Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Five myths about a president's first year

As 2009 draws to a close, the armchair historians are gathering to assess the year that was for President Barack Obama.

Presidential first years are almost always cast as make or break moments that irrevocably set an Administration down a path from which it can never vary. A look back at history, however, suggests that idea is part of the myth-making that surrounds a presidency.

We did a piece looking at that and other first-year myths for the Post's Outlook section this weekend. The first three myths -- and the appropriate debunking -- are below. The full story is here.

1. Congress is your willing handmaiden.

In the afterglow of the 2008 elections, when the country had not only overwhelmingly elected Obama president but had also handed Democrats wide majorities in the House and Senate, many in the Democratic Party had the sense that after years of frustration, a progressive agenda would finally be enacted.

Or not. While Congress has passed several of Obama's agenda items -- the expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program; the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women and others to sue for wage discrimination; the economic stimulus package -- it has been more of a roadblock than a thoroughfare on other priorities, including health-care reform. Although health-care legislation now looks likely to pass, the president has acknowledged that its path through Congress has been neither as speedy nor as smooth as he had hoped.

The past two U.S. presidents also found that having their party in control of Congress didn't guarantee anything: Bill Clinton couldn't get health-care reform through a Democratic-led Congress in 1993 and George W. Bush's efforts at reforming Social Security following his 2004 reelection failed miserably, despite Republicans in charge of Congress.

Recent history provides cautionary tales for lawmakers who might be inclined to rubberstamp a new president's agenda. According the American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate voted in lockstep with Clinton 86.3 percent of the time in 1993 and 86.4 percent of the time in 1994 -- setting the stage for Republicans to take over Congress in that year's midterm elections. In 2004, congressional Republicans voted with Bush 81 percent of the time, then lost 30 House seats to Democrats.

2. Nothing gets done legislatively after the first year.

Most presidents consider their first year in office their best chance to enact their most ambitious legislative priorities. It's far enough ahead of the midterm elections to get nervous members of Congress on board and three years before the next presidential election -- so they'll have time to reposition themselves if support for their agenda goes south.

Obama clearly saw things through this first-year-or-bust prism as he simultaneously pushed health-care and carbon cap-and-trade legislation.

The problem with treating the first year as a be-all and end-all? It ain't necessarily so. Ronald Reagan overhauled the country's tax code six years into his presidency, and Bush signed a bill regulating the accounting industry -- the Sarbanes-Oxley Act -- in the summer of 2002.

The best predictor of legislative momentum isn't the political calendar but the events that motivate public cries for action.

3. Your party's base abandons you.

The bases of the two parties don't understand or care much about the sausage-making aspects of how policy is constructed in Washington. They want action and they want it now.

And so when Obama didn't manage to bring all U.S. troops home from Iraq, reform the health-care system and abandon the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military (among other things) in his first week in office, there was consternation within the Democratic base.

But that consternation rarely turns into large-scale abandonment. President Jimmy Carter was widely disliked among the party's base following his victory in 1976 -- so much so that Sen. Ted Kennedy challenged him in 1980. Carter still won. Clinton's "Third Way" centrism didn't sit well with the party's base but he still was reelected in 1996 and party liberals became his staunchest defenders during impeachment proceedings.

Ultimately, members of the base come to understand that they are better off with a president who agrees with them most if not all of the time than one from the opposite party who will work against their priorities.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 22, 2009; 2:00 PM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Alabama Democrat to switch parties
Next: Happy Holidays!

Comments

Re-read the very first sentence about him taking the oath of Office "sort of".

Posted by: JakeD | December 27, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

I didn't catch anything about Hawaii. Maybe in #4 or #5.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 26, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Birther trolls get a pass in this blog? I thought only freerepublic and redstate tolerated that racist lunatic crap.

Is secessionist talk OK too? Cool, I have a traffic ticket I don't want to pay. My house is now a sovereign nation. Live free or die.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 25, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

Did you notice the full article has a slam (sort of) as to Obama's birthplace?

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

@JRM - The full Cillizza article has all 5; the Fix post just lists the last three. CC linked to it in the third paragraph.

As for 37th, you're apparently incapable of following any rules of decorum. I prefer to write in sentences and paragraphs. I do like the style of your posts though--it's an easy signal to hit page up.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 24, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

JRM2 at 12:31

How come the title of the article says "Five Myths" but only three are listed?


--------


This is a math question - It is obvious that you and Obama both have a great deal of trouble with math questions.


Obama went before Congress and assured America that the health care bill would be deficit neutral.


Well that is not the case

- there is 10 years of taxes against 7 years of benefits

- there is $500 Billion in Medicare cuts being counted twice

- there is the "doctor fix" being handled off-budget.


there are many other things - all designed to lie to the American people about the true financial picture of the health care bill.

As for YOUR math question, Chris clearly states that the first 3 of the 5 myths are listed - and the other myths are in his complete article for this weekend.


HOWEVER, if you click one of Chris's links you can actually get the article which has all 5 myths.


It is just like the COSTS IN THE HEALTH CARE BILL - YOU HAVE TO READ THE TEXT AND EVERYTHING IS THERE.

Obama is 3 - 5 TRILLION DOLLARS OFF of his deficit neutral guarantee to the American people.


It is a crime to LIE TO CONGRESS - just wanted to mention that.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 1:40 AM | Report abuse

JRM2

Clearly the health care reform is going to hurt the economy, not help it. The additional taxes are going to put a drag on the economy.

The employer mandates are going to place a drag on hiring.


Obama's stimulus bill has been a complete joke - Obama committed to tracking the new jobs on a website - that website is so filled with errors and inflated numbers they have decided not to even to try to fix it.

Anyway - it is clear that Obama has a go-it-alone policy on health care. Obama's attitude is they won the election, and they are going to jam a far-left wing bill down America's throat.


If Obama were to actually adhere to his campaign pledge of bipartisanship, a centrist bill would have emerged - clearly this approach is what the American people voted for last year.


A critical error on the part of Obama, who is supposed to be so smart, but I guess he was doing cocaine when he was supposed to learn how to "work with others."

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 1:31 AM | Report abuse

JRM2 at 12:20


It is difficult to follow your points - however I believe you are saying that because you disagree with some of the spending of Bush, that Obama has the right to go on a spending binge which rivals anything he did when he was doing cocaine.

UMMM


Apparently, you agree that because a person has maxed out 10 credit cards, that person should get 10 more credit cards and max them out as well.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Hey CC, either you call Zouk out on his pedophillia accusations or you are complicit and are risking the possibility of being legally liable for harassment of a person based on his sexual orientation.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 24, 2009 12:44 AM | Report abuse

How come the title of the article says "Five Myths" but only three are listed?

Posted by: JRM2 | December 24, 2009 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 37thand0street"
"How about an ACTUAL BIPARTISAN BILL ??"
(Republicans CLEARLY want no part of HCR, they have had every chance and have done nothing but obstruct, lie, and play childish games, they have been very disrespectful and destructive offering no solutions)

"How about fixing the economy FIRST???"
( HCR IS a part of fixing the economy, hey remember last year at this time?, we were headed off of a cliff!, now nearly every economic indicator is improving. YOU can thank Obama and congress for us NOT being in a depression)


How about concentrating on Jobs ????
( Nearly every economist has said since last year that we would reach high levels of unemployment. Obama is putting jobs programs into place. If the Republicans hadn't obstructed, then the stimulus bill would have created more jobs to date, let's see if Republicans try to work with Obama on his new jobs bill, I won't hold my breath)

Posted by: JRM2 | December 24, 2009 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 23, 2009 7:08 PM |
---
So, can I assume that you were crying as loudly when Bush took the two wars off of the books? You know, the two wars that bankrupted our country?

No, you weren't

And I guess you were really vocal when their medicare shenanigans wasn't paid for either.

Whoops, I guess not.

Is it because Obama is a Democrat or because he is black?

It is either one of the two.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 24, 2009 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Myth of 2009 which Obama is spreading but is not true:


This guy Obama is supposed to be so smart, he is supposed to be such a great Constitutional scholar.


What a joke,

LET'S QUOTE THE US CONSTITUTION:


"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

OK


So Obama, the smart one, has been telling everyone that the indefinite detentions at Gitmo are constitutionally unsound - that Bush should have never done that - that we have trampled all these rights.

BUT THERE IT IS RIGHT IN THE US CONSTITUTION Article 1 Section 9

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Well, Mr. Obama - our country has been invaded - and in order to prevent another invasion, another terrorist attack, THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES US TO HOLD THESE PEOPLE.

Intelligence considerations really make trials with rules of evidence difficult, if not completely impossible. If anything, presenting evidence in open court jeopardizes our NATIONAL SECURITY - and ability to counter threats in the future.

Obama has been spreading lies about the indefinite detentions at Gitmo.

It is funny how Acorn can find Section 9 but Obama either doesn't know it's there or completely ignores it.

I really do not know what is going on with Obama - and I realize that the liberals are blindly defending him left and right - and making unfounded charges of racism for simply disagreements like wanting to see what is in a undisclosed file.

There is something seriously WRONG with Obama.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Clearly from the US Constitution, which Obama attempts to adhere to so well, only Senators and Representatives are immune from prosecution for their speeches in front of Congress.


HHHMMMMM


Obama CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR LYING TO CONGRESS.


It's about time the analysis comes out comparing Obama's assurances during his speech to Congress - and what is in the bill that Obama has been pushing.

DID Obama lie about the abortion provisions?


Did Obama lie about the illegal alien provisions?


Did Obama lie about the bill being "fiscally neutral"


OBAMA LIED

OBAMA LIED

OBAMA LIED

This is much much worse than anything Bush every did - (maybe not Cheney, but worse than anything Bush ever did.)


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 23, 2009 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Blade


I missed C-Span today - and I will capitalize as I please - thank you.


AND I might suggest that you simply state your own lame, pathetic views and leave other posters alone.


For some reason, you have developed the wrong idea in your small head that your ideas are morally superior to those of other people -


AND therefore, again wrongly, that makes you a better person.


This arrogance is preventing you from revising your opinions to the correct ideas.


I still believe you can evolve.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 23, 2009 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Any idea why some of the posters here are beyond belligerent in the give and take?

I've noticed that these people tend to highlight the words posted by another poster and then proceed to try to belittle them.

Others hope for harm of people. This is beyond grotesque.

There's a big difference between saying: " Poster X has a single digit I.Q. for supporting Harry Reid" and "Harry Reid was born without a soul.".

For one thing, one's a personal insult and regarding the former, Harry Reid never claimed to have a soul.

Posted by: Washington13 | December 23, 2009 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Umm, 37th, you weren't listening to C-SPAN very closely today. If you're going to parrot your side's view, the least you could do is do it accurately. That and learn the proper use of capitalization. Might I suggest a perusal of Lynn Truss's finest work?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 23, 2009 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Myth: Making "History"


Whenever someone or a group of people are doing something to "make history" - it's not going to be remembered very well.


So many events or feats have been described as "historic" or "unprecendented," only to be quickly forgotten.


Beware of these people who are motivated to "make history."

What they are really doing is acting out their ego, which is not history, it is pretty common.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 23, 2009 10:35 PM | Report abuse

NOW it is coming out that they counted $500 BILLION DOLLARS TWICE in the health care cost scoring.


HHMMMM


So now the health care bill is NOT deficit neutral.


Obama lied about that in front of Congress.


Did Obama lie about the abortion provisions in front of Congress ???


Did Obama lie about the illegal alien provisions in front of Congress ???

Is LYING TO CONGRESS a crime ???


This lends new meaning to the word "transparency" - is "deception" in there somewhere ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 23, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

( West Coast Feed...)

Presidential Myth #1: POTUS runs America, not an insidious shadow government...

U.S. SILENTLY TORTURES AMERICANS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVES, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Secret Bush legacy multi-agency federal program uses cell towers and GPS satellite microwave/laser attack system to torture, impair, subjugate "targeted" citizens -- and oversees local "community watch" vigilante terrorism and financial sabotage campaigns.

See story at: http://Poynter.org ("Reporting and Writing" section)

OR:

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 23, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

OTOH from a strictly political point of view, I would hope the Democrats foist Obamacare on us so that none of them get re-elected (but even I don't hate America ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, enough Democrats "see the light" before it's too late:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/12/stupak-tells-conservative-news.html#comments

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y) wants to kill the Senate health care bill - and start over.


Finally there is some clear thinking here.


How about an ACTUAL BIPARTISAN BILL ??


How about fixing the economy FIRST???


How about concentrating on Jobs ????

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 23, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y) wants to kill the Senate health care bill - and start over.


Finally there is some clear thinking here.


How about an ACTUAL BIPARTISAN BILL ??


How about fixing the economy FIRST???


How about concentrating on Jobs ????

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 23, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I was thinking SHP 2012 actually.

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

"Isn't it time?"

HRC 2016


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 23, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Out of 43 Presidents this country has had, at least 33 females have run for said Office and failed to break-through the Oval ceiling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates

Isn't it time?

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Iconoblaster:

No (she would have done a better job of it than Obama has ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

More good news for the Democrats and their country too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/economy/24econ.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1261602079-q/EpCK9ysWrSYhVfalMvRA

The bad news would be if inflation started to move and consumer spending did not. New home sales volume losses are meaningless in a time when the market remains flooded with them and existing home sales are booming by comparison (literally, that was yesterday's news).

Plus we don't want consumers to, "just go shopping!" That was the Republican "idea" and it is wrong. Consumers need to unwind their debt slowly and steadily just like the banks and all the other participants in the Bush (spending is easy if you don't account for it) binge.

A slow, steady recovery is a sustainable recovery. But what do I know? Just watch the behavior of world's investors. They like what they see here.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 23, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Oh, right, Palin. If George Bush the Lesser wasn't sufficiently ignorant for you, Sarah ought to be just your gal!

Are you kidding, Jake?

Posted by: Iconoblaster | December 23, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

No one on this very board wants to bring back whites-only lunch counters (nice try disguising yet another personal attack of "racism" against those who post here).

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

The R's try to change the constitution to block health care reform -- anything to keep working middle class people from getting good health care -- god forbid! The party of Scrooge strikes again:

Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Ensign (R-NV) announced yesterday that they would invoke an unusual Senate procedure — a “constitutional point of order” — to allow the Senate to rule by majority vote on whether the “Democrat health care takeover bill” is unconstitutional.

Significantly, neither DeMint nor Ensign cite a single judge, justice or reputable constitutional scholar who believes that health reform is unconstitutional. Instead, they rely entirely on a study by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, a radical “tenther” organization which has endorsed the view that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the federal minimum wage, and the federal ban on workplace discrimination and whites-only lunch counters are all unconstitutional. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), rebuts DeMint and Ensign’s constitutional claim by citing numerous constitutional scholars — including right-wing law professor Jonathan Adler — who all agree that health reform is constitutional. Moreover, as ThinkProgress has previously explained, even ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia disagrees with the tenther attack on health reform.'

I'm sure there are folks on this very board who want to bring back whites-only lunch counters...

Posted by: drindl | December 23, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! "Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Another myth is that President Obama waffles, or delays big decisions. Actually, President Obama is a humble and confident man who applies modern management to his job. .........

http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/12/23/the-humble-process-of-a-confident-barack-obama/

Posted by: glclark4750 | December 23, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

That's Medicare, one of those guvmint programs that Republicans have fought so hard against.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 23, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Cf. (again, sorry for the Latin) we senior citizens vote with even higher consistency, and I suspect that the sour taste of Obamacare will last awhile.

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

You're welcome : )

The "youth" vote indeed comprised 18% of the electorate last year. Right now, they are a pretty disillusioned bunch. Will they "come to understand that they are better off with a president who agrees with them most if not all of the time than one from the opposite party who will work against their priorities"? Will they realize that "their priorities" aren't his at all? Time will tell.

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The most interesting data in that exit poll ( thanks for the link, Jake) to me was: "A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites."

Much of the Republican domination from 1980 relied on a surge of young conservatives dating from Reagan's election. If you lose a generation, it can be quite awhile in the political wilderness. Admittedly, there is a gradual drift towards conservatism as one ages. Married folks are more likely to vote Republican, for example.

The other big question is demographic shifts. Although McCain was as effective a candidate as possible for the Latino vote, the anti-immigrant fervor of the Republican base, cost him dearly. Check out the comments section of the Post whenever someone with a Hispanic surname is coupled with a crime. I'm well aware that the Latino community is anything but a monolithic bloc. There is a lot for Republicans to appeal (religious, socially conservative), but if the starting point is perceived hostility, the Southwest could be enemy territory for anyone with an (R) after his or her name.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 23, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

The "youth" vote comprised 18% of the electorate last year. Will they "come to understand that they are better off with a president who agrees with them most if not all of the time than one from the opposite party who will work against their priorities"? McCain won a majority of every other age of white voters, though. I assume that the next GOP candidate will do even better.

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

(Link to exit-poll data re: 96% vote comprising 13% of electorate, for FairlingtonBlade):

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

A lot of them are grumbling about sitting out the midterms. All other things being equal, I agree that Obama will get 96% of their vote again in 2012 (hopefully, that total drops from 13% of the elctorate to something closer to 10% though ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

He only has to PRETEND to reach out to the black community, the Dems own them.

Pete

Posted by: Obaama | December 23, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Pete:

Let's hope so (he's having to even reach out and try to shore up his African-American base ; )

koolkat1960:

Although I am a registered member of the American INDEPENDENT Party, I don't want Gov. Palin to take the third-party route just yet.

optimyst:

#2 would be my choice but you and I don't agree on the definition of "effective". And, there's the rub.

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

"Ultimately, members of the base come to understand that they are better off with a president who agrees with them most if not all of the time than one from the opposite party who will work against their priorities."

Yep, and they (the politicos) KNOW it. Obaama has lied repeatedly to his base but they're screwed.

The kids might not show up to vote though.

Pete

Posted by: Obaama | December 23, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Jaked: that list of female presidential candidates is very interesting. Sarah Palin (and Michelle Bachmann) would fit right in, since the list is nothing but rightwing and leftwing fringe loons.

I encourage Palin to take the third-party route. Go Palin!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 23, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"Do you honestly think the Dems are going to pass anything controversial after healthcare reform up until Election Day? You probably think that Obama's stimulus "saved or created" millions of jobs then too."

The framing of the question bothers me. What I'm interested in is effective legislation by Congress and the necessary leadership by the White House to solve the issues that face our country. Which party gets credit or blame for what, is part of a game for less dangerous times. Let's not replay our parts as the dance band on the Titanic. In the absence of constructive engagement and cooperation by the GOP, the Ds must act decisively.

As I see it the Ds have three choices:

1) Be cautious and political (and cowardly).
2) Act effectively to solve crises.
3) Act and make the problems worse.

So, to answer your question, I'm hoping for #2, and so should you if the future of our country is more important than political gamesmanship. There is no safe harbor for Ds in the economic storm. The unemployment rate in November will "govern" their prospects more than any other factor. If Rs want to sit on their thumbs cheering dismal employment reports and think the political manna will all accrue to them without any vision or proposals strikes me as equally risky to the Ds "playing it safe."

The stimulus could have been more effective if it included fewer tax cuts and more stimulative spending. I do believe that our economy is stronger as a result of the stimulus, but unless we make major inroads in job creation and fiscal restraint in the aftermath of recovery, our prospects financially are gloomy. The federal debt should worry Ds and Rs alike. Would anyone suggest that political calculations should trump action when so much rides on our future? I should think citizens of all stripes would be pulling together as we have in crises of the past.

Posted by: optimyst | December 23, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

A chuckle from the lunatic fringe:

In his latest syndicated column, Chuck Norris wonders if the Obama health care plan would have resulted in some dire consequences if it had been around in times past: Namely the abortion of Jesus Christ Himself, under the regime of "Herodcare."

Norris writes:

Lastly, as we near the eve of another Christmas, I wonder: What would have happened if Mother Mary had been covered by Obamacare? What if that young, poor and uninsured teenage woman had been provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Imagine all the great souls who could have been erased from history and the influence of mankind if their parents had been as progressive as Washington's wise men and women! Will Obamacare morph into Herodcare for the unborn?'

But wait a minute. Wouldn't those same progressives have been opposed to stoning or otherwise mistreating the teenage unwed mother, and offered her generous social services instead?

Just think, if we had progressive in power, how many more messiahs we might have had in history?

Posted by: drindl | December 23, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Civil war in Florida republican party -- the first of many to come across the country as the GOP flounders and flails for relevance. Pass popcorn!

"The Florida Republican Party organization is now in the midst of a civil war, with the latest shoe to drop being that embattled party chairman Jim Greer has called for a special executive committee meeting, in response to a request that he be ousted as chairman -- but at the same time, he's telling his enemies that the motion itself isn't allowed under the party rules.

Greer, an ally of moderate Gov. Charlie Crist, has come under fire by intra-party critics who accuse him of mismanaging the state GOP's finances. For his part, Greer is putting the blame for this controversy on allies of former state House Speaker Marco Rubio, the more conservative challenger against Crist in the Senate primary. And Greer has accused these critics of "slander," "libel," and even "treason" against the Republican Party!"

Posted by: drindl | December 23, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Palin-Bachmann will "take" even more than that if federal matching funds and wipe the floor with Obama-Biden (who everyone knew, or should have known, lied about taking said funds).

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Michelle Bachmann, welfare queen:

'Michele Bachmann has become well known for her anti-government tea-bagger antics, protesting health care reform and every other government “handout” as socialism. What her followers probably don’t know is that Rep. Bachmann is, to use that anti-government slur, something of a welfare queen. That’s right, the anti-government insurrectionist has taken more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts thanks to corrupt farming subsidies she has been collecting for at least a decade.'

I’d be worried this would make Glenn Beck cry, but everything makes him cry.

Posted by: drindl | December 23, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Federal programs “designed to jump start the housing market helped boost sales of previously owned homes to their highest level since February 2007 and whittle down the excess supply of homes on the market in November.” The National Association of Realtors said sales rose 7.4 percent in November from the previous month and up 44 percent from a year ago.

Posted by: drindl | December 23, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Hundreds of thousands of Ammericns die early because of lack of access to health care -- but Rs are having 'fun' debating it. They call that depraved indifference to human suffering and modern conservatives are right alongside of theRomans for that particular decadence -- and some others of a more personal nature:

Senate Republicans have agreed to end their filibuster of health care reform “early Christmas Eve morning, allowing for a vote on the package at 8 a.m.” Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) told the Oklahoman that “the vast majority” of Senate Republicans supported ending the filibuster in order to go home for the holiday. “We’ve had all the fun we’re going to have” debating the bill, said Inhofe.

Posted by: drindl | December 23, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Out of 43 Presidents this country has had, at least 33 females have run for said Office and failed to break-through the Oval ceiling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates

Isn't it time?

Palin-Bauchman 2012

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

optimyst:

Do you honestly think the Dems are going to pass anything controversial after healthcare reform up until Election Day? You probably think that Obama's stimulus "saved or created" millions of jobs then too.

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

I will agree that a 40% approval rating (later) is lower than 47% if you agree that 47% (now) is lower than 49%. Perhaps armpeg did not make the point as clear as he/she could -- neither of us are saying that Obama's 47% is the worst in American history, at ANY point in their term, as I even pointed out that Bush, Carter, and Truman were lower at the end -- just not after only one year in Office. See the difference?

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 9:18 AM | Report abuse

You really have to be wearing beltway glasses to fit Sarbanes-Oxley into a supposed cycle that would have relevance to 2010. If you recall, we (meaning the rest of the country were numb and grieving in late 2001, mostly from the 9/11 tragedy, but also from a string of corporate frauds that seemed like they would never end. The timing of Sarbanes-Oxley was in response to Enron, and WorldCom, and Global Crossings, and Health South, and Arthur Andersen. Those were extraordinary times and measures; ergo, not compelling as a lesson for 2010.

Likewise, I believe the nature of the crises we face currently, will, if we muster the will and leadership in the White House and the Capitol, lead to effective legislation concerning jobs, financial regulation and environmental preservation.

Extraordinary times do not respond well to historical trends and customs. There is serious work for adults here. Time is not an ally.

Posted by: optimyst | December 23, 2009 9:09 AM | Report abuse

CYBER-EFFLUVIA FLOWS AT 'THE FIX'

As an armchair expert on "neurolinguistic programming," I must say that the cyber-effluvia deposited here in the past 24 years re-affirms my long-held belief that Chris Cillizza has been unjustly targeted by an organized blog-spamming campaign...

...apparently intended to pollute discourse with inanities that tend to put off "real" readers.

If I were an assignment editor at WaPo, I would commission a content analysis of major blog and comment sites hosted by WaPo, N.Y. Times, Politico.com, etc., with a special emphasis on analysis of IP addresses of blog posters to WaPo political sites.

If such a content analysis reveals that an inordinate percentage of comments emanate from a small group of ISPs, such a finding would tend to confirm the theory that some powerful entity or group of entities seeks an ideological benefit by sponsoring "infowar" blog-spamming psy ops.

That said, I offer this addendum, which may or may not have a relationship to the sort of entities that might seek to commandeer political blog comment sites:


***


U.S. SILENTLY TORTURES AMERICANS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVES, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Secret Bush legacy multi-agency federal program uses regional fusion centers to torture, impair, subjugate "targeted" citizens with microwave/laser attack system camouflaged as cell towers -- and oversees local "community watch" vigilante harassment and financial sabotage campaigns.

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
OR http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 23, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Ronnie Reagan, brilliant President and beloved by all -- another Right Wing Fairy Tale.
The reality is he looks good as long as he's in the rear view mirror and getting smaller.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 23, 2009 6:51 AM | Report abuse

Jake, you are so lame in an argument.

First google search "Reagan popularity gallup poll." First hit on that search:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx

"By the end of 1981, Reagan's job approval rating had drifted down to 49%.

Things got worse for Reagan in 1982. The public's view of the economy remained sour, and the president's ratings during 1982 stayed concomitantly low, in the 40% range, ending the year at 41%. The 1982 midterm elections were not good ones for Reagan and for the GOP. The Republicans lost about 25 seats in the House."

Even a weasel is capable of such simple work.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 23, 2009 6:45 AM | Report abuse

Again, comparing apples to apples, the Gallup Poll on Obama was 47% (I'm not talking the monthly "average" and I doubt that armpeg was either):

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124610/Brief-Uptick-Obama-Approval-Slips.aspx

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Do you have a link to the Gallup Poll for Reagan?

Posted by: JakeD | December 23, 2009 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Reagan's approval rating dropped to about 49% at the end of his first year. This in the days before there were billions and billions of polls, so it's Gallup. His average during 1982 was 43%.

Now if you could just hold back from dropping birther nonsense into every conversation (with a sprinkling of legal terminology to impress the blogarati).

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 23, 2009 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Republicans need to find a better way to get elected, "we hate obama, we hate obama..." It isn't going to work.

Do Republicans have a positive message, a protocol, a vision?

==

Something about liberty and independence. Don't ask for too many details, though.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 23, 2009 12:06 AM | Report abuse

The civility warnings are hard to take seriously given that we have one poster who comes here only to fling poo and for no other reason. His political opponents are "moonbats" and "loons," one is a "ped."

Call another posted a pedophile in every thread, day in day out, week in week out, "last warning?" Same thing weeks ago.

Zouk's right about one thing, in six months this blog will be empty, just two posters filling it up with derision, sarcasm, racism, and snark. He'll be one of them and we all know who the other one will be.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 22, 2009 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Merry Xmas, Shrink.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 22, 2009 11:54 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

"... his presidential approval numbers, after just one year in office, is the worst of any president ..."

Assuming arguendo that Obama is legally President, please point to any other President with LOWER THAN 50% approval rating after only one (1) year -- I think that was armpeg's point in that regard, comparing apples to apples -- not that other Presidents have fallen lower later in their terms (i.e. Bush, Carter, Truman) or, even, that some Presidents never got RCP numbers assigned to them.

Posted by: JakeD | December 22, 2009 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Ok fine no one is awake,
the Crist "record" is old and
if he is a moderate I am a liberal.

Merry Christmas people,


Posted by: shrink2 | December 22, 2009 11:31 PM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/us/politics/23warren.html?hpw

What would a Republican say about this?
The best man won?

Not in your dreams.

Republicans need to find a better way to get elected, "we hate obama, we hate obama..." It isn't going to work.

Do Republicans have a positive message, a protocol, a vision?

The nouvelle R moderate Crist is doing pretty well in Florida just now breaking some kinda record

http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/1135198.html

You gold investors should get what is left of your money into the Rubio campaign.
Forget the Salvation Army, the Club for Growth is in a special time of need.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 22, 2009 11:13 PM | Report abuse

The one thing Comrade Obama has done that isn't "a myth" is that his presidential approval numbers, after just one year in office, is the worst of any president in the history of the USA.

---

It'd be nice if any of the conservative commenters could be bothered to substantiate their charges. Obama's approval rating is about 50%. [Source: RealClearPolitics average of polls.] The site is run by a conservative, so you can't complain about liberal media bias. Rasmussen uses odd methodology in that it's not possible to reserve judgement. If you don't approve, then you disapprove. Adds about 10% to disapproval (and gets you guest slots on Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh....)

BTW - CC, heard you on Reporter's Notebook tonight. Sounded pretty good.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 22, 2009 11:12 PM | Report abuse

armpeg:

To be fair, Clinton got 91% and 92% of the African-American vote (1992 and 1996, respectively); Gore got 90% in 2000 and Kerry got 88% in 2004.

Posted by: JakeD | December 22, 2009 10:43 PM | Report abuse

The one thing Comrade Obama has done that isn't "a myth" is that his presidential approval numbers, after just one year in office, is the worst of any president in the history of the USA.
The American people are starting to get it that Comrade Obama is an incompetent who hasn't a clue about running anything, since he's never run so much as a hotdog stand before in his entire life. The only up-tick in his approval numbers is a one percent one from his black base, which is no big deal when you consiter that these racists would re-elect this con-artist blowhart even if he runs the country like another Idi Amin, simply because he's a tribal member.

Posted by: armpeg | December 22, 2009 10:38 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

It's not just Rep. Owens (D-NY) who is vulnerable. Take a look at all of the Democrats on Cook's "Competitive House Race Chart" before you start counting your chickens half-cocked:

NY-1 Tim Bishop R+0
NY-13 Mike McMahon R+4
NY-19 John Hall R+3
NY-20 Scott Murphy R+2
NY-24 Michael Arcuri R+2
NY-25 Dan Maffei D+3
NY-29 Eric Massa R+5

http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/house/competitive_2009-12-17_13-01-02.php

Posted by: JakeD | December 22, 2009 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Republicans done in New York?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/nyregion/23republicans.html?hp

Republicans standing for election better distance themselves from their predecessors' cooked from scratch recipe.

Republican base politics is irrational. Either make sense or forget about getting elected.


Posted by: shrink2 | December 22, 2009 10:27 PM | Report abuse


Happy Easter


(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 22, 2009 10:18 PM | Report abuse

BB -- look at this thread and the last... especially the last. Have you ever seen such an outpouring of rightwing racism, venom, hatred and bile?

This is the winter solstice, perhaps it is just all the evil spirits from the underworld converging on us at once... disgorging their green vomit, spinning around their heads and peeing their pants at the same time.

Time to look beyond it and realize we have better angels on our side -- and as this dark season approaches, time to celebrate what is good and possible in us, which we have always done with our season of lights, rather than paying attention to that which is inherently dark and evil.

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Myth about this year:

The democrats have an attitude about governing this year - that they HAVE to get certain things through before they lose their strength in Congress. This attitude is WRONG because it is governing toward a far-left wing agenda - not governing for the whole country.


Somehow, the far-left of the democratic party believes that all the moderate democrats support their far-left agenda - that is a mistake.


It is the nature of attempting to do permanent things with a temporary window which sits extremely badly with many people.


If their agenda was so good, then it should be good all the time, the wisdom should be apparent for a much greater time than just a temporary window.


It really just smacks of a minority imposing its will on a majority -


The democrats are lucky they got Specter to switch parties (who was elected as a Republican) - and they were lucky to squeeze out close wins in Georgia and Minnesota.

This country would be much better off with a health care bill that was the product of real bipartisan negotiation - this bill might get significantly revised, and the country could be pushed back and forth like a yo-yo for years.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 22, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Delete the word "not" in my post!!

Posted by: jrosco3 | December 22, 2009 9:38 PM | Report abuse

On the flip side, how many liberal Congressmen and women will vote for a final bill that includes the Stupak Amendment? Enquiring minds want to know ...

Posted by: JakeD | December 22, 2009 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Geithner declared the banking crisis over today. He said there will be no double dip, "Now we have the power to act and we will act to prevent it." I heard him on NPR driving home.

I also listened to nut bar radio. It was sad. The Glenn Beck show stand-in was telling some poor woman she should not go to jail if she were forced to buy health insurance for herself and her children.

He said, "We need you in the streets." She said, "You have no idea how angry we are." She did not say They, she said You.

Republicans like Rove created a nasty cadre. Now its spawn is dangerous in its realization that it is already irrelevant.

What will Republicans do if the news keeps getting better, just slowly, three steps forward, two steps back, three forward, two back?

The entirety of the Republican position is just this: you think Bush was bad, watch what happens next.

Well, they might still be right.
But it does not look good for the Republican Rising!

Making the party the safe harbor for bigots was a terrible mistake. It keeps the Republican political positions retrograde.

Second, smart fiscal conservatives who are better than lots of corrupt Democrats, can't get heard.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 22, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, Congress is NOT Obama's handmaiden:

"Rep. Stupak (D-MI) calls the Senate healthcare abortion compromise 'unacceptable', saying that the White House pressured him to keep quiet, but that he and at least 9-11 others won't vote for a final bill with that language.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/58921

Posted by: JakeD | December 22, 2009 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris, the last paragraph of your post is particularly poignant. The feeling of Americans on Afghanistan and health care in 2012 will determine the fate of the Obama administration. If Afghanistan is better and troops start coming home, and if the health insurance situation is better (more affordable and more covered) he will be re-elected because he will be seen as making decisions he thought were in the best interest of the country rather than not following lock step with the Progressives.

Posted by: jrosco3 | December 22, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans freed the slaves, never forget that.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 22, 2009 9:12 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade


Yea, that is the way it's gone down - it all started with Obama and your pal David Axelrod who both thought it was a great idea to start throwing the racist charges around.


For the democratic party which protected the KKK for so long, it is a bit much.


In fact, the KKK controlled delegates to the Democratic Conventions for years.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 22, 2009 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Bush's signature domestic issues were (1) a massive cut in taxes, (2) No Child Left Behind, and (3) Medicare coverage of drugs. Despite two of the three being heretical (expansion of government and unfunded), he had no trouble rallying the base in 2004. I expect that 2010 will be tough sledding, but 2012 an entirely different landscape.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 22, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

"Ultimately, members of the base come to understand that they are better off with a president who agrees with them most if not all of the time than one from the opposite party who will work against their priorities."

There question is, of course, will enough of them do so before 2010 (and 2012) elections? Keep in mind that there was a disproportionate number of first-time voters in that "base" this time around. I'm hoping that all the first-time voters in 2012 (some of them are only 15 year olds right now and don't even know who Sarah Palin is) keep an open mind to electing our first female President ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 22, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

So, now it's Obama's and/or Axelrod's fault that KoZ is abusive to CF8 and drindl and several other Fixistas. Riiiiiiiight.

Incidentally, I looked at the Virginia politics blog today. I listened to WTOP's Ask The Governor show this morning and was surprised to hear Barry from DC call in (along with Bob from Richmond). Someone posting as dumn----- posted a blatantly racist comment. I was glad to see that the Post's online editor was on it and explained why the comment stayed up for a few hours.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 22, 2009 8:51 PM | Report abuse

I deny that I am a racist.

Posted by: JakeD | December 22, 2009 8:38 PM | Report abuse

"maybe dawd, but it sure looks like it to most people, in the face of the fact that there is zero evidence."

I think I'm agreeing with you. Just my wording sucks. I'm saying that the active pushers of the birther debate, Lou Dobbs, that Russian lawyer/dentist, JakeD, are all undeniably racist.

Fortunately only one of them frequents this board. He should have been banned long ago.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 22, 2009 8:25 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade


Yea, that is the way it's gone down - it all started with Obama and your pal David Axelrod who both thought it was a great idea to start throwing the racist charges around.


For the democratic party which protected the KKK for so long, it is a bit much.


In fact, the KKK controlled delegates to the Democratic Conventions for years.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 22, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

So, KoZ called CF8 a pedophile, because JakeD is accused of racism. Riiiiiight.

By the way, I'd recommend getting your keyboard checked out. I think the caps lock key is stuck.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 22, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

maybe dawd, but it sure looks like it to most people, in the face of the fact that there is zero evidence.

Meantime, Michael Steele keeps stepping in it.
He will be gone, one away or another... he is the loosest of cannons --

'Yesterday, RNC Chairman Michael Steele said that Senate Democrats’ effort to pass health care reform in the face of Republican obstructionism means “they’re willing to basically flip the bird to the American people and slip it in in the dead of night.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid condemned Steele’s incendiary language as “crass.” MSNBC’s Nora O’Donnell asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today for President Obama’s “take.” Gibbs responded with a quip about Steele’s lucrative side career as a paid speaker, asking, “How much did that interview cost them?”:


Gibbs was referring to new revelations, reported today by the Washington Times, that Steele is “using his title to market himself for paid appearances nationwide, personally profiting from speeches with fees of up to $20,000.” Former RNC Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf said this practice is highly unusual and ripped Steele: “Holy mackerel, I never heard of a chairman of either party ever taking money for speeches.” “The job of a national chairman is to give speeches,” Fahrenkopf said. “That’s what the national party pays him for.”

UPDATE Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) called Steele's comment "foolish language."

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 7:37 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade

You don't get it - the reason the pedophile charges were thrown up was BECAUSE THERE ARE FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM BEING THROWN UP IN PEOPLE'S FACES.


In fact, you as you claim to be soooo offended, you call people bigots, and you have no idea whether those people are bigots or not.


In fact, Obama is to blame with all these FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM - because he started it in his campaign last year for electorial advantage in the primaries.


For Obama to go to a RACIST Church for so long, AND to bring his children there for years, it is a particularly outrageous charge to make.

Your post is a joke, you want to reserve the right to call people bigots without any evidence, but you are willing to claim that other people are wrong when they do the same thing with a different word.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 22, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade

You don't get it - the reason the pedophile charges were thrown up was BECAUSE THERE ARE FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM BEING THROWN UP IN PEOPLE'S FACES.


In fact, you as you claim to be soooo offended, you call people bigots, and you have no idea whether those people are bigots or not.


In fact, Obama is to blame with all these FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM - because he started it in his campaign last year for electorial advantage in the primaries.


For Obama to go to a RACIST Church for so long, AND to bring his children there for years, it is a particularly outrageous charge to make.

Your post is a joke, you want to reserve the right to call people bigots without any evidence, but you are willing to claim that other people are wrong when they do the same thing with a different word.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 22, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

um, make that I won't concede that there are people who actively push this debate who AREN'T racist to the core.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 22, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"I take the birther nonsense as more an attempt at thread jacking. I'm sure that many birthers are bigots, but I think that many aren't."

Um, no. The birther crap isn't even close to debatable. The only reason this is even brought up is because he is black and his name is Barack Obama. Hell, John McCain wasn't even born in the US and there was no question (rightfully) about his natural born status.

It's pure bigotry. I'm willing to concede that there are some who are misinformed, but I won't concede that anyone who is taking an active role in pushing this debate is racist to the core.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 22, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I am so happy that I have not been involved in the latest dust-ups.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 22, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I am so happy that I have not been involved in the latest dust-ups.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 22, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I take the birther nonsense as more an attempt at thread jacking. I'm sure that many birthers are bigots, but I think that many aren't. Overlapping Venn diagrams, if you will. With regards to President Obama, it's more about how unsettling his background is to some.

I agree with your regarding the pedophilia taunts. Having a close relative who is gay, I consider it particularly offensive.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 22, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

You aren't wrong, elijah -- some people were apparently praying for the death of an aged and ill senator. Much like some rightwing 'ministers' have been praying for the death of our president.

BB - who is Carolyn Hax?

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

"For the most part, those posting predictable rants don't bother me. It's pretty easy to skip past such a post. Zouk has crossed the lines of decency multiple times and descended into abusive behavior. I'm beginning to wonder if we need to bring Carolyn Hax into this.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade"

Personally, I think anyone who crosses the line into racist area should be banned immediately, without any warning.

And yes, racist includes the birther stuff as well as calling homosexuals pedophiles.

It's absolutely inexcusable that people who delve into those areas be given even half a warning.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 22, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

I think when you have a 92 year old colleague, who is in ill health, and you say something like what he said; at best you are praying to take advantage of his ill health, which is unbecoming a United States senator on a level I couldn't imagine a week ago. At worst, I do not put it past a self-serving narcissist like Coburn to write off the death of a man of Byrd's age as an acceptable loss in order to win. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 22, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

I don't think that Coburn was praying for the senior senator from West Virginia to pass away. Just not be able to make it that morning. The implications are pretty ugly, though, given that Coburn is a doctor.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 22, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I suppose with senators praying for each-others death, it would be too much to hope for that people with the privacy shield of an internet handle would maintain civil discourse.

Posted by: elijah24 | December 22, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Ironically, today's discussion forum is a good illustration of something important in politics. Draw a line in the sand rarely. However, when you do, make it stick. President Obama has done a good job at this. Clinton could have had this deal 12 years ago. Teddy Kennedy could have had it 25 years ago. Obama is going to take the deal on offer and make it work. Or not.

For the most part, those posting predictable rants don't bother me. It's pretty easy to skip past such a post. Zouk has crossed the lines of decency multiple times and descended into abusive behavior. I'm beginning to wonder if we need to bring Carolyn Hax into this.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 22, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Awww, the third stooge praises the second stooge. cute.

Loud and dumb seems to be too stupid to even remain on the stooge payroll.

And cilizza, if you think this is "attacking" another blogger, tell me who they are and I will stop.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, ddawd. You're right. I don't think they're kids at all, though, that's the sad part of it.

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Cilizza - if you can't see that drivl is your problem, you are hopeless.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

"Thank you, CC. Yes, elijah, this was got really nasty. Perhaps I am 'sensitive' about this, but i do get tired of being constantly attacked, as I am sure others who are singled out do as well.

I also get tired of the birther nonsense, the insidious racism and the" Democrap Socialist Dummocrats,' etc. but maybe that will go away sometime too.

Posted by: drindl"

Best thing to do is ignore. Who knows if Chris C will go through with this. He has been giving last warnings for quite some time now. But just ignore. See a sook post? Just scroll past. Same with JakeD. I'm sure zook has some clever play off my name or whatever he does. Doesn't hurt me. I don't know if ignoring him will make him stop, but responding to him surely won't. Same thing with the birther stuff. JakeD actually stopped posting here for a while since people ignored him. Now he's back and people respond to every damn thing he says and he's as happy as a racist clam.

You really gotta be more thick skinned about this. It's just a bunch of kids hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. You think any of them have ever changed a mind in their lives?

That being said, you're not really a big part of the problem, drindl. There are worse.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 22, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

And now, back to our regular programming:

the drivl spews bile hour.

I wonder where gold is. Must have been "banned" again. I was so hoping for that new recipe. I will have to settle with insult and nastiness.

Prattle on drivl.
your letter writing campaign, possible due to your unemployment for these last 24 months, has succeeded in terrifying the weak kneed liberal host.

But it is a losing cause. I give you 6 months, Cilizza. then you will be just like drivl's blog. Empty with no traffic. an anochronism. Just like your friend CC. Read the writing on the wall and grow a spine, despite your wimpy nature.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

marshmallow

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 22, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Zouk,

Let me repeat what I said to "Gold and tanzanite" who, I think, hails from the other end of the ideological spectrum from you (a fact that seems to disprove your theory that I am interested in banning people on partisan grounds): If you hate the rules so much, go somewhere else.

There are LOTS of blogs in the political world. If you can't abide by a simple rule of not making personal comments about people (and not thread-jacking) then just go somewhere else.

Same goes for "gold and tanzanite" and the others I have warned by name in this space.

There are lots of people who want to have a civil dialogue about politics -- even if they disagree with one another. And, I am committed to trying to make that happen.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | December 22, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, nobody needs to be banned for expressing an informed opinion, but when you continuously do nothing but insult people, it drags down the very conversation that draws people to this page in the first place. You can call me any name you like. I'm a big boy, and nothing you say is gonna hurt my feelings. But i don't come here for mindless insults. contribute something valuable. Represent the right side of the argument in a way that Ronald Reagan would have been proud of. As it is, I think even Archie Bunker would say "oh for gods sake, would you just shut up already?"

Posted by: elijah24 | December 22, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Bachmann, welfare queen:

'Michele Bachmann has become well known for her anti-government tea-bagger antics, protesting health care reform and every other government “handout” as socialism. What her followers probably don’t know is that Rep. Bachmann is, to use that anti-government slur, something of a welfare queen. That’s right, the anti-government insurrectionist has taken more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts thanks to corrupt farming subsidies she has been collecting for at least a decade.'

I’d be worried this would make Glenn Beck cry, but everything makes him cry.

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Madame Defarge......I mean drivl is sitting in the front row. Knitting.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

From an Alabaman re: the Griffith story:

'As the TPM has already pointed out, establishment conservatives will not support a johnny-come-lately who is already vulnerable when they can elect their own to the seat. That's what I expect them to do. Griffith's decision is a blunder for this very reason. He just relinquished the support of the DCCC (which spent about $1.2 million on him last year) for the uncertain support of the RNCC (which, as NY-23 showed, has no sway over its electorate). In fact, the worst thing that Griffith could have done was to defect. He just cost himself substantial support for reelection and is almost guaranteeing defeat.'

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Maybe this POST column should be called the "Left-wingers Fix"...

Flaming liberal Chris .....nice hit story on the new Republican, typical of you liberal fascists today.........

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

Ban him. too honest. Stalin dissaproves. Drivl would be angry. Like that is different from any day. but drivl is in charge. Bsn him. Ban him.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Jeezus. It's amazing how much hatred and bile some people have stored up.

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, CC. Yes, elijah, this was got really nasty. Perhaps I am 'sensitive' about this, but i do get tired of being constantly attacked, as I am sure others who are singled out do as well.

I also get tired of the birther nonsense, the insidious racism and the" Democrap Socialist Dummocrats,' etc. but maybe that will go away sometime too.

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

cilizza - are you the marshmellow you seem? drivl is the source of all of this yet you ignore her. did she she write several hundred letters to your inbox or to your editor? she was the one that got YOU in trouble the last time. you remember, the hillary stunt.

you are a simp. no wonder you never get invited back on any real news shows. Telling Krauthammr you coach hockey. guffaw.

I begin to think that your technology is not up to par and can't really "ban" anyone. Which one of me will you ban? Drivl thinks I have several reincarnations. but it's just paranoid.

Just a symptom of the decline in the WaPo power.

Editor: Cilizza, We don't have resources to deal with your angry mob. Handle it!

I picture J. Jameson bawling out Clark Kent.

Oh no. the big powerful Oz is going to ban us.

Like you "banned" chris fox.

you're a joke. you're reporting is sometimes efficient but your grammar and vernacular sets you squarely in the public education, vast use of communications major run down incurious slop. hizzoner. Tpaw. How old are you?

your blog is overrun with kookie leftist lunatics and yet you blame me for the problem. you are delusional, like Drivl. Maybe she can write a nice letter proclaiming your allegience to the cause.

good Luck in the liberal unemployment line with all the others. drivl has been standing there for two years. Get in line behind her.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

As his first year in office winds up, all economic indicators are stable or improving. Who predicted that?

At the close today we saw expectations the U.S. economy is reviving drop the price of gold and raise the dollar to over a six-week high against the yen and kept it near its strongest level against the euro in three months.

Buy more gold, that is my advice to Republicans. You can either bet against the US economic recovery with cheap words or expensive action.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 22, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Is it just me, or did this one degenerate into the petty, hateful, mindless insults faster than usual? I do think Drindl is a bit more sensitive than necessary, but if CC is watching, it does get old to read the same two people spewing nothing but ignorant and often bigoted insults all the time. This could be a place for informed civil discourse. Instead we have...well...this

Posted by: elijah24 | December 22, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Zouk,

Not sure what part of "no personal attacks" you didn't understand since this comment thread, which you seem to have personally hijacked, is rife with them.

Since I gave "Gold and Tanzanite" another chance, I will extend the same courtesy to you. But this is a last warning.

A message to all commenters: If it is brought to my attention that from this point forward that you have personally attacked someone else in the comment thread you will be banned. Period.

And, for those of you who disagree with that policy, being banned has nothing to do with partisanship. It has everything to do with being a good member of a community.

There will be no more warnings. I hate to be draconian about it but I refuse to let a small but vocal minority ruin the comments section for everyone.

Thanks,
Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | December 22, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

There was never any truce, zouk, simply a strongly worded request from CC to cut it out. Unless you're a sociopath, you know exactly what you're doing. Talking to you about it is a waste of good electrons, but you're not my audience.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 22, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately that first myth has been put into play excessively by the media during the president's tenure so far.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | December 22, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"Isn't it time?"

For someone up to the job? Sure. For Sarah Palin, never.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 22, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"Isn't it time?"

For someone up to the job? Sure. For Sarah Palin, never.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 22, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

How about this "historical refresher"?

Out of 43 Presidents this country has had, at least 33 females have run for said Office and failed to break-through the Oval ceiling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates

Isn't it time?

Posted by: JakeD | December 22, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

2009 was a split screen for Obama. Part one - the messiah has come. Part two - we are a center-right country and Obama is pushing socialism on us. 2010 will determine which one it is, and whether he can hold congress in the mid-terms.

Posted by: kenpasadena | December 22, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Wow less than 1 year into his presidency and he has made the recession last two years? 3 years to go in his presidency and he is already worse that Carter?

Posted by: ModerateVoter
------------------------------------------
If he isn't worse than Carter then why is the Carter family so happy about his recent prospects (since BO took over) of being remembered as the penultimate president?

Posted by: leapin | December 22, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

CC, thanx for the historical refresher.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 22, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Also keep in mind that the "new thing" to attract other first-time voters in 2012 may very well be the first female candidate for President nominated by a major party ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 22, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

don't you usually threaten a boycott for some percieved slight right before you go off to group therapy?

If you are leaving, I predict the recipe, love tips and exercise hints hour is about to begin.

Stand by for CF8. the idiocy marches on.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

"Ultimately, members of the base come to understand that they are better off with a president who agrees with them most if not all of the time than one from the opposite party who will work against their priorities."

There question is, of course, will enough of them do so before 2010 (and 2012) elections? Keep in mind that there was a disproportionate number of first-time voters in that "base" this time around ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 22, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

you don't even make sense anymore drivl.

1 it wasn't me

2 no one called anyone that

3 coming to someone else's defense as an excuse to resort to your usual ignorant, nasty wretchedness is pretty thin.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

yes, i broke the 'truce' by mentioning that king of trolls was calling a gay man a pedophile... " LOL.

now, shopping...

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Tedious!

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

yes, i broke the 'truce' by mentioning that king of trolls was calling a gay man a pedophile... " LOL.

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I did not break the truce. the vile hag did:


The south will rise again? This blog is apparently populated mostly by racists today, in the christmas spirit, I guess.

and oh look, snobama/zouk -- snozouk? is posting under another name so he can post more pedophile stuff.

WHEN WILL YOU STOP THE PEDOPHILIA STUFF, CHRIS?

"Obama's democrat party is like being a member of NAMBLA. Real human beings are rushing the exits..

Posted by: wewinyoulose"

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 12:42 PM |

as usual, she drops a stink bomb, then blames everyone else. tedious as usual.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

There's amost nothing but trolls on here today, BB. Everytime I go into the study, I check the computer and it's just full of hateful rightwing rants today, especially from the king of no-life trolls himself.

it's always worse on the holidays -- i guess it's just zouk and the rest of them's bitterness that other people have ACTUAL families and lives.

Time to go shopping for last minute gifts!

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Troll alert: "an empty headed vicious partisan"

Wasn't there supposed to be a break on nasty insults?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 22, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
Could you and your fellow journalists please stop propagating the myth that the electorate handed the Dems big majorities?

"In the afterglow of the 2008 elections, when the country had not only overwhelmingly elected Obama president but had also handed Democrats wide majorities in the House and Senate,"

As many have pointed out, the Senate filibuster rule means it takes a minimum of 60 to win a vote. The Dems barely got 57, plus two independents (?!?) and switcheroo Specter. That ain't no "wide majority." It's a miracle they got anything done at all.

Posted by: geezr | December 22, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

here's a myth:

barry is really smart.

despite liberals chanting this all year long, not a shred of evidence exists to back this up.

another myth - change from old politics, transparency, line by line frugality

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

barry has managed to lengthen what is typically an average of a ten month recession into a calamity of over two years with no end in sight. his constant meddling and arrogant interference has resulted in the biggest failure for a present ident ever recorded and considering Carter, that is a feat.

It doesn't help that he had the worst congress of all time running the show while he dilly dallied and dawdled.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 2:44 PM

Wow less than 1 year into his presidency and he has made the recession last two years? 3 years to go in his presidency and he is already worse that Carter?

Zouk your over doing it just a bit (even more so than usual). Please it is the holidays have some eggnog and chill.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | December 22, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

poor drivl. an empty headed vicious partisan chanelling angry thoughts from the discredited left; nothing in her head to slow down the transfer.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

The Coming Fall of the R party:

"In reality, both parties have plenty of ideas that they would like to implement if given the political power to do so. Republicans’ policy ideas primarily involve cutting marginal tax rates and regulations. The question isn’t whether the Republican Party has any ideas. The question is whether the party has any relevant ideas.

In the days following the 2008 election, some Republicans predicted that the party would retool itself in response to reality--not just political reality but the actuality of policy challenges. “Republicans,” wrote conservative Ramesh Ponnuru in Time, “will have to devise an agenda that speaks to a country where more people feel the bite of payroll taxes than income taxes, where health-care costs eat up raises even in good times, where the length of the daily commute is a bigger irritant than are earmarks.” Nothing like that rethinking has happened or will happen.

Whatever the merits of President Obama’s agenda, it is clearly a response to objectively large problems facing the country. The administration has selected three main issues as the focus of its domestic agenda: the economic crisis, climate change, and health care reform. The issues themselves offer a stark contrast with Bush’s 2005 crusade to reshape Social Security. While sold as a response to the program’s long-term deficit, the privatization campaign was actually motivated by ideological opposition to Social Security’s redistributive role. (Bush refused Democratic offers to negotiate a fix to the program’s solvency without altering its social-insurance character.) By contrast, it is impossible to dismiss the problems Obama has chosen to address. In all three areas, the Republican Party has adopted a stance of total opposition, not merely because it disagrees with aspects of Obama’s solutions, but because it cannot come to grips with the very nature of the problems of modern American politics."

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-rise-republican-nihilism

Posted by: drindl | December 22, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

barry has managed to lengthen what is typically an average of a ten month recession into a calamity of over two years with no end in sight. his constant meddling and arrogant interference has resulted in the biggest failure for a present ident ever recorded and considering Carter, that is a feat.

It doesn't help that he had the worst congress of all time running the show while he dilly dallied and dawdled.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 22, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"Now that the course Obama has chosen to take has been settled or signaled on all the major election year issues, the only thing that matters is the economy."

No, the only thing that matters is a free lunch and the next election.

Posted by: leapin | December 22, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

New President Myth #1: POTUS Runs the Country...
Not an Unaccountable, Insidious Shadow Government.


President Obama is learning that to ensure the future of democracy and personal liberty, he must assert control over undemocratic, often inhumane bureaucrats who were given free rein in an eight-year Reign of Terror -- whose legacy programs continue to threaten America, and the Obama presidency:

SECRET MULTI-AGENCY FED PROGRAM SILENTLY TORTURES, IMPAIRS, SUBJUGATES U.S. CITIZENS WITH CELL TOWER/SATELLITE MICROWAVE/LASER 'DIRECTED ENERGY' WEAPONS AND LOCAL 'COMMUNITY WATCH' VIGILANTE TERRORISM, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

* Thousands of Americans, deemed to be "dissidents" or undesirables, targeted by Bush legacy program for debilitating microwave/laser assault, held hostage in their own homes to fed-supported vigilante "community policing" stalking units, equipped with warrantless GPS devices, who vandalize and terrorize as local police look the other way.

"These are crimes against humanity and the Constitution, being perpetrated under the cover of national security and 'safe streets' by multiple federal and local agencies and commands -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight, enabled by the naivete of those who think 'it can't happen here.'" -- Victor Livingston, former reporter for WTXF-TV Philadelphia, Phila. Bulletin, N.Y. Daily News, St. Petersburg Times; producer/host, MSG Network Sports Business Report; columnist, NowPublic.com/scrivener.

JOURNO TO FBI: TAKE CONTROL OF DHS-RUN FUSION CENTERS
TO STOP SILENT MICROWAVE / LASER ATTACKS ON U.S. CITIZENS

http://nowpublic.com/world/obama-wrong-unaware-u-s-does-torture-its-own-citizens
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
nowpublic.com/world/govt-tortures-me-silent-microwave-weapons-ousted-s-prez
OR (if links are corrupted / disabled): NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 22, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Now that the course Obama has chosen to take has been settled or signaled on all the major election year issues, the only thing that matters is the economy.

The news continues to improve. Existing house sales rose 7.4 percent to an annual rate of 6.54 million units in November, the fastest pace since February 2007. Sales figures like these will set a floor under prices. This will stabilize the risk associated with MBS, the banking crisis is over.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 22, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company