Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Pennsylvania special election could be 2010 pivot point

For months, the conventional wisdom about the coming 2010 midterm elections has been that Republicans are not only poised to make major gains this fall but that they also have a realistic chance of taking the chamber back.

That CW gets put to its first major test on Tuesday when businessman Tim Burns (R) faces off against former congressional aide Mark Critz (D) in the special election to replace the late Rep. John Murtha (D).

Polling suggests the race is extremely close and the financial attention the southwestern Pennsylvania district is receiving from the two national parties as well as a slew of interest groups make clear the import the contest carries.

For Republicans, the race is simply a must-win.

While there are arguments to be made about the large party registration edge Democrats carry in the 12th and the fact that the special will coincide with statewide primaries where Democrats have far more competitive races than Republicans, the fact is that this is just the sort of culturally conservative swing district that the GOP must prove it can win to take back the House this fall.

Friday Line

A Republican win -- coupled with the party's likely triumph in a Hawaii special election four days later -- would be a hugely important symbol to the House Republican conference that the majority is actually in reach.

A loss, however, would hand Democrats a cudgel with which they could beat back the "House majority is in play" story line -- noting that Burns ran against President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and came up short.

To quote De La Soul: "Stakes is high".

Below, you'll find the top 30 House races likely to switch parties in the fall. The number one ranked race is the one we believe is the most likely to flip flop this November. As always, your kudos and critiques are welcome in the comments section.

30. California's 3rd district (Republican controlled): Dr. Ami Bera (D) continues to be one of the most impressive candidates in a tough year for Democrats. He already has nearly $1 million in the bank, compared to just $650,000 for Rep. Dan Lungren (R). (Previous ranking: N/A)

29. Nevada's 3rd (Democratic controlled): Recent endorsements from Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty may have something to do with the fact that state Sen. Joe Heck is running in a key presidential state. But they are also signs of how highly the national GOP thinks of Rep. Dina Titus's (D) opponent. (Previous ranking: N/A)

28. Arizona's 8th (D): Former state Sen. Jonathan Paton (R) made a statement with $500,000 raised in an abbreviated first quarter after getting in the race early this year, but he still faces a primary with Iraq veteran Jesse Kelly. And waiting in the general election is Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D), who has nearly $2 million in the bank. (Previous ranking: N/A)

27. Indiana's 9th (D): Republicans believe they got a break here when attorney Todd Young eked out a primary win against former Rep. Mike Sodrel . But Rep. Baron Hill (D) has proven to be a tough campaigner. After four straight battles with the usually well-funded Sodrel, Hill is 3-for-4, including a 20-point drubbing in 2008. (Previous ranking: N/A)

26. New Hampshire's 1st (D): Rep. Carol Shea-Porter's (D) unfavorable rating is higher than her favorable rating for the first time in her two terms, according to two Granite State polls conducted this year. The polls also show her losing to former Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta (R). Guinta faces a real primary, but it might have been a blessing as in the first quarter he finally started to live up to the expectations that were set for him. (Previous ranking: N/A)

25. Virginia's 5th (D): Rep. Tom Perriello's (D) district remains difficult, but Republicans are in the midst of a primary. National GOP favorite state Sen. Robert Hurt raised just $101,000 in the first quarter and he's dealing with a primary in which three of his opponents might have as much money as he does. Hurt should win the primary but until he does we are dropping the race down the Line. (Previous ranking: 15)

24. Michigan's 1st (D): Former Charlevoix County Commissioner Connie Saltonstall (D) stepped aside this week in favor of state Rep. Gary McDowell (D) -- a positive development for Democrats in this open seat. (Previous ranking: 17)

23. Virginia's 2nd (D): Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) endorsed car dealer Scott Rigell this week, a development that comes after a good first quarter of fundraising by the national GOP favorite. Rep. Glenn Nye (D), meanwhile, got a big break when the Navy delayed moving an aircraft carrier from his military district to Florida. (Previous ranking: 20)

22. Tennessee's 8th (D): Retiring Rep. John Tanner's (D) district is proving to be one of the big-money open seats this cycle. The problem for the GOP is that much of that money is going to be spent against its chosen candidate, gospel singer/farmer Stephen Fincher, in the primary. Dr. Ron Kirkland had a huge first quarter ($607,000 raised, $250,000 self-funded) and could really damage Fincher -- if not beat him in the August primary. And, state Sen. Roy Herron has already banked more than $1 million on the Democratic side. (Previous ranking: N/A)

21. West Virginia's 1st (D): Each party may have benefited from Tuesday's primary results. Republicans got their man in former state Del. David McKinley, while Democrats got state Sen. Mike Oliverio, who can more effectively run against Washington and doesn't have the ethical baggage of the man he beat in the primary, Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.). (Previous ranking: N/A)

20. Ohio's 15th (D): Despite supporting some abortion rights, former state Sen. Steve Stivers (R) lost very little support in his recent primary. That's a good sign for him, because the pro-life votes he lost to third-party candidates in 2008 may have cost him his race against Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D). Ohio Right to Life will announce its endorsements Monday, and Stivers, who has a mostly pro-life record, has sought its backing this time around. (Previous ranking: 16)

19. Ohio's 1st (D): Rep. Steve Driehaus (D) should be heartened by some recent Census data that indicates the rise in black turnout in 2008 was largely a Southern phenomenon. In a 28 percent black district, that means Driehaus may not necessarily lose too much of that key vote from his 2008 matchup with former Rep. Steve Chabot (R). (Previous ranking: 18)

18. Pennsylvania's 12th (D): A Susquehanna poll this week showed Critz up 44 percent to 38 percent but most see Tuesday's special election as a pure toss-up. (Previous ranking: N/A)

17. Idaho's 1st (D): This remains one of the two or three toughest districts held by Democrats -- if you go solely by presidential performance. But the GOP favorite, Iraq veteran Vaughn Ward isn't wowing and Rep. Walt Minnick (D) seems to grasp the challenge in front of him. (Previous ranking: N/A)

16. New York's 24th (D): Rep. Michael Arcuri (D) said he got the picture in 2008 when he nearly lost a race that Republicans barely targeted. Or not. Arcuri has one of the smallest bank accounts of any member of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's "Frontline" program, at less than $500,000. (Previous ranking: N/A)

15. New Mexico's 2nd (D): Former Rep. Steve Pearce has lived up to expectations as a solid candidate -- raising gobs of money and putting himself in position to win. But, Rep. Harry Teague (D) is paying attention and his significant personal wealth will keep him competitive. (Previous ranking: 10)

14. Illinois's 10th (R): National Republicans are high on businessman Bob Dold and we are already hearing rumblings that he is going to wow on the fundraising front. Still, this is a good Democratic seat and Dan Seals has name ID built up over his two past unsuccessful runs. (Previous ranking: 9)

13. Mississippi's 1st (D): State Sen. Alan Nunnelee isn't raising much money but the god news for national GOPers is that neither are his primary opponents or Rep. Travis Childers (D-Miss.). (Previous ranking: 14)

12. Colorado's 4th (D): State Rep. Cory Gardner (R) has effectively eliminated any serious primary opposition. Rep. Betsy Markey (D), meanwhile, is going to have to find a good way to explain her flip-flop on the health care vote. (Previous ranking: 12)

11. Indiana's 8th (D): Republicans (barely) got their preferred candidate out of last Tuesday's primary in the form of doctor Larry Bucshon. This southern Indiana seat tilts Republican, having given McCain 51 percent in 2008, and even Democrats acknowledge that state Rep. Trent Van Haaften is an unknown as a candidate. (Previous ranking: 11)

10. New York's 29th (D): Gov. David Paterson (D) saved this seat vacated by former Rep. Eric Massa (D) from a near-certain turnover by delaying the special election until Nov. 2. Still, the dynamic in Upstate New York is not likely to be a good one for Democrats and Republicans have the former mayor of Corning as their nominee. (Previous ranking: 8)

9. Florida's 8th (D): State Sen. Dan Webster's (R) decision to run for this seat after initially signaling a lack of interest won't sit well with the GOP candidates already running but it may not matter. Webster is a known commodity and the party's best chance of beating controversial Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.). (Previous ranking: N/A)

8. Maryland's 1st (D): State Sen. Andy Harris (R) may be slightly too conservative for this district but he will benefit from a Republican wind blowing nationally in the face of Rep. Frank Kratovil. (Previous ranking: 6)

7. Arkansas's 2nd (D): Former U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin is the odds-on Republican nominee to replace retiring Rep. Vic Snyder (D). Democrats have a crowded primary on Tuesday that may force a runoff if no one can take 50 percent. (Previous ranking: 7)

6. Hawaii's 1st (D): The DCCC's decision to cease spending in advance of the May 22 special election amounts to waving the white flag. Honolulu City Councilman Charles Djou (R) is now the strong favorite but the question is whether he can hold the seat in a one-on-one race in the fall. (Previous ranking: 13)

5. Kansas's 3rd (D): Democrats insist that Stephene Moore, the wife of retiring Rep. Dennis Moore (D), is a solid candidate who can keep this GOP leaning seat in their column. She remains politically unproven, however, and Republicans are aligning behind youthful state Rep. Kevin Yoder. (Previous ranking:5 )

4. Delaware's at-large district (R): Republicans have a primary between two wealthy businesspeople -- Michelle Rollins and Glen Urquhart -- that really makes it tough to build momentum against former Lt. Gov. John Carney(D) in this open seat. Sidenote: Urquhart is running a great campaign jingle at the moment. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. Louisiana's 3rd (D): Everyone is waiting on former state House Speaker Hunt Downer (R) to make up his mid about the race. And, he recently said he is "99.9 percent" sure he is running. If he's in, this southeastern Louisiana seat is a Republican pickup. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Louisiana's 2nd (R): President Obama won 75 percent in Rep. Joseph Cao's (R) 2nd district. 'Nuff said. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Tennessee's 6th (D): Former Rep. Bart Gordon's (D) departure in this Republican-leaning middle Tennessee district spells doom for his party. Republicans have a crowded August primary.
(Previous ranking: 1)

With Aaron Blake

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 14, 2010; 2:56 PM ET
Categories:  The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Whither the GOP kingmakers?
Next: Specter, Sestak try to close the deal in PA Senate race

Comments

"Burns will win anyway, at which time I am sure you will reverse your spin and tell us that it's not really that big a deal, because it's just a special election."


No, you have it backwards. If Critz wins, then it will just be another election. If Burns wins -- it will be HUGE, you see, it will mean the Rs will take every Senate and House seat in the whole country!

But in the end, it really is just another special election, with its own set of local issues. An important one here is that the demographic is one of the most elderly in the country, and they have been effectively terrifed by R propaganda into thinking Dems were trying to cut their Medicare, when in fact theywere trying to shore up the whole system.

But scare tactics can work, especially on the elderly, so that alone might give Burns the seat -- although like MA, it will likely revert to Dems next cycle in any case.

Posted by: drindl | May 17, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

shrink, I suspect it is "least bad" news. The free lunch from WW2 to 2000 was facilitated by the dollar as the currency of last resort. With the rise of the Euro, that free lunch was threatened. Like Britain, we could begin to see the day of austerity. But with the staggering blow to confidence in the Euro dealt by PIGS, the dollar is again the unrivaled currency of last resort. Thus we can have one or two more free lunches. Galbraith thinks this can go on AND ON, but you and I do not.

etpietro, because the CW as echoed by CC has been a Republican rising, the expectations inside the Beltway are spiraling to excess. Thence comes the excessive description that an ordinarily competitive D leaning district is a "must win" for the Rs. As you know, it is not. But it is a R "must win" for the CW.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 17, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

PA-12 is a seat that's been held by Democrats for about 100 years....but now it is a "must win" for Republicans???

Wow. That's impressive Chris Cillizza. I've seen centrifuges that don't spin as well as that.

Did Nancy Pelosi actually pay you to write that, or did she just promise you an interview after the election?


No matter. Burns will win anyway, at which time I am sure you will reverse your spin and tell us that it's not really that big a deal, because it's just a special election.

Posted by: etpietro | May 17, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

PA-12 is a seat that's been held by Democrats for about 100 years....but now it is a "must win" for Republicans???

Wow. That's impressive Chris Cillizza. I've seen centrifuges that don't spin as well as that.

Did Nancy Pelosi actually pay you to write that, or did she just promise you an interview after the election?


No matter. Burns will win anyway, at which time I am sure you will reverse your spin and tell us that it's not really that big a deal, because it's just a special election.

Posted by: etpietro | May 17, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Uh oh! No wait, this is good news, no its not its bad news, hard to tell anyway.


"China Boosts Holdings of US Treasury Debt by 2 Pct

By The AP
Published: May 17, 2010

Filed at 9:04 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- China boosted its holdings of U.S. Treasury debt for the first time in six months. That development could ease concerns that lagging foreign demand will force the U.S. government to pay higher interest rates to finance its debt.

The Treasury Department reports that China's holdings of U.S. Treasury securities rose by 2 percent to $895.2 billion, the first increase since last September.

Total foreign holdings of Treasury securities rose by 3.5 percent to $3.88 trillion."

Posted by: shrink2 | May 17, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Christ what a burnout case

Posted by: Noacoler | May 17, 2010 3:12 AM | Report abuse

We are still sitting here - waiting for Kagan to tell us whether she is a LESBIAN OR NOT ???


This really sounds like a bad SNL skit.

However - could this be some some sick twist on "don't ask - don't tell" - the policy that Kagan says she doesn't like at all.

Could it be that Kagan is doing here own version of "don't ask - don't tell" - however her attitude is - if it's OK for the military, then it is OK for the Supreme Court.


However, that is NOT her position - her position is to TO TELL.

So the hypocrisy is flying - but it is also a "stick-it-to-you" attitude - which no one cares to see in Washington.


Could it be this is ALL SOME AX TO GRIND BECAUSE KAGAN DID NOT GET HER WAY - SHE WASN'T ABLE TO KICK THE MILITARY OFF OF CAMPUS AT HARVARD ???


So, now she is PLAYING THIS GAME WITH THE NOMINATION PROCESS.

So, this is gay politics - and the TIFF OF THE GAY COMMUNITY TRUMPS THE CONSTITUTIONAL NOMINATION PROCESS ???

Is that the situation we are in???

This is amazing similiar to Obama's REFUSAL TO SIGN A RELEASE AND OPEN UP THE FILE IN HAWAII - AND SIGN A RELEASE TO OPEN UP THE SCHOOL TRANSCRIPTS.

ANY REASONABLE PERSON ON EARTH WITH NOTHING TO HIDE WOULD SIGN THE RELEASE ---

So, it is just an ATTITUDE PROBLEM - OR THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING.


YOU SEE - THE TIFFS OF THE LIBERAL AGENDA TRUMP ALL ELSE -

THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE POLITICAL SYSTEM TODAY - THE LIBERALS HAVE A COMPLETE LACK OF RESPECT FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

The liberals don't care what the nation says about health care - it is down your throat ? Bipartisanship ? They don't respect anyone.

IT IS A COMPLETE LACK OF RESPECT.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


What got into you ?? Why the change of heart ??? Something must of shocked you into this new thinking.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

The question is still hanging out there - why is the oil suspended below the suface of the water ?

Oil should float on the water.

The chemical disperants might be having some effect on the oil to keep it below the surface.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Uh, oh!

This Euro thing might bite us the same way Wall Street's "synthetic financial product" crisis bit them. Central banks can't just keep borrowing (printing money) forever.

"With the exception of wartime, “the public finances in the majority of advanced industrial countries are in a worse state today than at any time since the industrial revolution,” Willem Buiter, Citigroup’s top economist, wrote in a recent report." NYT

So who will force higher taxes and entitlement cuts? Republicans? No chance, all talk. Democrats? Heh, heh, n-e-v-e-r. The Health Care Industry Force Feeding bill is exhibit A.

Ok, so we'll wait, pretending election poses and rage rhetoric matters.

Then, one inauspicious day, austerity will be rammed through, railroaded, jammed and otherwise forced up our...or down our...either way, into our body politic by forces beyond our control.

It will be bad, but it seems like there is no other way to set sustainable economic growth in front of borrowing through until the next election. Earlier someone properly mentioned decadent government interest in bread and circus.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 16, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Moonbat


You are 100% about the cost of the green jobs.


However, what is the real cost of Mid East Oil ? Should we not add in all the security costs -


I agree with your assessment 100%

However, coal is dirty - I really don't want to expand nuclear because I don't trust it - no one remembers Three Mile Island or Chernobyl

What is left???

An interim policy would be to utilize all the offshore oil and coal which is produced in this country - and then gradually move into solar and wind.

I agree 100% that solar and wind may be 2 -3 TIMES more expensive than oil.


But do we want to get off Mid East Oil or not???


I am just throwing out all the options - and none are good.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Don't scold, mark. This is a weekend thread, don't you think it's a bit much to talk about a CD race fir three days?

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

A windpower advocate in France was confronted with the reality that windpower is an expensive, inefficient, money-losing proposition, and responded that wind energy is in fact profitable if you look at it a certain way.
"First, I would like to dispute the idea that Eolienne windmills aren't profitable. Once one adds all the subsidies and financial support the industry receives from the French government and the European Community, it is losing very little money."
And now you understand the economic justification behind green jobs.

Posted by: Moonbat | May 16, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Blame bush and spend like crazy

BINGO.

Posted by: Moonbat | May 16, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Let's play Ped Bingo

B. Raving attack on Palin
I. Attacks other posters she is ignoring
N. Everyone else is a racist
G. Up all night, no friends, no life.

Posted by: Moonbat | May 16, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


That is not true at all - all the volatile compounds are present - and the compounds in the oil separate as the oil rises from a mile down to the surface.

Some compounds dissolve in the water.

Much of the oil evaporates in the air - that is what they are smelling in New Orleans.

Only about a third to a half of the orginal oil volume is left - those are forming the tar balls -

A good chunk of these tar balls may be small and may be falling back down to the bottom of the Gulf.

Something is going on with this oil - it is not spreading out like was first thought - and also there is alot more oil than anyone thought.

I think the wind and the current is breaking up the oil alot more than anyone thinks.


They keep on saying that they were prefer calm seas for the booms to work - I think the exact opposite is true - the mixing and the oxidation is what is needed most.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to MM at 10:21AM for an on-topic post and a relevant link.

If I missed a relevant post by someone else, I apologize for having skipped oh so carelessly over, in my haste to find something - anything at all - pertaining to PA-12. :-)

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 16, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Unprocessed petroleum is about as volatile as wax, 37th.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

noa, you have to wonder whether Snowe and Collins--both of whom are regarded as "socialists" and traitors by the baggers--will make through the GOP primary when they're up for reelection. The Maine GOP platform is beyond idiotic. And Phalin is pushing the party beyond even the Maine craziness by calling for a revolt by all female "grizzlies."

==

dying in childbirth bearing the deformed child of a rapist is what Palin now calls "feminism."

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


The volatile organic compounds evaporate


what are you talking about


Sorry, this comment, and your comment at 8:12 - I thought you had taken your medication today.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Mexicans bring tourism money too, burnout.

More lost business. Cheer on.

Maybe elderly teabaggers on fixed incomes will make it up.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Think about it, 37th. Does spilled oil evaporate? No. It lays where spilled for months.

Tar balls are aromatic hudrocarbons, being separated from the aliphatics by differential solubility.

You could figure that out if you hadn't fried your brain.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Soon after Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed the measure last month, Mexico issued a rare "travel advisory" to its citizens warning them of possible harassment in the state.


_____________________________________

Ha haaa haaa haaHAAA HAAA HAAAA

Fine.

Is there any WAY the Mexican government can issue a "travel advisorty" for ALL the illegal aliens to AVOID THE UNITED STATES COMPLETELY ???

How about the Mexican government STOPPING ALL MEXICANS FROM GOING ACROSS THE BORDER ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


What percentage of the crude oil do you think evaporates out - and biodegrades - they are saying the "tar balls" are what is left.


I would imagine it is half to two-thirds disappearing.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

(hate-crazed bigoted junk omitted)

Posted by: Moonbat | May 16, 2010 5:52

another sick caricature of liberalism from a sick caricature of a human being, and of no concern

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

The CBO came out this week and said the cost of the health care bill will be raised by 115 billion. This bill is now over a trillion dollars and far excedes the deomcratic estimate.

==

Heavens!  Why, that's almost as much as nine months of Bush's Folly in Iraq!  

But unlike the BF-ing we've had so many years of (unless one counts delivering a major ally to Iran a good thing), HCR will actually do some good.  And will have benefits, including financial, that don't show up in the CBO.

* reduced absenteeism, better-treated people getting to work more, earning more, paying more in taxes (don't flinch, wingnuts, it's a good thing).

*  lot fewer people getting routine medical care at the emergency room, far and away the most expensive care there is, and passed onto taxpayers.  Not in the CBO

* fewer people succumbing to treatable ailments because they have regular access to doctors.

The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.  Relax.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Brigade at 7:11


You are 100% correct - the democratic estimates of the costs of medicare turned out to be 10 TIMES orginal estimates - 15 years later.

The democrats know perfectly well that the true initial costs are going to be closer to 3 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Everyone seems to forget about the $500 Billion transfer from Medicare - money that is basicaly SPENT TWICE -

and the $225 Billion "doctor fix" which is off-budget.


Yikes - let's all hope this monster gets repealed or declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL - because it is a FISCAL DISASTER.

UNPRECEDENTED FISCAL DISASTER - sorry Obama I forgot that everything you do is unprecedented.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

A De La Soul reference! I never would have seen that coming.

It's a dog eat dog competition (no doubt)
I'll be gone like you're wishin' (and I'm out)

Posted by: dognabbit | May 16, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

The CBO came out this week and said the cost of the health care bill will be raised by 115 billion. This bill is now over a trillion dollars and far excedes the deomcratic estimate.

Posted by: farmsnorton | May 16, 2010 6:29 PM
---------

Imagine what will happen when it's implemented and people actually start using it.

Posted by: Brigade | May 16, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

The CBO came out this week and said the cost of the health care bill will be raised by 115 billion. This bill is now over a trillion dollars and far excedes the deomcratic estimate.

Posted by: farmsnorton | May 16, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

OH YA THERE IS SOMEONE YOU CAN TRUST BILL CLINTON THE BIGGEST LIAR OF THEM ALL.

I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN !!!!!

WHAT A JOKE VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT !!!

Posted by: yourmomscalling | May 16, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

noa, you have to wonder whether Snowe and Collins--both of whom are regarded as "socialists" and traitors by the baggers--will make through the GOP primary when they're up for reelection. The Maine GOP platform is beyond idiotic. And Phalin is pushing the party beyond even the Maine craziness by calling for a revolt by all female "grizzlies."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 16, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Since no reasonable person could object to Arizona's SB 1070, the left has attacked it with a campaign of lies. Liberals all the way from unhinged Canadian moonbat Steve Nash to the Community Activist in Chief and the scuttling insect that serves as his Attorney General have been spreading outrageous falsehoods with the avid assistance of the establishment media.


The choice isn't just right versus left or even right versus wrong. It's sanity versus madness. The disease called liberalism will literally tear our society apart if it isn't turned back. A society that allows itself to be ruled by the likes of Obama, Holder, et al. simply won't hold together.

Posted by: Moonbat | May 16, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler is a better man than I am in every respect. I salute him.

Posted by: Brigade | May 16, 2010 4:41 PM

==

thanks for this admission. That took guts.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes I get down on Milbank because of the snark, but that column was brilliant. If a political party is aligning itself with the ridiculous then we MUST ridicule them. It becomes a responsibility.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 16, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

@broadwayjoe: the last time I heard anything about one world government it was in the Guiness Book of World Records, as the issue drawing less interest than any other.

Milbank places it somewhere behind the nudist rights movement.

The GOP in Maine must be a resounding echo chamber.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Poor lonely Ped.

Posted by: Moonbat | May 16, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Newt Gingrich tries to keep himself in the news too, probably hoping someone will take him seriously.  Analogous to Ron Paul, Gingrich does have some noteworthy ideas, but they are so diluted by a larger number of bad ones that the good ones don't matter.

His latest attempt at getting some ink: calling on President Obama to drop the nomination of Elena Kagan.  Yeah, that should work.  Kagan is headed for perfunctory confirmation, despite Republican eye-rolling and bed-wetting over her support of Harvard's position on military recruiting on campus.

Not content to wildly exaggerate Kagan's role, Gingrich goes on to shriek that Kagan accepted Saudi money, and instead of supporting the claim -- he can't -- he diverts into some characterizations of Saudi intolerance.  It's a tad ironic for a Republican to excoriate others for intolerance of homosexuals, but it's especially rich to do so on Fox News, whose second largest shareholder is Alwaleed bin Talal ... of Saudi Arabia.

Gingrich has neither honor nor shame.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote,
"jerk archetype #1: noisy, rigid, harshly opinionated...and almost always wrong (or just plain crazy)"

That sounds like Noacoler.

Posted by: Brigade | May 16, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

As I've predicted here in these comments, the waning of Obama's fame would lead to his making increasingly unhinged statements and stunts to stay in power. I must be clairvoyant.

(deleted the gibberish)

What a loathsome horrid creature

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 3:36 PM

-------

Amen.

Posted by: Brigade | May 16, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Biodegradation of oil happens over a scale of decades or centuries, not days or weeks. It is insignificant in this discussion.

Let's recap.

* loss of the entire Gulf fishing and shellfish industry, 40% of America's marine food

* loss of tens of thousands of jobs

* extinction of numerous marine and brackish species

* polluted beaches, contaminated water

Democratic response:

* blame Bush

Obama response:

* drill baby drill

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 2:54 PM

---------

Once a week or so you say something that half-way makes sense.

Posted by: Brigade | May 16, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

12B wrote "...being wrong does funny things to you, too. If your self image can't take being wrong, you break."

Not to be argumentative, but some people are better defended than others, they have ways of making being wrong fell ok, or at least, not their fault. And some people lack the neuro-psychological widget that allows for the possibility of being wrong.

On a related topic, from time to time, people on this blog may wonder, which kind of mean person is worse?

Is it jerk archetype #1: noisy, rigid, harshly opinionated...and almost always wrong (or just plain crazy) or is it,

jerk archetype #2: noisy, rigid, harshly opinionated and almost always correct?

In real life, the former can not generate or sustain friendships, the latter can only sustain asymmetrical friendships, with willing subordinates, like the sycophants Plato installs around Socrates in the five great Diologues.

But, while the former is more irritating, the latter generates more enemies. The reason perhaps, ignoring opinionated idiots is possible, with practice it becomes easy.
As for the latter, the Athenians decided Socrates needed to die. Guess they couldn't just ignore him.


Posted by: shrink2 | May 16, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

As I've predicted here in these comments, the waning of Palin's fame would lead to her making increasingly unhinged statements and stunts to stay in the news. I must be clairvoyant.

* she goes before the NRA and riles them up with "Obama would take away your guns if he could.". Utterly baseless, of course, is she trying to trigger an assassin?

* tells some antiabortion group that "mama grizzlies" are going to "take back America" in November

* appears with craven opportunist Jan Brewer and says "we're all Arizonans now," a string of unhinged junk about retaliating to widespread boycotts of AZ all over America

and she has another with-book on the way, of course. Probably 400 blank pages, which wingnuts will go without dinner for a week to buy anyway. Kinda like paying union dues.

What a loathsome horrid creature

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

...Just in case Fix didn't get his Sunday Post today. Here's an excerpt from a piece by his former co-video producer Dana Milbank about--what else?--the folly of the teabagger phenomenon and attendant GOP extremism.
_____________

Milbank:

"Less well known, but equally ominous, is what happened that same day, 2,500 miles east in Maine. There, the state Republican Party chucked its platform -- a sensible New England mix of free-market economics and conservation -- and adopted a manifesto of insanity: abolishing the Federal Reserve, calling global warming a "myth," sealing the border, and, as a final plank, fighting "efforts to create a one world government."

One world government? Do our friends Down East fear an invasion from the Canadian maritime provinces? A Viking flotilla coming from Iceland under cover of volcanic ash?"
______________________

What Phalin-Bachman-Beck-Dale Robertson madness.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 16, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Biodegradation of oil happens over a scale of decades or centuries, not days or weeks. It is insignificant in this discussion.

Let's recap.

* loss of the entire Gulf fishing and shellfish industry, 40% of America's marine food

* loss of tens of thousands of jobs

* extinction of numerous marine and brackish species

* polluted beaches, contaminated water

Republican response:

* blame Obama for the Bush favoritism to industry

* protect BP from liability

* spin it oppositely... drill baby drill

* tell lots of lies

Now methhead 37th is an environmental chemist?

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I think the key difference between the Exxcon Valdez and this spill is TEMPERATURE - this oil is going to break up and biodegrade alot faster.

The calculations are all over the place

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

The basic truth of the matter is that it was OBAMA who was issuing permits over the past year WITHOUT THE USUAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY REVIEWS.


And Obama came out in favor of EXPANDED DRILLING.

AND Obama took almost a million dollars from BP.

So for Obama to point his finger and say he doesn't like the finger pointing........


Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

The scientist on CNN studied the tape of the leak at the bottom - and calculated the leak was closer to 70,000 barrels a day - rather than the 5,000 barrels a day.
-----------------------------
Don't know about 70,000 bbl/day. I've been reading that the pressure at the well head is only 60,000 bbl/day.

In any case, there seems to be widespread disbelief that it is only 5,000 bbl/day.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 16, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

So the market is expecting 26 Billion in costs relating to the oil spill.
---------------------------------
More than that. Transocean (RIG) stock is also down nearly 40% or another $7b. Don't know about Halliburton and other partners of BP.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 16, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The scientist on CNN studied the tape of the leak at the bottom - and calculated the leak was closer to 70,000 barrels a day - rather than the 5,000 barrels a day.

If one breaks that down to gallons per hour - or even gallons per minute -

Then the scientist is probably much closer to the correct figure.


On the other side of the equation, the oil is breaking up -

Crude oil is a mixture of compounds - the lighter compounds are evaporating and biodegrading - the heavier compoungs are staying - that is why you hear about "tar balls" - they are the heavy compounds.


The chemicals help accelerate this process.


So, maybe a half - or even two thirds of the total volumn is gone after that process - it is difficult to tell.

The waves help ALOT - the movement of the sea - the media is not really reporting that correctly - if the water was perfectly calm, the spill might be twice as large.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

12bar and shrink2


In the days after the oil spill, BP's stock fell a total of 26 Billion in market capitalization - you can view that as the liability which wall street assessed to the spill.


So the market is expecting 26 Billion in costs relating to the oil spill.


If it looks like it will be up or down from that estimate, it will show up in the stock price.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 16, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Gulf oil spill and naivete divert attention from shadow gov't atrocities against American citizens...

HOMELAND FUSION CENTERS SILENTLY ASSAULT, IMPAIR 'TARGETED' AMERICANS WITH CELLULAR MICROWAVE RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION WEAPON SYSTEM, COMMUNITY VIGILANTISM, FINANCIAL SABOTAGE: VETERAN JOURNO

All of those cell towers you see all over America are NOT all for phone calls.

Some of them are TORTURE TOWERS -- part of a nationwide microwave/laser radio frequency "directed energy weapon" system that is being used by operatives of the multi-agency Homeland Security-run "fusion center" network to silently torture, impaiir, and physically and neurologically degrade the functioning and well-being of extrajudicially, unjustly '"targeted" citizens.

And apparently, the genocidal use of this precision-targeted domestic weapon system to attack and harm U.S. citizens is being done WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF CONGRESS or high state officials.

When will President Obama get a grip on a rogue bureaucracy commandeered by Bush-Cheney leave-behinds?

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR NowPublic.com/scrivener re: "Obama: Take Down Fusion Center Gestapo..."

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 16, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

They are sinking the disaster not just for cosmetic reasons. It serves to conceal the damage and also apparent size of the disaster the ultimate measure of their liability?

After all, if they can pretend it is smaller than Exxon Valdez, why would they have to pay more?

Posted by: shrink2 | May 16, 2010 10:06 AM
-------------------------------------
I read that the cost of the spill is only 3 days profit for BP. I don't know the math, but my intuition is that this is wrong. I think the cost is large, very large, and that BP and partners are in fact worried existentially, as you suggest.

The only tactic left to BP is to obfuscate. They can't deny, they can't minimize, they can't weasel out in any way. What can't be seen, can be denied, minimized and weaseled.

I wouldn't be surprised that the underwater dispersants are doing their damage. No good will come out of this for anyone.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 16, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I really don't know the objective in Afghanistan. The America-haters don't seem to care where they find safe haven, and they seem to be welcome about anyplace they hang their hats.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

---

I can help you with that one. The analogy is to handling a chronic disease. Say, HIV. One doesn't cure HIV, but it isn't a quick death sentence anymore.

Back from metaphor land. The point is to keep hitting them so that they cannot have large scale organized camps such as existed in Afghanastan under the Taliban. Instead of coordinated attacks such as 9/11, you get half-assed attacks such as the undie bomber and the Time Square bomber. The alternative would have been coordinated bombs in Times Square, the National Mall, Wall Street, and Grand Central Square in LA.

There's also an element of squeezing the balloon. Why continue in Afghanistan when the Taliban in Pakistan is the greater danger? They went over the border once. Nothing to keep them from going back over the border again.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 16, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I heart Frank Rich, he sure is good at Republican Ridicule.

This "Family Research Council" founder's Rentboy.com scandal is hilarious. In a way, the Republican "family values" hate preachers are all alike, but each time they do this, it leaves us shocked, shocked I tell you.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 16, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday's Johnstown, PA newspaper printed an article about the elections on Tuesday that included a series of random man-on-the-street interviews. They spoke to a couple of middle-aged white guys in ball caps, an older couple of about 70, and two middle-aged black men. The tally was Critz 6, Burns 0.

Burns is offering the PA 12th CD nothing but smaller government and lower taxes (for someone else, not them). No one in the interviews mentioned taxes as an issue. They mentioned the opportunity to create better local jobs, knowledge of their community and an understanding of Washington as reasons for voting for Critz.

Burns (and the GOP) is making the same mistake Hoffman made in NY 23rd CD. These rural areas, spotted with small towns, know that less gov't and lower taxes are not a winning proposition for them and they will not be sending Burns to Congress.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 16, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

12B in addition to heritage, the provenance of my interest in the oil disaster includes a BS in Biological Oceanography (an odd pre-med degree and if it weren't for David Stockman, who wiped out the NOAA grant I was to work on in grad school, I probably never would have gone to medical school). I worked on some arcane deep water and benthic studies in the North Pacific. Some of my old friends in the ocean science world are convincing me this oil should stay on the surface and the use of these detergents is going to create a biological disaster far worse than the spectacle of oil blobs on Pensacola's pretty white sand.

They are sinking the disaster not just for cosmetic reasons. It serves to conceal the damage and also apparent size of the disaster the ultimate measure of their liability?

After all, if they can pretend it is smaller than Exxon Valdez, why would they have to pay more?

Posted by: shrink2 | May 16, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Dickster fun facts

* it's "cheeny," not "chainy."

* the Laffer curve that led Reagan to shoot craps with the US economy was written on Cheney's cocktail napkin.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 3:20 AM | Report abuse

@12:

there is also the corroboration that Cheney tells a
lot of other lies, e.g. saying that the welcomed as liberators prediction was "substatially correct," which is nonsense.

When he said that Obama seeks to "restructure American society" he was literally hyperventilating. I think he worries that liberals with clearances are fully aware that he lied us into war and that he might be headed to prison.

He shows such contempt for anything like humanitarian concerns.

Old man or not, I would be very satisfied if Dick Cheney went to the gallows.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 1:15 AM | Report abuse

@noacoler,

For the first time, I've come to grips with my inner feelings about the invasion and the factors leading up to it. I WANT to give Cheney the benefit of the doubt, because I want to be that kind of person. But, I've been thinking over "what doubt" am I giving him. Actually, I don't really have any doubt that he played a part in the national deception, if not a central role. And what has absolutely convinced me? His behavior since. Every fiber of my B'ull Sh'it Meter goes off the scale whenever I hear him repeat the lies. Because, it totally clear now that the "facts" he continues to spout are not true. Every time he says there were WMD, I feel sick for him.

I used to work for a CEO, who was a founder. He brought in venture money, then couldn't execute the growth strategy to satisfy them. He blamed everyone, the VC's, his team, the customers, the product, the engineers--everyone but himself. It was strange to watch someone go from being a good solid guy who was running a pretty successful small business, to a pathological liar. I used to say that if the CEO told the Board what time it was, I'd check my watch.

Finally, the Board had to fire him, and I suspect it ruined his life.

Stress does funny things to people and being wrong does funny things to you, too. If your self image can't take being wrong, you break.

I think Cheney has broken, and that's why he robotically repeats his story.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 16, 2010 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Since the actual intel didn't support invasion, Cheney formed his own commission to make a case for invasion. We know now with certainty that invasion was not justified. So why did Cheney gather his Israel-first team to make a case on unreliable informants, liars, and psychotics?

Was it because he couldn't accept the intel? Doubtful. The guy had maximal clearance.

Or was it because he was determined to invade. And wanted to gin up a knowingly false case for invasion?

Giving him the benefit of that doubt means ignoring a lot if what has come since. And ignoring our own recollections.

Brigade, I think if you could make a case for the former you wouldn't be trying to toss up all these tangents and distractions about wire brushes and Elvis. And then there remains the energy conference with Ken Lay, when Lay salivated over access to Iraqi oil.

We'll probably never know the real reasons, but I'd need some evidence before I would believe anything but that we were deliberately lied into war.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 16, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

I really don't know the objective in Afghanistan. The America-haters don't seem to care where they find safe haven, and they seem to be welcome about anyplace they hang their hats.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 11:23 PM
-----------------------------------
Reaching WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back in my memory, the initial objectives in Afghanistan were to take the Taliban out of power (done, I guess) and find Bin Laden (not done). Those objectives are as complete as they are going to be.

Obviously, we have different objectives now, otherwise why be there? The landscape in the Middle East has changed since we invaded Iraq.

Taking out Saddam strengthened Iran. Pakistan has become destabilized. Israel is nervous, and so are the Arabs. Although we were warned that invasion would destabilize the ME, we did it anyway. The idea of planting a seed of democracy in the ME was a great idea--just appears that it didn't work.

Does that justify an eternal armed presence in Afghanistan? Someone would have to convince me of it.

Does that signal we should fold our tents and leave Karzai to his own deserts, which would take place before midnight on the day we leave? Probably doesn't make sense to just hand Afgh. back to the Taliban and undo the only objective we actually met. Although, I could be convinced to pay even that price.

What blend of overt & covert action makes sense? Again, if I were fully briefed, I could make that determination. Until then, I have two choices: back President Obama for a while or invite the R's back for another swag at it. I opt for the former.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues wrote,
"Or I could believe a more moderate view, that they were all reinforcing each other's fears and living in an echo chamber.

But they should have known better."

Something we can agree on.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 11:16 PM
---------------------------------
On my most charitable days, I believe the more moderate view. But every time Cheney gets on a talk show and reiterates the phoney baloney, I start suspecting this guy was a lot less innocent. He sounds too much like a defendant.

Bob McNamara finally admitted he was wrong about Vietnam and God bless him for doing so. Dick Cheney should follow Bob McNamara's example, and then I may give him the benefit of the doubt as to his original intentions.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

You seem to have a well defined idea of what should be done. What is it?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 11:14 PM

-------

Noacoler tells me I never have well defined ideas. But I do believe in the Powell doctrine. Know your objective. Go in with overwhelming force. Achieve your objective. And get the hell out.
I really don't know the objective in Afghanistan. The America-haters don't seem to care where they find safe haven, and they seem to be welcome about anyplace they hang their hats.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues wrote,
"Or I could believe a more moderate view, that they were all reinforcing each other's fears and living in an echo chamber.

But they should have known better."

Something we can agree on.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

And we're stuck in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 11:03 PM
----------------------------------
You seem to have a well defined idea of what should be done. What is it?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

I didn't say Cheney didn't lie. All politicans lie. The difference is, I know it---but you are under the impression that only Republicans lie. If you want to believe that Bush and Cheney fabricated all of the evidence on Iraq, go right ahead. But please don't do it with a straight face while making fun of other conspiracy theories.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 10:49 PM
---------------------------
I don't think that ONLY Republicans lie. They all lie. But they don't lie all the time. The art is knowing when. Since we are cursed with politicians, we have to take our chances on the best of the lot.

Well, SOMEONE fabricated the evidence on Iraq. And the lies came out of the mouth of the administration, most memorably Dick Cheney, C. Rice, GW and Colin Powell. Now, I could believe they lied or I could believe in some conspiracy that some higher power put them all in a trance and brainwashed them.

Or I could believe a more moderate view, that they were all reinforcing each other's fears and living in an echo chamber.

But they should have known better.

You wonder why I wouldn't vote in another R? It's because the backoffice team would come back on the scene: Rove and Pearl & Co. who got us into this. Being willing to have them back is like inviting back the management team who took your company bankrupt.

In another 20 years, when there is no chance THESE fools would come back, maybe I would vote R.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama will also suffer if he doesn't wind down this fiasco and find another way to protect our strategic interests.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 10:56 PM

-------

I'm glad you said that. He asked for the job, and he should be judged on whether or not he can handle it. Al Qaeda is supposedly operating in Iran now, even though it's a Sunni organization. The taliban is operating in Pakistan. These people recognize no borders; they're just lines on someone else's map. And we're stuck in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote
"Republicans did get us into Iraq, which is what we're discussing in the interstices of your frantic attempts to change the subject to 'Obama is bad.'"

I missed the Democratic filibuster during the vote to authorize. Sorry.
And the subject isn't 'Obama is bad.'
It's 'Obama is stupid and inept.' But if you keep talking about Bush and Cheney maybe no one will notice. Right?
You're going to need a wire brush to get all that boot black off your tongue.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

1. Yes, Democrats were dummies to believe the administration.

2. Obama is not Johnson. Just because they are both Democrats and both are War Presidents, isn't by itself, particularly instructive.

3. We ARE in Pakistan, just not officially. That is facilitated because we are next door.

4. We are not looking "out" for Pakistan. We are looking into Pakistan.

5. I'm not recommending anything because I don't know enough to make an intelligent recommendation. I refuse to shoot from the lip.

6. You just seem angry that you can't inflame me. Believe me, I'm not so easily led. I am perfectly capable of determining the base cause of the situation we find ourselves in. Obama will also suffer if he doesn't wind down this fiasco and find another way to protect our strategic interests.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

"And you're going to get him by fighting a war in a country he fled nine years ago. Good work.

Posted by: Brigade"

Um, yeah, you're going to blame people then for not complaining about what the situation would be nine years later?

Well, it's a free country. Have fun with that.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Nobody said Republicans did 9/11, though it would be pretty shoddy police work to ignore so clear a motive. Republicans did get us into Iraq, which is what we're discussing in the interstices of your frantic attempts to change the subject to "Obama is bad."

Try to keep up.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 15, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Brigade has made it clear that he doesn't believe that Cheney & Co. lied.

I don't know what to say. Hardly seems worthy of further comment.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 10:32 PM

---------

I didn't say Cheney didn't lie. All politicans lie. The difference is, I know it---but you are under the impression that only Republicans lie. If you want to believe that Bush and Cheney fabricated all of the evidence on Iraq, go right ahead. But please don't do it with a straight face while making fun of other conspiracy theories.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues wrote,
"God, man, do you think I would actually award Republicans who got us into this, another chance?"

Republicans were behind 9/11? Or maybe you mean the vote authorizing the Iraq war? Gee, I thought a lot of Democrats voted for it; but they get a pass because they were just dummies outwitted by GW?
Hindsight is always 20/20, but I never saw any group of people take more credit for it than the dimwit Democrats in Congress.

Or maybe you mean because Bush was a Republican you can't trust any Republican. Johnson was a Democrat, but you trust Obama.

"It is incumbent upon those who criticize to have solutions. That includes us. We have a problem with Pakistan, when Bin Laden supposedly resides. Do I recommend declaring was on Pakistan. NO, do you? Do I recommend pulling out and leaving Pakistan on its own? No, do you? I DON'T have the answers. I'd like to think if I were fully briefed, I would at least know the basic tradeoffs. But I'm not and I don't."

We have a problem with Pakistan? Where Bin Laden resides? So we're going to do exactly what? Pulling out and leaving Pakistan on its own? What does that mean?
We aren't in Pakistan, we're in Afghanistan. Are you recommending an open-ended commitment? We just stay in Afghanistan forever so we can look out for Pakistan? You say you don't have the answers. I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Obama does either. And people are dying every day.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

This reminds me of having moonbat et al say that the stock market went down in 2008 because they knew Obama was going to be elected. And that it has been going up ever since then because Republicans will regain the White House.

He's entitled to his opinion, but his views would get a big laugh down on the floor of the NYSE.

I've been an investor for a long time, and have made a fair amount of money, and NEVER have I factored in the party in power. And that includes either parties. Maybe I've been missing the boat, but the proof is in the pudding.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

You exhbit impulse control problems of clinical magnitude, Brigade. Very tiresome.

The intelligence didn't support invasion, so Cheney concocted his own. That's a matter of record.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 15, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse


Nice column Chris. You did your homework for sure. But no one really read it, eh?

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 15, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Brigade has made it clear that he doesn't believe that Cheney & Co. lied.

I don't know what to say. Hardly seems worthy of further comment.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote
"Conspiracy crap is an attempt to throw up distractions. Only a fanatically loyal Republican willing to lie (some distinction) would deny that were knowingly lied into Iraq."

I know. I know. And we really were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin; Elvis is alive; Marilyn shot JFK; Bill Clinton had Vince Foster murdered; John Kerry lost the 2004 election because a Republican rigged the voting machines in Ohio; Al Gore was robbed in 2000---he didn't really lose because the US Supreme Court stopped a renegade Florida court from stealing the election with a count-till-you-win scheme; the moon landing was faked; the holocaust never happened; 9/11 was an inside job; Obama was born in Kenya; Bush/Cheney lied us into Iraq---oh, but that's where we came in.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

If you think we should clear out of Afghanistan, shouldn't you be a little more vocal in your protests? People are dying. Anti-war protestors didn't give Johnson a pass just because he had a 'D' after his name. Yet most of you here seem all set to award Obama a second term no matter what happens in the Middle East.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 10:06 PM
-----------------------------------
It is incumbent upon those who criticize to have solutions. That includes us. We have a problem with Pakistan, when Bin Laden supposedly resides. Do I recommend declaring was on Pakistan. NO, do you? Do I recommend pulling out and leaving Pakistan on its own? No, do you? I DON'T have the answers. I'd like to think if I were fully briefed, I would at least know the basic tradeoffs. But I'm not and I don't.

I don't hold Obama responsible yet. And yes, I will give him another term. Good God, man, do you think I would actually award Republicans who got us into this, another chance?

BTW, I'm old enough to have been an anti war protestor, but I wasn't one. I have always held this silly belief that if you don't know all the facts, you're probably not in a position to make the best decisions. Just me.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues wrote,
"It isn't only liberals who don't talk about Afghanistan/Iraq, neither do conservatives. In fact, no one does. The media have pulled their reporters. When is the last time you've seen something on the front page about the war?"

Conservatives don't talk about it because they're mostly in favor of the policy, with the exception of a few heretics like Will, Buchanan and maybe me. Democrats don't talk about it because their guys in charge, and they don't want to wound him. You can bet your life they'd be screaming if there was a Republican in the White House following the same policy.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

It isn't only liberals who don't talk about Afghanistan/Iraq, neither do conservatives. In fact, no one does. The media have pulled their reporters. When is the last time you've seen something on the front page about the war?

The fighting goes on, but there is no debate over the causes, reasons, players, etc. History has been written.

If Obama doesn't get us the heck out of there over the next few years, his history will be tarnished, too. But, we all know he's not the one who got us there.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Liberals have this weird hangup about getting the guy who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. We're just unpatriotic that way.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2010 10:02 PM
-------

And you're going to get him by fighting a war in a country he fled nine years ago. Good work.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Conspiracy crap is an attempt to throw up distractions. Only a fanatically loyal Republican willing to lie (some distinction) would deny that were knowingly lied into Iraq.

I have no idea what Obama hopes to achieve in Afghanistan. I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt for throwing good money after bad. I think we should pull out and let Karzai end up with his head on a stick, he's just a Unocal suit anyway.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 15, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

And as far as talking about Nixon and Cambodia, who's doing that? We're talking about the war we are IN. Right now.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 9:57 PM

---------

Then let's talk about the guy who's president right now. It's his war now, especially Afghanistan. He asked for the job---said he had all the answers. We've already held Bush accountable. He's gone. If you think we should clear out of Afghanistan, shouldn't you be a little more vocal in your protests? People are dying. Anti-war protestors didn't give Johnson a pass just because he had a 'D' after his name. Yet most of you here seem all set to award Obama a second term no matter what happens in the Middle East.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

"I just used Cheney/Iraq as an example. Nutty conspiracies only seem like nutty conspiracies to people who don't believe them. Once you've swallowed it, it isn't a nutty conspiracy anymore. That's why people keep fabricating them; there's always a market.

Posted by: Brigade"

Odd example. Of all the conspiracy theories out there, you pick one that has been pretty well substantiated.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

"since liberals are still fussing about Bush and Iraq (where we still have lots of troops) but never have much to say about Afghanistan."

Liberals have this weird hangup about getting the guy who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. We're just unpatriotic that way.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to the Messiah meter, both noacoler and I are far from worshiping at the altar. Noa is probably more critical than I am, but we both have expressed criticism at the Obama administration. I can't even imagine how you would get that idea.

And as far as talking about Nixon and Cambodia, who's doing that? We're talking about the war we are IN. Right now.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

I guess you wouldn't work for the CIA if you weren't a conspiracy theory nut in some sense, even if the conspiracy included yourself...

right?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2010 9:51 PM |
-------

I just used Cheney/Iraq as an example. Nutty conspiracies only seem like nutty conspiracies to people who don't believe them. Once you've swallowed it, it isn't a nutty conspiracy anymore. That's why people keep fabricating them; there's always a market.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"Obama didn't get us into Afghanistan, Brigade."

Nixon didn't get us into Vietnam. I guess he's off the hook.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

"Agreed. Including all the nonsense about Cheney and his co-conspirators at the CIA fabricating evidence in 2003.

Posted by: Brigade"

I guess you wouldn't work for the CIA if you weren't a conspiracy theory nut in some sense, even if the conspiracy included yourself...

right?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Why are we so obsessed with what happened seven years ago when we are mired in Afghanistan? Shouldn't we be more worried about what's ahead than what's behind.
-----------------------------------
Obsessed? Think of Afghanistan as the fruit of the mistakes of the past. I don't consider it obsessed at all to keep the problems of today in their historical context. We didn't just accidentally find ourselves in the no-win situation we're in.

It may feel like obsession to you, but not to me. I'm a fairly moderate person and do not easily go to the Blame Game. But, I'd have to be brain dead not to place the blame at the feet of the folks who brought us here. I have nothing but sympathy for the current administration who has to try to bring an honorable end to the mess we're in.

And yes, we do have to concentrate on what is ahead of us.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama didn't get us into Afghanistan, Brigade. Defend the escalation. Me? I've written vehemently against.

You can take that "Messiah" BS and I dint need to tell you where you can stick it.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 15, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, that was incoherent. Only thing I can make out is that you're trying to change the subject to Obama. Take a number.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 15, 2010 9:35 PM

Let me make help you digest. Bush gone. Obama president. Obama going all in---Afghanistan. Why? Rather talk about Nixon's bombing of Cambodia?

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, Dick Cheney keeps popping up to vehemently defend himself, for the most obvious reason. He needs the defense.


Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 9:25 PM

-------

Why are we so obsessed with what happened seven years ago when we are mired in Afghanistan? Shouldn't we be more worried about what's ahead than what's behind. Some people who are going to die in Afghanistan are still alive today. Obama's main military man said the other day that things are sort of a stalemate in Afghanistan. Nobody's really winning. You keep picking Cheney's stories apart; now let's start on Obama and Biden---if we're really acting on principle and not simply playing political football.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, that was incoherent. Only thing I can make out is that you're trying to change the subject to Obama. Take a number.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 15, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"I don't think anyone was ready in 2003 to cross the Rubycon of believing that President Bush was a liar, much less so despicable a liar as to send his country to war for vain personal reasons."

Even he realized Osama and his buddies had fled Afghanistan. Who's tripled down there? Tell me again what we're doing there---saving Karzai? . . . oh, wait, I guess we're fighting in Afghanistan because the bad guys are in Pakistan . . . ??? . . . or maybe . . . ?

Well, no matter. Wars stopped costing money when Obama was elected, and people stopped dying in them. At least that's what you'd think, since liberals are still fussing about Bush and Iraq (where we still have lots of troops) but never have much to say about Afghanistan. No more extended tours of duty? No more back door drafts? I think some of you really do think Obama is the Messiah. I'm not sure what vain personal reasons prompted Bush, but maybe someone would like to stick up for the current Commander in Chief? No?

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

12bar, I don't think anyone was ready in 2003 to cross the Rubycon of believing that President Bush was a liar, much less so despicable a liar as to send his country to war for vain personal reasons.

Of course, when it comes to blaming their own, there are no hoops that loyal Republicans won't jump through to avoid it.

More like the arsonist excoriating the fire department for water damage.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 15, 2010 9:11 PM
--------------------------------
I agree. We had just been attacked. I remember the headlines around the world "We are all Americans now". There was tremendous indulgence to believe whatever the administration said. Although, there was a minority who was skeptical that the administration was spinning, very few went so far as to say they were deliberately lying.

These many years later, we no longer believe the administration, at least as represented by Dick Cheney et al, were innocently misled. There is too much evidence to show they were driving to a foregone conclusion, and facts were not going to dissuade them. And that is a very charitable explanation.

In my opinion, Dick Cheney keeps popping up to vehemently defend himself, for the most obvious reason. He needs the defense.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

12bar, I don't think anyone was ready in 2003 to cross the Rubycon of believing that President Bush was a liar, much less so despicable a liar as to send his country to war for vain personal reasons.

Of course, when it comes to blaming their own, there are no hoops that loyal Republicans won't jump through to avoid it.

More like the arsonist excoriating the fire department for water damage.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 15, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

@noacoler,

It's interesting to readdress the decision to pursue war against Iraq. Like you, I fault Cheney who relied on Chalabi, who as I recall, the CIA considered a con artist. It's hard to find justification to wholeheartedly believe a guy who your own intel disbelieves. If that qualifies as believing in a conspiracy, then count me as a conspiracist.

Cheney shouldn't have believed Chalabi, and his conservative allies shouldn't have believed him either. At the very least, they should have been highly skeptical, which they were not.

To somehow explain Cheney's poor judgment away by saying the Democrats also believed the ruse, is pretty pathetic. That's like the lying husband excusing himself, because his "stupid" wife believes his lies. What?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


The democrats rushed to that war too -

they are the ones who threw their principles aside so they could be seen with the winning side.

AND THEN after people had died on the battlefield, the democrats turned their backs on the people who had risked their lives.

That was stomach-turning.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 15, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Agreed. Including all the nonsense about Cheney and his co-conspirators at the CIA fabricating evidence in 2003.

==

(sigh)  Not all of us are willing to commit Orwellian memory edits to conform with ideology.  Did you not live through that time?  Do you not remember the rush to war, the savagery directed even at those counseling caution and better certainty?  Remember the belittlement of Hans Blix?  Remember Rumsfeld's pronouncements on the location of weapons factories?  Remember Cheney's August 27 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars?  "There is no doubt .... there is no doubt .. there is no doubt."

We were railroaded into an expensive and damaging folly of a war because Bush and Cheney wanted it.  Cheney had his own weird reasons, which were probably insane, literally, incomprehensible to logical people.  Bush probably just wanted to think of himself as a tough guy.

And it wasn't Cheney and the CIA, it was Cheney and his hand-picked Israel-loyal minions .. Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrahms, Richard Perle.  They discarded reliable intelligence that didn't support their intent and relied instead on that impresario Ahmed Chalabi, doing Iran's bidding, on informants known to be unreliable and at least one known to be insane.

It wasn't a conspiracy, it was deliberate deception that has resulted in the loss of trillions of dollars, the deaths of thousands of American servicemen, the maiming and mors ontologica IED brain-damaging of many times that number, for which Cheney would have hung by the neck in any rational system of justice.

And you defend all this.  

Posted by: Noacoler | May 15, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse


Yea, the quality of the postings goes way up when I'm not around....... NOT.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 15, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

I wish some pollsters would go back and try to determine the attitudes of the 21% who are more likely to support offshore drilling. Now, that would be interesting...

Like, are they conspiracists? Do they think some environmentalists blew up the well? Or terrorists? Or that the whole incident is fabricated?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

---

Just a hard core who is going to say that they favor more drilling, come crude or tide water. One irony is that in some sense it means we do need more oil, since a productive well has been taken out of operation.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 15, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Agreed. Including all the nonsense about Cheney and his co-conspirators at the CIA fabricating evidence in 2003.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 5:47 PM
-----------------------------------
Absolutely. Those who believe the conspiracy find it entirely reasonable. Those who don't, find it entirely unreasonable.

Quite a few years ago, the Smithsonian ran an interesting article, the premise of which was that about 25% of the population is vulnerable to conspiracy theories, and that conspiracy theories are far from modern. They traced certain conspiracies back for hundreds of years, the conspiracy taking on certain cultural aspects of the time, and then presumably dying out for years, then re-awakening. The example used was certain antiJewish conspiracies (such as Jews secretly manipulating world events).

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I continue to be amazed that one should never pair the two words, conspiracy and reasonable, in the same sentence. There is something about conspiracies that is inherently unreasonable to the rest of us.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 4:34 PM

--------

Agreed. Including all the nonsense about Cheney and his co-conspirators at the CIA fabricating evidence in 2003.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Hell, even for those people, "equally likely to support" is still a more reasonable answer than "MORE likely"

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2010 4:22 PM
-------------------------------
I continue to be amazed that one should never pair the two words, conspiracy and reasonable, in the same sentence. There is something about conspiracies that is inherently unreasonable to the rest of us.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Like, are they conspiracists? Do they think some environmentalists blew up the well? Or terrorists? Or that the whole incident is fabricated?

Posted by: 12BarBlues"

Hell, even for those people, "equally likely to support" is still a more reasonable answer than "MORE likely"

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

ddawd wrote Interesting analysis on a poll result that says the oil gush in the Gulf of Mexico has made 21% of Americans MORE likely to support offshore drilling (as opposed to the event having no effect)
----------------------------------
I wish some pollsters would go back and try to determine the attitudes of the 21% who are more likely to support offshore drilling. Now, that would be interesting...

Like, are they conspiracists? Do they think some environmentalists blew up the well? Or terrorists? Or that the whole incident is fabricated?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/dont-take-polling-literally-part-39916.html

Interesting analysis on a poll result that says the oil gush in the Gulf of Mexico has made 21% of Americans MORE likely to support offshore drilling (as opposed to the event having no effect)

I won't repeat it, but it does lend some food for thought for some of the nonsensical poll results we've seen such as the 30% approval rating for Bush or the number of people who think Obama was born in Kenya or something. Sometimes you just have to account for these weird respondents.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

New poll to note, Chris:

WASHINGTON — People want Democrats to control Congress after this fall's elections, a shift from April, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released
Saturday.

The 45 percent to 40 percent preference for a Democratic Congress reverses the finding a month ago on the same question: 44 percent for Republicans and 41 percent for Democrats. The new readout came as the economy continued showing signs of improvement and the tumultuous battle over the health care law that President Barack Obama finally signed in March faded into the background.

Compared with the last AP-GfK poll in April, the survey showed Republicans losing some support among married women, a key component of many GOP victories. Democrats picked up ground among young and rural voters.

"I'm a new Democrat," said Harley Smithson, 51, of Baltimore, who said he had recently switched from the GOP. "I want to be with a party that's for something instead of against everything."

Posted by: drindl | May 15, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

drindl wrote Meanwhile, BP has no freaking clue how to stop the oil bleeding into the Gulf, while Repulicans are trying to block Democrats from passing a law that would force BP to pay for their mess instead of US taxpayers.
---------------------------------------
News bulletin just now: latest attempt to insert smallish pipe to siphon off some oil, has "hit snags". BP not commenting.

We have to be realistic. BP is going through its different strategies to shut off the oil blowout, roughly in order of chances of success. We are already in the Hail Mary strategies. Junk shot, top kill are even less likely to work.

The strategy that will work is the cross drilling, which has still another 75 days to go. If the blowoff is actually only 5000 bbl/day, another 75 days at this rate will spill another 15 million gallons of oil into the Gulf.

Again, being realistic, I don't know BP's financial capability to pay. In other words, if BP is completely liquidated, would there be enough money to pay for the economic and environmental damage caused? In no way am I objecting to bankrupting BP, but I suspect even that would not be enough.

There are additional risks involved. Apparently, there is widespread suspicion that the blowoff is much larger than 5000 bbl/day. The drilling pipe that is presently attached to the wellhead is crimped, and there is fear that the pipe could blow off at any time and release oil at the unrestricted pressure at the wellhead. BP is being very careful not to disturb the existing pipe, not to be blamed for blowing off the existing pipe, but it could happen even if BP doesn't disturb it.

Anyone who is interested in more gory details than you can handle, from VERY techie types, go to this link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uscgd8/4551846015/in/photostream/

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 15, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

It's simple. Any MC who voted for a law that includes the following provisions
· burdens on access to reproductive care for women
· discrimination in fees based on gender and age
· regressive cost assessments and taxes
· unfunded mandates on states
· and for the self employed unemployed and those whose employers don't provide coverage a mandate that we pay thousands of dollars to the insurance cartel
deserves to be removed.
Any one who voted against it should be considered for reelection.

Posted by: miriamac2001 | May 15, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

DID BIG OIL'S LISPY TV LADY SPILL THE BEANS ON GULF OIL BLOWOUT?

That lispy lady in the pantsuit touting "advanced sub-sea technology" has disappeared from our TV screens since the Gulf oil blow-out -- but could it be that the technology she promotes is responsible for this disaster?

The technology involves using a single oil drilling platform to service multiple wells up to 40 miles away. Do the economics of this "advanced sub-sea technology" dictate that redundant safety systems are eliminated as well? Did each well feeding the Deepwater platform have its own cut-off valve -- or did the system rely on a centralized safety system? If so, that would explain why oil continues to gush from three distinct locations on the sea floor.

Could some enterprising reporter get a straight answer to this question from Big Oil? If not, perhaps a reporter could contact Dr. Jan Merta, an expert on such systems who works for the Canadian government.

***

DELAWARE ATTY. GEN. BEAU BIDEN'S 'MILD STROKE'... A SILENT MICROWAVE WEAPON ATTACK BY POLITICAL ENEMIES?


URGENT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.; A.G. HOLDER (staffs, please forward):

Our prayers are with Beau and the family, and I wish him a speedy recovery. But it also would be prudent to heed the words of TV's N.C.I.S. Special Agent LeRoy Jethro Gibbs: "I don't believe in coincidences."

So-called "targeted individuals" -- perhaps including some of the nation's political leaders -- may be unwitting victims of an awesome, silent, invisible and little known microwave/laser radio frequency weapon system that has been installed on cell towers in every neighborhood in America (U.S. Patent No. 7629918) -- a precision-targeted weapon that apparently has been franchised out to various authorities, commands and operatives, and, a preponderance of evidence shows, is being used for nefarious purposes.

Please read these articles by a veteran journalist -- and question key security and intel officials under oath about the deployment of Homeland Security's cellular "torture towers."

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories").

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 15, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Ain't me that's obsessed with Palin -- it's our host and the rest of the press, plus a smattering of yahoos. She doesn't drive me nuts -- she is a rich source of amusement, for which I am grateful. Sorry to disappoint you.

Meanwhile, BP has no freaking clue how to stop the oil bleeding into the Gulf, while Repulicans are trying to block Democrats from passing a law that would force BP to pay for their mess instead of US taxpayers.

"That question hangs in the air here at a BP crisis center as hundreds of engineers and scientists work to cap the undersea well that for more than three weeks has spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Officials with BP and other companies involved in the effort, who discussed the plans in detail at some of the operations rooms, said the best of several options included a “junk shot,” which could be tried within the week. The method involves pumping odds and ends like plastic cubes, knotted rope, even golf balls — Titleists or whatever, BP isn’t saying — into the blowout preventer, the safety device atop the well. "

Posted by: drindl | May 15, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I love this - the use of the word "pivot"

Initially the White House guys were using it to try to give an image of a super-athletic Obama gliding from issue to issue - pivoting - and taking on issue after issue like some basketball player.


It doesn't really work that way, huh?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 15, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Good grief, Drindl. Get over this Palin obsession. She doesn't hold office; she isn't running for office. She's just out to make a few bucks and drive people like you nuts.

Posted by: Brigade | May 15, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

So much of what propelled Obama a two years ago was based on irreponsible fantasy and false promises - the people posting at that time should be honest and come out and state that Obama has simply not delivered what he promised.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 15, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

"Sarah Palin told the crowd in Charlotte, North Carolina, that the "lamestream media" is using propaganda to make guns seem more dangerous -- and not the criminals behind them.

"Criminals, of course, are to blame for crimes. It's the bad guys, not the piece of metal, that's to blame," she told the crowd."

Right... guns don't kill people, newspapers do.

Posted by: drindl | May 15, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

what a sad country this is -- this unfunny, untilligent sad sack passes for 'celebrity'

(CNN) – She's a politician, an author, cable news contributor and sought-after speaker. But perhaps former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is interested in a new title: comedienne.

In what can only be described as a bit of a schtick, Palin had some fun Friday with the notion that she and her family might be rednecks.

Speaking at the National Rifle Association's annual meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, Palin claimed that some in the media have tried to portray members of the Tea Party movement as "violent or racist or rednecks."

"And I don't really have a problem with the redneck part of it, to tell you the truth. I don't," the former vice presidential candidate told the crowd. "That's fine with me."

Palin told the gun rights supporters how she recently searched online for the best redneck jokes to prepare for an appearance in Alabama where she was introduced by a radio personality named "Bubba."

"But, I'm reading them [thinking] these aren't funny, these are me," Palin said to laughter. "They really are."


Holding what looked like a BlackBerry, Palin told some of the jokes to the NRA crowd.

"'You're a redneck if directions to your house include turn off the paved road.'" "Yep," Palin said rhetorically, "Go to Wasilla, turn off the paved road. That's where we are."

"'You may be a redneck if you're ever involved in a custody fight over a hunting dog.'" "Todd and I? No. But, we have friends – yep, truly – a custody fight over their hunting dog."

" – 'If you yell at your husband, come move this transmission so I can take a bath.'" "I thought that one was funny," Palin told the crowd.

"-'If you use your fishing license as a form of i.d.'" "Well, I do that all the time in Dillingham," Palin said. "That's how you cash your checks."

Palin also told jokes about having steel toes in your "best shoes," going hunting on your honeymoon, getting the septic tank pumped as an anniversary present, having Thanksgiving dinner served on a ping-pong table, thinking Wal-Mart is expensive, and spending the night in the bed of your truck rather than paying for a hotel room.""

I guess all that is funny to someone but I really can't imagine who.

This is the best the R party has to offer? Pathetic.

Posted by: drindl | May 15, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Oh for God's sake -- you look at this blog, sometimes, Chris, why do you not ban this moron 37 for flooding it with sewage?

Posted by: drindl | May 15, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse


We have another MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING ANOTHER MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.

This is LIBERALISM GONE MAD.

We need to create more programs - we need to lie to the American People during the election - so we can get in office to create another MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.

This is liberalism on auto-pilot - like a robot that just keeps doing the same thing without thinking about it.

Taxes too - we have to raise the taxes because we have to do something big - because we have to do something big - and we have to raise the taxes to do that.

.

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

Obama wanted to do "big things" - and a major recession wasn't going to stop his ego.


Obama said he didn't want to do "school uniforms" - meaning nothing small.

So basically what we have is a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING ANOTHER GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.


We had to do something big, because we had to do something big.


Not that Obama is going to pay for any of it - he is sending the bill to everyone else.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 14, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dick-morris-suggests-hillary-clinton-is-throwing-obama-under-the-bus-for-a-2012-run/

Dick Morris - to - Bill O'Reilly seems to be BroadwayJoe's source, or at least, the ultimate source for this particular internet marrone.

O Nation, indeed.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | May 14, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

OK Since no one is here - this is my theory


The oil spill - initially there were winds pushing it north toward the shore - however those winds have now stopped.

What we have NOW is the influence of the Mississippi River - all the water from the River is flowing into the Gulf at that point -

That water is both warmer - and less salty than the Gulf Waters - this has to be pressing the oil down.


The combination of the winds and the currents - and the Mississippi River is causing the oil to pool up in one place - do not expect that to continue - but it has to be getting thicker.


The good news is the volatiles are separating out into the air.


So the volume is less, but the oil is thicker.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 14, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Brigade AT 8:14


You make an excellent point - the fiscally restrained budgets of the 90s were written by the Republicans.

However, Clinton ALSO caved into the Wall Street interests - which unleashed a bubble economy - which increased tax revenues temporarily.

My point is this: those additional tax revenues were a mirage -


The bubble economy has not ended - it went from the internet to mortgages to whatever crazy stuff is going on now with the wall street banks.

This economy has paid a heavy, heavy price for all of this.

CLINTON SOLD US OUT, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

George Bush, the father - said elect Clinton and this economy will start to look like Arkansas.


I didn't believe him then.

NOW I do believe it.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 14, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Holder says he "does not want to say anything negative about a religion which is not appropriate."

EXCEPT the ISLAMIC RADICALS - MOTIVATED BY RADICAL ISLAM


1) Tried to bomb Times Sq


2) Tried to bomb the subways in New York


3) Tried to kill hundreds of people in a plane in Detroit


4) Did kill people at Fort Hood

AND THAT IS JUST THIS YEAR

So, Mr. Holder, PLEASE RESIGN.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 14, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

BroadwayJoe wrote,
"Significance of Burns/Critz race: close to zero except in service of false GOP comeback narratives."

Of course that's only if Burns wins. Otherwise, it will be of tremendous significance. Just watch this blog and see.

Posted by: Brigade | May 14, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

truthseeker13 wrote,
"Clinton managed to govern well with a republican congress . . ."

I'm glad at least one person here noticed that. Many of those who speak of the wonderful surplus Clinton left seem to think he did the appropriations as well as signing the bills.

Posted by: Brigade | May 14, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

amosdefnails

Please read my posting below at 4:36 - Clinton deregulated the derivatives markets


Also wasn't it Hillary who was raising money on Wall Street for 3 elections in 10 years ?

You make a statement, with nothing behind it - yet there are other comments here which you refuse to address.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 14, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Scrivener50 wrote,
"I'd still like to see a thorough, unbiased and independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Rep. Murtha's death -- and whether foul play -- and a political motive -- could have factored into this hospital "error."

Speaking of medical anomalies, this bears repeating:

DELAWARE ATTY. GEN. BEAU BIDEN'S 'MILD STROKE'... A SILENT MICROWAVE WEAPON BRAIN ATTACK BY POLITICAL ENEMIES?"

If you don't stop this stuff, leichtman1 will be on you like white on rice.

Posted by: Brigade | May 14, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Usually I agree with Cilizza but not this time. Simply put he dramatically overemphasizes the importance of this race. Consider, a GOP rep has not represented this district since 1930. The Democrats hold a 2-1 registration advantage in the district and John McCain only won the district by 900 votes. Add on the Dems will have top ticket primary battles and this does not fortell much if the GOP loses this election. Think about it this way, the GOP has a better shot of taking 60 other districts because the PVI of 60 other districts is more beneficial to the GOP.

In short Cilizza is wrong. If the GOP wins this race it fortells a doom and gloom November for Dems. If Critz wins it means the Dems can survive the storm in November the victory must be tempered with the circumstances, top ballot Dem primaries and no major GOP ballots. That won't happen again in November folks.

Special thanks to Sean Trende at RCP for writing the points.

Posted by: iacoboni04 | May 14, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

I'll be sad when "What Will Dino Rossi Do?"
disappears over there on the left.
Every time I see it, I laugh.

I know, I'll write, "What Will Dino Rossi Do" on a Post-it and stick it on this monitor.

Problem solved, American ingenuity...gee we're good.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 14, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

We are hearing murmurs in O-Nation: BHO not running in 2012 and letting HRC, the Chief Executive of HillaryWorld, step in to continue the fight for liberty.

Developing...

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

"For months, the conventional wisdom about the coming 2010 midterm elections has been that Republicans are not only poised to make major gains this fall but that they also have a realistic chance of taking the chamber back."

The CW was that there would be GOP gains in the Fall. (Always are in off years--no surprise.)

Only in Drudge/Fix World was anyone claiming the GOP would takeover the House. Let's get real.

Significance of Burns/Critz race: close to zero except in service of false GOP comeback narratives.
_____________________

Note to Fix intern: where is the obligatory Charlie (BHO's health care reform equals Bush's Iraqi War) Cook ad/mention? And no Chip (Barack the Magic N-gro CD) Saltsman shout-out? What gives?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 14, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Democrats seem resigned to "heavy" losses if the economy flatlines, which really has little to do with the merits of the candidates. Clinton managed to govern well with a republican congress, and I am certain Obama would at least be as good with his strong leadership and popularity now (50% approval in this economy is excellent - Americans aren't fooled by the GOP hate fest being inflicted against the President). My guess is that the congress will not flip but it really will be a vote on the economy, fair or not.

Posted by: truthseeker13 | May 14, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I hate these ridiculous "[insert party here] must win" posts. This election will have absolutely no bearing, at all, on how anyone votes in November. This article spells out all the ways Critz should have a natural advantage in this race, and then goes on to act as if they should not be considered at all.

Posted by: Bob65 | May 14, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans always dig us into a ditch and then the Democrats pull us out of it. This time where not going to give them the shovel. Vote DEMOCRAT

Posted by: amosdefnails | May 14, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the first on-topic post. Such a momentous occasion.

I'm not sure his stance on abortion was a key factor in Steve Stivers' loss to Mary Jo Kilroy in 2008. Yes, there was an independent candidate in the race, Don Eckhart, who was promoting himself as the "only pro-life" candidate. But Eckhart didn't take as many votes away from Stivers as did the Libertarian candidate, Mark Noble. This time around, Stivers faces the same problem -- he may have emerged from the Republican primary relatively unscathed despite some shots taken by Tea Party sympathizers, but he's still got a Constitution Party candidate and a Libertarian candidate to deal with in the fall in addition to Kilroy, and both of them could potentially siphon votes away from Stivers.

Kilroy's got problems of her own, of course; she can't count on the massive wave of Democratic votes President Obama's presidential bid brought in 2008. But even if Stivers manages to get the Ohio Right to Life endorsement, it doesn't guarantee him a victory. My understanding is that aside from the people who would never vote for a Democrat anyway, Kilroy has done a pretty good job of connecting with constituents, and that matters in a House race. It's one of the reasons why Pat Tiberi is so invincible in Ohio's U.S. House District 12.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | May 14, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama was giving Oil Drilling Permits WITHOUT the proper procedures - reports the New York Times

The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf.


____________________________________


This is Obama's Oil Spill.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 14, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

13. should read "but the good news" instead of "but the god news".

Posted by: johngalt1983 | May 14, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama going up to Buffalo - a city whose economy has BEEN COMPLETELY DESTROYED BY DEMOCRATS - and then talking about the economy in such partisan terms is a real joke.


Obama will convince only people who KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE ECONOMY.


Did Obama mention that Clinton repealed Glass- Steagall?


Did Obama mention that Clinton DEREGULATED THE DERVIATIVES???


Did Obama mention that Clinton appointed HIS PEOPLE into long-term positions at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ???


Meanwhile, while Bush was fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the democrats were playing political games throughout - first they are for the war, voting for Iraq, then they were against the war. Everything was political sniping.


NOW Obama wants to "blame Bush" again.


Not for nothing, the stimulus bill did NOT "pull the car from the ditch."


So much for bipartisan working together - this is Obama lying and deceiving the public..... again.

Obama - you aren't going to get him to tell the truth - he is going to pave the way to bipartisanship with lies and partisanship -


So now it is Obama who is causing the trouble - and again NOT doing what he was elected to do.


There is a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF OBAMA ABOUT WHAT THE JOB OF PRESIDENT IS ALL ABOUT.


This is not leadership, it is nothing.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 14, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I'd still like to see a thorough, unbiased and independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Rep. Murtha's death -- and whether foul play -- and a political motive -- could have factored into this hospital "error."

Speaking of medical anomalies, this bears repeating:

DELAWARE ATTY. GEN. BEAU BIDEN'S 'MILD STROKE'... A SILENT MICROWAVE WEAPON BRAIN ATTACK BY POLITICAL ENEMIES?


URGENT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.; A.G. HOLDER (staffs, please forward):

Our prayers are with Beau and the family, and I wish him a speedy recovery. But it also would be prudent to heed the words of TV's N.C.I.S. Special Agent LeRoy Jethro Gibbs: "I don't believe in coincidences."

So-called "targeted individuals" -- perhaps including some of the nation's political leaders -- may be unwitting victims of an awesome, silent, invisible and little known microwave/laser radio frequency weapon system that has been installed on cell towers in every neighborhood in America (U.S. Patent No. 7629918) -- a precision-targeted weapon that apparently has been franchised out to various authorities, commands and operatives, and, a preponderance of evidence shows, is being used for nefarious purposes.

Please read these articles by a veteran journalist -- and question key security and intel officials under oath about the deployment of Homeland Security's cellular "torture towers."

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories").

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 14, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Everyone will forget about these special elections come November - so don't exaggerate their importance.

Obama has blown it - in a way that people DON'T want to give him a second look.

Scott Brown was a GIFT to Obama - to stop him from pushing through the health care bill - Obama refused it.

Obama is a COMPLETE DISASTER FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.


Why doesn't he go to another city like Buffalo - which has been DESTROYED BY THE DEMOCRATS AND THE UNIONS - and try to blame Bush ... again.

It is a complete joke.....

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 14, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company