"The loss of the House will ENSURE a second term for President Obama!"

I'm all for a 2nd term for President Obama. However, i don't like the idea of having to lose the House of Representatives for that to happen. I'd sacrifice the Senate anytime, they barely get anything done with their ancient, outdated rules anyways/ The House, however, is a different matter.

Hello Concerned Citizen, Tired Of Tea Partiers, humm we ain't goin no where so I'd say you best get use to the Idea, just think of all those millions of closet Tea Party Baggers, waiting to come out and take back their country, only time will tell. :) like about 24 hours, sincerely Fezzy Bear

Fezzy Bear -

you just continue your wishful thinking.

Don't get me wrong ToTP... I'm on the same page as you and the thought of Speaker Agent Orange is enough to make me lose my lunch!

Feisty -

I know we're on the same page, sorry if my post didn't sound like it.

Btw, Speaker Agent Orange = good one!

Fezzy Bear....Tea Party wants to take the country back, back to 1860 !

J. Richter - you and I are on the same page. If we look at this election with logic, facts and reason, the Dems will win convincingly.

However -

We are not dealing with logic, facts and reason. We are dealing with raw EMOTION this time around, where people want to 'win' over anything else.

Will Facts, logic and reason win out? hard to say.

Humans are most illogical species! (hopefully not all).

We'll see soon.

Funny, You fail to mention that unemployment was at 5.3%. That was BEFORE the Dems took control of Congress. Since Pelosi became speaker, well, you've got what you've got today....double that or even more. So, even if what you say is true, all you're really saying is the Dems have begun to get out out of the mess that happened on their Congresional watch. Barney Frank & Chris Dodd demanding mortgages be available for those that didn't qualify. Tha' why we're in the houing mess we're in. What this election is really about long term is on this you tube video Watch this and understand before you cast your vote today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KGlBHyVeYU

Dominique - about the mortgages - itwas actually President Bush who spearheaded that process. Remember when President Bush wanted to bolster the number of home mortgages? It is spelled out here in this NY Times article:

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

The emphasis is mine. I think this is where the derivates come into play with Wall Street.

Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

(snip)

"There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems," said Al Hubbard, Bush's former chief economic adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. "Had we, we would have attacked them."

Looking back, Keith Hennessey, Bush's current chief economic adviser, said he and his colleagues had done the best they could "with the information we had at the time." But Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration had not paid more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices.

And both Paulson and his predecessor, John Snow, say the housing push went too far.

"The Bush administration took a lot of pride that home ownership had reached historic highs," Snow said during an interview. "But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost."

(snip)

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."

And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment. But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1

Additional reading on this issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html

well what happens when I run I am a DEM, donkey's kick don't they?

The problem I see with that is that the Repubs will bring the economy to it's knees and it will somehow be Obama's fault.

Yes, not only is that the danger, that will be the GOP's goal exactly.

JoAnnaSmith1

Much of 2012 depends on how much of an obstructionist Obama will be over the next two years. FR says it can't read the tea leaves for 2012, but one thing is for certain, if Obama continues with his Big Goverment is Better Government position, he won't make it through the Democratic primaries much less the general election.

You're being delusional again. Lay off that sugar coating.

It's called a "Veto"...damn those framers of our Constitution!

Take a look at the jobs report the past straight nine months and explain this big government you are experiencing Joanna!!! Or what private sector jobs are not being created at the expense of big government. Because the opposite is happening.

Each month, all of ten months this year, private sector jobs have been POSITIVE. And big government negative. And recently all the negative jobs numbers have been as a result of net losses in government jobs!!! Is it a parallel universe or something? Or are SLOGANS more real than FACTS???

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/economy/september_jobs_report/index.htm

Private businesses added 64,000 workers in September. It marked the ninth straight month the private sector added jobs...

The government shed a total of 159,000 workers in September...

Or in graph: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/10/08/news/economy/september_jobs_report/chart_jobs_101007.top.gif

Keep in mind that the private sector numbers while not great was off an administration that started off with 787,000 job losses a month less than two years ago. And historically, this kind of hole takes TIME to climb out of ad Reagan with a shallower recession saw the first positive numbers about two years later. This is the same way you folks hounded Clinton all 8 years as he became the first President in decades to actually reduce our deficits!!! http://i55.tinypic.com/e84ll1.png (which historically ALL Republican Presidents the past five decades only increase)

J.Richter: Each month, all of ten months this year, private sector jobs have been POSITIVE.

Have they really? You do realize it takes about 200,000 jobs created a month to keep pace with the growing workforce. It would take about 400,000 created per month for a year to bring the unemployment number down by a percentage point. So by any measure the job growth can at best described as anemic and well below expectations. Expectations that were generated by Obama and the Democrats when they talked of 4 million jobs produced because of their stimulus package, Recovery Summer where Joe Biden claimed 500,000 jobs would be produced per month. Remember the 'shovel-ready' jobs? Turns out, there were none. And on top of that we have an additional trillion dollars stacked up on our countries debt.

And now you know why tomorrow will be such a bad day for Liberals.

So the Congressional Republicans blocked everything for 2 years (after 8 years of being rubber stamps for Bush), and that was a good thing. On the other hand, if Obama opposes the same policies that got us into the hole, he is being an obstructionist. The GOP leadership loudly announces that they will not compromise with the President, and then label him an extreme partisan. They are also on record that they will go back to exactly the same policies of tax cuts and no regulation that got us to where we are today. Do you folks realize how incredibly insane all of this sounds? Your party has demonstrated that it is unfit to govern.

You do realize it takes about 200,000 jobs created a month to keep pace with the growing workforce.

- Joanna.

Yes. Look at my posting that you responded to:

Keep in mind that the private sector numbers while not great was off an administration that started off with 787,000 job losses a month less than two years ago...

You do realize that not turning from -787,000 to +400,000 in less than two years is not necessarily a sign of failure, nor an excuse to turn over control to the admin that ushered in that recession. This whole thing is so obvious, and the logic so simple, its amazing you cant see that you have no basis at all (besides showing us a better administration IN HISTORY that made the kind of turn around you wanted off similar circumstances). How can you just come in and set a bar, without precedent, for a new admin and then go campaigning against them for not meeting it.

Have they really?

- Joanna.

Why ask me a question its easy to google? Do you want to delude yourself rather than just answer the same question? Or the answer is not important to your decision or the election? Should be to any American except one profiting from our demise or a paid blogger (profiting from our demise) as a country. But here: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/10/08/news/economy/september_jobs_report/chart_jobs_101007.top.gif

If the Republicans and tea party members take over the house, I hope the Democrats will filibuster everything they put forth. And stop their plans to hurt the poor and elderly.

J.Richter: How can you just come in and set a bar, without precedent, for a new admin and then go campaigning against them for not meeting it.

Obama and the Democrats set the bar. They are the team that said pass our stimulus or unemployment will exceed 8%. They are the ones that talked about shovel-ready jobs. They are the ones that talked of millions of jobs that would be created. They are the ones that came up with the phony "saved" jobs metric. They are the ones that executed the spending of the stimulus, for a stimulus that stimulated government growth and financing, but not private sector growth.

And it's interesting that you and other Liberals set the bar to what the job losses were at their worse. In case you haven't figured it out yet, that's not where the bar is set. Americans expect much better from Obama and the Democrats massive spending, and they haven't gotten it.

You're trying to make lemonade out of lemons. It's not working, and tomorrow you'll see that most Americans agree.

Again, stop parotting what Fox tells you is important, Joanna. Theirs or yours or my predictions is irrelevant. What is relevant is REALITY. And again, by historical standards (compared to other deep recession or depressions in the past), they have done well given the circumstances (787,000 job losses amonth, -6.4% GDP loss, crashed financial system and 11 bank failures a day, with failure of 3 huge institutions and more threatened, $700billion in bailout already passed in 2008 and auto bailouts started also in 2008 - and they stabilized all and turned jobs positive in the private sector). So again keep your eye on the relevant and how it affects your life and the country, not predictions that doesn't create a job, or worse still turn back to those who were stewards and the train went down the decline: http://i55.tinypic.com/e84ll1.png and please sincerely do some simple research (google alone will answer the questions on job number at the worst or not because all I quoted you is job numbers on EXACTLY Jan 2009!) on the job numbers before more advocating any further position.

you really believe that any one can predict the unemp. #'s? GET REAL

I don't know why I should be surprised to hear the accusation of "obstructionism" coming out of the mouth of an obstructionist Repug. They always look in the mirror and think they are seeing the other side instead of themselves!

J. Richter is doing a GREAT job of stepping over the hot, steaming, fragrant loads that Joanna drops when she posts.

Standing O, J. Richter, Standing O.

Thanks Pietro. Just doing my best for this country and for myself. Because I do want a prosperous country again similar to the late 90s or the Clinton times. The 2000s decade was a complete wasteat best or more a regression at worst in terms of progress. Business did well as did Main street, and even our deficit was reducing.

If only the corporate world would realize that our interest is theirs also and they do better when we do (and have more to purchase their products), gain better education (to help them produce and innovate). If only they stop sending armies like those posting above to go fight for their interests and tax breaks and less regulations. But they wont, so we have to do the job of putting policies in place that favors Main street (not endless top-directed tax cuts that have been proven to not create jobs).

J. R.

IamWoman,

Please go back to civics class. There is no such thing as a filibuster in the house.

Does anyone realize that George Bush did NOT have total control of congress (majorities in both the house and senate) for four years of his administration? Tom Daschle was the Senate majority leader in 2001 and 2002. Reid and Pelosi took over completely in 2007and 2008.

And when Republicans "controlled" the house and senate, they didn't have the virtual super majorities that Dems have had.

If a Republican party-line vote is a "rubber stamp", I'm not sure what else you can call the Democrats' party line votes.

To put a finer point on it. Borrowing and spending massive amounts of money, growing the government at the expense of the private sector jobs, conducting hidden meetings both with Obama, and with Nancy and Harry, to forge agreements to pass a health care bill by 1-vote margins in the House and Senate, providing for the unions while ignoring non-union businesses, having a self-centered President that is nothing short of arrogant and disrespectful to anyone that doesn't agree with him, and most of all - seeing the resulting economy not get better, but get much worse.

That sums up Obama's and the Democrats last two years.

Obama's message to the Republicans the week after he was sworn in was "I won!!". Let's see what that message from Obama is on Wednesday.

It tells us that misinformation works. For instance, we re-invented the word socialism to refer to all the same policies that have been practiced in the country for decades

- progressive taxation (except Obama reduced it for nearly all Americans, and has signed up to 12 different tax cuts for small businesses and companies)

- Medicare and Medicaid (which Obama actually signed a bill to cut)

- Unemployment in a time of deep recession.

- One women in red on TV even said the socialism was the "czars" - of which there are 35 in this admin and 39 in the last one and I nearly screamed that the name simply means "advisors" and nothing different in this admin than any other in terms of advisers.

And you ask for just one CLEAR example of increased socialism and you dont get one. NOT ONE. NEITHER OF BIGGER GOVERNMENT (even as government continues to shrink each month as the jobs numbers come in).

So if people are rejecting anything it is a "phantom", misinformed understanding of the policies as they were explained on the media they have turned to - those with the agenda to short cut the return of power to those who enacted the policies that precipitated the debacle we are still grappling with today, and make money from the sensation - particularly that Australian-born owned TV station that is apparently not mainstream but which more than half of the country turn to on cable. About half of this country are tools - corporate tools - fighting against their own and the country's good.

Actually, what it shows me is that most people have their heads up their you know what. It tells me that for some unknown reason, people who are hurting want to have policies that benefit corporations and billionaires and do nothing to help them. Why? because Faux News, Karl Rove, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce tells them that billionaires and corporations must continue to get tax breaks because then they will be able to help out. What a joke. They are not helping us now so what on earth makes you think they will help you tomorrow.

And people in Nevada. If you think that Sharon Angle is going to do anything to help you then you need to get your head examined. The democrats are more than likely going to keep control of the senate, which will mean the majority leader will be Dick Durbin who will not have a little state like Nevada high up on his priority list. Sharon Angle will be doing exactly what Mitch McConnel tells her to do and that is obstruct. That is all that you are going to get from Angle. That is, unless gay marriage is a big issue in Nevada. And there are no Mexico borders surrounding Nevada so I guess you dip out there too. However, the harm she has done to the legal latino population in Nevada will continue.

Actually, the message IS much more simple. The right wing, and I won't even call them Republicans, set out to prove the adage, "the less you know, the more you believe." And, with the help of the Democrats, they succeeded. For example, how many times did you hear, in defense of health care reform, that "60% of personal bankruptcies are the result of medical bills?"

Why can't I call them Republicans? A real Republican believes in governance. This lastest crowd believes only in ruling. Compromise, the central element of governance, is absent from their vocabulary.

When "moderate" America finally sees what these folks have in mind for the country, the Tea Party will be over.

J.Richter: It tells us that misinformation works.

What "mis-information" would that be? 10% unemployment? 25% under employment? No end to the housing market collapse? Trillion dollar record deficits? A arrogant and isolated President surrounded by "Yes-men" that is totally dis-engaged from the American public? A Congress lead by ultra-liberals who have ignored the people they represent?

There has been no mis-information. Why bother with that? The real information listed above is truth enough.

I thought it was very clearly spelt out in some of my postings above, Joan:

- that there is more socialism (inspite of reducing taxes and not ONE net expansion of any of the government programs - in fact Medicare was cut). A dare that you can show this

- that government is not getting bigger but smaller (http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/economy/september_jobs_report/index.htm). I also doubt that you can show this, in spite of keep typing big government. Its like being a programmed brainwashed robot fighting against one's self interest.

- that a deep recession should be solved in two years? Yes 9.6% unemployment because they started off with -787,000 job losses and huge problems. Its not the number that matters but were they are coming from, isnt it Joanna? Just quoting numbers without context doesn't make very much sense does it? If someone dropped you a hot ball and you couldnt hold it from falling to the ground, and while in the process of picking it up, another one comes in (or if they were watching all along suffers amnesia) and points at you at how your ball is dropped, and asks to return to the one who dropped the ball in the first place, does that action even make sense.

Joanna's not interested in facts or reason -- just rhetoric.

It means the majority of Americans believe Fox network. The majority are bigots. The people that vote for the republicans and tea party members deserve what they will get from their elected officials.

Uh-NO!! This is a midterm and turn out will be much less than in a presidental election year. That is a fact. The Majority of america turned out to vote Obama in. This is a very pissed off bunch of losers of the white house putting on a mask to hide their faces. Tea-baggers"We care about deficits except when the republicans are in office." "We care about spending unless its on Wars and Unpaid for drug programs, and Tax Cuts" Get a clue will you! Republicans only win when turn out is low. Thats why Obama is the Greatest threat to Republicans he motivates people to get involved and in a big, no huge, no gigantic way!

J.Richter,

There are all kinds and forms of socialism. General acceptance has to do with the federal governments ownership/control of industries that dramatically impact our lives.

The biggest investment of most Americans? Homes. Say hello J. Second biggest? College. How free is that market J.? Need a car? Two out of three American car manufactures wear the Obama gadge now.

Health expense? Wasn't Obama going to make it more affordable and everyone could still keep their coverage? Funny that all these companies/organizations are having to apply for Obama waivers because they can't afford/keep coverage for their employees. 36 companies/organizations have recived their waivers providing the first million testaments to Obama's lie. The American Federation of Teachers insurance isn't good enough for Obama? Wow! BTW - What happens next year when it is not an election year and Obama has given up trying to hide the lie?

Feel like throwing up? Flush twice, because the johns don't work as well since the federal government dictates how much water a toilet can hold.

Still in the dark J.?

Flip on the light, just make sure it is the government required CFL.

Two out of three American car manufactures wear the Obama gadge now. - Bob.

One answer: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/16515

"Administration officials have been warning for weeks that failure to pass the bill could lead to an even deeper recession.That was the message Vice President Dick Cheney brought to a closed-door Senate GOP lunch Wednesday, reportedly warning that it’ll be “Herbert Hoover” time if aid to the auto industry was rejected, according to a senator familiar with the remarks."

THIS WAS 2008!!!

Explain again why the GOP is the answer to that comment rather than the WORST response. Your Obama hatred will hurt you and the country.

On the rest of your rant, its not even productive to bother. No amount of writing can dispel the seeds that have been sown in your head on what will or will not happen with health care and that is in the future. The health care has not even had 1% of it implemented. And scaring people and presenting all forms of information predicting what something will do is the easiest way to mislead people and build an army to fight for corporate interest against one's own. I can only show how you are wrong with what has happened such as the auto bailout that you are already so obviously misinformed of.

I thought you were asking for examples of increased socialism.

Government taking over ownership of 2 out of 3 companies doesn't qualify? Seriously.

What does that have to do with Cheney? Are you saying we wanted the government to own the two companies, shaft the creditors to protect the union vote? Doesn't sound like Cheney for some reason.

Didn't talk about the future of health care, what was going to happen. I stated what Obama said (past) and stated what has recently happened (present). Not the future. I did ask how he might cover the lie in the future, but that was a question, not a statement as to what will happen. If that statement of fact, scares people - good, but it is a fact not a scary prediction.

Facts mislead people J.?

Not very good at this are you.

What has Cheney got to do with government ownership of car companies?

HE WENT TO PASS THE BILL THAT STARTED BAILING THEM OUT:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/16515

"Administration officials have been warning for weeks that failure to pass the bill could lead to an even deeper recession.That was the message Vice President Dick Cheney brought to a closed-door Senate GOP lunch Wednesday, reportedly warning that it’ll be “Herbert Hoover” time if aid to the auto industry was rejected, according to a senator familiar with the remarks."

Good at what? You cant even read!

I've been thinking the same thing some time ago. However, if you look at recent history, then things like recess appointments and executive orders reminds me too much of how former president Bush used to behave. I remember that too well to want to go back to that sort of thing.

Man up, like the goons that attack the woman at the Paul debate. Is that what you consider a man. Then you are not a real man. Sarah Palin needs to shut up and get her mind out of men's pants. Can't Todd satisfy her?

No Iamwoman, not like those goons who are cowards of the first order. I often say that a tough talking gun loving teabagger would wet himself if he had to actually go out in public without a concealed firearm.

What I mean is for Obama to stand tough and re-commit to the agenda that he ran on for 2008. Too many times, the Democrats after a tough election say "the voters have spoken" then roll over for the GOP agenda. When the GOP loses, they focus on destroying the Democrats. They did it when Clinton was in office and they are doing it now. What I want to see from the Democrats this time is to STAND THEIR GROUND AND NOT CAVE. That is how the Republicans always seem to get their agenda passed.

In Australia they are MANDATED to vote. Even if they mark the box "Abstaining from Voting" they are required to mail that sucker in. Apathy in this country is just a small part of our declining 'exceptionalism'.

Someone else will fix it/change it. Someone else will tell me what to do. Someone else will think for me.

Okay, I'm starting to sound like Christine O'Donnell here,...it is up to EACH of us to be the change that we want to see in the world AND Change doesn't happen overnight, over one election cyle OR even in one generation. But incrementally, step by step, with a committment to work - it DOES happen!

VOTE, even if I don't agree with you, VOTE! It is what we are all about - and any suppression or gaming with this right is the ultimate act of Treason, in my opinion!

Let's hope Oblaba runs in 2012 and----ends up like Carter.

Juven -

the man's name is Barack Obama. Geez, I'm not even asking that he be referred to as President Obama, I know that is asking too much, but at least use his correct name.

If you lived in Nevada why would you vote?

You have the choice between Slime and Slime.

I would need to take a shower after voting in that race.

The douche bag's name is Oblabla because that's all he does is talk. Do I have to show respect to someone I don't respect? The answer is no.

Yet you want to give control and more tax breaks to big corporations that ship manufacturing jobs overseas. ???????????????????

And we cant as long as the mostly Republican (with moderate and conservative Dems) trade agreements are in place. And there is no repealing those. It cost several times less to manufacture almost anything in China than here, and given how capitalism by its very definition works, production WILL continue to shift there. The only hope is to continue to

- push changes to those trade agreements and

-pressure China on currency manipulation (but they are also enough of a military power that our best best; while most of the technological superiority still lies here; is to

- implement tax policies that encourages more of the production here (currently tax policies actually further favors shipping that production outside).

This is the reason for the recent successful Bill in the House that the Senate blocked after lobbying from the Chamber of Commerce and our bought up representative (on both sides) yielded to. The current speaker has been one of the most vocal in decrying the trade policies and currency manipulations of China recently (google it if you havent read it on Fox). This is one reason why China pretty much contributed to ousting our Speaker with great help from us. No corporate tax break (currently 30% - and nominally less than 10% from tax breaks loopholes, manipulations, gimmicks- heck even Obama has added 15 more different tax breaks to small business to spur jobs) will bring back jobs or stop their shipment out. Not one single job. And thanks to us - the foolish amongst us - we have only helped further agenda with our votes tomorrow, if the polls hold true. I'm disgusted out how such a fool many in this country are and how easy to manipulate - use enough divisive, sometimes racially tinged calling cards and you'll soon be leading nearly half the country by the nose.

We COULD develop a green economy that would provide jobs in new energy technology, but we have to want to. If Teabaglicans are elected, we will miss the window of opportunity and other countries who DO recognize that oil is a finite resource and the climate IS changing, will seize the opportunity to develop new energy technology and America will fall so far behind that we will never be able to catch up. Is that what we want to vote for?

By the time Republicans put together any kind of bill, it will be Spring of 2011. By that time, we could see some lowering of the unemployment rate, a lowering the Republicans had nothing to do with. 

But you know that if that does happen, the Republicans will take credit for it anyway. And they've got enough corporate money to bury the public in false advertisements claiming credit that will succeed in convincing the more gullible segment of the public. Given the recent poll showing that 52% of the public believe Obama has raised their taxes when the truth is that he lowered them, the gullible segment of the population seems to be the majority.

I disagree with this because this is exactly what happened to Bill Clinton in 1995-96. The economy started to grow and no one wanted to leave the rest of the fixes to a newcomer.

Besides, I think the Republicans will try to shut down the government over things like student loans. That will bring the kids back to vote. This will not be good for the Republicans.

hmm....did you stop to think that once business see's obamas hands tied and his hell bent agenda is done that they may have the confidence to start hiring?

So, maybe us republicans WILL take the credit for job creation amd lower unemployment.

Wake up sheeples

" We know what matters. Individual human liberty matters, and to a great many of us, that's more important than security, or safety, or environmental cleanliness, or not hurting the feelings of the less gifted, or the less fortunate, or the minorities among us."

In other words, if you are not white, or if you have a disability, or you are out of work, or living on top of a toxic waste dump or you are living near Yucca Mountain that's just too bad? Man-up, in other words? Or is it, Get over it?

Well, now I see exactly the number of people you guys are going to piss off over the next two years. By the way, all of those people outnumber you and are getting bigger all of the time. Those people usually vote in the bigger elections, too.

Jody, I think 2010 tells us something about 2008.

wow

have you never heard of Andrew Jackson? look on your twenty dollar bill, he knew how to take care of an argument with a socialist. Western law

Fezzy Bear -

You lost me as soon as you mentioned the "new House Speaker John Boehner". He's NOT the speaker of the House yet, and with some luck he never will be.

Fezzy?

Stop Sarah Palin Movement Under Way In GOP: Politico

Top Republicans in Washington and in the national GOP establishment say the 2010 campaign highlighted an urgent task that they will begin in earnest as soon as the elections are over: Stop Sarah Palin.

Interviews with advisers to the main 2012 presidential contenders and with other veteran Republican operatives make clear they see themselves on a common, if uncoordinated, mission of halting the momentum and credibility Palin gained with conservative activists by plunging so aggressively into this year’s midterm campaigns. (See: Sarah Palin wreaking havoc on campaign trail)

There is rising expectation among GOP elites that Palin will probably run for president in 2012 and could win the Republican nomination, a prospect many of them regard as a disaster in waiting.

Many of these establishment figures argue in not-for-attribution comments that Palin’s nomination would ensure President Barack Obama’s reelection, as the deficiencies that marked her 2008 debut as a vice presidential nominee — an intensely polarizing political style and often halting and superficial answers when pressed on policy — have shown little sign of abating in the past two years. (See: Palin speaks to electability issue)

"There is a determined, focused establishment effort … to find a candidate we can coalesce around who can beat Sarah Palin," said one prominent and longtime Washington Republican. "We believe she could get the nomination, but Barack Obama would crush her."

This sentiment was a nearly constant refrain in POLITICO interviews with top advisers to the candidates most frequently mentioned as running in 2012 and a diverse assortment of other top GOP officials.

Nearly all of these interviewees insisted on keeping their views on background, fearing the wrath of conservative grass-roots activists who are enthralled with the former Alaska governor and who have made plain that the establishment’s disdain for Palin and her devotees is mutually reciprocated. (See: Palin personifies GOP divide)

Oh quite to the Contrary, I have a reliable Crystal Ball, that says the next Speaker of The House Of Representatives will be John Boehner, and if that don't convince you I have bought some Tea Leaves, from a cute Little Witch in Delaware that says Boehner is a shew in, I guess we will see just how reliable all this soothe saying is. and I saw a black cat last night so the omens are good, no more Nancy Pelosi. do you know how many tootsie rolls I have eaten since halloween? to many to mention.

Fezzy -

I believe neither in crystal balls nor tea leaves. I stand by what I said before. With some luck, John Boehner will never be speaker of the House. How can you, how can anyone want that wretched man in charge of anything, much less the House of Representatives?

Do you believe in Tootsie Rolls? I ate 10 Tootsie Rolls and all 10 Tootsie Rolls were soft and chewy, a clear sign, a clear sign that Nancy Pelosi is on her way out, so there you have it who do you believe George Gallops Computer Statistics and Polsters, or fezzy bears Tea Leaves and Toostie Rolls? the choice she is a clear one.

By the way did you happen to see the 60 Minutes segment on those Poor Folks living in Newton Iowa, all staunch Obama supporters in 2008, now the Maytag Factory is Closed, and The Chevy Dealer left town, and they would gladly, eat some of Fezzy Bears tootsie rolls to stay-off hunger, Did I not warn them Iowans not to elect Barrack Obama in 2008, and they heeded not. now they are down to eating sand, thats right sand, cause they ain't got Nooooooooooo, more money in town. so now Fezzy Bear has to gather up all the left over Halloween Candy and ship it to Newton, Iowa so those poor folks don't starve to death.

Fezzy -

my heart goes out to these people. How is President Obama to blame for the behavior of greedy corporations who could care less about people as long as they make enough profits? That "profit above everything else" attitude was what brought us into the current situation in the first place. Now you can call me a socialist if you like.

why thats the whole point, the President of the United States never has been nor will he or she, ever be able to control the Economy of a Free Enterprise system. the whole point exactly which is why Barrack Obama should not have used Tax Payer Dollars and Social Security Funds to TARP out Wall Street and Chinese Bankers! the whole point exactly. and the real stupid one here is me, for believing that he might could sith a big enough stimulus

Fezzy Bear -

you don't make any sense right now.

I think Fezzy Bear best quit for now, the more we talk, the more rialed up I get, so best if we all go get a cookie and some milk and cool down, and leave politics for another day, its best if we don't vote angry. we need to at least have Civility in the nation, so I don't want to rial up anyone else. County ordinances and dog catchers, I'm tired for one day.

Fezzy- referring to yourself in the third person is not good. Seek help ASAP, you're hallucinating and your posts are garbled nonsense. Thorazine maybe.

Not much argument here. I do believe the system may work just as properly in the matter of repeal.

The problem with Republicans voting against their own amendments was that in order to vote for them, they would also have to vote for Democrat amendments.

The question of who obstructs what is quite wide open. It's very possible the Democrat definition could be changing soon.

Pres Obama has kept nearly all of his promises and is working on the rest; those still pending are pending because of the GOPers Senate blockade . Just saying he has broken his promises, doesn't make it so. Take your glasses off and the ear plugs out--President Obama is NOTHING like Bush and thank God he isn't.

Jody -

I agree with you. I have noticed, however, that those on the far left, like those on the far right, always fail to realize that the President of the United States is (or should be) the president of ALL Americans, and therefore has to take ALL their many interests into consideration, not just those on the far ends of the political spectrum.

Jody: Really? Tell me why DADT and DOMA are still in effect?

DADT is still in effect because President Obama was correct - it needs to be REPEALED. As you can see, just because a judge says that a law is unconstitutional does NOT mean it is not the law and that judge can be overruled. Only Congress can repeal a law, and once DADT is repealed, it is NOT in effect anymore.

Indigo -

I'll tell you why. First, though, you need to know that I'm all for equal rights for gays/lesbians, and that (though I'm straight myself) I'm appalled by how they are treated in the US.

Now, as for DOMA and DADT, I've been following that debate for some time. They tried to have DADT repealed in the Senate as an amendment to a bill providing military funding, and it failed. Why? Because some Republicans blocked it with the help of the ancient, outdated rules of the US Senate. That's right, Republicans, not Democrats. You call for an executive order as a solution. That sounds good at first, I admit. However, on second thought, do you want to go back to the days when the president frequently bypassed Congress that way? I don't.

One last thing, i understand your frustration. There's a lot of things I still want to see President Obama get done. However, I also understand he can't do all that in just two years.

Jody, the one thing that straddles both administrations, virtually unchanged except for the scope, is spending. People were tired of Bush's record in that area.

It's one very important area where Obama is indeed the same as Bush, maybe the most important one.

We know this much, dangerfield-despite the confusion of the mAjority of those who voted for him, Obama is no Bill Clinton.

In the aftermath of the 1994 elections, the DLC held numerous meetings in order to digest what had happened. The conclusion was that Clinton had tacked too far left, after running as a "new Democrat"; that is, as a centrist.

A chastened Clinton made the housecleaning moves necessary; sure, he shut down the government and blamed the GOP, but he signed the budget he had previously rejected, without once admitting that he had, in fact, given in to the GOP. He reformed welfare, cut programs-generally returned, once again, to being candidate Clinton.

How, exactly, can that work for Obama? His campaign was full of empty rhetoric designed to allow the listener to infer exactly what he or she wanted to hear- legislation is pretty particular. It was the particulars that tanked his approval ratings.

Moreover, Clinton was a pragmatist-willing to do whatever it took to get re elected. Obama feels the need for no such thing, as he does not believe that he is as beloved today as 2008. His only admitted mistakes are poor communication, but he has it backward. He communicates his will perfectly clearly since taking office. He has trouble understanding what the electorate is communicating to him-that his policies have been considered, and rejected.

Here is one example: when was the last time you heard him mention Iran? Once his charm offensive faked, he ignored the threat.

That is how he will react to the outcome of the midterms. He will reject the message. As a democrat, you had better hope somebody challenges him, and wins the nomination. Otherwise, the democratic party will be on life support for a generation, if it is not terminal. After all, rumor of the demise of the republican party were greatly exaggerated because the party had forgotten its central principle: fiscal responsibility. Obama is the epitome of democratic principles:spend now, worry later. Play to your fringe. Hope for change.

Bloomberg? I do not see it. Hillary? Best hope. Anybody else? Cannon fodder. Maybe just lay low until 2016. The bad taste mY be gone by then. Although, given history, you may have to wait until 2020.

Dangerfield - while I step over the fragrant, steaming pile that No Joe just dropped, I actually think you are correct -some Dem heads will roll - possibly those that are out for themselves (Blue Dogs).

With the GOP's version of the Tea Party in effect, I give the Republicans nine months before they try and 'unload' the Tea Party becuase they will NOT be able to control them.

Sarah Palin will be the de-facto head of the NEW 'Tea Party' that will make a bid for the Presidency. The Presidency is the NEW 'nice shiny thing' that Sarah will be aspiring to get, and she will try to get in with or without the GOP's help.

The GOP will implode as the Tea Party rips away much of the 'establishment' GOP's constituency.

I doubt a real 3rd party will be available by 2012, and with all of the 'drama' that the GOP and the GOP's version ofthe Tea Party will generate, President Obama will not look so bad...

Otherwise, the democratic party will be on life support for a generation, if it is not terminal. After all, rumor of the demise of the republican party were greatly exaggerated...

(You DO see the irony in your statement, I am sure...)

Perhaps you have a short memory...Republicans were in the wilderness and looked for all the world like a "regional party" eighteen months ago. We have voted the democrats out of congress voted the democrats back in and now it looks like back out all in 16 years. The cycle of dissatisfaction is speeding up. We are in uncharted territory now, and the voters (independents mostly) are as fickle as my high school girlfriend was...

Also there is no telling what will happen the next two years. Bill Clinton was politically dead after the '94 mid-terms and you could have gotten rich if you took the odds on his re-election. Look what happened there (we have a SLIGHTLY different take on that )

The incoming republican congress has the potential to screw up as much as any democratic congress has before them, and how long will "we the people" give them to turn things around? 6 months? A year? The employment numbers will belong to BOTH parties by this time next year, ( and will be 9%) and the talk of a 3rd party candidacy by someone like Bloomberg could really skew the presidential election cycle

By next year we will know whether the tea party has co-opted the republican establishment or vice-versa, whether Mitt gets his "shot" in the traditional republican line of succession or the movement nominates a "statement" candidate who could like McGovern in '72.

The problem with looking at the current situation through a particular ideological prism is that the supposed"givens" in the equation can be "unknowns" so fast it can make your head spin.

So, while I am not saying that this election isn't a realignment of sorts, the chances are just as likely that your statement above will be used by a DEMOCRAT 2 short years from today...

Pietro-

I treat everyone here via the golden rule, if they are civil, I am too...Why not give that a shot.

Dangerfield- I apologize for the wording. I agree that there is hope for the democratic party, but ONLY if they can find some of the people in the DLC to advise them. I do not believe that Obama will do so.

As I did say, albeit, not clearly enough if you did not understand me, republicans marginalized themselves by forgetting one of the central tenets of their party: fiscal responsibility. It was that that lost them not just independents, but their own base. (see G.W. Bush's approval ratings. They were below the base). Obama reaches out to the fringe of the democratic party, the far left wing, that loses him the moderates. I actually do not think he is all that interested in them, to be honest.

In addition, many of the republicans responsible for running up the deficit while they had majorities are not running in this cycle. Some, because they retired rather than face losing primaries, others, because they ran in primaries and lost. While I am concerned about some of the candidates, others are fiscal hawks, first and foremost, and are necessary for the party's very survival.

Where are the moderate democrats? If they are still there, is Obama listening to their voices? If he is not, and I think you will agree that he is not, how will the voters hear their voices? How will they see them as effective representatives?

In sum, what I meant to articulate is that the republicans put their party in danger by losing sight of their reason for existing, and revived by returning to their core values. Since Obama seems to epitomize the values of the democratic party as currently constituted, it will have a much harder time convincing a skeptical electorate that they should once again be trusted with majorities.

Dangerfield - civility with No Joe has been gone for a while since I caught her ina lie about Proctor & Gamble. I was merely commenting on your post because I felt it was relevent, but I had to step over No Joe's load first.

Is that not civil just because I complained about it?

I treat everyone with that golden rule too - until you lie to my face.

dangerfield: The democratic party will go through it's post-mortem and some remaining heads will roll.

Indeed. First to go? Pelosi. What good is she to the Democrats anymore?Nothing but a lightening rod of criticism from the Right with her approval rating in the teens. Next, David Plouffe, Obama's chief strategist from 2008, I guess the magic didn't last. Reid should be so lucky that he loses on Tuesday, it will save him the embarrassment of being tossed out by his party on Wednesday.

And we all should remember that icky businesses of tossing Rangel and Waters over the side still needs to be concluded. It sure stinks to be a Democrat these days.

Nojoe,

The current election is NOT about the republicans at all, it is a repudiation of the democrats, just as the wave in 06 was about the rejection of the republicans, not some "return" to the democrats.

Why then would you postulate that the next election will be any different? There's a good chance that if the current economic landscape continues that the voters will want to throw BOTH parties out on their figurative ears and be open to a 3rd way.

What I find amusing is that it democrats believe that they can effectively assess and handicap the republicans and the republicans here feel the same way about the democrats.

Republicans have RHETORICALLY returned to their core principles, but there is as yet no legislative evidence that the bunch who voted for the medicare prescription drug plan, TARP, the auto bailout, and two rather expensive wars, will be able to match their rhetoric with reality...

As someone who lived through Watergate, Nixon's resignation and the COMMON WISDOM that the republican party wouldn't recover for "decades", I am certain of one thing; Anyone who purports to know the future of a given political party will be proven wrong before the ink dries...

no joke! Reloaded the page several times and never could get rid of that damned ad. Finally noticed that it allows ONE line to remain visible @ top of the page. Nice work, MS web people.

I was going to send an email, too. It cut off at least 1/2 an inch of the left margin of the article.

FR,...check your advertisers,...they are encroaching on your 'journalistic' integrity.

Is this Glenn Beck again? Must be because nothing said is the least bit truthful.

Really? Point out which line item is incorrect.

You're kidding, Jody. I would have thought you'd believe it was at least half right. Thanks for giving GW a break.

"the Obama regime"

I still remember the days when we liberals (and yes I am a liberal and proud of it) referred to the Bush administration as "the Bush regime" and were immediately called traitors and terrorist supporters by the conservatives. Now I see those same conservatives use that term when referring to President Obama. That spells "hypocrisy" to me.

As someone who feels utterly betrayed by Obama, I know damned well that this election is a referendum on Obama. My only regret is that he's still going to be president for two more years. We really need to have a mid-term "recall" option on the President.

Exactly..............

Indigo -

you say you feel "utterly betrayed by Obama". Why? Because he couldn't keep all his promises in just TWO YEARS?! Give me a break! He's a man, not a miracle worker.

TTP: Specifically, I feel betrayed by Obama because he campaigned HEAVILY on reversing discriminatory legislation that targets the GLBT community.

-- DOMA: Rather than call for its reversal upon assuming the Oval Office, Obama chose to write a legal brief to the Supreme Court in which he equated homosexuality to incest.

-- DADT: Rather than revoking this form of legalized discrimination (which he could literally do at the stroke of a pen, given how he is the Commander-in-Chief), he actually sued to have DADT reinstated after a Federal court declared the law unconstitutional.

-- Prop-8: Granted, Obama could not directly influence this process, but he couldn't even be bothered to say "I hope Prop-8 stays overturned".

Obama is an oath-breaker.

Indigo - all of the items you cited in your post above is misleading.

Of COURSE the Obama DOJ has to fight for the LAW as it is written. As the President, he has sworn to UPHOLD THE LAW and his DOJ is doing just that, even if your impression is that he has gone back on his word.

Just because the President doesn;t LIKE what the law is, he still has to UPHOLD it.

That is why it is so important for Congress to be on the same page as the President so that these laws can be repealed. An executive order is only good for the term of the President; that still does NOT repeal a law. Only Congress can do that.