Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Can Democrats win on the Disclose Act?



Can campaign finance reform become an issue in the fall election? Photo from bigstockphoto.com

A Senate measure to place curbs on the expansive Citizens United campaign finance ruling by the Supreme Court earlier this year is expected to fail today. But Democrats believe the united Republican opposition to the measure gives them an electoral opening this fall.

The Disclose Act -- Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (strained acronym alert!) -- would force disclosure of election-related disbursements by corporations, labor unions and nonprofit groups. A similar bill passed the House in late June. Senate observers expect the bill to come up short of the 60 votes required to proceed to a full floor debate Tuesday.

In expectation of that vote, White House House communications director Dan Pfeiffer sought to set the stakes for the fall election. "Today's vote has the potential to be a defining one for the Republican party," said Pfeiffer. "This a choice between the public and big corporations and the Republicans seem poised to vote en masse for the corporations."

Pfeiffer's emphasis on the legislation is part and parcel of a broader focus by the White House on turning campaign finance reform -- typically a (way) back-of-the-mind issue for voters -- into one that can frame the election in Democrats' favor.

In his first State of the Union address earlier this year, President Obama singled out the Citizens United ruling for scorn -- and pushed for action (hence, the Disclose Act) from the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Said Obama:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

(Those lines set off a major controversy as Republicans and Democrats skirmished over whether it was proper for Obama to express his disdain for a court ruling with some of the justices in attendance.)

And, Monday, Obama himself cast the Disclose Act vote as the latest in a string of legislative initiatives where Democrats "are trying to move America forward" while Republicans "keep on trying to take us back."

Polling done in the wake of the Supreme Court decision suggested the public was with the president. More than eight in 10 people said they opposed the decision in a February Washington Post/ABC poll, while 72 percent favored reinstating limits on giving by corporations and unions.

While the White House clearly believes they have an electoral winner in today's vote, others within the party are far less certain.

"It's not clear that anything can be a voting issue for the majority of the public beyond the economy," said Matt Benett, a founder of Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. Bennett added, however, that "this can be another piece of a broader argument about going backwards, to the politics of the Bush era, or going forward."

Another senior party strategist who was granted anonymity to speak candidly was far more pessimistic about the electoral power of the Disclose Act.

"It's a nice little proof point about Republicans and their corporate ties, but we have a million of those, and that's pretty much a given to most voters," said the source. "More fundamentally, with 10 percent unemployment and the 'wrong track' stuck at 60 [percent], you'd be insane to waste a second discussing the arcana of campaign finance."

Republicans, not surprisingly, argued that the White House's focus on the issue was an electoral loser of the first sort.

"Voters want to see jobs," said former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis. Added Alex Vogel, a Republican lobbyist: "The public is about as concerned with the DISCLOSE Act as they were about the World Cup after America got knocked out." (Oh, snap!)

At issue is whether Democrats can turn the expected failure of the Disclose Act into part of a narrative about Republican obstructionism or whether concerns about the economy -- and voter disinterest in campaign finance issues -- overshadows the act.

The micro debate on the Disclose Act is rightly seen then as part of the macro debate between the two parties this fall. Is the November midterm election a referendum on the president and his party -- particularly the handling of the economy? Or is it a choice between what Democrats have done and what Republicans will do?

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 27, 2010; 11:38 AM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Senate Republicans buy TV time in CA, WA and WI
Next: Daily Fix Poll: The ads of Kendrick Meek and Jeff Greene

Comments

yeah it is true most of us can save money on our car insurance by making few simple changes find how much you can save http://bit.ly/d4HSCH

Posted by: brownhall24 | July 29, 2010 1:51 AM | Report abuse

yes you can save money on your auto insurance by making few simple changes find how much you can save http://bit.ly/d4HSCH

Posted by: brownhall24 | July 29, 2010 1:48 AM | Report abuse

@Gallenod:

Bud, I agree with your philoshophy of what should be going on 100%. However, one lie you have bought into that Obama promulgates is that there is no restrictions on Foreign Influences. Sorry, but Citezen's United did *not* overturn that.

Remember when the President attacked the Supreme Court in front of the world during his State of the Union Address? Remember that Alito mouthed the words "Not True" and how everyone was up in arms over that "blatant" breach of etiquette, although the debunkers found Alito was speaking truth but Obama was not?

Do you even have a clue what the Liar in Chief was spouting wrong? One point was this:

Under the FEC regulation 11 CFR 110.20(i): “A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.”

Further, federal law, under 2 USC 441-Sec. 441e, also prohibits foreign donations to political campaigns.

Both of these STILL STAND fully in force. Citizens United changed NONE of this.

So his lateset attacks about this are full of THIS lie that scares most people. Who is being transparent here, I wonder? The President continually lies from the Bully Pulpit and we are supposed to buy it because it is *not* a PAID political anouncement? I plan on DISCLOSING every lie I can on him and the Gang of Pelosi and Reid, since ABC, NBC and CNN seem loathe to do their job!

You have the right idea; you just have embraced bad information, possibly because of the unwarrented "Hero" status that the media constantly tries to give the Zero Man in the White House. If he wants to be a Hero in my eyes, he needs to start with himself and STOP TELLING BLATANT LIES!

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | July 28, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Wrong, zouk. Nam Long doesn't allow half-covered lots. Have to cover all of both or all of one. One plot is already plenty wide enough, and a choice between a house the size of an ocean liner or a house already twice the footage I have here (and barely use) PLUS a yard was an easy choice.

And we're buying the plot on the other side too. We're not extending to that plot, either. And the new bridge just opened only blocks away, so the value has tripled.

But you'll be squealing your misapprehension until you go to your grave so go ahead and squeal it.

Vroom. Whoosh.

Thanks for the friend request, but, no.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 27, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Poor lonely Ped.

Could only afford the left half of the house.

Even in VN. I don't know about crime but ignorance sure doesn't seem to pay.

Posted by: Moonbat | July 27, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I think he already knew exactly what kind of damage he wanted to cause.
--------------------------------
You have a higher opinion of him than I do. Our little joke between us.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 27, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

oh, zouk, you really should stay out of things you don't know anything about. Really. I think I know a lit-tle more than you do about owning property in VN. Why don't you go get some more up to date information.

Might get a new pair of D cells for your boat, and some AAs for the remote control, while you're out.

@12Bar: I don't think he needed any bad advice, I think he already knew exactly what kind of damage he wanted to cause. The top 0.1% made out like bandits in 2001-8, and it wasn't accidental.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 27, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I personally favor the idea of transparency in campaign finance through an efficient, fair non bureacratic process. The Disclose Act definitely has none of these redeeming qualities. Its very burecratic, has very onerous paper work requirments and has big carve out for Democratic favored groups.

Posted by: RobT1 | July 27, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Ped is presented with architectural plans that don't quite match what the drawing promised.

what is she to do?

Pick the left half!!!


hahahahahahaha

I think my boat has a wider beam.

what a putz. Next thing she'll find out is that the "deed" was not translated properly either. It seems foreigners can't own property there. Poor Ped. Gonna have to find a crooked lawyer in a crooked country to straighten out her crooked deal. I hope you have paid off the local party members and have them on your weekly to pay list.

Still wondering about how the capitalist haul will go over when your warped philosophy won't permit it. But like all liberals, those rules only apply to others, you see. all that scraping and scrounging and working time clocked eye strain jobs for decades, just for a simple house in the middle of a third world dumpo.

But at least the gyms are air conditioned, aren't they?

Posted by: Dead_and_Barryd | July 27, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

@noacoler,

I don't judge Laura Bush by her husband. She always seemed like a fine person to me.

I don't think GW was our finest President. In addition to his own failings, he got poor advice and for some reason, wasn't able to see through some of the crap he was fed. Perhaps he just wasn't curious enough.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 27, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Well with nearly half the stimulus going to tax cuts, you can't expect much. Tax cuts aren't stimulus.

@12Bar: dunno where you get Laura as intelligent but I'll defer. To be married to a sadist isn't exactly ringing. But not as anomalous as Cindy McCain who by all evidence is a pretty decent human being, and married to a spoiled angry infant.

Oh sweet mystery of life.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 27, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and we can't find 96% of the money for Iraqi reconstruction

-The Ped

Can't find all thos jobs the stimulus was creating either. but what's a dozen or two trillion when someone else is paying.

the king and Queen Obama seem to be quite adept at spending our dough-- cake or bread.

millions on wild drinking parties? Typical.

Like my jet? My house? My doctor? my vacations? All paid for by someone else. Liberal heaven. Now I gotta run off and make my tee time.

-banana dictator we elected

Posted by: Dead_and_Barryd | July 27, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I will speak to Laura Bush as she seems most like Michelle Obama to me. What's not to like about either of them? Both are ladies, intelligent, educated, have purpose in their lives, good mothers, and good wives.

Neither of them are like Eleanor Roosevelt or Hillary Clinton, who portrayed much stronger images to the public. Somehow, I could understand really liking or disliking Eleanor or Hillary, but disliking Laura or Michelle? It seems strange to me.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 27, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

You answered your own question, 12Bar. They prefer a vacuum like Laura or a seething hater like Barbara.

Oh a low-class clotheshorse like Nancy.

Michelle is, you know, uppity. Uses words that conservatives don't understand. Eww.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 27, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Yawn, other than diehard Obamabots no one cares about this Bill.

Posted by: CarolinaMike | July 27, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

What's the hangup conservatives have with Michele Obama? She seems fine to me--nice lady, good mother with two fine children, educated, well spoken woman, a fine First Lady. What's with all the sniping?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 27, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

At some point in human history the word "delusional" was created to describe a human condition.

By any chance, do you know what that condition is ?


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 27, 2010 2:19 PM
-------------------------------------
Don't tell me! Are you beginning to get insight into yourself?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 27, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Anyone all a-dither about Michelle's entourage should check out the sudden jump in entouragitude between Clinton and Bush.

Oh, and we can't find 96% of the money for Iraqi reconstruction:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/27-0

Someone might check the bank accounts of the executives of US companies engaged for the work. Y'think? Gotta love that free market. Incentives, you know. How else can you attract top talent? No, matter, it's gone. Mission accomplished.

Poor zouk. All those trillions of buck and all those approaches to models and nothing to show but "thanks for the friend request!"

Maybe if he converted his franklins

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/album.php?id=100001182823513&aid=1111&s=20&hash=190e0a0a3d670886517afb615ffc044d

to an impressively thick sheaf of commie currency

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/photo.php?pid=49471&id=100001182823513

... he could, uh, score.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 27, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, you would think that most politicians from both parties would want to be able to shine a light on who's funding attack ads against them.

And you might also think, given the empahsis on national security in the last decade, that politicians might be interested in knowing if any foreign money is being pumped into U.S. elections.

(Unless its supporting their own campaigns, in which case I could understand their reluctance about disclosure.)

Then again, we do have a tradition of anonymous politicking that goes back to the days of the Federalist papers. Free speech has always included the right to speak anonymously.

However, as far as I'm concerned any campaign ad where the candidate, or at least someone publicly identifiable, isn't delivering the message personally isn't credible. If you're not willing to stand in front of your ad, why should anyone believe it? A picture montage with an anonymous voice-over funded by some group with a conveniently made-up name should have all the credibility of homeopathic cures.

Unfortunately, there still seems to be a market for homeopathy in this country and some people will listen to any anonymous ad that tells them what they want to hear (or fear). Dislosing the source of any of these these ads probably won't change their impact. Only having an educated, rational electorate that actually pays attention to issues and facts will make a difference.

Posted by: Gallenod | July 27, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

The roll of Franklins in the picture must have zouk all agitated. "I could be spending that money on models. Meanwhile Michele gets to go to Spain! I'm gonna blog about that!"

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 27, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

That corporations should seek to extend their advantage over those that outnumber them by use of the judiciary is no surprise even Adam Smith noted this.
Note:. when he uses the word masters it is to indicate those who now run corporations.

Source: The Wealth of Nations, Book I, chapter 8
"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combination of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate[.]

When workers combine, masters ... never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, laborers, and journeymen."

Posted by: arde | July 27, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Ped knows three things and she knows them well:

1. birds are smart
2. Ped is smart too, much smarter than you. this has not translated into anything material, like novels or riches or success, just envy and a surety that those editors and employers are just too stupid to figure out what a gift she is.
3. Moving to VN will cure all this as those chain smoking commies lay out the red carpet and praise the big nosed one. Besides, she never liked tipping anyway and spending more than a buck or two at a time on anything violated her sensibilites. the crowing jewel - air conditioned gyms.

Posted by: Dead_and_Barryd | July 27, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the Obama haters always start out with "everyone knows" as they launch into some lie.

Funny. Ha ha.

Posted by: Noacoler
------------------------------------------
“Everbody knows” should be qualified with everybody knows except the base profile D party voter. You know the ones with the desired profile - ignorant and dependent, can’t find the location of their own azz on a map, easily pandered to with offers of a “free lunch”. The union sock puppet members. The drivels. In others words Dbagging free lunchers that O and crew are trying to get off the couch and out of the basement with his “Summer of Recovery” and celebrity appearance with the vapid on “The (Liberal) View”. It's his only means to salvage the upcoming elections.

Posted by: leapin | July 27, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

wave06


At some point in human history the word "delusional" was created to describe a human condition.

By any chance, do you know what that condition is ?


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 27, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Problem is, I can't boycott Target, because I decided a long time ago not to shop at Target, I just don't buy junk.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 27, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I am pretty sure the GOP is hoovering around 20% or less in most polls outside of FOX conjored up news.

The GOP, Teabaggettes and other rightwing kooks, will get knocked back into relity soon. I love the Dems chances in November.

Repeal this?

Posted by: wave06 | July 27, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

If there is anything Michelle Obama needs it’s a vacation from her own vanity.

Posted by: Dead_and_Barryd
------------------------------------------
Perhaps a rest after all these vacations on John Kerry's new foreign built yacht the "Progressive Tax Avoider" would be advisable, plus she needs activities with hubby gone so much playing golf.

(East coast ship builders must be extremely busy in this robust economy???)

Posted by: leapin | July 27, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the Obama haters always start out with "everyone knows" as they launch into some lie.

Funny. Ha ha.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 27, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Hahaha, what a joke, Democrats are grasping at Anything, aren't they?
Everybody knows Obama's In Bed with the fat, greedy, uneducated union bosses!
And everybody knows there are more ultra-rich, elite in the Democratic party!
Look at John Kerry, trying to avoid paying taxes so he hides his $7 Million yacht in Rhode Island!
And looks at high-level Charlie Rangel...he's trying to "settle" his case now, otherwise the entire country will find out what a crook he is!
Give me a break. Hypocritical Democrats!

Posted by: ohioan | July 27, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama's luxury Spanish vacation
Ralph Alter

When Marie Antoinette was told the peasants had no bread, her famous rejoinder was the suggestion to "Let them eat cake."

Posted by: Dead_and_Barryd | July 27, 2010 11:49 AM |

No, sorry, this was a slander which cost Marie Antoinette her head. She never said it.

What she did do was to buy jewelry, lots of it, which even the Queen of France could not afford.

Your argument would be better if you invoked Mary Lincoln. She had the same bad spending habits as Marie and a mental illness which should appeal to a Fiscal Conservative audience of Greedy Old People (GOP).

The fact remains that "corporate people" in pursuit of both maximum profit and minimum labor costs can not logically be supportive of American interests both here and abroad simultaneously. There is not a "delicate balance", there is only willful ignorance of reality and reason. "corporate people" are not Americans.

Posted by: gannon_dick | July 27, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."
-------------------------------------------
Exception goes to George Soros, right???

Posted by: leapin | July 27, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Who knew Democrats were the Party of the Rich ? the Elites ? Big Business ?

Posted by: Petras123
-------------------------------------------
Petras123 - Excellent points and welcome to the blog.

Posted by: leapin | July 27, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see that zouk was able to create yet another new identity. Really adds a lot to the blog.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 27, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

How is this a winner for Dems ? I understand big exemptions for Unions and the NRA.

Will Americans really think Dems are truelly interested in Campaign Finance reform ?

Didn't candidate Obama reject public funding (McCain didn't) so he could outspend $2 billion on his election.

Didn't candidate Obama receive record millions from Wall Street Banks and BP ?

After Wall Street Bank bailouts, Auto companies bailouts, Health Insurance Industry bailout, Drug Industry bailout, Goldman Sacs mega-billion in profits...

We've heard about John Kerry's new $7 million Yacht built in New Zealand.. and parked in Rhode Island to avoid a half-million in taxes.

We've heard about 600 private jets that flew into Obama's inauguration vs only 300 for Bush.

Who knew Democrats were the Party of the Rich ? the Elites ? Big Business ?

Posted by: Petras123 | July 27, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

You guys should understand why appeals to reason don't work well.

First of all we're not an intellectual nation, we're devoted to narrative superficiality. Tell me a story.

Second, people of average intelligence are terribly dull, and half of the people are below average. And even among those capable of reasoned appeals, emotion trends to win out.

Republicans get this, and have no scruples about, well, anything.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 27, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Last night, in Chicago, we had 9 people shot while waiting for a bus.

This proposed piece of legislation provides an exemption, big enough to drive a bus through, for the NRA.

Any self respecting Democrat should vote against this bill!

Posted by: mwhoke | July 27, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

How about we DISCLOSE all the waste going on in the Despots white house?

Holidays in Spain, Martha's Vineyard, Patron Saint status for Childhood Obesity
Michelle’s life is a holiday
By Judi McLeod

Not cognizant that the masses have already blacked her out of mind, Mrs. Barack Obama has put a media blackout on her latest holiday including an about 30-room reservation for herself, daughter, friends and bodyguards at a five-star hotel in Benahavis, Spain.

Fellow Americans have had to black out any thought of the imperious Michelle being too busy trying to hang on to their jobs and mortgages.


But according to orders from Michelle, not for the unwashed masses to learn through the media the giddy-girl holiday with back-in-my room bragging rights on the booty of shopping splurges fortified with room service tidbits like lobster tails and champagne.

Most already realize that Michelle’s Girls Night Out holiday in Spain serves as resting up time for the 10-day holiday she will spend on Martha’s Vineyard next month.

The media blackout Obama has ordered on the Spanish holiday is remindful of the media blackout on her entire life. The truth is that compared to millions of other plain folk, Michelle Obama’s life has been one long holiday.

Media blackouts included, Michelle Obama has discernible delusions of grandeur.

Aside from her attempts to promote an organic White House garden which turned out to be fertilized with sludge, and her self-serving press releases claiming Patron Saint status for Childhood Obesity, Obama has done diddly squat to raise any one from the injustice she claims that marked her own life.

The Malcontent of Malcontents, few ordinary people take time to contemplate the legions of ills she claims that afflicted her when she was still at university.

Gratitude and counting her blessings don’t seem part of the Michelle persona.

Imperious in attitude, the First Lady seems impervious to the suffering of others. But the dirty little secret is that when Barack Hussein Obama came into office, Michelle was merely along for the ride.

Being along for the ride is still her standstill status a year and a half later.

The PR spin that tried to present Michelle as someone special preceded her arrival at the White house, when in fact there was never much special about Michelle Obama.

Strive as she may to make herself special, she’s just another power-lusting street activist who came in with the flotsam and jetsam of Barack Obama.

If there is anything Michelle Obama needs it’s a vacation from her own vanity.

Posted by: Dead_and_Barryd | July 27, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

This should be a no-brainer for Dems, but I won't be surprised if they fail to capitalize on the issue. Further, the idea of disclosing who's spending money on campaigns is supposed to be part of the justification for equating money with speech & removing spending limits on elections. As I understand it, the idea is to let the light into the funding process & if people/organizations want to spend extensively on candidates' campaigns, the information is available to voters who are then able to decide whether to let that influence their decision.

In other words, Repubs should be supporting the DISCLOSE act as part of their money=speech platform.

Personally I think that's a ridiculous position to take, and find it offensive that the courts equate corporations with people, in terms of this monetary 'speech'. Here in the MN Gov's race, Target has given $150K to an organization running ads for the Repub Gov candidate. Individuals are still limited to $2000 contributions to candidates; and even if we weren't how many individuals can financially compete with $150K corporate contributions? Same rules should apply, across the board. There's a worthwhile discussion to be had whether campaign contributions should be limited to people, or even to voters living in the relevant district.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 27, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

In a time of recession - Michele Obama goes on HOW MANY vacations this year???

It is a really, really bad sign - these people are WAY OUT OF TOUCH WITH AMERICA

I really don't want to say that Michelle Obama shouldn't go to Spain - but


Isn't it CLEAR that Obama has become a NON-STOP DISASTER TRAIN BARRELING DOWN THE TRACKS ???

One can wave all you want at the train, trying to tell Obama that he would be better off with different tactics - but nothing ever stops the train.


The liberals may think that Obama has accomplished something in the past year and a half -

But the conservatives will say that the stimulus was a waste of money - and the health care plan has to be repealed.

Neutral observers will say that Obama has done little for the country as a whole


Obama is a complete disaster - and few people have ANY idea how Obama can win back the Independents - who almost to a person say they will NEVER even think about supporting Obama and the democrats again.

Obama was given a CHANCE by the country - the idea that he would go BACK on his pledges to the country - and show such arrogance that he thought he could GET AWAY WITH IT people just don't want to hear it.

Obama has demonstrated an INCREDIBLE combination of stupidity and arrogance.

I have to mention that Obama is a product of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - everything in his life has been affirmative action - including the selection of democratic delegates.


Obama has benefitted from his skin color.


The problem is - that is ALL Obama knows - playing on his race to get to the next affirmative action program - "energizing" the base.


Obama's idea of compromise and bipartisanship is negotiating MORE affirmative action programs.


Again, the whole thing is such a disaster and the democrats don't want to hear it or talk about it - they just want to continue the SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE TEA PARTY.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 27, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I do have mixed feelings about this act - I understand both sides. BUT

The Dems do have an issue here and will they play it or just allow the radical right to define the campaign.

"This a choice between the public and big corporations and the Republicans seem poised to vote en masse for the corporations."


This issue of the corporatization of America is real - from the extreme right to the extreme left you have people expressing their fears on this issue.

How much have the Republicans given to private corporations to run the Afghan war - this is an issue.

The Rpublicans just opposed direct student loans from the goverment, which guarantees them against default - in favor of banks making a profit.

This Corporatization of America is a very real issue - it could be the bogy man issue the Dems use against the Reps.

Do people realize that the taxpayer guarantees VA, FHA, and student loans against default so the banks have no exposure - the banks make all the profit, while the people take all of the losses.

Is it not time for the people to take the profits and losses by doing direct lending on all government guaranteed loans.

The Republican/Corporatists will say no - capitalism demands the corporations make the profits and the people take the losses.

This is a real issue - let's see if the Dems can play this the right way _Bogy man Corporations

Bobby WC

Posted by: bobbywc | July 27, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I say make the GOP fillibuster and explain their vote, In my mind the GOP with Bush & Cheney set America backwards in every measureable way, the Nation truly needs to see the GOP in action. This is a very wise & long overdue move by President Obama & the Dems. Let America take a good and revealing look at a party that has lost all semblance of ethics. In November when the GOP are asking for votes, return the favor and just say No!

Posted by: wave06 | July 27, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I can't figure out whether there is a meaningful distinction here... "Is the November midterm election a referendum on the president and his party -- particularly the handling of the economy? Or is it a choice between what Democrats have done and what Republicans will do?"

Yes and yes, it is all about what the Democrats have done, what the Republicans have done and what both say they will do.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 27, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama's luxury Spanish vacation
Ralph Alter

When Marie Antoinette was told the peasants had no bread, her famous rejoinder was the suggestion to "Let them eat cake."

Pampered on the our tax dollars with a staff whose salaries exceed $1.6 million annually, Michelle Obama has not been unwilling to take maximum advantage of the perks of an unlimited expense account as first lady.

The latest report on Obama extravagance indicates that Michelle Obama will take a summer break with one of her daughters "in the company of old friends" on the Costa del Sol in Spain:

Michelle Obama has reserved 30 rooms for herself and her daughter, their friends and bodyguards at a five-star hotel in Benahavis near Marbella, hotel sources said.


How does anyone need 30 rooms for a mother-daughter trip?

Add this latest extravagance to the non-stop White House concert series that has included such pricey entertainers as Bob Dylan, Tony Bennett and Paul McCartney among very many others. Even were the stars to perform gratis,

Professional equipment needs to be brought in-sound engineers, stage lights, etc... Even small scale performances by these artists can be very expensive.

Add booze, food, security, invitations, social secretaries, wait staff and hangers on to the tab and the price for one of these events could top $75k. With over 27 concerts hosted thus far, the cost to the taxpayers is in the millions of dollars.....it has been estimated that the Obama White House spent at least $10 million dollars on "drunken White House parties" in 2009 alone.


Whether its $250,000 spent on a date night in New York, ordering carry-out pizza for 120 people from 850 miles away,or flying the family dog on a separate jet to join the Obamas on their 8th vacation since taking office, this time in Maine, it's clear that Barack and Michelle are living very large at the taxpayer's expense without so much as a second thought.

If either of them would settle down and actually do something productive for our nation they might have less time to spend blowing our money.

Posted by: Dead_and_Barryd | July 27, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company