervise the building of a nuclear bomb, according to documents uncovered by a former U.N. weapons inspector.

Posted by: drivl | March 10, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company