E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAre we headed for a third-straight change election?... If Republicans pick up just 20 seats, it’ll be just the fourth time since WWI when either of the parties have gained 20 or more seats in three-consecutive cycles… The other times this has occurred: After WWI, during the Great Depression, and during and after WWII… Tomorrow’s midterm topic: What the committees and GOP leadership would look like if Republicans win control of the House… Is McCain crossing the line in his political attacks?... Biden channels the anger… The Tea Party’s very bad day… Do Republicans begin targeting McAdams in Alaska?... Previewing today’s debates and NH-1… And Kasich leads Strickland by 10 points.
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Once, twice, three times … a change election: There has been plenty of discussion about this midterm season and history -- whether it’s our write-up yesterday about how a president’s party almost always loses seat in a midterm cycle, or all the comparisons with 1982, 1994, and 2006. But here’s the biggest history we’ll likely see on Election Day: We’re headed for a third-straight change election. In 2006, Democrats won control of Congress. In 2008, Democrats won the White House. And in 2010, Republicans appear poised to take back control of Congress. To put this into perspective, consider that only THREE times since World War I have either the Democrats or Republicans won 20 or more House seats in three-consecutive cycles: after World I (1920, 1922, 1924), during the Great Depression (1928, 1930, 1932), and during and after World War II (1942, 1944, 1946, 1948, 1950, 1952).
*** Making sense of the political volatility: But it hasn’t happened since, until now. If Republicans gain at least 20 House seats -- and that’s viewed as the floor of what is supposed to take place on Nov. 2 -- it would be the FOURTH time since World War I that either Democrats or Republicans will have picked up 20 or more House seats in three-consecutive cycles. In fact, our current times appear to have much in common with those other periods -- economic downturn, war and its aftermath, and political/social unrest (Red Scare, labor strife, McCarthyism). When you step back and look at our current times through this prism, the volatility in our politics makes sense. We are living in a period (high unemployment, war, social/political unrest) that many of us have never experienced before, and that our country has only experienced four times in the last 100 years. Right after WWI, we were transitioning from an agricultural economy to an industrial one. After WWII, we were a country moving away from city/farm live to suburban life as well. So the change was more than just frustration at the economy, or at Washington, or at some foreign enemy.
*** Tomorrow’s midterm topic: The GOP leadership and committee chairmen, if Republicans take back the House.
*** McCain on the attack -- and crossing the line? Here’s a legitimate question to ask: How is the tone in Washington going to change when someone like John McCain -- remember the Gang of 14? -- is being more aggressive than he's ever been before when it comes to attacking fellow senators and colleagues on the campaign trail? First, while stumping for Carly Fiorina (R) over the weekend, he accused Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) of waving “the white flag of surrender.” "Sen. Boxer is the most bitterly partisan, most anti-defense senator in the United States Senate today," he said. "And I know that because I've had the unpleasant experience of having served with her." More: "Barbara Boxer wants to waive the white flag of surrender and endanger this nation's national security. It's time she went back to San Francisco with Nancy Pelosi." Now, per Politico, McCain is airing TV ads -- along with fellow Arizona GOP Jon Kyl -- attacking Arizona Democratic Reps. Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva.
*** “I’m the same person”: While Republicans attacking Democrats -- and Democrats attacking Republicans -- is hardly news, it is surprising that a sitting senator would be so aggressive in attacking another sitting senator that he might have to work with after Nov. 2. And considering McCain's past as a bipartisan lawmaker, it's really surprising. Then again, McCain's become more rhetorically partisan than he's ever been in his career. In an interview with ABC, McCain justified his attack on Boxer. "[Working with Boxer] has been an unpleasant experience because Barbara Boxer personalizes the political discourse that we have and that's why she's had so very little effect of any kind in the political process," he said. "There is no Republican that will work with her." And McCain added this about the Obama administration, "This is the most partisan administration that I have ever seen ... and I came to the congress in 1983." He also said: "I consider myself a person who stands up for what they believe in. When I was against President Bush on a number of issues I was called a maverick. When I was against President Obama, then I'm called a partisan. What I was trying to say -- I'm the same person."
*** Biden channels the anger: Has anyone else noticed that Vice President Biden channels the public’s anger much better than President Obama does? Here was Biden campaigning in Pennsylvania yesterday. Per the pool report, he noted how the public was angry. "I know they're angry," he said. "They have a right to be angry." There’s more campaigning for Biden today, as he serves as an opening act before Obama’s trip out West later this week. Biden stumps for Patty Murray in Vancouver, WA and later attends an event for Boxer in San Francisco. Meanwhile, at 1:00 pm ET at the White House, President Obama signs the Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans Executive Order.
*** The Tea Party’s very bad day: The folks over at the National Republican Senatorial Committee must have been drinking their fair share of Maalox yesterday due to revelations about some of their high-profile Tea Party candidates. First came Ken Buck comparing homosexuality to alcoholism in his debate on “Meet the Press,” opening the door to the culture wars – and not the economy – being front and center in that contest. Next was the news that security for Joe Miller had put a working journalist in handcuffs. And finally, video surfaced of Sharron Angle telling Hispanic students. “I don’t know that all of you are Latino. Some of you look a little more Asian to me.” She then added, “I’ve been called the first Asian legislator in our Nevada State Assembly." (What?) Make no mistake, if the House flips but the Senate doesn’t -- which would be the first time that’s EVER happened -- it will be because the GOP’s Tea Party candidates in Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, and Nevada lost.
*** Do Republicans begin targeting McAdams? Speaking of Miller in Alaska, at what point do Republicans begin directing their fire at Scott McAdams (D), to help either Miller or Lisa Murkowski (R-ite-in) win? Miller's getting close to being in free-fall if some private polling is to be believed. And while the national Republicans have to be careful not to anger Palin publicly and also come out and endorse Murkowski, about the best way they could assist may be in going after McAdams. Of course, Alaska is a cheap state and, Democrats might decide to play as well. It's going to be a wild ending in Alaska. And here's the best part: We may not know the winner for three weeks, because state law doesn't count the write-ins until it's been determined there are enough write-ins to alter the outcome. #headache
*** Today’s debates: In Delaware’s Senate race, Chris Coons and Christine O’Donnell participate in a radio debate; in Florida’s Senate contest, it’s Marco Rubio vs. Charlie Crist vs. Kendrick Meek; in Georgia’s gubernatorial contest, it’s Nathan Deal vs. Roy Barnes; in Illinois’ Senate race, it’s Alexi Giannoulias vs. Mark Kirk; and in South Carolina’s GOV race, it’s Nikki Haley vs. Vincent Shaheen.
*** 75 House races to watch: NH-1: The Democratic candidate is two-term incumbent Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, and her GOP challenger is Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta. In 2008, Obama won 53% in this district – which includes the city of Manchester – while Bush captured 51% in ’04. As of Sept. 30, Shea-Porter had nearly $600,000 in the bank, versus Guinta’s nearly $300,000. Shea Porter voted for the stimulus, cap-and-trade, and health care. Both Cook and Rothenberg rate the race as Toss Up.
*** More midterm news: In Ohio’s key gubernatorial contest, a new Quinnipiac poll shows John Kasich (R) with a 51%-41% lead among likely voters over Gov. Ted Strickland (D).
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 14 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.
Leave a Comment:
DEMOCRATS...please go out and vote on Nov 2. The GOP is all geared up in their hatred and fear, and many GOP votes will be cast. It's up to US to make sure the GOP do not take over the House and Senate. History and facts show what the GOP has done and will continue to do if we let them. Stand by our President, our party, and our country...go out and VOTE!
It isn't going to help. They have found out that 25% that voted for dems this last election cycle refuse to vote for them this cycle! LOL It's not going to be a good year for you guys! LOL
From the NY Times article on Obama's tax cuts:
The ranks of the Tea Party faithful are no doubt drawn from the third of the public who hold the false belief that Obama raised their taxes when the fact is he lowered them. The Tea Partiers are not "low information" voters; they are MISinformation voters.
I don't buy the NY Times argument that the taxes cuts were too subtle for people to notice them. I never once have seen any of the stenographers of the corporate media confront a Republican who asserted that Obama was a "tax and spend" liberal with the fact that Obama actually cut taxes by $400 per individual and as much as $800 per family. The Obama tax cuts just don't fit into the media/Republican narrative.
Not that the media and Republican spin merchants are totally to blame. A lot of the Tea Partiers deceive themselves without any outside help. For a lot of them, their hatred of Obama came first. The reasons for the hate were made up later, and it doesn't matter to them whether or not the reasons are bogus.
Exactly, Houston!
The media spotlights the so called Tea Party (really, the same old rightwing, ultra conservative nuts), and reports their rhetoric without comment, and then we're surprised that the American public doesn't know that Obama lowered taxes for the middle class AND small businesses. They also don't know, because the media has barely reported it, that the healthcare reform bill is set to REDUCE the federal deficit by over a trillion dollars. Let's face it, we live in an entertainment driven world, where personalities drive news ratings and mere facts are treated like the small print on a cigarette pack warning its use may kill you.
I hadn't thought of that Houston, but you have a point. It's an especially strong contrast considering the Bush tax cuts gave a person of average means enough additional cash to eat at McDonalds once per week...alone...but that same package gives the wealthy the ready finds to buy a new luxury care EVERY YEAR. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-10/biggest-earners-lose-cost-of-new-bmw-after-bush-tax-cuts-expire-next-year.html
Great point. If these TPers do not know whether or not their taxes went up or down, one wonders how little else they know. They carried signs against government run health care which also said keep your hands off my medicare. The underinformed are a danger to themselves and the rest of us may suffer because they are low information voters.
Jody:
Another poll last month indicated that 40% of the public believes there are "death panels" in the health care law. If you drew a Ven diagram of the set of people who think Obama raised their taxes, the set of people who believe in death panels, and the set of people in the Tea Party, I'll bet the overlap would be nearly perfect.
What taxes has Obama lowered?
Thanks for asking, Pure American.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/tax-day-2010-protesters-i_n_538556.html
Oh forgive me John B, I should know to get my sources from the reliable Huffington Post! LOL Do you have anything else? Maybe Michael Moore?
"Pure" American-1827335
That is always the knee-jerk copout that dishonest wingers employ when they get facts they don't want to here. The NY Times ran the original article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html?_r=2
Of course, not-so-pure won't believe that, either, because the NY Times is supposedly a liberal news organization, too. But whenever the Time publishes an article that is unfavorable to Obama, the wingers seize on it without questioning the source.
"Pure" is a perfect example of what I was talking about above when I said that for a lot of TP'ers, the hatred of Obama came first and they made up bogus reasons for their hate later.
Houston, you're a moron. Can you have a discussion without so much hatred? That's why you guys are amongst yourselves this year and can't understand why a majority of americans are going to kick out your agenda. The NY Times is definitely more credible than the HP. However, if you are referring to a tax cut of 400 to 800 a YEAR a serious tax cut, then that explains why you guys are just NOT getting it.
I flagged pure's comment, since name-calling as in his rant above is supposedly not allowed. As I said, he only proves what I said: that with people like him, the hate comes first. The reasons for the hate they think up later.
Maybe you'd throw away an $800 refund because it was too small to count. Most people wouldn't. And you can bet that the Obama haters like "pure" would be screaming bloody murder about what a crushing blow it was to the middle class if Obama had raised taxes by $400 to $800.
Well then PA, you must have been offended by your Bush tax cut of $470/yr. http://www.factcheck.org/here_we_go_again_bush_exaggerates_tax.html
Thanks for playing.
Let's see 800 divided by 12 is 66.00 a month to be added to your total taxable income and you're right back where you started. My CPA showed me this and he is a Democrat.
Bush sent an actual check out. There was no deception.
Hats off to this diary from Daily Kos: This really says it all from Rachel Maddow’s program last night:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/19/911571/-Rachel-Maddow:-The-Best-Summary-By-Far
These are the issues the GOP are running on according to Rachel Maddow. And she explains that all their “issues” are actually lies.
It's the deficit stupid
No it is most certainly not, the republicans want to explode the deficit to the tune of $4 trillion by extending unpaid for tax breaks.
It's the stimulus stupid
No it is not, republicans have heralded stimulus funds as good for job creation; but only for their own districts/States.
It's about big government stupid
No it's not, the republicans like no other party before want to control even our bodily functions and make victims out of the victims.
It's about Obamacare stupid
No it is not, republicans are lining up for the funding it provides.
It's about 'teh' populism stupid.
Republicans are all about supporting the corporations, lobbyists and Wall St as can be seen from the role of the Chamber of Commerce in these elections, if it was about populism corporate money is going to the wrong side.
It's about the outsiders stupid
Where? Not in the republican party, they may be crazy; but they have been politically active whilst loony for quite awhile now.
What it is about:
Corporations v The People.
The Rich v The middle class and the poor.
Slash and burn policies v social policies.
You are dillusional. Are you paying attention to the wave that is coming in November?!? People are buying what you whackos are selling.
Obama has made it abundantly clear, thru both word and deed, that no matter how massive the rejection of his Marxist agenda this November by the American people, that he will defiantly and forcibly impose the balance of his planned agenda thru executive edict if he is stymied by the voice of the people acting thru their elected Representatives. If we are to preserve our Constitutional Republic from the subversive Obama onslaught, IMPEACHMENT is the only viable alternative. Greg Neubeck
Impeachment? On what basis?
In the Constitution, Article II, Section 4 states...
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Call me crazy, but "I don't like President Obama" hardly sounds like grounds for Impeachment.
If only we had some means, preferably written into our Constitution, by which we could decide as the body politic on who should lead the country. That would be brilliant. Perhaps we could make our opinion known by expressing it in an organized fashion, I don't know, maybe every fourth year?
gneubeck, you may wish to acquaint yourself with the document to which this http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment12/ relates.
John, you are so correct. That's why an eviction notice will be served in 2012 to the White House!
Well, I have to admit that if you go here http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx and click the "Compare Presidents" tab, then add Presidents Reagan and Clinton to the graph I see that at this time in their terms they were...
LESS popular than Barack Obama.
Thanks for bringing that up.
There is a group in America today that call themselves ultra-conservatives who advocate low taxes and minimum government intervention but interestingly their every position totally benefits only Special Interests and the very few. They seek, cultivate and support candidates, both Tea Party and regular Republican, who can be charismatic, good looking, outspoken, cute and attention getting, while frequently also extreme, bazaar, crude and even violent and even with questionable histories, without the group ever having any concern for the candidates being really qualified. Their goal is obvious to have a message and candidates they can aggressively sell to the public while capitalizing on the current discontent and problems, yet … they neither address the problems nor ever offer any real solutions and instead only play on emotions with criticisms. The Supreme Court has recently ruled they can pour unlimited funds into the effort and they are really sparing no expense in seeking to control public opinion.
This group was strongly behind Bush-Cheney and their real political identity and intent can be seen there. Bush and Cheney were obvious ‘puppets’ for the group who ‘pulled all of the strings’ and it is clear that is what they seek to reestablish. Everything Bush-Cheney did was irresponsibly and arrogantly always focused on benefit for Special Interests and the few, while the majority was given only apathy, the costs and an abundance of subterfuge to rationalize and manipulate; it cost America greatly and today’s problems can be seen as directly connected. George W Bush’s sociopathic personality can even be seen as the model for the pliable and controllable candidates they seek (when with ego, attention and personal financial desires satisfied they will enthusiastically do as directed). The controlling group represents an influential, powerful and extremely wealthy few who are quite capable of achieving their goals and who greatly benefit from the accomplishment. They use their extensive resources to overtly and covertly support and direct the efforts and they strongly work at conning the people with appeals to biases, prejudices and emotions and with gross dishonesty, all aimed to manipulate public opinion.
In 2008 the people voted to change from the neglect and problems strongly affecting their lives and now, … they are again frustrated with slow progress in turning things around and with a real need to adjust and fine tune the changes already implemented. Much of the problem can be attributed to the Republicans refusing to contribute and instead putting their political ambitions above all else and at any cost to the people. To repeal the changes, as the ultra-conservatives want, would put us right back to ‘more of the same’ that caused the problems and then again make us dependent for any real resolution on those who have demonstrated they have no interest in effecting any honest change. The rhetoric is strong but obviously deceptive and to do other than be patient while expressing great concern for needed adjustment and progress would be futile when having to trust those who have clearly shown their loyalty is only to the few. The proof of that can be seen in how the total middle-class has lost substantial ground while only the wealthy have continually gained under their control. What is needed is for the voters to avoid being conned and to reject all of the subterfuge aimed to manipulate and cost them. To firmly reject the Republicans now, Tea Party and regular, would send the needed message to convince them they need to once again be the Grand Ole Party with honest and responsible concern and real representation for the people, for the majority.
As always well written, RGiles.
Voters should reflect on the positive accomplishments of the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress before they walk into the voting booth on November 2nd. Unfortunately, the Democrats are bad marketers and they need to learn a lesson or two from the Republicans and the Tea Party movement to brag about their accomplishments. To appreciate the accomplishments of the Obama Administration, go here: http://www.nafella.com/naflogger/?My_Political_Pundit/So_where_is_the_love_A_productive_Congress_gets_no_respect_from_voters
Yes, let us now spell out Obama's accomplishments:
9.6% unemployment, which is actually closer to 20% when marginally attached workers and involuntary part time workers are factored in.
Anemic growth which is totally a product if inefficient government spending.
Three trillion dollars in additional debt, bringing the ratio of GDP to debt to over 10 and a half per cent.
Yeah, that Obama! He has been spectacular!
A spectacular failure, that is.
Epic, even.
Bad marketers? Bad marketers of what? What have they accomplished that they can run on and the MAJORITY of americans would back? Healthcare? LOL Please, you guys have the kiss of death with that one. You got greedy and thought that while you had such HUGE majorities that you could cram crap down our throats and get away with it. Well the piper is singing come November. By the way, did you see the latest and greatest on the healthcare law as of today with Boeing????????? LOL
Since you asked, you'll see here http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ that Barack Obama has already kept 122 campaign promises vs 22 broken. The party of NO has been able to stall 82 of them, however.
So much for the myth that the President hid who he was in order to get elected, as well as the one that says he hasn't done anything. Conservatives are brilliant mental gymnasts, however, as they manage to make that one coexist with the one that claims he's radically changing our society for the worse.
Apparently the facts have a Liberal agenda.
no joe, no bo, nj
Unemployment was at 10% the second year of Ronald Reagan's first term, and his approval rating at 35%. Tell me, did Reagan "own" the economy by then or was it still all Jimmy Carter's fault? Whatever you decide, you have to apply the same logic to both Presidents.
"Anemic growth which is totally a product if inefficient government spending."
Gee, I thought the economy was supposed to rebound if the government was smart and did nothing? By your thinking, even "inefficient spending" should have no imact on the economy.
You don't know what you're talking about no joe, no matter how many times sensible people point out your lack of substantial evidence for your opinions, you cling to your ideology and your personal prejudice against President Obama. Either come up with facts to back up your hot air, or go outside and rake the leaves.
 For all you lefties that think the republicans have nothing to offer, well fortunately for the country, the majority thinks otherwise. November will be historic. You lefties are in a small cult.
As far as US Navy Disabled Veteran-Retired, well I'm a retired service member myself. I can tell you that you are in the minority in the military community first off. Second off, LIST ONE DANG thing the dems have not gotten since they have held the 3 branches of government. List one thing the Republicans have stopped. You can't MORON! The dems have had an iron fist control over us for 2 years now.
"Pure American" ? Is that like the KKK or are you 100% native American? Just asking.
DADT repeal. Immigration reform. A public option as part of the health care plan.
I'm a disabled USAF vet. I agree with US Navy Disabled Veteran.
Pure American -
There are actually over 400 bills being held hostage by the Republicans in the Senate, but I can name one - the bill the House passed that would take away tax breaks for those companies that outsource American jobs.
Will that suffice?
I would think that a 'Pure American' as yourself would agree with me that this is something that we need to have passed, am I correct?
jabbausaf, you outright lie or at least are misinformed. Cite the actual immigration reform they blocked. I don't believe that was even a thought of this admin until the AZ thing. Your own party didn't vote in a public option. Thank god!
I'm a US Marine veteran, so what about your veteran status.
Pietro, I ask you the same question I asked one your comrades, are you saying that NO dems voted against any of these? Last I checked, the dems have the majority. The american public isn't buying that the republicans are blocking everything. The reason being is that people understand how a bill becomes a law. Isn't it Obama that campaigned on we must all work together, but now that the dems see the House going to the repubs and quite possibly the Senate, they are now singing they are going to fight the repubs on everything. LOL You can't have it both ways. Bottom line is is that the dems have gotten 100% of everything they wanted (when they were in UNITY) for the last 2 years.
Pure American - In reference to the bill taking away tax credits from companies that outsource jobs - I am sure that many Democrats in the House voted against the bill that PASSED there and was sent to the Senate. The Senate is sitting on the bill (amongst others).
The jobs bill that just passed - say what you want about Sen. Harry Reid, but he brought the bill up to a floor vote 3 times before it was passed. That Jobs bill, that would give tax credits and money to be loaned to small business, was just signed by the President 2 weeks ago.
The bill was introduced in the beginning of this year - 2010. This bill languised for almost 6 months in the Senate.
I am sorry that you cannot accept my 'One DANG Thing' that the Republicans are doing to block laws from being passed. You CANNOT explain away why we have 400+ bills sitting in the Senate - many with holds by Republicans.
To say that the Dems got 100% of what they wanted is not true.
Pietro, if the jobs bill was passed, I guess you can't use that one as an argument that the Republicans prevented it from being passed. You still haven't provided one bill that the Republicans have blocked solely by themselves. In order to block a bill, they have to have some dems in their corner. You still haven't provided that "One DANG Thing."
What all was in that jobs bill? Who benefitted from it the most????? We're still at almost 10% unemployment. It's working wonders so far.
DADT? Are you living in an alternate universe?
Log Cabin REPUBLICANS brought a successful suit to overturn that little beauty.
OBAMA is appealing that decision, and asking for a stay.
Hate to burst your bubble, and I know you want to ignore this, but those are the facts.
Pure American, it is obvious you haven't read my post. it is also obvious that you CANNOT fathom that ONE senator in the Senate can hold up everything. It is obvious that when I mentioned about the bill that would take tax credits away from companies that outsource, you deflected and posted some other drivel.
I mentioned the jobs bill because it took SIX MONTHS and THREE VOTES to get the stupid thing passed.
I mentioned the Haiti situation because that hold is STILL active.
Again, post what everyou want, you cannot make up your own facts.
Yes, this is true - the DOJ is appealing the ruling of the judge. The dirty little secret that No Joe has CONVIENTLY left out - the DOJ appeals ALL rulings when it is against the Government, no matter what!
Since DADT was passed as LAW by President Clinton, the DOJ is obligated to DEFEND THE LAW, no matter what.
President Obama is correct - the best way to get rid of DADT once and for all is to REPEAL IT, and THIS Congress is too petty and partisan to do that.
Pietro, it's also obvious that you only want your way. You see, for you to be happy, you would want the republicans to just cave in and agree 100% with the dems on everything. This way the country could move forward on your agenda. But you see, we (the majority) don't like your agenda. So many of the bills passed by this admin have already proven to be ineffective or outright costly already. Hmmmm, who was just admitting the other day to there not actually being shovel-ready projects?!?
That's what you get from a community organizer.
Pietro - "President Obama is correct - the best way to get rid of DADT once and for all is to REPEAL IT, and THIS Congress is too petty and partisan to do that."
Remind me once again who has had the MAJORITY in the House and the Senate for the last "4" years? Pelosi/Reid
Have they even brought this to the floor??????????? LOL Once again, you are laughable at best.
No, this is what I get from a partisan shill that cannot at least acknowledge that what he is espousing are false. No, this is what I get from someone who is so partisanly entrenched that they think that a 'comeback' means they 'win' the argument.
This is the quintessential 'low information voter' on full dislpay for all to see.
I debate with many on here that have a differing view than myself. I agree sometimes, and I disagree other times. It is pretty obvious with YOU that I am wasting my time.
I have provided THREE examples of Republican obstructionism. Three 'DANG things' that you cannot, will not acknowledge.
So be it.
Pure American:
What Pure American is NOT telling you is that DADT never passed cloture. I wonder if Pure American knows what 'cloture' means.
But I digress.
We also have a great view of a 'pure american' that chooses to ignore that he cannot accept. As far as majorities are concerned, I think that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done an exceptional job and got many things passed. The issue is in the Senate chamber, and although Pure American will not admit it, there is blatant obstructionism from Senate Republicans that are holding up 400+ bills already passed in the House.
Pure American, what is LAUGHABLE is your lack of understanding of how Congress works. I never expected you to pull a 'Christone O'Donnell' on me, but I gues I was WRONG, wasn't I?
"American Joe" ? Is that like the inbred hillbillies?
Hahahaha! Touch a nerve did we?
"Pure" American-1827335:
Approximately 45% of the public still approves of the job President Obama is doing, despite the fact that his progress in cleaning up the mess the Republicans made hasn't been as fast as people would like it to be. Forty-five percent is a pretty big cult. And it's a centrist cult, not a "lefty" one.
I can name more than one. The Republicans blocked the DISCLOSE act that would have banned anonymous donations to outfits that run political ads. They blocked the DADT repeal, and they blocked the DREAM act that would have addressed illegal immigration in a rational manner. There are about 300 other bills passed by the House that are bottled up in the Senate and will never get an up-or-down vote.
Houston, are you saying that NO Dems voted against these acts???????? As I recall, the Dems have the majority.
Houston 45% is a minority in case you don't understand percentages. Also keep in mind that those polls usually ask generic questions about how they like him as president as well. When you get down to specific questions on the economy and so forth, he falls into the low 30s.
Pure American - in most cases, you would be right about a minority. But in the case ofthe Senate, there are rules there that allow ONE senator to put 'standing holds' on everything that comes into the chamber.
I'll even do one better. I'll even name one Senator that has a standing hold on EVERYTHING. That senator - Tom Coburn, R-OK. This Senator has a standing hold that any bill coming into the chamber has to be 'approved' by him FIRST.
Case in point - the $1.5 MILLION dollars that was collected for Haiti for the earthquake from the GENEROUS American people was put into a spending bill so that the US Government can officially give the money to the Haitian government.
The monies are frozen because the President cannot sign the bill. Tom Coburn has a hold on the bill and refuses to release it.
In the meantime, the million that the money was collected for CONTINUE to suffer to this day.
I can remember that Sen. Jim Bunning, R-KY put holds on Unemployment benefits when the bills came up for renewal. You may not agree with unemployment extensions, but the people who are depending on that money for food and shelter sure do. It took many articles and a deafening roar of disdain from the electorate before Jim Bunning relented. Two deadlines for UE benefits were missed because of this.
This is a small example of the obstruction that goes on in the Senate, perpertrated by the Republicans there. You can continue to try and defend republican senators, but they have demonstrated that people's needs are not a priority for them, even when it means that people will starve.
Pure American, say what you want, post but you want, but facts are facts.
Hey Pietro, you ever read as to the "WHYs" and not just the rhetorical spin you get fed by the left? You state, "I can remember that Sen. Jim Bunning, R-KY put holds on Unemployment benefits when the bills came up for renewal..."
You ever ask why he did that?????? It's because he wanted them to pay for it up front. You see, your side wants to just spend like a drunken sailor. They have NO plans on figuring out how to pay for it.
You ever wonder who's going to pay for it? It's our kids and their kids. We probably won't feel this completely until after we are gone. Right now, every kid owes the govt $40,000 just to cover the current debt we have. It's climbing daily. Obama and his crew have added over $3 trillion (not billion) just in the last 2 years. Do you have any idea how big that is??????? Probably not.
Pure American - you asked for 'ONE DANG THING' that the Republicans have obstructed, and I have produced THREE.
We can debate/argue the merits of the cases if you want. In the case of Jim Bunning, you are correct - it was because Jim Bunning decided to invoke PAYGO against people who needed the money.
You STILL have not acknowledged that the bill to rescind tax credits for companies that outsource jobs is being held up by the Senate Republicans. Why is that, exactly? Sen. Reid can bring this bill up to the floor for a vote again, and I suspect he will after the midterms.
In the meantime, we still have jobs being outsourced - by the millions.
Again, I would think that a 'pure American' like yourself would want to keep American Jobs in America... or does a 'patriot' like yourself not care?
Pure Bull:
The DISCLOSE act, which proposed the disclosure of campaign money sources overwhelmingly favored by the public was filibustered to death by a straight party line vote. Every single Republican voted to filibuster and all Democrats voted for it.
http://www.publicola.net/2010/09/23/breaking-disclose-act-dies-on-senate-floor/
More Pure Bull:
You don't seem to understand English. I never said it was a majority. But only a blithering idiot would consider a 45% approval rating to represent a "small cult" .
No Pietro, I would not just take a bill at its face value (as the dems did with healthcare). I would want to know what's ACTUALLY IN the bill before making a decision whether I back it or not. I don't personally know what all is in the bill you are talking about above. My guess is is that you don't either. If you don't know verbatim what is in it, I would quit touting it as some sort of debate that you won. None of us knew what all is in the Healthcare law and we still don't. We do know that it is starting to show some of its ugly head as we speak. Why are we giving companies exemptions from this law????? If the law is so dang good, then why are we exempting them from following it?
Why is Boeing doubling its insurance premiums because they state the healthcare law is making them do so?
If I were you, I would first become informed about something before blindly backing it just because your side is pushing it.
How did we get to the HCR LAW?
Pure American, the Heathcare debate is over. The Heathcare LAW is in effect. You cannot repeal it. You cannot do anything about it. Your GOP leadership, as inept as it is, has left you out to dry, and you are mad about that, aren't you?
Seems to me that you should be mad at your GOP leadership for not beable to do anything to stop President Obama when it comes to Heathcare.
Seems to me that you sohuld be mad at your GOP leadership for sitting on their hands bellowing 'NO' and allowing the HCR LAW to be passed.
Seems to me that instead of trying to denigrade Democrats, you need to scrounge up a few Republicans that give a crap about you and their supporters and present some ideas for once.
Seems to me that you have NO CLUE about anything. You just come on here and make a lot of noise, trying to debate me and you are all over the place.
The point of this exercise was to point out 'one DANG Thing' that the Republicans have blocked. I have provided three. Houston has provided three.
And now you want to pivot to the PASSED Healthcare Law.
Pathetic.
Calling All Baggers, BITs and Obama-Haters:
A central theme of your midterm diatribe has been debunked and the hypocrisy of some of your chief lummoxes has been laid bare. We now know that many so-called notables in your ranks railed against the Stimulus, ragged on President Obama about its failure to create jobs, bitched about its effect on the deficit, and “Big Government’s” overreach, while simultaneously, furiously writing multiple letters asking, begging for stimulus money for their states/districts on the grounds that the stimulus would create…say it together now…JOBS! McGoo McCain, the self-appointed anti-earmarks champion, wrote to get stimulus money for job creation in AZ. Aardvark look-alike McDonnell also wrote multiple letters requesting stimulus money for JOB-CREATION in his state. And then to top it all off, your chief loon, the very embodiment of lunacy, Michelle Bachmann, had the nerve to ask for money to stimulate…JOBS while campaigning on its inability to do so. They didn’t even have the integrity to remain true to their mantra. It’s as if they held out one hand with palms up to the federal government while they hid the other hand with a raised middle finger behind their backs! Wouldn’t it be interesting if the record reflects that they ultimately received the funds and that jobs were indeed created at the same time they were claiming the opposite. Most sane humans would at least consider that bald-faced lying, schizophrenic hypocrisy enough reason to deny those politicos elected office. But I suspect that in Bagger Land they’ll be revered and rewarded. We’ll now sit back and watch how you spin this. Go ahead. We’re listening…
You do understand that unemployment is still hovering around 10% right? Didn't the dems scream that it wouldn't go above 8% if the stimulus was passed? You apparently haven't gotten today's news about the unemployment that gallup has put out. When the government does it's revised numbers for Nov 5th, unemployment will actually climb to over 10%. WAY TO GO STIMULUS. It's stimulating alright. It's stimulating people to get off of their rears and go vote you guys out!
PA:
No, they didn't. The unemployment rate was 8.2% by the time the stimulus was signed by President Obama. The Democrats never promised to invent a time machine so they could go back in time and make the effects of the stimuls retroactive.
Pure American--
Every administration tries its best to predict movement of key economic indicators and, despite their best efforts, they always get it wrong, particularly the timing. The Obama administration is no different. The reason the predictions have gotten more attention this time around is the fact that the circumstances were more dire because of a recession driven in large part by the prior administration. Yes, we can still harp on that despite your propensity to deny it. While we are on the subject of failed predictions how about the fact that American soldiers would be "greeted as lilberators?" Or "Mission Accomplished?" Or the Bush statement in 2007 that the economy was "strong?" How'd that work out for us?
But your slight of hand doesn't work. The issue is that the STIMULUS reviled by your Bagger Klan is the same stimulus that your people were looking to get a piece of. So, yeah, while they were pontificating about the increased deficit they were whispering "WAY TO GO STIMULUS! LET ME GET A PIECE OF THAT!" Kind of like Vitter legislating against prostitution but arranging bootie-calls with a known 'ho; like Palladino railing against grinding gays when he gets revenue from a gay-bar business; like Gingrich pushing Clinton's impeachment while he got his infidelity groove on; like Ted Haggard's gay methscapades after Bible-thumping hour; like Larry Craig looking for a bathroom hookup while playing morality cop; like Ensign screwing around with staff while eschewing religious piety in "C" House. Like that.
Admit it. Hypocrisy is the middle name of the GOP who have nothing to run on but the support of the low-info, soundbite, Palinite electorate in their midst. Pure American my a**. Try pure, unabashed hypocrite!
Q-polls have been notoriously bad this cycle, jumping all over the place. So I wouldn't read too much into the Kasich/Strickland poll.
I suspect Murkowski is going to win in Alaska, and then she's going to be the Republican Lieberman for the next 6 years. If Joe Miller does win, look for him to be running for president, or as Palin's running mate, in 2012.
Yeah I wouldn't read too much into those polls either. You might look at Rasmussen instead.. LOL
When will people learn, Republicans DO NOT want jobs created, People with jobs want a decent wage!!! Unemployed homeless starving people will allow them to lower the minmum wage (Which Republicans try to do every time they are in power) Then they will create jobs by the millions and exploit the American people just like they have the Chinese, Koreans, etc
Are you ready to work 16 hour days for $1 an hour or less??? Vote for a Republican and we could be there sooner than you think
Bo are you an idiot? Republicans don't want jobs created?????? Wow, you are an einstein. If Republicans supposedly control all these corporations that are so mean and if unemployment doesn't go down, there's fewer people to buy their goods or services. This doesn't allow them to expand their profits. You are a true MORON. Think about what you actually say, before you say it. That makes perfect sense. Let's hope unemployment stays up. It's great.
Sounds like BO is with SEIU or AFL-CIO. 16 hour days for $1 an hour. Does anyone believe these silly talking points? I don't.
This from the wall street journal, notorious left leaning rag,
"By Rex Nutting
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - U.S. before-tax corporate profits from current production increased at the fastest pace in more than 25 years over the past year, the Commerce Department estimated Friday. Before-tax profits increased $108.7 billion, or 8%, in the fourth quarter. Compared with the fourth quarter of 2008, profits are up 30.6%, the most since 1984."
This might help to explain why they can wait to spend money that would help the economy and by extension the country as a whole. With the Republicans in office regulations can be removed and pay scales lowered to create even more profits and bonuses for CEO's.
Oh yea, this while "the most anti-corporate administration" is in office.
Google the
"14 characteristics of fascism"
and you'll find we took a long walk down that path from 2000-2008.
Republicans hoping to finish the transformation!
Would you like to read the news about the deficit topping the $1 trillion mark yet again under this admin? LOL Probably not. You will just say something stupid like "we have to spend our way out of this." I believe that is the way Europe at one time felt. Now look at what they are doing and the riots they are having to deal with because of this illogical way of thinking. I think you should follow the govt's process and go rack up all of your credit cards today to get yourself through this mess. It would help the economy!
Pure American - There were a lot of items that were never booked as a part of our deficit before 2009.
I guess you forgot about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that were kept OFF BOOK.
I guess you forgot about the Medicare Part D program that was conveniently left OFF BOOK.
I guess you forgot about TARP that was added in November 2008.
I guess we have a problem with Republican math, don't we?
Pietro are you serious? The two wars were part of the deficit under Bush. When did they get removed? LOL The wars have always been funded through deficit spending. Do you think the money just poofed into thin air?You might want to get your facts straight. The dems were fat and happy to allow this admin to keep funding these wars through deficit spending.
Actually, Pure American, you may want to get YOUR facts straight.
The Wars were funded through 'supplemental legislation', or 'emergency spending'. If the wars were under 'deficit spending' as you espouse, then they would have shown up on the budgets before 2009, would they not?
I guess you didn't know that. In your defence, not many do.
You know Pietro, I'm trying to follow your logic on the deficit thing. Please cite the resource that you are using. You see even "supplemental legislation" and "emergency spending" adds to the deficit. You do understand the difference between a deficit and the actual debt right?!?
I have been searching all over Google to find that these wars were never included into the deficit. I can't find anything of it.
That's strange PA, it took me about 30 seconds to find this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/25/AR2008122500757.html
To quote;
'The CSBA agreed and blamed the ballooning budgets on the Bush administration's unprecedented decision to fund the wars through giant emergency spending measures rather than through appropriations requests.
"The process has reduced the ability of Congress to exercise effective oversight. It has also tended to obscure the long-term costs and budgetary consequences of ongoing military operations," the report says. It also warns that such emergency bills have included "substantial amounts of funding for programs unrelated to the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."'
PA:
The war spending was deficit speding, but Bush hid it by keeping it out of the budget and made it "emergency" spending -- for more than five years. President Obama put the costs of the wars back into the budget, which automatically increased the official budget deficit by more than $100 billion per year.
If people who were so gung ho for these wars had really been patrioitic, they would have insisted on a tax increase to pay for them, just as all previous wars had been paid for. If there had been a war tax, the national debt would be a trillion dollars less than it is right now. Those "I support the troops" bumper stickers didn't do much for the deficit. Or for the troops, for that matter.
John McCain is a blithering idiot and a complete disgrace.
Im not voting for him or Bush in 2012 unless Obama runs again.
Midterm that is the best comeback on here yet.
At this point in time it really does not matter if the Dems are correct or the Reps are correct. The only correct thing is the perception of where we are and where we are headed. I don't think any amount of arguement is going to change that perception over the next 2 weeks. The Repulicans are going to win and they are going to win big. Why? I think in this case Obama absolutely has it correct. A total failure on the Democrats to sale/market their agenda. The 4 leaders of the Democrats Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid have all talked down to the American people. It really does not matter if you are correct or not. If you are going to tell your supporters they are too dumb to know whats good for them that is not a winning strategy Just Sunday Biden said that Democrats were a bunch of dumb whiners. Pelosi says you have to pass something so you can see what's in it. Reid says to shut down a good portion of the National Mall because he can smell the tourists. Michelle says this is the only time she has ever been proud of her country. Our golfer in chief has the thinnest skin of any elected politician I can remember. Factor in the out-right lies. Oh, I did not know Bill Ayers. I never heard (after 20 years) J. Wright say those things. Well, I think anyone who is honest has to admit that is not going to win people over. It matters not how much you blame someone else. This is the real world you not only have to play a good game you also have to talk a good game. The Democrat leadership has failed greatly on that 2nd portion.
They can't market something they don't even know about. Healthcare, I believe queen Nancy stated had to pass for us to know what's in it. They still don't know what's in it. The things that we are learning about the healthcare law now are becoming more problems for the dems as time passes.
You can't market something you have no knowledge of. You also can't market poison to commonsense people.
Google the
"14 characteristics of fascism"
and you'll find we took a long walk down that path from 2000-2008.
Republicans hoping to finish the transformation!
You really should come up with some new ones. The racist, fascism smear stuff isn't working this year.
Pietro: Many commenter's claim that the Bush numbers (deficit) do not include Afghan and Iraq. They most certainly do. Though Bush used emergency supplementals instead of the normal budget process the deficit numbers still reflect that spending (Washington Post & Heritage Foundation). The money did not simply vanish. Considering pure deficit numbers President Obama will add twice as much debt over the same number of years as Bush. Arguements can be made as to which debt is over-all better (I personally don't think any debt of this magnitude is good) but to imply Bush had more deficit than Obama will have is just false. As stated Obama will double the deficit.
The only thing "pure" about PA is his bullcr+p.
Ill vote Republican.
Pure American: I do have to laugh. I was trying to play nice. Of course you can't market the unmarketable. If all you can say is that the American public is to dumb to understand when the reality is plain to see, well, this Eskimo is not buying that refridgerator.
Hello America, Sharon Angle said that Asians look alot like Mexicans, hummm peculiar thing to say? but when average Americans run for political office they are likely to say what ever comes to mind, actually kinda refreshing, people not afraid of the status quoe, how far different than what Jerry Brown has going on in California with all his illegal voters, did anyone stop to ask wether the maid that was fired by Meg Whitman, and thrust into the press highlight, by Jerry Browns team was ever arrested, and deported? why of course not, and why should Jerry Brown and his progressive democratic regime, be interested in helping to enforce the Laws of Our country?, when he himself has never obeyed the law. I am just so proud of Sharon Angle and the other Independents who have mustered the courage to leave private life in the work force, to take on these Professional politicians such as Harry Reid that have plagued our country for the last 50 years. perhaps we can stay off the Obama Care legislation which will destroy everyones current Healthcare issurance (it already has caused my deductable to triple in the last six months since its passage) but also force those who cannot afford healthcare insurance to waste otherwise needed funds and into bankruptcy, and we hear that many of the Republicans in Nevada will vote for Harry Reid before any Independents, well what goes around comes around I know I will not vote for any Republicans or Democrats either this fall, so there you have it, Independents will either stand or fall alone without help from the other party voters, and it is probably for the best, since America was established by Independent thinking Founders. so as a majority of voters I encourage Independents to pick your best candidates and lets get them into office and please refrain from voting for any of the other candidates from either the Republican or Democratic Parties if in doubt go without, if the ship goes down, let it be on the side of Independence and the Independent Grassroots movement. Go Sarah Palin Go, we the majority of Independents are behind you, either the Centrist Republicans are for us, or against us. if the progressive socialist democrats take the house and senate again this year, it will not be the fault of the Independents, sincerely Fezzy Bear
Oh, the savage leftist beast are angry. Here is a little humor to make your day:
One Wish
I met a fairy today that would grant me one wish...
"I want to live forever," I said.
"Sorry" said the fairy, "I'm not allowed to grant wishes like that!"
"Fine," I said, "I want to die after the Democrats get their heads out of their asses!"
"You crafty bastard," said the fairy.
have a wonderful day!
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrats in Congress still do not get it and probably never will:
The American people and American small business want lower taxes for EVERYONE while Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrats will raise taxes on some and probably everyone to pay for the reckless spending they put in place.
The American people and American small business want smaller government while Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrats have and plan to continue to greatly increase the size of government.
The American people and American small business want less government intervention into their lives and private affaires while Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrats will continue to expand onerous regulation which raises costs, reduces the standard of living, and inhibits job growth.
The American people and American small business did not want the so-called healthcare reform while Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrats continue to ignore how this law will cost the American people and small businesses more, reduce choice in healthcare, and restrict access to healthcare for many people.
The current Administration and current Congress must realize a large portion of the American people are fed up with high taxes, big government, and obtrusive government meddling in the private lives of people, business, and the economy. The American people what lower taxes, lower government spending, and smaller government.
As long as our government continues the reckless spending, high taxes, and unprecedented meddling with businesses, we cannot expect real long term growth.
The Congress and current Administration have put the country on a course of reckless government spending that has mortgaged the future of all Americans especially future generations. The only way to fix this long term structural problem is to create a pro-growth atmosphere for business. To do this we must reduce taxes NOW. How many different taxes does a business or individual pay on a regular basis? We must eliminate number and complexity of all these taxes and reduce the tax burden.
We also need to end the micro-management of business and the economy. Until we GREATLY reduce the tax burden on business and consumers and remove the senseless regulations that accomplish little in relation to the cost they impose, our future is bleak.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER...VOTE THEM OUT!!!
Obama now takes the cake for being the most arrogant president EVER. And that's saying a lot. He's now saying that anyone who does not believe in his greatness and benevolence are not "clear thinking people". What a friggin' douchebag. He sounds like many of the people on here.
if the republicans win the house will they do anything? how many here believe that they will cut taxes or be fiscally responsible in any way. they will spout lots of nonsense but do nothing but spend more. it is much easier to criticize from the outside looking in than coming up with solutions