Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Friday Line: Ranking Republican leaders

The Republican Governors Association held its annual meeting earlier this week in Austin, Texas, a gathering where -- for the first time in recent memory -- the GOP had something to celebrate: the twin victories of Govs.-elect Chris Christie (N.J.) and Bob McDonnell (Va.) earlier this month.

Of the gathering, the Post's Dan Balz wrote:

"Republican governors wrapped up a two-day pep rally on Thursday with an expression of confidence that the political winds have begun to shift in their direction, thanks to what they called a backlash among many voters against the policies of the Obama administration."

Jonathan Martin of Politico quoted Gov. Jim Douglas (Vt.), a sometime-ally of President Barack Obama, insisting that "the American people believe that the folks in Washington are overreaching, that the pendulum is swinging too far."

While these sorts of gatherings always take on the feel of a high school pep rally before the big football game -- no matter the broader political circumstances for the party -- it's clear that the victories of McDonnell and Christie coupled with the energetic (if unfocused) reaction of the party's base to the policies put in place by President Obama have given Republicans more reason for optimism today than at any time since the 2004 election.

(To be clear, that is a relatively low bar. Republicans went into the political wilderness in a major way following Bush's re-election as he grew increasingly less popular and it became increasingly more clear that the party was either unable or unwilling to break with the chief executive in any major way. Polls suggest that the Republican brand remains badly damaged in the eyes of the American public with most people still trusting Obama far more than Republicans in Congress to solve the major issues of the day.)

With 2010 right around the corner, there is significant movement in this month's Line as we seek to rank the ten Republicans with the most influence in the future direction of the party. This is not -- and should not be read as -- a list of who is most likely to get the GOP nod in 2012. It's still too early for that kind of handicapping.

As always, your thoughts are welcome in the comments section below. And, for MUCH more on the state of the GOP, check out the Post's Republican project.

To the Line!

10. Bobby Jindal: The Louisiana governor seems to be focused almost exclusively on his 2011 re-election bid and there seems to be consensus among smart Republican operatives that he will not be a candidate for president in 2012. But, he is the consensus favorite for the 2012 vice presidential pick -- no matter who is leading the ticket -- and Jindal is seen as a near-certain presidential candidate in 2016. Everyone in the party regards Jindal as a looming force and no one wants to be on the wrong side of him. That's influence. (Previous ranking: N/A)

9. John Cornyn: The Texas Senator and chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee will spend the next year in the limelight as his slate of candidates seek to start the GOP on the long road back to majority status. Cornyn deserves major kudos on the recruiting front; if he can manage to convince either North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven or former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to run for the Senate, he could lay claim to one of the best classes in recent memory. (Previous ranking: 6)

8. Michael Steele: On one hand, Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, deserves credit for making major financial investments in Virginia and New Jersey. On the other, he seems to have reverted to his form from earlier this year -- popping off in the media with impolitic statements that draw lots of negative press attention to him and the committee. Steele deserves a spot on this Line simply because of his prominence within the party and his control over the purse strings at the RNC. But, he would be ranked far higher if not for his tendency to say whatever is on his mind at any given moment. (Previous ranking: 7)

7. Bob McDonnell: Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, it's hard to argue that McDonnell ran a picture-perfect campaign. From the very beginning he talked relentlessly about jobs while downplaying his social conservatism. The result? A massive, sweeping victory in a state where Democrats had won the last two governors races, hold both Senate seats and won in the 2008 presidential election. McDonnell -- along with pollster Glen Bolger and media consultant Doug McAuliffe -- laid out a blueprint this fall for any Republican seeking to win a swing seat in the Obama era. In doing so, McDonnell almost certainly guaranteed himself a place in the veep discussion in 2012. (Previous ranking: 10)

6. John Thune: The South Dakota Senator makes his debut on the Line thanks to a very positive column from conservative commenter David Brooks and increasing signs that Thune is working to raise his profile in advance of the 2012 race. As we wrote this week in the Fix, Thune is doing everything to put himself in position to make a real run at the Republican nomination if that's what he decides he wants to do. (Previous ranking: N/A)

5. Mike Huckabee: Huckabee has a golden political opportunity. Poll after poll shows that he emerged from the 2008 campaign with extremely strong positive ratings among Republican (and even many Independent and Democratic) voters. To take full advantage of that positioning, Huckabee should be building a national fundraising operation, broadening his national staff and even sounding out operatives in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Instead, he seems largely content to continue hosting his radio and television shows and stoking his status as a political-media celebrity. It's hard to argue, however, that if Huckabee runs -- in spite of his unwillingness to do some of the basic blocking and tackling of an aspiring presidential candidate -- he is a force particularly in Iowa. (Previous ranking: 4)

4. Tim Pawlenty: The perils of running too fast too soon caught up with Tpaw in the runup to the November elections as he got himself involved -- perhaps unwittingly -- in the special election in New York's 23rd district and then found himself advocating for a smaller tent Republican party that might not include Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine). (Pawlenty later recanted.) As Balz noted in a piece critical of Pawlenty, the governor must be careful to stay true to who he is rather than get caught up in the attempt to out-conservative the rest of the field. Still, Pawlenty's aggressive move to the national stage and his role as vice chairman of the RGA means he will have a real say on the message and direction of the party in the coming years. (Previous ranking: 2)

3. Mitt Romney: The former Massachusetts governor is laying VERY low at the moment. But, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Romney's discipline is far superior to many of his compatriots; he refused to wade into the NY-23 special even as pressure mounted from the conservative base to do so. Romney, who was plagued by his desire to be everything to everyone in 2008, seems to have cured himself of that problem. Expect Romney to emerge as a force on the campaign trail in 2010 and use the momentum gained from what will almost certainly be an incredibly aggressive schedule to pivot into a second presidential bid in 2012. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Haley Barbour: The victories by McDonnell and Christie have elevated Barbour, who was already very well regarded within the party, to near-revered status. Barbour's "aw shucks" manner belies a very savvy political mind and with 37 gubernatorial races at the forefront of the potential Republican revival in 2010, the Mississippi governor, who chairs the RGA, is in prime position to emerge as the smartest -- or at least the most influential -- man in GOP politics come next November. (Previous ranking: 5)

1. Sarah Palin: After this week, it's impossible to argue about Palin's influence within the party. She can draw big crowds, sell tons of books and command the biggest media stages -- it doesn't get much bigger than "Oprah" and Barbara Walters. Whether they admit it or not, every establishment Republican wonders regularly about what Palin has planned for 2010 and 2012 and worries about what impact what she will do has on the party. We dubbed Palin the "prime mover" in Republican party politics many moons ago -- she acts, others react -- and we are sticking by it. (Previous ranking: 1)

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 20, 2009; 1:14 PM ET
Categories:  The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Fix: GOP leaders hesitate to embrace Palin
Next: Live Fix Chat: Palin, health care and Bill Simmons!

Comments

"He's not qualified for the Presidency."

89% of the electorate re: Obama three years before he won.

Posted by: JakeD | November 20, 2009 9:21 PM |
-------------------------------------------

The most important words in your post are the last two.

They will not, however, be changed to "she" won anytime soon with Sarah the Obtuse, queen of the quitters.

Posted by: dennissuper | November 23, 2009 10:06 AM | Report abuse

If you havent been following this stuff, some hackers broke into the email of the "scientists" who have been collecting the evidence for global warming - and this is what they found:


Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 21, 2009 10:26 PM | Report abuse

The Conservative Platform:

1. Support unethical big biz companies.
2. Destroy the enviornment. Who cares about endangered species or global warming.
3. Love your guns above all else. Shake and sweat in fear that someone is going to take away your precious weapons.
4. Ask WWJD unless: those who paid taxes their whole lives can't get insurance because they lose their job or can't afford the premiums due to greed of those who care not about health.
5. Love the free market until the big ole rich boys are going under.
6. When you have nothing to offer just incite fear, fear, fear; like your doing with the 9/11 trial; inciting the henny penny in our society.
7. Promote marriage and deny gay people equal rights; then get caught cheating on your wife with your male lover.
8. Choose war as a first resort.
9. Wonder why the working class doesn't pull themselves up by their bootstraps; when you stole our boots.
10. Say you care about the little guy in our society but refuse to pass a living wage; why you all get raises for simply blocking legislation.
11. Vote against the public option so not to offend the two most heartless industries you are best friends with; big pharma and healthcare execs.

Posted by: birdydadum | November 21, 2009 10:26 PM | Report abuse

If Palin runs it will be a lock for Democrats. Watching the republicans discuss healthcare today on Cspan would be comical if the issue wasn't so serious. McCain, Enzi, Grassley all talked like they were at a Mr. Rogers convention. All that was missing was lieberman (guess he found a place that had more cameras)

It was the good ole white boys standing up for the two most unethical and heartless industries in America; Big Pharma and healthcare execs. I pray that the public option DOES make these industries go out of business. That would be a great day for America. And thanks repubs--being I'm an independent voter; you have just confirmed my choice not to vote for ya'll ever again.

Posted by: birdydadum | November 21, 2009 9:58 PM | Report abuse

No.

Posted by: JakeD | November 21, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: Do you mean "as TO whether..."?

Posted by: scrivener50 | November 21, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: Do you mean "as TO whether..."?

Posted by: scrivener50 | November 21, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

scrivener50:

As I am not paid to post here, I did not get any memo. As for whether you are "misinformed" that's the most polite way of putting it.

Posted by: JakeD | November 21, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Open letter to Sarah Palin,

Stop known "Baby Killer" and RINO Rudy Guiliani from masquerading as a Republican and stealing the Republican nomination for US Senator from NY.

Support a real conservative.

DOUG HOFFMAN for US SENAtE 2010

(not paid for by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand)

Posted by: benjaminsp | November 21, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

IMO Sarah Palin answers to her own drummer and is oblivious to outside influences. The word "planning" has no meaning to her as she lives in the moment.

She is not tied down to any job and will go where the wind blows her. If God wants her to be elected governor, she will run. If God wants her to quit, she will quit. if God wants her to write a book, she will write a book. And maybe God will have her run for president. That would be cool. Lets wait till he whispers in her ear.

Who cares if liberal pundits criticize her. Sarah is on a mission.

Posted by: benjaminsp | November 21, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

TO: "JakeD" @ 2:38 p.m.

Gee, I thought DNI instructed all units not to respond, so as not to give the "dissident" another opportunity to expose lame psy ops.

Did you not get the memo? Or have I been misinformed?

***

URGENT TO:

MEMBERS, SENATE ARMED SERVICES, HOMELAND SECURITY, JUDICIARY COMMITTEES (staff, pls. fwd.)

cc: TEAM OBAMA / D. AXELROD / R. EMANUEL / R. GIBBS / JAY CARNEY / A.G. HOLDER (staff, pls. fwd.)

We know the Fort Hood shooter was harassed, that the intel community was aware of his emails. Could he have been designated a so-called "targeted individual" subject to government-enabled "community stalking?" Did this covert federal program help drive him to kill?

SECRET MULTI-AGENCY FED PROGRAM TORTURES, IMPAIRS, PERSECUTES THOUSANDS OF U.S. CITIZENS WITH NATIONWIDE SILENT MICROWAVE / LASER WEAPONS SYSTEMS, LOCAL VIGILANTISM: VETERAN JOURNALIST

TEAM OBAMA, CONGRESS MUST ASK: What do they know -- and when did they know it?

• Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan
• FEMA Director Craig Fugate
• NSA Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander
• Former JSOC Commander Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal
• DIA Director Maj. Gen. Michael Maples
• DOJ Asst. Atty. Gen./National Security David Kris
• CIA Deputy Director Stephen Kappes
• FBI Director Robert Mueller

TEAM OBAMA, CONGRESS MUST ASK: What do they know -- and when did they know it?

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-tortures-me-silent-microwave-weapons-ousted-s-prez

OR http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | November 21, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

No. Next " monkey wrench"?

Posted by: JakeD | November 21, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

To throw a weekend monkey wrench into "Psy Op WaPo BlogSpam"...

DOES DATA COLLECTED AT THE HOMELAND SECURITY-ADMINISTERED "FUSION CENTER" NEAR FORT HOOD HOLD THE KEY AS TO WHY THE FORT HOOD SHOOTER WAS NOT STOPPED?

See item below:

***

SECRET MULTI-AGENCY FED PROGRAM TORTURES, IMPAIRS, PERSECUTES THOUSANDS OF U.S. CITIZENS WITH NATIONWIDE SILENT MICROWAVE/LASER WEAPONS SYSTEMS, LOCAL VIGILANTISM: VETERAN JOURNALIST

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

***
U.S. CENSORS THE NET AS OBAMA LECTURES CHINA ON NET CENSORSHIP

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-censors-net-while-obama-lectures-china-net-censorship

Posted by: scrivener50 | November 21, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

(pg. 110-11 re: her campaign for Governor):

"In the primary, I was running against Governor Murkowski, of course, and his friend Randy Ruedrich was still the state GOP chairman -- a bad omen to some but to us a motivating challenge. To win the primary, I'd have to gothrough both of them. It also meant we'd have no backing from the state party. I found my underdog status and the outsider label quite liberating. If there were only a few politicians bold enough to hook up with us, that was fine too. We built a network of nonpolitical, hardworking Alaskans who were tired of politicians bending in the wind."

Posted by: JakeD | November 21, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

37th - I couldn't care less as to whether or not you're a racist. It's that you make utterly unsupported statements and then retreat to ad hominem attacks when called on it.

Jake - Sarah missed an important point. Those employees

I work in a research laboratory and we deal with a number of carcenogenic chemicals (solvents, mostly). We are required to label bottles and store them properly. You can't leave bottles of benzene out. They have to be capped and in fume hoods. That's OSHA and EPA. Employees of restaurants where smoking is bad are being exposed to similar toxins. The employer has a legal responsibility to provide a safe working environment. I thought a lawyer (retired) would understand that.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 21, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Believe the Left on Global Warming too?

From Yesterday's NY Times-

"In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discussed whether a string of recent years of relatively stable temperatures undermined scientific models that predict long-term warming.

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote."

Looks like Al Gore's profits are in jeopardy- no problem for Al: he's already a multimillionaire from this panic.

Posted by: thecannula | November 21, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

My take is:

McDonnell really ran a great race and is a rising star.

I was watching Morning Joe when Pawlenty really stepped in it. First of all, I do not think conservatives trust him and now he has come out wanting the chase the Maine Senators out of the party.

Jindal is a joke and will be lucky to be re-elected.

Haley Barbour is at the top of his game.

Sarah Palin is the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. A very unelectable candidate who will win the Republican primaries.

Posted by: bradcpa | November 21, 2009 9:35 AM | Report abuse

I just want to make sure that if you treat me differently because I'm white, that makes you a racist.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 21, 2009 3:07 AM | Report abuse

I just want to make clear that if you do not agree with me, that means you are a racist.


It's true.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 21, 2009 3:06 AM | Report abuse

I'm reading "Going Rogue" again and this example of small government (from pg. 75):

"Nearly every pregnant woman has something that can make her instantly ill, and the cigarette smoke inside the cafe kind of nausiated me. Instead of supporting a much-talked-about smoking ban at the time, though, I just stopped going to that restaurant. It eventually went smoke-free on its own, which is the way things like that should work."

Posted by: JakeD | November 21, 2009 2:37 AM | Report abuse

I'll take unfathomably dense for a thousand, Alex.

Ah the Daily Double!

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 21, 2009 12:21 AM | Report abuse

"Is it possible that JakeD is so thick-witted"

Either that, or he is himself stretching to attain a similar level of provocative parody, but so far without success.

He does frequently express admiration for Colbert. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and considering him a poorly drawn cartoon, styled after his idol. As you say, the only alternative is that he's unfathomably dense.

Posted by: nodebris | November 21, 2009 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Is it possible that JakeD is so thick-witted that he thinks Colbert is praising Palin instead of dissing America?

I guess so!!

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 11:59 PM | Report abuse

The problem you have, jaked, is that you don't have the fine sense Colbert does of the line between parody and mere repetition. As a result, whereas he ultimately comes off as enlightening, you come off as merely annoying.

I have great sympathy for you, though. It's very hard to parody the current American conservative movement. You risk bringing down Salisbury's censure:

Therefore, to be possess'd with double pomp,
To guard a title that was rich before,
To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.

I.e., to do the unnecessary, to attempt perfecting the perfection of parody that conservatism already is. I swear, I don't know how Colbert pulls it off.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 11:48 PM | Report abuse

"I don't believe any garbage."

CF, I think the accurate interpretation of this statement is that he doesn't believe what he says.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 11:32 PM | Report abuse

I need to get out?! YOU have been posting here at the Fix more than I.

==

Usually you do 20-40% of the posts in any thread you're in. But no matter, we weren't talking about posting on The Fix, we were talking about having enough experience in the world and in life to make informed judgments.

To believe Palin is qualified to hold any serious responsibility is the opinion of a chronic lifelong shutin.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 11:32 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe any garbage.

==

You not only believe Palin is qualified to be president, you believe she's more qualified than Barack Obama.

A belief like that is a pile of opened tunafish cans, used kleenex, crumpled tinfoil with bacon grease on it.

Palin was an undistinguished mayor of a tiny town of single-wides full of meth addicts, and briefly the governor of a state with fewer people than Seattle, a post she resigned to cash in by writing a book whining about people being mean to her.

Given the opportunity to show his discipline and executive qualities, Obama took on and defeated the two most experienced campaigners from each party.

Given the same opportunity, Palin has fallen flat on her face every. Single. Time.

She screwed up SarahPac, she's made a fool of herself over and over in her quest for publicity, and, hell!, she's every screwing up her *book tour*.

But hey, the only qualification you care about is that she's white.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 11:23 PM | Report abuse

"She is the leader this country deserves."
Stephen T. Colbert
Posted by: JakeD | November 20, 2009 8:53 PM

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

Oh jaked, it is so comforting to know you are a parody of a conservative. I've so long worried you were real.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 11:06 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe any garbage.

Posted by: JakeD | November 20, 2009 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Yeah but posting here hasn't led me to believe garbage as you do.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

I need to get out?! YOU have been posting here at the Fix more than I.

Posted by: JakeD | November 20, 2009 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey Jake ... it would take more like THIRTY years before people forgot that Palin resigned her post to cash in.

You think the passage of three years will turn a ditz like Palin into presidential material?

You need to get out more, and quit spanking it to "Runner's World." Seriously.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 9:27 PM | Report abuse

"He's not qualified for the Presidency."

89% of the electorate re: Obama three years before he won.

Posted by: JakeD | November 20, 2009 9:21 PM | Report abuse

"She is not qualified for the presidency"
-- 70% of the electorate

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

"She is the leader this country deserves."

Stephen T. Colbert

Posted by: JakeD | November 20, 2009 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the Palin puffery drives traffic but it brings the worst kind. The trolls who believe Palin is a talented executive are by definition the most deluded by by temperament the angriest (do you wonder?).

It isn't "good" traffic, it's debate by repeated angry assertion.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh, mnteng. Snap!

BB

P.S. Took a post-doc at UU and got endlessly kidded about cold fusion after I took it.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 20, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD writes:
"And the Palin stuff really needs to stop."

I'm sick of it too, but it drives traffic. I can put up with it if it keeps CC employed by WaPo. If you look at it with that lens, then you'll probably understand the necessary evil of it. Compare the comment sections from yesterday to today.

Of course, I could be wrong and CC could actually think that SHP is a savvy politician.

FairlingtonBlade:

I believe ZOUK thinks that Pons and Fleischmann were "actual scientists" since they were such iconoclasts. Explains a lot.

Posted by: mnteng | November 20, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

I am actually beginning think that Republicans' best potential candidate for 2012 is Haley Barbour, the Mississippi Governor. The question is whether he would be viewed as too much of an "establishment" figure to be get the far-right support necessary to win a Republican nomination. He may not run, especially if the economy has recovered by then and Obama's polls are strong in 2011. It is not easy to defeat an incumbent President.

I think the likelihood of someone like Barbour or Romney being the Republican nominee in 2012 is greater if it appears they actually have a chance to win. If Obama looks really strong when 2012 rolls around, I think they are more likely to nominate Palin or some other sure loser.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | November 20, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Actually BB if you work with atom-photon interactions then you probably have a stronger foundation than most of us here in grasping the global warming model. The notion of absorption spectra must be fundamental to your work, no? and that puts you head and shoulders among these trolls to whom the essence of the global warming model is their endless ridicule of Al Gore.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

37th - We're only busy taking pot shots at one another. I'll do you the courtesy of stepping outside the sandbox for a moment. I'll happily tell you the photophysics of molecular semiconductors. That's my area of expertise. Climate change and modeling is well outside of it. What you call arrogance, is in fact the humility to know that I don't understand the details. So, what I decry in you is what I see as arrogance--someone without any background whatsoever confidently proclaiming that models are wrong. I'm sure that if some aspect of my research had broader impact, you'd state how wrong my models are without even trying to understand them.

There are real policy and societal impacts. There is a scientific consensus, but the field is young and the costs are huge. There are grounds for a real debate, but you're not interested in that.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 20, 2009 7:37 PM | Report abuse

A bit arrogant, unable to accept new ideas maybe.

==

New ideas? Science denial is a new idea? Hardly.

And how are new ideas going to come from you? You're an idiot gooper troll, originality is a venial sin to you guys, there is nobody on this earth more slavishly devoted to a canned set of beliefs then a teabagger.

Why don't you find somewhere else to surf?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

This might be a fun game. To imagine what Palin might say in her attempts to get various jobs.

==

"thin resume," "shake things up," "mavericky," and don't forget that heavy hitter, "common sense."

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"As far as your description of average and exceptional scientists, nice try to get a rise out of me. Presumably I should be indignant and blather on about my qualifications. Nah. I've never seen original reasoning from you. You regularly copy and paste from other sources, call other posters names, and exchange high fives with the other trolls."

Haha, that description of scientists made me laugh. It's funny how wrong he is about everything. Yeah, scientists sit around trying to prove preconceived notions, right?

It really sounds like what Sarah Palin would say if she were interviewing for a faculty position.

This might be a fun game. To imagine what Palin might say in her attempts to get various jobs.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 20, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Fairlington

Appears that you are a little insecure - I really wasn't calling you names.


A bit arrogant, unable to accept new ideas maybe.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 20, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Haha, did you see his post a few months back on his statistical "proof" that Obama was targeting Republican donors when GM was closing down dealerships? Yeah, this guy does not do anything related to statistics.

==

Honestly I don't need any closer examples. People trained in the sciences, and especially those who work in the sciences, cant' help but betray the empiricism that underlies the thinking they spend most of their lives engaged in.

There's a guy who trolls EJ Dionne's Precinct blog who claims to be a scientist turned administrator, yet he writes about "market forces" and about economics as though it's a purely deterministic science, like classical mechanics or something, rather than the near-useless foppery they are. Dead giveaway.

People who use their minds in their work are capable of occasional focus and discipline .. zouk has the discipine of a string of firecrackers at a Lion Dance. Dripping with hate and sarcasm, consumed with contempt.

Could someone like him hold a job? Get real.

Could someone like him work with other people? Not for five minutes.

Could someone like him get tnrough the rigors of a technical education? Don't make me laugh.

I'm sticking with the mental hospital presumption, it's a case of "best fit," as an applied mathematician might say.

Me, I took the "Pure Math" option 'cause I love physics and differential equqations.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Zouk - Touché. For once, I can't find the source from which you copied. No, I don't believe your statement that you are a modeler (for that matter, I doubt anyone involved in such work would describe themselves as a modeler). Models are a tool, not a profession.

==

Just to close the loop, the real job title would be "applied mathematician."

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

"I am a professional modeler with vast experience in many different types of mathematical models. I am particularly experienced in predictive and forecasting models of great complexity.

==

hahahhahahaha yeah sure you are.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite "

Haha, did you see his post a few months back on his statistical "proof" that Obama was targeting Republican donors when GM was closing down dealerships? Yeah, this guy does not do anything related to statistics.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 20, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

37th - Ah, your fallback position. Call people names. If we head back to the chart you keep talking about, how about you explain the rise in temperature starting in the mid-70s up until 2000. For that matter, you state point blank that temperatures don't fit the models. OK, find the link. Show the projected vs. actual temperatures. What are the deviations? Scatter in the data? Heck, convince me you understand basic statistics.

So, I don't think that you're particularly intelligent. You are unable to frame an argument and present yourself as an expert. Very good at name calling, though.

Zouk - Touché. For once, I can't find the source from which you copied. No, I don't believe your statement that you are a modeler (for that matter, I doubt anyone involved in such work would describe themselves as a modeler). Models are a tool, not a profession.

As far as your description of average and exceptional scientists, nice try to get a rise out of me. Presumably I should be indignant and blather on about my qualifications. Nah. I've never seen original reasoning from you. You regularly copy and paste from other sources, call other posters names, and exchange high fives with the other trolls.

Well, it's been a fun evening of fencing with trolls. Now, boys, back to your caves.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 20, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"How boring would The Fix be if every post about Republicans' scramble back to the top were followed by an obligatory "But, FYI, the Democrats still pretty much run everything, and pretty much all the incumbents are going to run for re-election, and even if some of them don't, it's going to be pretty clear pretty early on who's going to replace them, with a few scattered exceptions." Thrilling."

I do agree that since politics is the art of gaining power, there should be focus on the party attempting to gain power. However, one would presume that Democrats aren't simply going to roll over and let them regain control. (of course, these are Democrats we're talking about, so who knows?)

I don't want some forced balance, but I do want to see what Democrats are doing in response. Chris C has been better about this recently, actually.

And the Palin stuff really needs to stop. She attracts attention, yes, but is no longer a political entity. I was actually surprised to see that he has gotten sick of writing about her.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 20, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

@GJonah: it only takes one data point to throw your whole argument into the crapper: the puff pieces on Palin and Pawlenty. These are in no way stellar or noteworthy people yet Chris is almost breathless with excitement about both and there is no possible explanation for this that is not firmly grounded in determination to see gold in offal and to believe that these two nitwits are presidential timber despite clear and vast evidence starkly to the contrary.

As for 2008, yes it was totally different, this was second only to Dan Froomkin as the must-read column at this paper. Now Froomkin has paid the price for being right when his editors were wrong, and whether it's personal Republican leanings or valuing his job over his integrity, Chris has gone to the dark side.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey, my mother got her EdD from Larry Kholberg at the Ed school. I grew up hearing about what a jerk he was. Then, he proved it.

It is a bad thing to leave your kid at Brigham's as if you are going to the bathroom head over to Boston harbor and swim out and die. I never thought much of his moral stages, beyond #3 (law and order) anyway.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

didn't you hear. We're well liked again in the world. Barry has been invited back anytime to give speeches, surrender, apoligize or bow and scrape.

As far as cooperation on climate bills, military assistance, boycotts or sanctions, missile firings, settlement building, lending, trade, etc, well go screw yourself Yankee.

whatever he's doing seems to be working????

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Some of the folks complaining about The Fix's recent focus on Republicans make me think they don't wholly understand what The Fix is.

The Fix has never really been directly about issues or about following both political parties equally. It's about elections and electability -- the "horse race" aspects of politics. Right now, it's focused mainly on Republicans because the Democrats are very much in the majority, controlling the House, the Senate and the presidency. Most people don't watch races to see the same winner keep on winning. They watch races to see who's coming up from behind to take the winner's crown.

How boring would The Fix be if every post about Republicans' scramble back to the top were followed by an obligatory "But, FYI, the Democrats still pretty much run everything, and pretty much all the incumbents are going to run for re-election, and even if some of them don't, it's going to be pretty clear pretty early on who's going to replace them, with a few scattered exceptions." Thrilling.

I wasn't reading The Fix in 2006, and I suppose I don't know for sure that it even existed then, but if it did, I imagine the vast majority of posts were about up-and-coming Democrats looking to break the Republicans' grip on the executive and legislative branches. With the Republicans in control, they were a known commodity; the real story was the Democrats' chances. The reverse is true now.

Look, I hear a lot of people complain about how the mainstream media is too focused on the "horse race" aspects of politics rather than the issues, and I can understand why they think that. But horse race politics is what The Fix is all about, and it's never claimed to be otherwise. If you read The Fix, unless you're one of those types who only scans blogs like this looking for things to get angry about, that's what you read it for.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | November 20, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"all the begging, bowing and scraping have not yielded much. can we get the cowboy back?”

Zouk – The bowing didn’t play too well in Japan, The bowing photo was not featured instead the photo of the simple nod to the Empress which was appropriate. But like they are fond to say “man who bows exposes gaping hole in his agenda”.

Posted by: leapin | November 20, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I am a professional modeler with vast experience in many different types of mathematical models. I am particularly experienced in predictive and forecasting models of great complexity.

==

hahahhahahaha yeah sure you are.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Actual scientists are usually known for bucking the trend and staking their reputation on the unpopular. see Galileo, copernicus, einstein, etc.

Average scientists go along with the paradigm and punch the clock that the local politician provides.

a good bet is that if "everyone" thinks something, it is bad science. but perhaps good politics. Liberals can;t seem to tell the difference. and lately their science and religion have merged with big fat sweaty al gore in the pulpit.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I am a professional modeler with vast experience in many different types of mathematical models. I am particularly experienced in predictive and forecasting models of great complexity.

Let me just say in summary that the climate models used do not subscribe to best practices and also suffer from questionable data and non-rigourous hypotheses.

now I am not flatly saying that the entire notion is wrong, rather that the cure may not solve the potential problem and the medicine may kill the patient.

Argue all you want about the question of yes and no. Climate is incredibly complex (meaning many variables that are ill-behaved and mysterious). I am more interested in how and how much? Based on Barry's trip this week, it appears we will be going it alone on most of "our" issues. all the begging, bowing and scraping have not yeilded much. can we get the cowboy back?

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

I read somewhere that only 10-15% of the population is really capable of abstract thought at a college level. I thought that number was too low, but you're swinging me around.

==

If you really want to get depressed about the mental abilities of your fellow man, look up the work of Lawrence Kohlberg and his stage theory of moral development.

An astonishing majority of people are incapable of moral reasoning anywhere past the "RULES are RULES" level.

You see clear echoes of moral moronics in the "abortion is murder" meme.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

This guy is trolling. He's just posting the same thing over and over and having fun watching people taking the trouble to refute.

Exactly like a little kid who's discovered he can keep the adults talking by saying "why?" after every response.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"The liberals are convinced they are smarter than everyone else."

The person arguing against the near unanimous majority of climate scientists is condemning others of having an elevated sense of their own intellect? Funny.

I'm a liberal, and I'm certainly not smarter than everyone else. You're making a strong case here that I'm smarter than you, though.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Whew. If you can look at that chart, and the only thing that stands out to you is two periods of relative stability, there's really not a whole lot more to say to you.

I would repeat again, though, that scientist do not predict what the temperature will be in any given year. The project the trend. The larger your data set, the more accurate the projection. Which is why a scientist wouldn't look at one small flat spot in the midst of a steep climb and say "it's all hunky dory, gents!"

I read somewhere that only 10-15% of the population is really capable of abstract thought at a college level. I thought that number was too low, but you're swinging me around.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street

Are you familiar with hurricane forecast models? You know the ones that show the projected path of a hurricane. Do you know why the path is not a single line?

Now extend that idea to climate models.

Get it?

Posted by: ModerateVoter | November 20, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade, nodebris

I love the attitude too - "you don't understand" this and that.


The liberals are convinced they are smarter than everyone else.

Not only that, the liberals are all convinced they are morally superior to everyone else as well.

.


Posted by: 37thand0street | November 20, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade, nodebris


I love your arguements - "the ACTUAL TEMPERATURES do not fit what the climate models predicted, but the models are still correct"


The models are WRONG.


AND that is the scientific method - you have a thesis, and you test it against the actual measurements.


If the actual measurements do not fit the models, you throw the models out and you come up with something else.

The actual temperatures are SETTLED.

It should be really really warm out there by now.

Can you EXPLAIN why there was NO WARMING between 1940 and 1980 even though massive amounts of carbon dioxide was pumped into the atmosphere ???

Some scientist .....


I guess you are more interested in getting some grant money, rather than actual being right.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 20, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Nick Copernicus has a SOCIALIST AGENDA!!! He's trying to BAN GOD from science by making God's Earth into just another piece of rock.

I mean, ANYONE can look at the sky and see that everyone spins around us. What kind of SOCIALIST TOOL could possibly believe that we're moving? After all, we would FEEL the spinning if this were true!!

Just call me a common sense conservative!

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street,

You don't understand complex systems, do you? I'd like to see you analyze a stock price chart. "Google's been flat for 10 days, sell!"

No scientist is going to predict what is going to happen in any given year. They tell you what the trend is and what the likely result will be at the end of fifty or 100 years.

Notice that I referred earlier to the notion of "trend line." Take a ruler, put one end on the earliest measure, one end on the last measure, and draw a line. Tell me what it looks like. Notice that around your line, you'll see dots above and below it. What does that mean? Think about it.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

37th - You don't appear to understand the difference between short term and long term. It's a demonstrable fact that there has been an increase in world temperatures over the past century. It is another fact that CO2 and other gases absorb energy. It doesn't take The Smartest Man In The World to figure out that they might be correlated.

Then again, since you're mostly copying and pasting, you have your own faith basis. The church of Rush, presiding minister Beck.

I think I'm one of the few posters around here who's an active scientist (optical spectroscopy). I've seen plenty of good and bad models and we're building data and processing power. It's an emerging field of study. So, you'd have a leg to stand on if argued that it's preliminary. However, there are already real, demonstrated effects to climate change. [Notably, some dead pine forests in Montana.]

If they had blogs in the 18th century, I'm sure you'd be posting similar screeds against Darwin. Or, heck, Galileo.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 20, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse


elijah24

It is not that hard to understand - the climate models PREDICTED rising temperatures over the past 10 years - and it simply did not happen.


You have to let go of it, it is irrational to deny the facts which are right in front of you.


It's not really a "study" as you say - rather it's the ACTUAL TEMPERATURES OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS.


I guess you call the fire department and ask them to spray water all over your house even though there is no fire.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street


Models of complex systems like weather are bound to be "wrong". The models are man made and reflect our current understanding. As we learn more, the models are adjusted and they become more fine tuned or "accurate".

You focus on the last 10 years while interesting you need to take a longer view.

I will say this. Something is not right with the climate. Is it man made or not? My gut (based on all that I have read pro and con) says yes.

Mankind has a long history of destroying the environment and as a result ending their civilization in the process.

I see no evidence that man has changed his ways in this.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | November 20, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

nodebris

The temperatures have STOPPED rising over the past 10 years - that is a FACT - it is not subject to discussion - It is SETTLE BY ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS.


Since you are bringing out your charts, let me ask you a question:


According to your chart, between 1940 - 1980 temperatures were relatively STABLE.


However, during 1940-1980, tons and tons and tons of Carbon Dioxide were PUMPED into the atmosphere - the atmosphere should have been heating up in 1940 - 1980 period as well.

YOUR THEORY IS WRONG. The climate models do NOT explain actual temperatures.

It is pretty simple. The climate models are wrong - they did NOT predict what happened over the past 10 years OR in the period from 1940 - 1980, when there was virtually no pollution controls at all.

There is no crisis, no one is going to die, New York City is NOT going to be flooded -

There are NOT going to be climate refugees creating an illegal alien problem in Siberia.

OK ? Just relax.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 20, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"Funny, nothing enrages the goobers like science"

Science doesn't care if you burn it in effigy or yell at it. Best you can do is drive it away and live without it, if you really think that would be better. But it will find a home elsewhere, because it's so damn useful. Unlike the goobers.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street, you didn't look at the chart, did you?

Using another measure: the farthest back we can measure CO2 concentrations in 800,000 years, using glacial ice. Our current measures are higher than at any time during that period.

Is that a long enough span for you?

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Funny, nothing enrages the goobers like science

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

elijah24, GoldAndTanzanite and all of you


The global warming folks really only have one 30-year period that they are looking at - even though the world has been industrializing for over 150 years.


The emergency is over. People are not going to die.


You can relax now.


The crisis is over.


The whole thing just doesn't add up.

To address your point, I don't understand why Canada wasn't in favor of global warming all along.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 20, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Does that look like stasis to you?

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I'm saying that the first country to develop green energy is going to be dominant in the next century, and Europe, India and China are all investing in in furiously.

Confronted with a challenge, you can scream that it's not true. Or you can be an real American, take it on headfirst, and win.

Sorry to interrupt your ceaseless whining, though. Proceed.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Are you saying that if the US slits its climate throat, taxes its citizens out of existence in the attempt to correct all its past sins and satisfy an angry green god while enriching al gore, that it is possible that the non compliance of china and India could simply cancel out the entire effort?

I hadn't thought of that?

Perhaps a summit.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

elijah24

It is not that hard to understand - the climate models PREDICTED rising temperatures over the past 10 years - and it simply did not happen.


You have to let go of it, it is irrational to deny the facts which are right in front of you.


It's not really a "study" as you say - rather it's the ACTUAL TEMPERATURES OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS.

I guess you call the fire department and ask them to spray water all over your house even though there is no fire.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 20, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"I beleive that Martians are set to invade our world and demand that we gather up all the tax money and build a giant space shield."

Now if you could only get 9 of 10 planetary scientists to agree.

The problem with your analogy is that it's backwards and actually argues against the point you wish to make.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Once again the stupidest poster on this blog retorts with the usual fingers in the ear reply that only the weakest of arguments can muster.

"don't argue with anyone that disagrees with our utopian, ignorant view of the world. chant with me. turn off your TV. you are all liars."

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

If climate models were accurate, and the assumption that more carbon is more warming, then the trend would be monotonically UP, UP and Away.

==

God you're one dim bulb.

What you say would be true were the world at thermodynamic equillibrium. It isn't. It's a sustained non-equillibrium condition and temperatures in any one region are influenced by factors other than insolation.

If you had enough neurons to make a synapse you would realize this, and the only piece of data you would need to inform your idiot ignorance is the fact that not every piece of land at the same latitude has the same climate.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

37th. it is not about facts or science. Liberals only drop those buzzwords when they want to impress their friends.

It is actually about a growing faith in the green/big government agenda. No facts needed. Just some chanting and taxing.

If climate models were accurate, and the assumption that more carbon is more warming, then the trend would be monotonically UP, UP and Away. but unfortunately for the math challenged Libs, it is more complex than that. Perhaps it comes in spurts, perhaps it is localized. perhaps is is not man made. perhaps it is caused by sunspots. all of these hypotheses should be tested by actual climate scientists, not by politicians looking for donations. How did al gore get to be the foremost scholar in a certain area of science? this guy flunked out of divinity school so he created his own religion to try to get back at them.

but if al can get everyone chanting "It's settled, It's settled" maybe no one will notice the crazy methods they used to get to the final and indisputable conclusion.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Please don't dignify the science deniers by arguing with them. When Kansas is on the west coast they'll still be denying global warming. The models ARE flawed .. but in the wrong direction. The reality is turning out to be worse than any model predicted, with glaciers disappearing, sea levels rising.

The fact that some place are getting cooler reflects realignment of warming ocean currents, so that shortly England will have the climate of Iceland (compare their latitudes) but at the same time New Hampshire will have the climate that North Carolina has now, and large parts of the world will become too hot to safely support human life.

How will America deal with 300 million climate refugees coming north?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

sorry, just gotta get one more shot before i go: 37, is it possible that the "flat" line you are seeing over the last 10 years, is actually the grid-line? thats not the one you should be looking at. ok now everybody have a good weekend.

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I beleive that Martians are set to invade our world and demand that we gather up all the tax money and build a giant space shield.

It is possible that I could be wrong or have the time table off slightly, but if I'm right, do you want to explain to our kids how you just let the Martians in??

I have the evidence stored in a super secret wall safe deep inside al gore's lockbox.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Thats it for me kids. im on the road the next 6 hours. have a good weekend.

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street is one of those vehemently certain people who yet don't understand statistics and can't read a chart. They think "Trend Line" is a synonym for hem line.

He gets his stats from George Will. 'Nough said.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

"You are saying that we should spend BILLIONS OF DOLLARS based on climate models which over the past 10 year period have been PROVED TO BE WRONG."
==
I'm saying they have NOT been proven wrong. In fact every "study" that claims to prove them wrong is, at best, in serious doubt; and at worst incredible. But as long as there is a substantial group of dissenters who insist on denying science that is not funded by Exxon Mobile,...That is to say: as long as there is a substantial group who does not believe, but there is lots and lots of evidence to prove them wrong, why not err on the side of caution. Particularly when the changes that would help to slow climate change, would also make people healthier anyway? The changes our leaders want to make have benefits that go beyond saving the planet. Cleaner water and air will allow you to live healthier and longer. That alone would justify the use of that money to me.

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I would like to make something clear: the REAL TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS over the past 10 years have been flat - there has been NO INCREASE in temperatures over the past 10 years.


This is during a 10 year period in which there has been the MOST carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere compared to ANY ten year period in history.

The climate models predicted AN ACCELERATING INCREASE IN TEMPERATURES.


This DID not happen.


The emergency is OVER. It is NOT going to happen.

The climate models were WRONG. If you are an adult, you have to let go of it.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 20, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the reason The Fix talks about Democrats is for the same reason armpeg does. They are in trouble, screwing up, fading fast, they are worried, they lose sleep, the get shivers sent down their spines by poll numbers. Democrats are a foil, you can't really have a Republican Rising! without Democrats in trouble. So fret not, we'll see lots more coverage of Democrats...in trouble.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"You may as well say that Jennifer Aniston is a leader."

Now I would follow *her* anywhere. But I wouldn't lie to myself about why.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

elijah24

You are saying that we should spend BILLIONS OF DOLLARS based on climate models which over the past 10 year period have been PROVED TO BE WRONG.


You need a climate change model which - when you put the numbers in up to 1998 -predicts what happened with the temperatures over the past 10 years.


If you want to go waste your own money, go ahead - but you want to waste other peoples' money.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 20, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

re. Gallup poll has Comrade Obama's Presidential Approval numbers "below 50%"

The by far more accurate poll is the Rasmussen Poll, which has Comrade Obama's approval numbers (Nov. 19, 2009), at 46% approve while 53% DISAPPROVE.
Since Comrade Obama started with a 70% approval rating only 10 months ago, and has dropped to 46% today, it looks like the American people have woken up to the fact that this empty suit is a total incompetend, and his Communist agenda, which is tanking our economy, is not good for America.
With our economy getting worse and worse--as the Piper has to get paid for all the Communist Obama policies comming on line-- by the 2010 midterms, Comrade Obama's numbers by then will probably be in the low-forties with a repeat of the 1994 blowout looming for the Democrap Socialists.

Posted by: armpeg | November 20, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

It's very, very rarely that I criticise you, even marginally. I must say, however, that I think 'Blarg' has a point. Your recent coverage has almost wholly focussed on the Republicans.

To maintain your reputation for even-handedness, I think it would be good to cover the D.s as well, however poorly it might appear their prospects look.

For example, you've barely mentioned the Sestak/Specter primary in weeks, while you've mentioned the Crist/Rubio primary repeatedly (with reason, of course: Rubio's come-from-behind numbers warrant keeping an eye on this race), but not to the exclusion of other, D. races.

In a sense, the center of gravity--if I may use this phrase about a party that presumably includes comedians such as Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh (neither of whom is a laughing matter in the slightest)--for the media is always the underdogs, which the R.s currently are, but there is a question of balance.

So please, from a loyal Fixisto and admirer, do try to spread the wealth so you don't come to be viewed as the Frank Luntz of journalism.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | November 20, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer Aniston would be a much better choice!

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Fairlington

The accounting tricks in the health care bill are eye-popping. The first is that it is NOT PAID FOR.


You have seven years of benefits being put up against ten years of taxes.


Then you have $500 Billion transfered from Medicare that will simply not be there in the second ten years period.


A simple accounting reveals that the health care bill is 2 - 3 TRILLION dollars short.


OUCH


All these democrats, including Obama, are so full of themselves about 'MAKING HISTORY' - what they are making is a financial mess - that's the history. The hero is the one who pays for this, not those who are financially irresponsible.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 20, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Oh god another Palin puff piece?

This is starting to resemble jerking off.

Palin is in the news. She is not a leader in any sense of the word. You may as well say that Jennifer Aniston is a leader.

Sheesh. Grow one.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 20, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

37, what if you're wrong? We need to take better care of our planet, even if the climate doesnt change to a point where Earth is uninhabitable. So to act with caution and concern for the planet doesnt hurt anything if you are right. But what if you are wrong. What if the climate is changing, and we do nothing because we "dont need to be scared anymore"? The only studies that say climate change is a hoax are the ones that are funded by energy companies and others who stand to lose a massive ammount of money if people take it seriously. I don't think I need to point out the short-sighted nature of this way of thinking. If we act, and you turn out to be right, you can say "I told you so" all you want. If we dont act, and we turn out to be right, we wont get that chance.

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

What's in a name? This has been a Republican Rising! column since the election, there is no reason to name it that, it would be too obvious. Leftist media outlets have oblique names too, like The Nation and on the other side there is the Manchester Union Leader. It is what it is, the name, like most names, is an historical artifact.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

If a news source gets important information that the public has a right to know, classified or not, they have a responsibility to report it. The crime was committed by the person who leaked the info.

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

On Global Warming -


First, everyone has to be adult enough to realize that the facts show that the temperatures have STOPPED rising since 1998.

Now, the next thing is everyone has to agree that the CLIMATE MODELS HAVE BEEN WRONG.

If the climate models got the temperatures for the past 10 years wrong, there is no reason to believe that the models will be correct for the next 10 years or the 10 years following, or even after that.

One has to remember that the climate models predicted a steady rising of temperature - in fact an ACCELERATION of temperatures over the next few decades.


This is not going to happen, it is that simple.


ANY REASONABLE PERSON should now look for a climate change model which accurately would have predicted the stopping of global warming over the past 10 years EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE PUMPED MORE CARBON DIOXIDE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THAN IN ANY 10 YEAR PERIOD IN HISTORY.


The other part of this developement is:


THERE IS NO MORE EMERGENCY - IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.


YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE SCARED ANYMORE.


PLEASE TELL YOUR CHILDREN BECAUSE THE SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN TELLING THEM THAT THE EARTH IS ABOUT TO BURN UP.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 20, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Lying from politicians and money grabbers is to be expected. monkeying with the data "and not admitting it disqualifies you as a "scientist". there is a difference."
==
What part of this don’t you get? YOU HAVE NO PROOF! NONE! The closest thing you have to evidence came from a source with no credibility as a result of the fact that he is himself a criminal. This would be like if a criminal broke into the Vatican and found "proof" that Jesus wasn’t a real person. Would you believe that criminal too?

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

OK, 37th. Let's talk. 16% of GDP to be precise. Howzit we spend more on government health alone than most countries do altogether. And the moment someone talks cost control, Republicans go shrieking to the nearest mike about cutting $500B. You have no standing.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 20, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I must assume that you liberals were up in arms when the NYTimes leaked classified defense secrets and considered the evidence criminal and therefore ignored it.

Darn liberal double standards. It's so hard to keep up.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Lying from politicians and money grabbers is to be expected. monkeying with the data and not admitting it disqualifies you as a "scientist". there is a difference.

most educated people will accept the facts of science and where it leads. but these days the old facts are hard to find. the press has turned into a shill and the enviros are agenda driven.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

A health care bill has not even passed and yet this week we see the drug companies raising prices 10% across the board and two groups call for delaying tests for cancer in women. The first group says that breast cancer tests should start at 50, the only state that does that is Nevada, the state with the highest death rate from breast cancer. The latter group says that it did not know about the earlier groups recommendation. Yea I believe that, and the insurance companies had nothing to do with it either.

The water is calm now with your list of the top ten GOP but wait until it gets closer and they all start to feed on each other.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | November 20, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Why is there never a post about Democrats to watch, or ranking Democratic leaders? There are 10 Friday Lines about Republican leaders in the last year, and 0 about Democrats. (Not to mention all the posts about the Republican Resurgence, Resurgent Republicans, Republican Revival, and GOP-Friendly Environment.)

This isn't an issue of subtle bias. CC is blatantly and unapologeticly covering Republicans far more than Democrats. Just rename the column and make it official.

Posted by: Blarg | November 20, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I mean, Zouk, you already have lots of people who are quite legally paid to legally lie about how climate change is a hoax. There's no need to go hunting up criminals to lie about it as well.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't Erci Cantor on this list. He was the golden boy only three months ago. I guess his little mishap with his black berry cost him some on the national stage.

Also I think you have to put Rush/Beck/Hannity on this list too. They have a lot more say in the GOP than Michael Steele does.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 20, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

When a criminal accuses someone of a crime, who has never been known to commit a crime before, and the only evidence was stolen by the known criminal, how well would that hold up in court? Why are you guys so desperate to ignore reality that you will take the word of a known criminal with the lives of YOUR grandchildren on the line?

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

When a criminal accuses someone of a crime, who has never been known to commit a crime before, and the only evidence was stolen by the known criminal, how well would that hold up in court? Why are you guys so desperate to ignore reality that you will take the word of a known criminal with the lives of YOUR grandchildren on the line?

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"completely ignores the substance of the find, which is, that climate change is a FRAUD."

according to the criminal who broke into their systems to find evidence of fraud.

OK . . . .

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"the point was that the scientist (s) was a criminal."

And the accusation comes from . . . a criminal!

Slick point, there.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

as usual the liberal concentrates on the motivations and personalities of the involved. completely ignores the substance of the find, which is, that climate change is a FRAUD.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I like the way Palin bragged about having actual responsibilities during the campaign, and then promptly resigned those responsibilities after the campaign to concentrate on her celebrity-hood.

There's still time for her to release a Christmas album.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

the point was that the scientist (s) was a criminal.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Nate Silver's reason #7:

7. There are virtually no moderates left in the Republican base.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Palin is too into victimhood to ever get to be president. People go with a winner, not a whiner. If McCain hadn't put her on his ticket, she'd still be governor of Alaska. The fact is that she doesn't acknowledge that, that she has absolutely no appreciation or humility, she doesn't possess the American traits of hope and remaining positive at all times, something we always seem to want in our presidents.

Those of you who think Pawlenty is overrated are so right. He didn't so much win his last election as his opponent lost it with his own big mouth, and even then, it was close.

Posted by: gckarcher | November 20, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

You have to have Beck and Limbaugh in the top three of you want anyone to take your list seriously.

Of course, it's hard to take the GOP seriously with Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh as it's most influential and respected leaders. But it is what it is.

Posted by: nodebris | November 20, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

(of course she should be #1)

10 Reasons That Sarah Palin Could Win the Republican Nomination

by Nate Silver

1. Enthusiasm. People tend to see electorate through a one-dimensional lens, in which a fixed number of voters are trying to decide between two or more candidates. But that's not really how politics works, especially in primaries. Rather, the playing field is (at least) two-dimensional: people are not merely trying to decide whom to vote for, but also whether to vote at all. Because of the reach of her brand, Palin has the ability to engage the sorts of voters who might ordinarily stay at home. In the general election, that will include some voters who turn out to vote against her -- but that's less of a concern in the primaries.

2. 2010. Next November will probably be a happy night for Republicans and my guess the emergent c.w. will be that it occurred because of, rather than in spite of, the Republicans eschewing moderation in favor of (re)building their base. In reality, that case is likely to be highly circumstantial at best -- it might be that Republicans gain, I don't know, 26 House seats, but would have gained 33 if they'd run more to the center. But that won't prevent people from leaping to conclusions, and I expect those conclusions to tend to play favorably for Palin.

3. The other candidates are flawed. Mitt Romney has limited appeal to the evangelical base and is an unapologetically establishment candidate in a primary where anti-establishment sentiments are liable to prevail. Newt Gingirch has never been especially popular, has never won an election for any office higher than the U.S. House, and lost some street cred among conservative activists with his failure to endorse Doug Hoffman. Tim Pawlenty is unpopular in his home state, barely registering as a national candidate, and appears to suffer from Romney's flaw of running away from his record. Mike Huckabee, I think, is underrated, but the Club for Growth crowd will never like him, and his hokeyness could grow a little tiresome in the face of a year-long primary campaign.

4. The other candidates might not run. Although I doubt that Palin can clear the conservative half of the GOP field, someone like a Huckabee could very well decide to go ahead and let Palin run her course, re-entering the field in a 2016 climate that is liable to be more favorable to Republicans.

Posted by: JakeD | November 20, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

(cont.)

5. The media will be rooting for her. She's good for the bottom line; off the top of my head, I'd guess that an Obama versus Palin election would generate at least 20-30 percent higher ratings than Obama against Mystery Republican X. Also, some players in the liberal media may be rooting for her because they'll assume that a Palin win in the primary could give Obama an easier path toward re-election.

6. She's tough to campaign against. Why? Because any perceived or real slight against Palin is taken by her supporters as an example of sexism, elitism, or media bias; just wait until Huckabee or Romney makes their first impolitic comment about Palin in a debate or an interview and watch the sparks fly.

7. There are virtually no moderates left in the Republican base. Although, there may be a significant number of independents voting in some of the primary states, which makes things marginally harder for Palin than in election where many independents were sucked into the Democratic primaries.

8. Attempts by the Republican Establishment to neuter her may backfire. This is a corollary of #6 above. If the Establishment, owing to electability concerns or whatever else, tries to put hurdles in her way by re-structuring the primary or delegate allocation process, it may only play into the victimization complex of Palin and her supporters.

9. Parties tend to nominate more extreme candidates in elections against incumbents. This tendency is not all that robust, but you can find plenty of examples of parties nominating extremely liberal/conservative candidates in elections against incumbents, such as George McGovern, Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale, and Barry Goldwater. There are some counter-examples too -- Bill Clinton, arguably, and someone like Thomas Dewey if you want to go back that far -- but on balance, parties seem to nominate more extremist candidates in elections against incumbents than in open seat contests.

10. She gets new media; new media gets her. Conservative blogs love Palin, as do most of the shock jocks; they matter a great deal and may help Palin ...

Posted by: JakeD | November 20, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

way to focus on the part of the question that doesnt involve you trusting a criminal over a scientist. is that conservative orthadoxy?

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

the climate change that could hardly be more obvious

Smells like liberal orthodoxy. Science is obvious. anyone can do it. kind of like the military, the economy, etc. I think we see how that is turning out.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU, Britain's largest climate research institute and a proponent of global warming, and seems to have uncovered evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the "evidence" on global warming"
==
Lemmesee if I’ve got this straight. A HACKER (one who specializes in illegally accessing internet sites) illegally accessed a research institute (whose job is to track in detail, the climate change that could hardly be more obvious) and in this "your word against mine" dispute, you would bet the fate of all humankind in the one who breaks the law as a career? Is that what you're telling me?

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Why don't you do an expose on the health tasks committee which are changing the guidelines for health care..... Already.


What is going on here?

We are witnessing the beginnings of the attempt of Obama to introduce CENTRAL PLANNING into the health care economy, which is one seventh of the entire US economy.


Can you see where this is going?


In order to do what the liberals want, they have to introduce CENTRAL PLANNING - there is no other way. We all know where that leads.


One other note:


Every liberal I talk to ABSOLUTELY refuses to discuss the COSTS of the health care bill. It's like they simply do not care about the costs to the federal budget, or any fiscal responsibility.

They are NOT making history right now, they are making a mess. If someone wants to be a hero for the history books, figure out how to pay for what you want to do first.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 20, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The Fix continues to overrate Pawlenty. In a hypothetical 2012 matchup this week in a poll conducted in Minnesota, he lost to President Obama, roughly 50 to 40. In the same poll his approval rating was around 50, which seems to say: you may be OK as governor, but I don't want you as President in lieu of the incumbent. Put a different way, if the guy can't win his home state, is he really ready for national primetime as a mover 'n shaker in his party? Or is the bench so shallow that yes, he is?

Posted by: bsimon1 | November 20, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Ethics panel: Illinois senator used “inappropriate” and “less than candid” statements

However, since he's a Democrat, nothing will be done about it. business as usual.

See above no confidence poll.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

There's big news for climate change students. A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU, Britain's largest climate research institute and a proponent of global warming, and seems to have uncovered evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the "evidence" on global warming; the unlawful destruction of records to cover up this fraud ,conspiracy,and deceit in the entire operation

Meanwhile, FRAUD is the chicago way in all aspects of policy.


But the voters are getting the picture crystal clear:


President Obama will dip below 50% in Gallup's daily tracking poll for the first time today. The organization updates it's numbers at 1PM ET, but they've put out advance word this morning that Obama will dip below the half-way mark. Obama's current rating stands exactly at 50%, so assuming he drops to only 48% or 49%, the dip would be more symbolic than statistically significant.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

I certainly hope (for your sake) it's not those last few dollars you should have sent in that makes the difference in her decision not to run.

scrivener50:

It matters not to the "voices" (I guess) that I don't get paid to post here.

Posted by: JakeD | November 20, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I fondly recall that three years before the last election, the inclusion of a certain freshman Senator with almost no qualifications and being known mostly for giving a single speech would have induced a certain level of humor into the Line.

too bad the speechmaking and no qualifications pretty much still stands and is no longer that funny.

I noticed that the Onion has now mainstreamed the notion that Barry can't even talk to his own kids about homework without using the teleprompter. that's it; he's branded. Biggest decision ever - the dog. constant companion - teleprompter and speechwriters. Pretty much nothing else to see in this present-ident.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I fondly recall that three years before the last election, the inclusion of a certain freshman Senator with almost no qualifications and being known mostly for giving a single speech would have induced a certain level of humor into the Line.

too bad the speechmaking and no qualifications pretty much still stands and is no longer that funny.

I noticed that the Onion has now mainstreamed the notion that Barry can't even talk to his own kids about homework without using the teleprompter. that's it; he's branded. Biggest decision ever - the dog. constant companion - teleprompter and speechwriters. Pretty much nothing else to see in this present-ident.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse


"You, and everyone else who wants the GOP to be the minority for a long time, should therefore send your donations now and urge her to run."
==
Oh Jake, I’m sure there are plenty of kool-ade guzzling trailer-park inhabitants and rich corporate bosses who are more than happy to fill her campaign coffers. She doesn't need my money.

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, I just couldn't stop laughing when I saw that lineup ...

It's like they can't even find ANYONE to run for the Republic Party of No ...

are they SERIOUS?

Those aren't leaders - they're a joke.

Posted by: WillSeattle | November 20, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I supported Thune when he threw out the limp biscuit and am inclined to do so again.

Take note I correctly predicted McCain would pick Palin and am prepared to predict that Thune will easily beat Barry.

Much as I like Palin and admire her energy, I do not care for the playing of the victim card. that is for a liberals baliwick.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

TO: JakeD @ 1:33 pm.

Those voices in my head are telling me you're part of a taxpayer-funded psy op -- and they are screaming:

"WE DEMAND A REFUND! ROZ MAZER, ALERT THE DNI!"

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

Posted by: scrivener50 | November 20, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Hmm. Not bad, though I'd have Lindsay Graham on the line instead of Cornyn. Palin's a tricky choice. Everyone is talking about her--for those who will inevitably claim CC has a crush on Palin, she was topic one in about every political chat on the Post this week. That much having been said, a leader? More like what Obama was accused of being--a celebrity.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 20, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Yikes Both parties have a leadership gap - there are serious problems with our political system if this is who we are producing - the fundraising constraints are incredible.

One quick comment -


Many of these "leaders" appear to come from smaller states - states in which it is relatively easier to fundraise and thereby rise to the top.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | November 20, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I think you're man crush on Tim Pawlenty is the only thing that keeps him high on this list. Polls I've seen say most Republicans (voters and organizational types) don't think much of him compared to the company you have around him; your reference to him mattering perhaps a coming years makes the point - not yet. No matter, the Barbour Palin battle is going to be epic. I hope it will be as fun for us as the Clinton Obama battle was for those on the right.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

the important thing to note is that Mr. Obimbo would fall somewhere around 50 or 60 on this list. A lot of voters do not vote affirmitively, that is, they simply know that the loser in charge is not getting the job done and anyone else would be better.

consider this a preview of the next two elections. the best thing that could happen to this country next year is if the congress and Senate fall one seat short of Repub majority, all the better to place the blame for the disaster that is Liberal governance on the perps. then the final sweep of all ideas liberal can continue in 2012.

Posted by: ZOUK | November 20, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

You, and everyone else who wants the GOP to be the minority for a long time, should therefore send your donations now and urge her to run.

http://www.SarahPAC.com

Posted by: JakeD | November 20, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

woohoo is right. Republicans, if Sarah Palin is the best you've got, you guys are gonna be the minority for a long time. The sad thing is that she isn't. So maybe a better way of saying it is: if you continue to put this mediocre beauty contestant out front as if she IS the best you've got, you will be the minority for a long time.

Posted by: elijah24 | November 20, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

That's right, scrivener50: OBAMA has not solved your problems (and the voices in your head are just getting LOUDER). Best thing to do would be stay home on election day in protest!!!

Posted by: JakeD | November 20, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

DEMS' PROBLEM: TEAM OBAMA HAS NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH

Vt. Gov. Thomas says the pendulum has swung "too far?"

Isn't just the opposite true? The Obama administration has disappointed and alienated its core supporters, progressives and centrists alike, by failing to follow through and fight for the fulfillment of progressive campaign promises...

...chief among them, the restoration of civil liberties and human rights in an America that continues to do THIS:

SECRET MULTI-AGENCY FED PROGRAM TORTURES, IMPAIRS, PERSECUTES THOUSANDS OF U.S. CITIZENS WITH NATIONWIDE SILENT MICROWAVE/LASER WEAPONS SYSTEMS, LOCAL VIGILANTISM: VETERAN JOURNALIST

Did this program target, and help incite, the Ft. Hood shooter?

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

***
U.S. CENSORS THE NET AS OBAMA LECTURES CHINA ON NET CENSORSHIP

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-censors-net-while-obama-lectures-china-net-censorship

Posted by: scrivener50 | November 20, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

WOO HOO!!!

Posted by: JakeD | November 20, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company