Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama sends a message to Congressional Dems: Stand and fight

In a state of the Union speech notable for its conciliatory tone and generally centrist policy focus, President Barack Obama saved his harshest words for the members of his own party.

"After last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual," said Obama. "But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills."

Those three sentences encapsulate the view of Obama and his White House about the best -- and perhaps only -- mindset that Democrats must adopt heading into the November midterm elections. Put simply: You can run, but you can't hide.

Obama as well as his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, himself a former member of the House leadership, have argued for months that Democrats' fate is tied to the president whether they like it or not due to the near-certainty that 2010 will be a nationalized election.

Given that Republicans will seek to link Obama and his policies to any and every targeted Democrat, the only way to fight back, in the President's way of thinking, is to support his major initiatives -- a move that allows a vulnerable Democratic incumbent to be able to show his or her constituents actual accomplishments rather than just more of the gridlock that voters have grown weary of.

The ideal Member in the White House's world view is Virginia Rep. Tom Perriello who, after winning the Republican-leaning 5th district by 727 votes in 2008, promptly turned around and voted for the President cap and trade and health care bills.

Those votes have led Republicans to pronounce Perriello as politically dead-on-arrival although, as my colleague Amy Gardner noted in a piece over the weekend, the raw number of GOP candidates seeking to challenge the freshman incumbent make for an unpredictable race.

It's far from clear, however, whether other House -- and Senate -- Democrats see the political landscape in the same way that the White House and Perriello do.

Sources familiar with the current mindset of Congressional Democrats describe the general feeling as a combination of nervousness at their future electoral prospects and anger at the President and his senior aides for -- in their minds -- creating the headwind currently blowing in their faces.

That anger was on display most publicly in an interview retiring Rep. Marion Berry (Ark.) gave to his hometown newspaper earlier this week in which he recounted a conversation with Obama in which the president insisted the big difference between 2010 and 1994 is that "you've got me".

The first big test of whether Obama won over any coverts to his view of the 2010 election will come in the next few weeks as the Democratic-led Congress debates how -- and whether -- to save some components of the Administration's health care bill.

Several Democratic senators including Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.) -- both of whom are up for re-election this fall -- have balked at the idea of using the parliamentary tactic of reconciliation to pass elements of the health care plan, and Mary Landrieu (La.) has been critical of the president for not offering more details on the way forward on health care in his speech last night. On the House side, it's hard to imagine the 49 House Democrats who currently represent districts won by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 wanting the health care debate to stay in the public eye for a second longer.

The central question that Democrats must answer is whether no plan on health care is better politically than a plan that a majority of the American people -- if polls are to be believed -- say they oppose.

That calculation is further complicated by the fact that many of these targeted House Members as well as people like Bayh and Lincoln have already voted for the Administration's health care bill once meaning that even if they vote against whatever the party leadership comes up with over the next few days, it may not make much difference politically.

Obama laid down his marker last night about the course Congressional Democrats must take to save themselves in 2010 -- stand and fight, don't head for the hills.

Let's see if they heed his warning.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 28, 2010; 1:27 PM ET
Categories:  House , Senate , White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Breaking down President Obama's state of the union speech (VIDEO)
Next: The best political books ever

Comments

For 12 months, Obama, Pelosi and Reid acted as if they ran D.C. and that the republicans were their caddies. Then the wise newly independent voters of Kennedy's Massachusetts spoke, and Obama's media machine are sending me Youtube videos of the POTUS not cowtowing to the Republican house members.....all smiles. A few more senate races lost (as is now predicted- see 3rd The Fix blog) and all Reid will have left to do is carry the bags.

Posted by: thecannula | January 30, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"Stand up and fight"?

A perfect example of "do as I say, not as I do" from the Neville Chamberlain of the Democratic party.

Posted by: lithium452 | January 29, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Why are people talking to suzyccup like she's a real girl? She's clearly a fat, sweaty guy name Earl.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 29, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

'STAND UP AND FIGHT'? and this is diplomacy? a recipe for bipartisan compromise? ....or a war cry that will only unite Republicans and Independents into an effective fighting force of its own.

OBAMA's major character flaw is that he sends out so many conflicting and 'mixed messages' that what is termed 'cognitive dissonance' sets in as a political disorder....and then he wonders why people dislike both branches of Congress and are voting independent in such large numbers that TEA PARTIES are now a feature of the political landscape.

...HE JUST DOESN'T GET....and neither does WAPO.

Posted by: Common_Cents1 | January 29, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

I don't hate you, Suzy, whatever gave you that idea.

On the contrary, you're beneath my notice.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse


Do you know what is amazing?


Hillary is doing the best job of anybody.

She is not involved in the wacky health care debate - she doesn't have a bunch of soundbites of her from Capitol Hill talking about Reid, Baucus, Nelson or the Lousiana Purchase.


She is not involved in the stimulus, which is weighing heavily on Obama, dragging him down.


She gets to travel the world on the tax payers' expense.


She is doing the best of anyone.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Goodnight everyone. Gotta go. Just one last thing:

Noacoler, I know you hate me and several others that post on this board. We get it. Believe me. And I don't even mind. But that's all you ever post about.

Can you try to at least post about some other topic? Any topic.

I'm a conservative who is very tolerant. You're a liberal who is intolerant. Doesn't that contradict what libs always claim?

Have a good evening!

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 28, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Suzy


You are sweet your bf does not deserve you.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Everyone

Rasmussen had Massachusetts correct - if anything, when Rasmussen said Massachusetts was at Brown 9 points behind, he probably had Brown closer, but he didnt want to say that.


We now know that the Republican National Committee had polls similar to Rasmussen, so Rasmussen was not an outlier.

Sorry guys - Coakley knew this too, maybe too late, but before broadwayjoe did.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, that was rather unkind of me. Go to Pollster.com and look at the chart with all the polls and I think you will understand better.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 10:27 PM

12BarBlues, you're right. I don't know much about statistics, but I'll take your advice. Thanks.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 28, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues, no offense, but - what??????


Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 28, 2010 10:06 PM
-----------------------------
I take it you don't know much about statistics.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 10:24 PM
--------------------------
Excuse me, that was rather unkind of me. Go to Pollster.com and look at the chart with all the polls and I think you will understand better.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues, no offense, but - what??????


Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 28, 2010 10:06 PM
-----------------------------
I take it you don't know much about statistics.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Hey Cillizza, read these comments once in a while. Imagine someone whose posts might add value running across this blog. Imagine him scrolling past 37th's or suzy's flea-brained idiocy. And zouk's sick twisted viciousness, or Jake's tiresome nonstop troll. Think he's going to stay and post? Of course not.

Yet you persist ped. The inescabable conclusion is that you add NO value. By your own "liberal logic".

Posted by: Moonbat | January 28, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Suzy. That is a very bad explanation of the law of large numbers and return to the mean. It is basically correct.

The mean is not Kos, CNN, abc et al.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 28, 2010 10:15 PM


Thanks Moonbat. I was going to call a college teacher I had but now I get it.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 28, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

BTW, Rasmussen is almost always an outlier poll.
Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 10:05 PM


Would that make him European or Asian?

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 28, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Suzy. That is a very bad explanation of the law of large numbers and return to the mean. It is basically correct.

The mean is not Kos, CNN, abc et al.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 28, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Bj still thinks coakley is ahead in mass.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 28, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

It becomes clear that the polls cluster around a mean line and then there are a few "outliers" (polls who are far away from the clustered polls).

The question then is: does the mean line predict the future (within the error range) or do the outliers predict the future. As time progresses toward the election, the outliers come closer and closer to the mean line because the outliers know that the mean line is the "real" line.

To believe outlier polls when the election is months off is to agree to be fooled. For the outlier polls to claim to be accurate when the election actually occurs, is propaganda for the statistically challenged.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 10:03 PM


12BarBlues, no offense, but - what??????


Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 28, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

BTW, Rasmussen is almost always an outlier poll.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Look, I have to go with the journalists of the New York Times and the commonly accepted standards they apply to these polls. Rasmussen and their ilk, sadly, do not comply as we understand it. You can't call 10 landphones in Mayberry or Hadleyville during the middle of a workday and call it a "poll." I think Research 2000 IS compliant and they say BHO at 54. I'll go with that, thank you very much.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 28, 2010 9:52 PM
-------------------------------------
It is instructive to go to Pollster.com and look at the distribution of all the presidential approval polls.

It becomes clear that the polls cluster around a mean line and then there are a few "outliers" (polls who are far away from the clustered polls).

The question then is: does the mean line predict the future (within the error range) or do the outliers predict the future. As time progresses toward the election, the outliers come closer and closer to the mean line because the outliers know that the mean line is the "real" line.

To believe outlier polls when the election is months off is to agree to be fooled. For the outlier polls to claim to be accurate when the election actually occurs, is propaganda for the statistically challenged.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

...write me or hook me up with your server room guy...

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 9:43 PM


Noacoler, I'm shocked! I didn't know you were THAT kind of guy. Mr Cillizza is not running a dating service. Go to eharmony.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 28, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

The Right Wing Fairy Tales started early tonight 'cause it's a school night! Tell me more about ACORN, the pResident, bipartisanship and who made the deficit while I plump my pillow. Not you, 37th; I like the way Uncle Drivl tells 'em.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 28, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

noa, co-sign per usual. Here at ground zero, everyone is still buzzing about BHO's great performance last night as he finally started to call out his adversaries, including the Supreme Court!

As for this space, look at the bright side: it's a Jake-free zone now (at least for the time being) and Fix has re-asserted ownership of it. You take it from here. Celts and the Magic are on...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 28, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Look, I have to go with the journalists of the New York Times and the commonly accepted standards they apply to these polls. Rasmussen and their ilk, sadly, do not comply as we understand it. You can't call 10 landphones in Mayberry or Hadleyville during the middle of a workday and call it a "poll." I think Research 2000 IS compliant and they say BHO at 54. I'll go with that, thank you very much.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 28, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey Cillizza, read these comments once in a while. Imagine someone whose posts might add value running across this blog. Imagine him scrolling past 37th's or suzy's flea-brained idiocy. And zouk's sick twisted viciousness, or Jake's tiresome nonstop troll. Think he's going to stay and post? Of course not.

I don't know if these unemployed morons are what you want, but there's no denying that's what you've chosen.

If you're serious about permanently banning some of these nitwits, write me or hook me up with your server room guy, I can help. Cimputer and network security are a big part of my career.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

"Let me be clear. If I had known what I know now, would I have walked through that door."

If we, the voters, would have known what we know now, you would have been shown door number 3 - a ticket back to Chicago. Coach class.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 28, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


The only number Obama should be concerned about is his job approval number on the economy - which is at 36% right now.

sorry, joe.


I know you want Obama to be doing better - well - you could write him a letter and tell him to start adhering to some of his campaign pledges. That would help.

The thing about credibility and trust - once it is lost it is hard to get back.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Mr, Cillizza, sorry I'm late but I can't believe you banned JakeD. For what! Can you explain it? Was he somehow involved in the John Edwards scandal? Was it the comment he made about the tie you were wearing? I don't get it. He's not running for any office, so what difference does it make what he said? Just ignore it if you don't like it.

If you're going to ban JakeD, why not ban broadwayjoe? Everyone knows he wears pantyhose when he posts on this blog. That's really weird!

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 28, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

It is my sincere hope that the Democratic Party continues to rely on the "accuracy" of Daily Kos/Research 2000 Polls and CNN Polls.

Republicans benefited from Democrat's gullibility in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts.

With Fake Polling from biased news outlets as their foundation for false hope, I look forward to Democrats continued success in November 2010.

Meanwhile, people who think and can do basic math will continue to follow the accurate polling of Rasmussen, PPP and Harris.

Posted by: Washington13 | January 28, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

37, watch out or I may summon.................malis.
Must I paste in his famous post, again?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 28, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

The polls say 83% percent of the American people support the policies described by President Barack H. Obama last night. That leaves the 17% who spend their spare time throwing rocks off highway overpasses and redeeming smashed aluminum soda cans at Piggly Wiggly.

83%! Unreal. And, again, 54% approval according to Research 2000.
_____________________

"Obama had a bad attitude last night - he was angry - and he had a defiant tone."
Yep, we agree. Wasn't BHO great? Josiah Bartlet would have been proud.


Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 28, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


So you are so paranoid that you believe Rasmussen has the power to move millions of voters in Massachusetts ????

The voters are angry - Obama has been breaking his campaign promises,


The voters are looking for a way to go - and your theory is that Rasmussen is the Pied Piper, leading the way ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I don't get all these liberals - all the liberal interest groups leap to Bill Clinton's support during his sex scandal - now they are all ready to throw Edwards overboard.


It seems the liberals get confused - they don't know when to support a sex scandal and when not too.

Where will they stand if Obama has a sex scandal ? And what if that sex scandal involves cocaine and a gay lover ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama may have sent a message, but the end result is that he didn't change anyone's mind. He just further entrenched them. Much more partisanship to come!

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 28, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

In the opinion of some, the way it goes is: Rasmussen puts out some outlier poll that defies reason, reality, previous voting patterns, and demographics. The rightwing echo chamber and MSM embeds holler about the poll, see, e.g., Brown gaining on Coakley. The MSM is then forced to give the previously hapless GOP candidate millions of dollars worth of free publicity. Eventually, because of the endless free pub, the needle DOES move decisively in the candidate's direction. Rasmussen fans then crow about him getting it right. Sums up the Hoffman and Brown races pretty much, no?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 28, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

The truth about the polls is that Obama is sinking fast - and it's the kind of sinking that is going to be difficult for Obama to get back to where he was.


Obama had a bad attitude last night - he was angry - and he had a defiant tone.


Obama thinks he can lie to everyone - and then everything will be alright -


Obama thinks he can tell everyone he is being bipartisan - and that means the Republicans should immediately drop all their opposition to his policies.

But Obama finds NO OBLIGATION to himself in that call to be bipartisan - it is almost like he just wants everyone to agree to his far-left agenda.


Then, Obama has people like broadwayjoe quoting the wrong poll numbers to him.

What reality is Obama part of ???

Obama's credibility is now COMPLETELY OUT THE WINDOW - People do not trust Obama anymore.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


If you start listening to me, you will be OK.


If you continue down your path of hatred, harassment and bad polls, you will live your life in darkness.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Rasmussen is about as accurate a pollster as you can get:

The old liberal guard can't stand it and that includes the retreads at Politico.

Rasmussen was the first polling organization to see a shift to Brown in the Massachusetts Race along with PPP (An openly Democratic Polling Firm) who responded to biased journalistic sources trying to discredit the accurate polling of Rasmussen and PPP here:

"One of the most amusing things Langer and others in his cohort claim is that polls should not be judged by their accuracy- i.e. PPP, Survey USA, and Rasmussen are bad no matter how good their polls are at nailing election outcomes because he doesn't like the methodology. That attitude may still hold water in the small self appointed fraternity of elitist pollsters, but in our results oriented society most consumers of polls will continue to turn more and more toward organizations that have proven track records of accuracy."

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/responding-to-abc.html

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/01/28/battle_of_the_pollsters.html?utm_medium=pwire.us-twitter&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_content=site-basic

Posted by: Washington13 | January 28, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


You complained and complained about Rasmussen prior to the Massachusetts election - when Rasmussen had Scott Brown 9 points down

AND now who was right and who was wrong ?

You really have a problem with seeing reality - funny becauce Obama has the same problem.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Rasmussen's polls were thoroughly discredited in a recent politico.com article. Few legitimate political analysts cite them, do they?

Excerpt:

"“I don’t think there are Republican polling firms that get as good a result as Rasmussen does,” said Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow with Media Matters, a progressive research center. “His data looks like it all comes out of the RNC [Republican National Committee].”

“Whether intended or not, Rasmussen polls have been used by conservative voices as talking points, and when that happens on one side it inevitably produces a reaction from the other,” explained Mark Blumenthal, a polling analyst and the editor and publisher of Pollster.com. “Rasmussen produces a lot of data that appear to produce narratives conservatives are promoting, and that causes a reaction.”"

The widely held belief is the Rasmussen polls are designed to influence public opinion rather than measure it, which is the purpose of legitimate polls like Research 2000. In the opinion of some, they are often used to support some false rightwing narrative or to prop up some otherwise non-competitive GOP candidate, see Scott Brown.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31047.html

Sorry to break the news, 3_.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 28, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

O'Keefe should know better.

We don't need to record the corruption of Senator Landrieu. She takes her bribes out in the open.

Then again, it is hysterical to watch liberals get excited over this.

After all, It's been a rough week for conservatives:

1) A Republican wins a Senate seat in Massachusetts previously held by John F. Kennedy and Ted Kennedy. Last held by a Republican in 1953.

2) Health Care reform is not going to be rushed. Socialism took a step back. I believe there are many people on the record saying that Obama's Presidency is over if he does not pass comprehensive health care reform.

3) The Supreme Court changes 100 years of campaign finance laws in favor of the First Amendment. You can tell it was good for conservatives based on the extent of Senator Schumer's commentary.

4) Beau Biden runs and hides from a Senate run. A seat his father held.

I'll add the fifth if the news coverage proceeds as I believe it will.

5) Liberals will try to use the arrest of O'Keefe to delegitimize the video tape evidence of ACORN employees giving advise on running a business that involved the prostitution of illegal alien underage girls. Thus supporting the ACORN policy of giving advise on running a business that involved the prostitution of illegal alien underage girls.

In other words, the liberals will crucify O'Keefe for trying to get information on a crooked politician, but look the other way on ACORN giving advise on how to make a profit from the statutory rape of underage girls smuggled into the country illegally.

All in all, a bad week for conservatives as liberals stand on their principles.

Posted by: Washington13 | January 28, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

What is even WORSE for Obama is his job approval ratings in individuals categories - the economy, jobs, the environment --

This is important because it takes out the personal "personality" parts of the approval ratings - and you get a more accurate reading of the job performance.

Obama is like at 36% for his job approval for the economy - so that is really bad.

I don't see Obama recovering -


Obama started out his speech last night - and he said something like "Hey, you guys were supposed to be following me"


But Obama made little effort to be bipartisan or to be centrist -

Obama is a sinking disaster - there was almost nothing last night to slow that slow sinking of Obama into the oblivion of history.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

I think Landrieu had better spend her time figuring out what that what 25 year old "kid" (isn't that the spin today?) O'Keefe and his posse did to her phone system the other day, allegedly, instead of pestering 44.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/acorn_gotcha_man_arrested_for.html

Given this arrestee was the one who perpetrated the fake, anti-BHO media controversy "Acorn-gate," people are already wondering whether his allegations against this nationally respected voter registration group ever had any factual basis.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 28, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Daily Kos Poll vs. Independent Polling Firm Harris

Let's See how Kos stands in the most recent election:

Kos calls Mass Senate Race a Dead Heat 48-48

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/17/MA/429

Real Election: Brown -53 vs Coakley -46
Daily Kos Poll: Brown -48 vs Coakley -48

CNN Poll that stated the audience was overwhelmingly Democrat who happen to give the President an 80% Job Approval. Even with the biased polling sample from CNN, Obama still dropped 20% in very favorable from his first address in February 2009 (68% to 48%).

Posted by: Washington13 | January 28, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA's disapproval has gone from 30% to 54% in one year - that is about the swing of the voters in Massachusetts.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse


Rasmussen has Obama at 54% DISAPPROVAL


46% APPROVAL


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

BHO approval at 54 (Daily Kos/Research 2000). Thank you very much.

...and 83% approval of the BHO agenda laid out in the State of the Union address.

http://www.truthout.org/83-percent-approval-state-union-proposals56464

O-Nation

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 28, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Bipartisanship is not unilateral disarmament.

Obama, time and time again, asks for the opposition to "put aside" their arguments about Obama.


But Obama then goes and slams the Republicans, time and time again - it is so silly and childish.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Let 37 be 37.

.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Washington13 | January 28, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

All the reviews outside of Drudge World have been uniformly positive. Huge approval ratings for the speech. This couild be the beginning of Let Obama be Obama. And how BHO about calling out the SCOTUS to their collective faces, including one angry, scrunched up, mouthing-words face. Great stuff from 44!
At the same time, the Michelle Bachmann/Teabagger event imploded and Scott Brown and Bob McDonnell are walking away from the extremist Palinite wing of the GOP. Interesting.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 28, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

broad___joe


WHY haven't you been banned already - you never have anything to say about the topic - all you do is harass other posters - please just go away.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

Thank you for your comments.


I honestly believe there is a lack credibility on the part of Obama.


Yesterday, he talked about being bipartisan, but then he slammed the Republicans in a way that I have never seen before in a State of the Union address.


I am beginning to wonder if Obama feels any obligation to hold himself to his own words.


I find Obama's abandonment of things he said last year during the campaign extremely unsettling.


You may not like the word "fraud" - however it fits.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Yawn -- the rightwing losers clog the board again, repeating the same mindless crap endlessly. Really, don't you people have anything else to do at all?

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 6:03 PM
_______
d, you already know the answer to that. :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 28, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Washington13 | January 28, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

IS OBAMA A COMPULSIVE LIAR???

Does anyone believe that Obama feels any obligation to abide by his own words ?

It's as if Obama is willing to say anything to get through an election - or through a speech - and those words and commitments MEAN NOTHING to his future actions.

The nation really have a situation on their hands.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Are the democrats going to "Stand and Fight" or are they going to be bipartisan ???


Obama wants it both ways.


It is almost as if Obama wants the Republicans to compromise with him, give him the votes, and then Obama wants to immediately go before the cameras and bash the Republicans again.


It is a complete joke -


Obama's actions make his words a complete joke - granted Obama only had a week to get this speech together - but the CONTRADICTIONS ARE SO OBVIOUS AND BARE - IT IS COMPELLING.


IS OBAMA THAT MUCH OF A LIAR THAT HE CAN NOT HELP HIMSELF?


DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ANSWER TO THE GROWING EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA IS A COMPULSIVE LIAR ????


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Yawn -- the rightwing losers clog the board again, repeating the same mindless crap endlessly. Really, don't you people have anything else to do at all?

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of LOST...

Take the examples of public advocate Obama’s once idealistic promotion of C-SPAN broadcasts of the healthcare debate, and Obama’s current fiery lamentations over the Supreme Court decision overturning elements of the McCain-Feingold limitations on corporate campaign donations.

But Obama, the current reformer, seems to be railing at Obama, the cynical backroom organizer, who would never dare televise anything about his thousand-page healthcare mess. Yet Obama II not only nixed Obama I’s repeated promises of C-SPAN debates, but outsourced his healthcare bill to congressional insiders, who did more backroom-dealing, vote-buying, and quid-pro-quoing than at any other time in recent memory.

So there is no consistency even in the flip-flopping. Obama III as the sudden guardian of campaign-financing curbs is antithetical to Obama I, the rejectionist of any government interference. In 2008 Obama I destroyed the idea of public campaign financing of presidential elections. Indeed, in his efforts to raise a billion dollars of private money, Obama became the first presidential candidate in the general election in over 30 years to back out of public financing, an idea which is now more or less kaput.

So what is the present-day Obama III? Nothing and everything. We have no idea whether he is against corporate campaign contributions, given Obama I/II’s voracious appetite for them. Will he accept public campaign financing in the future? Only if his money machine stalls? Is C-SPAN necessary for or irrelevant to public debate?

Posted by: leapin | January 28, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

For me, last night’s State of the Union address will forever be entwined with next week’s season premiere of Lost, and not just because of the much publicized scheduling conflict between the two, television events. By imploring Congressional Republicans to cooperate with Democrats in confronting the many, critical concerns facing our nation, President Obama echoed the rallying cry of Lost ’s motley crew of castaways: “live together, die alone.”

Read more @ http://armchairfirebrand.wordpress.com/

Posted by: ArmchairFirebrand | January 28, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse


Are the democrats going to "Stand and Fight" or are they going to be bipartisan ???


Obama wants it both ways.


It is almost as if Obama wants the Republicans to compromise with him, give him the votes, and then Obama wants to immediately go before the cameras and bash the Republicans again.


It is a complete joke -


Obama's actions make his words a complete joke - granted Obama only had a week to get this speech together - but the CONTRADICTIONS ARE SO OBVIOUS AND BARE - IT IS COMPELLING.


IS OBAMA THAT MUCH OF A LIAR THAT HE CAN NOT HELP HIMSELF?


DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ANSWER TO THE GROWING EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA IS A COMPULSIVE LIAR ????

.

Posted by: 37thand0street
-----------------------------------------
There is little need any more to offer consistent opposition to Barack Obama, since he himself is already running hard against the many previous incarnations of Barack Obama.

The first one we met was Barack the radical progressive, in his primary campaign against Hillary. Then in the general election we were introduced to the centrist Obama, who promised to invade Pakistan if need be, called for an end to partisanship, and lectured about fiscal sobriety.

Then with congressional majorities, soaring public support, and obsequious media attention came the leftist ideologue President Obama, who tried to ram through a statist healthcare regime, gobbled up private enterprises, and gave us Anita Dunn and Van Jones.

Now we are back to sorta centrist Obama, who is going to fight terror, not apologize any more to the Muslim world, and freeze spending rather than give us another $2 trillion in debt.

These serial reset Obamas are quite astonishing even for a politician.

Posted by: leapin | January 28, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Yea, everyone agrees that Alito was correct last night.

However, what really bothers everyone is that Obama had two major points which he basically - the lobbyists and his bipartisanship which he makes a joke.

Obama has cut deal after deal with lobbyists to support his health care program - this list goes on and on.

Obama CLAIMED AGAIN last night he wanted to be bipartisan - but in this very speech he slammed the Republicans - OVERT PARTISAN ATTACKS IN THE SAME EXACT SPEECH.

HOW MUCH OF A FRAUD CAN OBAMA BE ???

OBAMA'S ACTIONS DO NOT MATCH HIS WORDS.

This why Obama has been sinking - and he will continue to sink until all the support he has left is blind democrats who refused to recognize reality.
I really do not like the government being run this way.
.
Posted by: 37thand0street
------------------------------------------
HOW MUCH OF A FRAUD CAN OBAMA BE ???
Mucho.

He showed his “it’s about me” attitude toward the supreme court. He failed to respect the constitution (again) and disrespected a branch of government theoretically equal to his branch. Yet it was all about the Supreme Court not bowing to Barry.

Posted by: leapin | January 28, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Are the democrats going to "Stand and Fight" or are they going to be bipartisan ???


Obama wants it both ways.

It is almost as if Obama wants the Republicans to compromise with him, give him the votes, and then Obama wants to immediately go before the cameras and bash the Republicans again.

It is a complete joke -

Obama's actions make his words a complete joke - granted Obama only had a week to get this speech together - but the CONTRADICTIONS ARE SO OBVIOUS AND BARE - IT IS COMPELLING.

IS OBAMA THAT MUCH OF A LIAR THAT HE CAN NOT HELP HIMSELF?


DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ANSWER TO THE GROWING EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA IS A COMPULSIVE LIAR ????


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

So the first guy to NOT take public financing of his presidential campaign is now worried about the corrupting influence of money and special interests on politics.

Does anyone still wonder why no one believes a word he says anymore?

his coffers were filled with overseas, no name credit card donations.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Yea, everyone agrees that Alito was correct last night.


However, what really bothers everyone is that Obama had two major points which he basically - the lobbyists and his bipartisanship which he makes a joke.


Obama has cut deal after deal with lobbyists to support his health care program - this list goes on and on.


Obama CLAIMED AGAIN last night he wanted to be bipartisan - but in this very speech he slammed the Republicans - OVERT PARTISAN ATTACKS IN THE SAME EXACT SPEECH.


HOW MUCH OF A FRAUD CAN OBAMA BE ???


OBAMA'S ACTIONS DO NOT MATCH HIS WORDS.


This why Obama has been sinking - and he will continue to sink until all the support he has left is blind democrats who refused to recognize reality.

I really do not like the government being run this way.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Last week's Supreme Court ruling striking down the ban on direct corporate spending in elections could allow overseas corporations -- even those controlled by foreign governments -- to pour money into U.S. elections, supporters of campaign-finance regulation warn.

"Clearly there's a huge opening now," Stephen Spaulding of Common Cause told TPMmuckraker.'

republicans selling the country to foreign powers. nothing new.

Posted by: drindl
------------------------------------------
George Soros can come above board now.

Posted by: leapin | January 28, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Last week's Supreme Court ruling striking down the ban on direct corporate spending in elections could allow overseas corporations -- even those controlled by foreign governments -- to pour money into U.S. elections, supporters of campaign-finance regulation warn.

"Clearly there's a huge opening now," Stephen Spaulding of Common Cause told TPMmuckraker.'

republicans selling the country to foreign powers. nothing new.

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

37th,

I think Jake got banned for his comments on "Twittering President Obama's state of the union address" around midnight. Anyone who is interested can find it. I'm not going to reproduce it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

By pleasing his immediate audience with his rhetoric and clichés about his racial transcendence, Obama has always charmed his way. Why worry about the nonexistent record, broken promises, empty platitudes, and self-contradictions when his mesmerized audiences believed that he believed in them, and lapped up the inexpensive absolutions for their assorted past sins?

The only catch is that Barack Obama no longer navigates among gullible Ivy League deans, naïve philanthropists, and inept organizers and bureaucrats. No, he is running a country that still has millions of no-nonsense truckers, teachers, small-business owners, and general skeptics who don’t give a damn about either Harvard or Chicago. And in their eyes, after a year, the game is about up.

Yet in a weird sort of consistency, Obama remains what he always was. Whatever we choose to see in this glass mirror, he will sorta, kinda reflect our vision.

Obama is our first everything-and-nothing president.

Posted by: leapin | January 28, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse


Massachusetts was the wake up call. The overwhelming majority of Americans gave the President a mandate to change the way government works or more correctly, hasn't worked for the people in decades, plus we gave him the tools, the majority in both houses, to accomplish his bold program of change.
The election prepared us for lunacy the far right wing would promote to beat back any attempt to make government work for the people rather than the mega-corporations and military that had taken control of government.
President Obama thought he would be able to make peace with the right wing by giving into a few demands. But the right wing knew all they had to do was push and the Democrats would back up. Next, Obama let the far right define his Health Care Reform into Death Squads, Socialism, and all sorts of ignorance until the "back up" became a full scale rout. "We the People" turned away thinking "Big words Mr Obama, but the same ol chicken little politics." resulting in the Massachusetts Massacre.

Now President Obama has issued more big words, large concepts and a stinging challenge not only to his own party but to all government to work for the common good rather than the special interests. I believe the People will watch and see if he and the Democrats are willing to lead a real fight for the "Changes" we all know are needed. If they are we will cover his back, sides and go before to create the tidal wave that will bring America back in line with the ideals it was created from. But if the Democrats run before the fearful, ignorant and nut cases spurred on by the mega-corporations and military, then they will find themselves alone because nobody follows weak leaders into a tough battle.

Posted by: thestoryplease | January 28, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

if Dems seriously want to do good for American people they would forget bi-partisanship with the party of Republican lunatics and propose Universal nationalized single payer health care and pass it with the Majority vote that they have, which would leave the party of Republican lunatics no room to hide, because the current health care proposal by the Dems makes Republican lunatics look sane, look good. More on this here:
http://anoox.com/blog/UHC.37605

After all consider this FACT: the Conservative parties in Uk, the Israeli government, the favorites of Republican lunatics are 100% for their Universal nationalized single payer health care systems. More on this here:
http://anoox.com/blog/UHC.37761

Posted by: RealNews1 | January 28, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

That ship has sailed. the bill is dead. even the purple ninny-in-the-box has announced she doesn't have the votes.

Chalk it up to another in the long line of failures innured to the liberal zealotry.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse


Folks,

An update: "JakeD" is either banned or will be banned shortly for comments he made last night on the blog.

If there are others violating our rules, please send me an email highlighting the offensive comment.

Thanks,
Chris


-------

Chris:


What exactly were the comments which prompted this ??? Many of us would like to know where the line is

And why didnt broadwayjoe get banned for the multitude of "ad hominem" attacks ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

What the Dems need to do, like it or not, is pass Health Care. Specifically, the House needs to adopt the Senate bill. It is not a perfect bill, and it is not a panacea, but it is the only way to put this behind us (yes, R's will still complain about so and so having voted for it, but I think anyone running has a pretty good response to that -- all the non-partisan projections show it will lower costs long-term and cover 31 million more Americans . . . if that is not a justification, I don't know what is).

Also, as to the President, his actions on health care strike me as the actions of someone who is afraid of losing. If you are afraid of losing, you are going to lose, because you are going to lose your base (i.e., the people most likely to vote for you, campaign for you, and fund you). Enough rhetoric, enough conciliation, enough half-measures: GET THIS THING DONE.

And, if it turns out you are a one-term President, you still will have given 31 million Americans coverage, and lowered costs. Not a lot of people can say that. This is your only chance. Do it.

Posted by: MShake | January 28, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse


Barry is getting very poor advice. His defiance to literally stay the course and ratchet it up ignores once again where the Country is. VA, NJ, MA. The Dem Congressional members up for re-election will certainly begin to distance themselves from Barry. It is not Republicans that are his problem. It is his own party that is loosing confidence in him. With his unstable frame of mind he has become toxic.


Posted by: jas7751 | January 28, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Man, zoukie's going nuts with the name changes toda -- I guess to hide the fact that he and the other two cretins have driven everyone else away.

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Wingers talk about spending cuts but when asked what they would actually cut -- why, they're shocked, shocked! How dare a reporter ask a real question? Who do they think they are?

"Specifics About Programs He Would Cut
On MSNBC this afternoon, deficit peacock Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) got into a heated exchange with anchors Contessa Brewer and Melissa Francis, challenging their “integrity” and calling them “irresponsible” and “duplicitous” after they tried to get him to offer specific ways he would cut spending to lower the deficit.

Asked about the money President Obama is proposing to spend on jobs and whether it should “go hand and hand with other programs that integrate job training, vocational skills and certainly educating very young people,” Gregg responded with his usual complaints about government spending and his desire to “control the rate of growth of government.” When Francis said that sounded “good in theory,” Gregg got upset, retorting, “that’s not theory. Don’t tell me that’s good in theory”:

FRANCIS: That’s good in theory, senator. How would you practically…

GREGG: It’s not theory. It’s not theory. Don’t tell me that’s good in theory.

FRANCIS: Well, how would you, tell me how to put it to work.

GREGG: No, you don’t tell me it’s good in theory.

FRANCIS: Tell me very practically…

GREGG: How do you get off saying something like that?

After Gregg calmed down and ticked off a list of the ways he thinks the Obama administration has been fiscally irresponsible, Brewer interjected that Francis was “really asking for specifics” of “which programs” he was willing to cut. “Are you willing to tell schools ‘no money for you?’” asked Brewer, setting Gregg off again:

GREGG: Well, first off, nobody’s saying no money for schools. What an absurd statement to make.

BREWER: Well, I’m asking you, what we’re…

GREGG: And what a dishonest statement to make. On its face you’re being fundamentally dishonest when you make that type of statement.

Eventually, Gregg said that he would freeze discretionary spending, “eliminate the TARP money,” “end the stimulus spending” in June, and reform entitlement spending. He then returned to complaining about Francis and Brewer’s questions, calling the question about education spending “the most irresponsible question I’ve heard probably in a month.”

And how do you suppose he would 'reform entitlement spending -- cut Social Security, or pull the plug on Grandma?

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse


It is strange that libs obediently cheer and applaud failure. They act as if Barry is actually effective and doing anything that benefits the Nation. Cult like. Very odd.

Posted by: jas7751 | January 28, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Hillary dare not risk getting associated with the message of utter failure of this administration. In fact today she told that she would not be available for a second term.

the rats are departing the doomed titanic.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

New message to Dems from the People

"Sit Down and Shut Up"

Posted by: leapin | January 28, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Essentially Obama became a one-term lame duck last night. Time to look for the retirement home, pick a site for the library and start to travel so he can fill it up.

The gay issue for the military was a smoke screen to divert attention from what passes for an agenda.

The question that remains is how fast do the Dem's run as they scurry to get reelected?

Posted by: KBlit | January 28, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Please, by all means, Democrats, stand and fight. It is easier to see you and eliminate you when you do so.

November can't get here soon enough. Then we'll see who is standing.

Posted by: jshaver001 | January 28, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

At the end of the day the job of the President and Congress, while they are in office, is to govern in such a way that the best interests of American citizens as a whole are upheld. Theoretically if they do that effectively then they are reelected on the basis of their performance. The problem with that approach is that we have become a nation of special interest groups who threaten to take our chips and go home if our special interests are not promoted regardless of how it will affect the rest of the nation. The current health insurance system is heavily weighted in favor of people who are fortunate enough to be employed by a company that is large enough to bargin with insurance companies for discounted rates. People who are self employed or own a small business are often priced out of the market. As more and more jobs are moved off shore the pool of people who will actually have employer sponsored health insurance will shrink. To do nothing at this point would be a big mistake. I hope that our senators and representatives will step up to the plate and address this issue that, although it may not be popular, has serious ramifications for our future. I also hope that we, as citizens, can put aside our own selfish agendas long enough to see that this is an issue that needs to be tackled head on. If you don't like the current proposal then how do you think we should address the issue? It is the job of congressional leaders to govern....not run for reelection. The extent to which they do the latter at the expense of the former is the extent to which they compromise our legislative process.

Posted by: mchristinemoore | January 28, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Neoconveteran -- replace the batteries in your hearing aids. You're shouting!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 28, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Folks,

An update: "JakeD" is either banned or will be banned shortly for comments he made last night on the blog.

If there are others violating our rules, please send me an email highlighting the offensive comment.

Thanks,
Chris


User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site.

Do drindl and Noacolor finally qualify? Again?

See below

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

You really do know nothing. Guess that's why you're here all day. No knowledge, no jobs.

Posted by: drindl

Way to go, LOSER. How pathetic to have nothing else to do with one's life than stalk some stranger on a blog.

Now if we can get rid of the dozen or so zouk monikers and the flea-brain trolls some of the people worth reading might come back.

Posted by: Noacoler


Has anyone noticed how civil and respectful the blog can be in the absence of:
drindl
Noacolor
Kool kat

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Poor DDAWD.

berry is pulling for the Saints.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The real head of goverment sat behind President Obama last night in his State-of-the-Union Speech: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. How quickly everyone forgets that it was Pelosi that controlled the Super-delegates enabling Obama to get the democrats nomination. If not for her role in the delgate selection process his chances were alot slimmer. She is the American equal to Prime Minsiter. She controls the agenda and the President is the figure head of government.

His speech was nothing more than recycled campaign rhetoric. He'll get a day or two bump, but then back to the same ole, same ole. YES WE CAN! What?

Danny L. McDaniel

Posted by: ussmcdaniel | January 28, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

AS A KENTUCKY BASKETBALL FAN WE WOULD ASK THAT HE NOT SUPPORT KENTUCKY IN THE FUTURE... WHATEVER HE TOUCHES OR SUPPORTS IS A LOSER.

Need we be reminded of Mass, VA, NJ? Now he supported UK and doomed us to a loss.

Posted by: NeoConVeteran | January 28, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Yes, FOLLOW ME OVER THE CLIFF! STAY THE COURSE AND LET'S ALL SING KUM-BY-YA AS WE LOOK FOR A JOB!
NEW ENEMIES LIST AS HE CALLS FOR CON"SILLY"ATION.
- ATTACKING US FOR FAILING TO UNDERSTAND?
- BAD SUPREME COURT
- Blame BUSH (That is real old)
- BLAME HIS OWN PARTY ( majority & failed)
- BLAME ALL FOR NOT BELIEVING GLOBAL WARMING.
CERTAINLY IT IS NOT "ME"....

Posted by: NeoConVeteran | January 28, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

WHy should any democratic politician believe what Team Obama says?? What will he do for you at the polls, and how will he treat you IF YOU LOSE??

ASK:

Corzine

Deeds

Coakley

......and, don't forget what he did to his own grandmother to make points with the electorate!

Posted by: wheeljc | January 28, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

One thing should be abundantly clear. Last year the republicans choose to not cooperate and execute an agenda of obstruction, smear and dissent. In many ways it has paid off for them. There is no reason what-so-ever that they would alter their game plan for this year.

Seeking bipartisanship in 2010 is shear folly and extremely ignorant.

Posted by: yarbrougharts | January 28, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

He called Wednesday for a third stimulus (the first was his predecessor's, in February 2008) although the S-word has been banished in favor of "jobs bill." It will inject into the economy money that government siphons from the economy, thereby somehow creating jobs. And you thought alchemy was strange.
Before the Massachusetts nuisance, this year's speech was to be a self-coronation of the "last" president to deal with health care.
Last Feb. 24, he said he had an activist agenda because of the recession, "not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't." Ninety-seven days later, he bought General Motors.

Wednesday night's debut of Obama as avenging angel of populism featured one of those opaque phrases -- the "weight of our politics" -- that third-rate speechwriters slip past drowsy editors. Obama seems to regret the existence in Washington of ... everyone else. He seems to feel entitled to have his way without tiresome interventions in the political process by the many interests affected by his agenda for radical expansion of the regulatory state. Speaking of slow learners, liberals do not notice the connection between expansion of government and expansion of (often defensive) activities referred to under the rubric of "lobbying."

Lamenting Washington's "deficit of trust," Obama gave an example of the reason for it when he brassily declared: "We are prepared to freeze government spending for three years."

Obama's leitmotif is: Washington is disappointing, Washington is annoying, Washington is dysfunctional, Washington is corrupt, verily Washington is toxic -- yet Washington should conscript a substantially larger share of GDP, and Washington should exercise vast new controls over health care, energy, K-12 education, etc. Talk about a divided brain.


-Will

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Overall, Obama's speech was unfocused and full of contradictions which conflicted his words with his own actions.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Congressional investigators are exploring how hackers managed to infiltrate 49 House web sites overnight, zeroing in on the technology vendor that manages some House Web sites. Only hours after the State of the Union, hackers replaced the usual pages that congressmen and committees use with a profane attack on President Barack Obama. As of Thursday afternoon, many of the affected sites still appear to be down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
these are the bozos who are watching out for our security. berry can't even keep reality stars out of the WH.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

My biggest beef with Obama is that

he has been more so serving the interests of lobbyists and foreign nationals here illegally,

rather than those who elected him.

For example, the overwhelming majority of voters are OPPOSED to giving the illegals amnesty, "free" college [the Dream Act], or allowing gaping loopholes in the Pelosi version of his healthcare plan.

Posted by: tncdel | January 28, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

End the influence of lobbyists -


Obama said that tonight but isn't that a bit of a joke after all the deals Obama made for his health care bill ???


He made a deal with the pharmaceutical industry


He made a deal on the "doctor's fix"


He made deals with lobbyists from health care industry groups so they would not run tv commercials against his health care plan.


He made deals with the lobbyists from the labor unions on the taxes on the health care plans.


All these negotiations were the polar opposite from what Obama promised during his campaign - and the complete opposite from what he said tonight.


Then tonight - he said he wanted a freeze on spending - then he proposed more spending.


If it wasn't so crazy and reflective of multiple personalities, then it would be comical.


Does Obama have multiple personalities?


Is that it???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews started up last night on the race issue again.


It is really really pathetic.

Yet, on the other hand, Chris Matthews and his producers probably set out to say some really good about Obama - and they couldn't come up with anything - so they reverted to the old "race relations" issue and how great Obama is on that issue.


The thing is the American people are concerned about a great number of other things besides race relations - it isn't on the top of the list.

Obama has pretty much done NOTHING - accomplished NOTHING - on the most pressing issues which matter to Americans.


The stimulus bill - reporters are attempting to analyze individual projects in some attempt to justify the entire general waste of funds - and mistargeting of that money.

The problem with bringing up the race relations issue - if the discussions go in the direction of a bunch of false charges of racism, the discussion and race relations are really going backwards.

It is sign of desperation that Chris Matthews started talking about race last night.

The issue right now is the economy and jobs.

For the past 18 months, the democrats have been off on other issues - attempting to concentrate on issues that are not that important to the American people.


Chris Matthews just did it again.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

berry has huge majorities in both houses yet still can't ram his socialist agenda through.

Lib analysis: It's bush's fault. and repubs. and banks. and small businesses, no wait. that was last year. this year they will create or save jobs.

no one is falling for mr empty suit anymore. It is now common knowledge that he is all talk and no action. and even his talk has lost its luster.

Hopey McChange is now Angry McBlame.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse


'Well, it's not the Republican leadership, those are the SENATE RULES.'

You really do know nothing. Guess that's why you're here all day. No knowledge, no jobs.

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

LOL -- the clown show continues...

Initially, organizers of the National Tea Party Convention, set to take place in Nashville, TN next month, garnered significant press attention for featuring headliners like Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah, and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. However, Tea Party loyalists began to balk at the expensive price of tickets and the fact that the venture is for-profit, saying that it smelled “scammy.” Now, both Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Bachmann have decided to drop out.

But Palin is still in it for the money...

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama's speech last night had some bizarre and silly aspects


For one, Obama said, if the Republican leadership is going to insist on having 60 votes for the Senate to proceed.


Well, it's not the Republican leadership, those are the SENATE RULES.

The same issue came up with the confirmation of the Judges under Bush - yet it was the Democrats who were holding up the votes in the Senate.

These kinds of statements are deceptive on the part of Obama - and he knows people are watching who do not understand the process precisely.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"Scalia pallin' around with Cheney, then sitting and ruling during a lawsuit directly affecting Cheney's authority. Thomas playing up to right wing media, including Rush Limbaugh. And while it's no secret that Alito is a right wing ideologue:"

I don't think Alito's mouthing "not true" falls under this category. I really think it was blown out of proportion. It was a pretty subtle gesture. Not even close to Joe Wilson. And to say "not true" simply indicates disagreement, not an accusation of lying.

I don't like the ruling, but the ado made over this is really overblown.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 28, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

It is telling that this is the second time Obama has gone before Congress and an official has spontaneously communiciated that Obama was lying in front of Congress.


Obama has got to be kidding.


We could elaborate on all of Obama's deceptions and lies - how he claimed again he wanted bipartisanship and then he slammed the Republicans several times.


MSNBC - the producers are now allowing the hosts to throw in a few digs at Obama - a marked difference from last year.

Obama's actions have to match his rhetoric - during the campaign obviously it is all rhetoric and no action - however Obama has had a particulary difficult transition.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I don't suppose that the supremes will be showing up for anymore of berry's photo ops.

what a joke of a present ident we have.

I don't think anyone has ever insulted the SCOTUS at a SOTU before. A new low in ghetto character.

remember what he said about our military. no not that they were doing a great job and thanks. the repub said this in his speech last night.

berry was pleased that all those uniforms made for such a great photo op.

they come no shallower.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

dribbl,
we understand that the left prefers to vilify anyone that dares disagree with their orthodoxy.

but that constitutional scholar berry got it all wrong. the law specifically states that foreign corporations are not included.

now the notion that an esteemed judge who just ruled on this would be driven to mutter to himself "simply untrue" when the leader of the free world so brazenly either lies or is incompetent, is understandable to me.

Imagine your reaction if anyone ever accused you of making sense?

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

President Obama again said he has banned torture. But Homeland operatives defy him. When will Obama realize that his presidency, and American liberty, are being sabotaged from within?

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

• Regional Homeland Security- administered fusion centers use a nationwide microwave/laser electromagnetic radiation "directed energy" weapon system to silently torture, impair, subjugate unconstitutionally "targeted" Americans and their families -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight.

• Victims' own cell phones may be used to target them.
• How a young FBI agent's 'I believe you' gave victim the faith to go public.

For the full story:

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories" list).

NOW IT'S OBAMA'S GESTAPO USA. WHEN WILL TEAM OBAMA ACT?

• Homeland "fusion center"network -- "Ground Zero for Homeland Domestic Torture"

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

***


WA-PO'S "THE ROOT" WEB SITE CENSORED BY GOVERNMENT OPERATIVES?

ATTENTION DR. HENRY GATES, "THEROOT.COM" (WaPo Webmaster, please forward:

I was denied access to read articles on your site, even though my profile shows that I am properly logged in.

I believe a government surveillance operation is unconstitutionally re-directing readers to a "spoofed" site controlled by their computers, so that they can conduct surveillance on those who visit "The Root," and prevent their "targets" from even reading "Root" articles, or posting comments.

THIS IS BLATANT CENSORSHIP and you need to know it is happening.

Please read this, send POTUS this link:

nowpublic.com/world/how-u-s-spy-ops-censor-web-political-speech

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 28, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The Narrative cannot be changed, blarg... it is written.

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

By contrast, the behavior of Justice Alito at last night's State of the Union address -- visibly shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" when Obama warned of the dangers of the Court's Citizens United ruling -- was a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court. It has nothing to do with etiquette and everything to do with the Court's ability to adhere to its intended function,

Greenwald emphasizes the importance of the Court's remaining above the political fray, precisely because its rulings often have such profound political impact. And he makes the obvious reference to Bush v. Gore, which so damaged the Court's credibility, with the majority ruling outside what had been the tenor of its previous judicial philosophy. And Greenwald notes that the Citizens United ruling also undermines the purported conservative judicial philosophy, because its broad scope was a consummate example of the judicial activism conservatives, now exposed as patently dishonest, usually deplore. Greenwald bluntly states that Alito's behavior, last night, further undermines the Court's critical credibility.

On a night when both tradition and the Court's role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow.

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.

Greenwald wonders at Alito's inability to comport himself as would most adults, at such an important public event. And he reminds us of the right wing's shrill doubts about Sonia Sotomayor's "judicial temperament."

Alito's conduct is the precise antithesis of what "judicial temperament" is supposed to produce.

But the real danger is this:

What's most disturbing here is the increasing trend of right-wing Justices inserting themselves ever more aggressively into overtly political disputes in a way that seriously undermines their claims of apolitical objectivity.

Scalia pallin' around with Cheney, then sitting and ruling during a lawsuit directly affecting Cheney's authority. Thomas playing up to right wing media, including Rush Limbaugh. And while it's no secret that Alito is a right wing ideologue:

But last night, he unmasked himself as a politicized and intemperate Republican as well.

And his every ruling, from now on, will be judged in that light.

Whatever impulses led him to behave that way last night, they have nothing to do with sober judicial reasoning or apolitical restraint.

As one commenter to Greenwald's post noted, Alito's reaction was deeply personal. As such, it revealed even more about the man, and I would say it revealed even more about the level of the irrational and extremist threat to the very constitutional foundation of our republic.

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

If berry intends on fighting, he should stick with his usual methodology and announce the day he will quit.

for example "We democrats have a long history of advancing the cause of public health care and we will continue to fight to deliver this to the American people. Until June 11th, when we will move on to something else."

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

President Obama followed up that statement by criticizing the Republicans. Naturally, that criticism isn't even mentioned by CC, as it disagrees with his Democrats in Disarray and Republican Rising themes.

Posted by: Blarg | January 28, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

End the influence of lobbyists -


Obama said that tonight but isn't that a bit of a joke after all the deals Obama made for his health care bill ???


He made a deal with the pharmaceutical industry


He made a deal on the "doctor's fix"


He made deals with lobbyists from health care industry groups so they would not run tv commercials against his health care plan.


He made deals with the lobbyists from the labor unions on the taxes on the health care plans.


All these negotiations were the polar opposite from what Obama promised during his campaign - and the complete opposite from what he said tonight.


Then tonight - he said he wanted a freeze on spending - then he proposed more spending.


If it wasn't so crazy and reflective of multiple personalities, then it would be comical.


Does Obama have multiple personalities?


Is that it???

Whenever Obama comes out with an issue, Obama's own actions make his position a FRAUD.

Obama has caused his own credibility to significantly diminish - same with his stance on bipartisanship - and then Obama slams the Republicans in the same speech - it just does not work that way.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Dems need to quit complaining about health care and spending freezes and thank Obama for giving them plenty of solid ammo on jobs.

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | January 28, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC's Chris Matthews says President Barack Obama has done so much to heal racial divisions that he "forgot he was black" while watching his State of the Union address.

If only he wasn't so clean and articulate. and he should try to not be so light skinned and not always avoid that Negro dialect. then liberals could remember.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

They own defeat, even with an utter majority in Congress, Dems still own defeat.

Dem candidates will cut and run.

The last elections are a wake up call to future events not yet in the books.

The leftist agenda: no one bought it, not even themselves.

Posted by: Accuracy | January 28, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Like Vietnam.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 28, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama seemed to have a gift for perfectly capturing the tone and mood of the public. It may seem a tired cliche now, but his speeches did much to inspire the hope people attached to his candidacy. Even rather vague or pedestrian phrases seemed to soar in his gifted hands. I had accepted it as a given that, if his political fortunes were ever down, Obama would be able to reverse his troubles by pulling just the right speech from his rhetorical bag of tricks.

No more.

Obama’s State of the Union address last night was not just overly long and dull, it was totally tone-deaf politically. Coming on the heels of a political upset in Massachusetts, with deteriorating poll numbers and anxious members of his own party, Obama badly needed a home-run to change the political dynamics. He struck out.

The political situation Obama faces is the polar opposite of what it was at the start of his presidency, when he mapped out his agenda. Republicans have recaptured the Governors’ mansions in New Jersey (!) and Virginia and they have won a US Senate seat in Massachusetts (!!). Obama’s approval rating has collapsed and the Democrat lawmakers who haven’t announced their retirement face the very real prospects of being retired by the voters. Democrats will probably lose the House and could possibly even lose the Senate. They will likely be massacred in state Houses around the country.

In light of this, Obama announced not a single change in his agenda or his priorities. Okay, well maybe one; his call for a three-year spending freeze. But, it is clear he isn’t really serious about this, since he also announced a huge swath of new spending initiatives. He still wants to enact sweeping changes to health care, even though it is political kryptonite. He wants another bloated, pork-filled “jobs bill”, even though his “stimulus program” was a joke, and a failure.

Let me be frank, Mr. President, this isn’t how it works. You don’t face rejection by voters and still get to continue pursuing the same agenda.

The Presidency is a dialogue with the American people, not a soliloquy. You can propose, but when they react, you may have to adapt. That he doesn’t understand this is telling.

It does help us understand, though, why Obama is so fond of making speeches. In a speech, he is the only one talking.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Why fight? Why not just move to a country that embraces the Dems philosophies?

Posted by: leapin | January 28, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company