I rarely even glance at Karl Rove’s WSJ column beyond the headline. But, today’s column looked very entertaining and I decided to read it in full. It makes a case that Barry’s ClunkerCare law, passed using the reconciliation process, could largely be repealed with the same process, thus avoiding any Senate minority filibuster. His premise is that with 23 Dems and only 10 Republicans up for Senate re-election in 2012, a four seat switch which would give the Republicans a majority, has a high probability.

That means Barry’s stated desire to not re-litigate HCR may be impossible. In fact, the veto that a re-elected Barry would wield would propel HCR “re-litigation” to a top issue in the Presidential campaign. Just imagine if the Dem political trickery in getting ClunkerCare passed came back to haunt them with the ultimate “shellacking” of returning the WH and the full Congress to the Republicans.

Talk about irony!!!!!

74 Members of Congress have sent a letter to Justice Clarence Thomas asking him to recuse himself from any involvement in the ACA (HCR Law) if it comes in front of the SCOTUS because of his wife’s involvement in “Special Interest Groups” that are lobbyists against the Health Care Law. This presents a major conflict of interest as his wife has received payment from these organizations, which by the way, Justice Thomas failed to declare as is required by law and in my opinion should have disqualified him from sitting on the bench period. He is a known GOP/TP fundraiser, lies on federal documents and has, at least, a tie to groups that are in opposition of the very case that he would be presiding over.

In fact conservatives have already ruled on a similar violation of ethics in the Progressive Judge Stephen Reinhart case where he was assigned to the appellate court to hear a case on the anti-gay Proposition 8 where his wife was a member of an organization that advocated against Proposition 8. Let’s see if they enforce the same rules on Justice Thomas.

From: http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/09/thomas-recuse/

“As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. As Members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act”.

“Given these facts, there is a strong conflict between the Thomas household’s financial gain through your spouse’s activities and your role as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. We urge you to recuse yourself from this case. If the US Supreme Court’s decision is to be viewed as legitimate by the American people, this is the only correct path”.

Interesting week so far for the GOP/TP controlled House.

1. The Patriot Act gets defeated

2. They pull their Trade Bill of the Floor do to lack of votes

3. The UN Bill to recover 170+ Million back in dues from the UN fails

And it was only Wednesday and they did not work on Monday. Now this is no real big deal as they probably put these back on the floor under the normal rules which require only a simple majority instead of the 2/3 as they did. The issue then becomes that these bills will now be open to debate and amendments, which they tried to avoid by the 2/3 vote. Also it should be noted that these bills also had some democratic support as well.

The TP people are pressing the GOP to cut more from the deficit, the 40 Billion is not enough they want twice that number and they spent most of yesterday infighting over this. They want to cut more Social Programs for the Middle Class. Many of us said that the GOP was going to have trouble with controlling the TP segment of their ranks and it appears to be happening.

It does not make their draconian cuts any more palpable, just the opposite, but it is demonstrating that the GOP/TP is becoming dysfunction as was also indicated by the 3 bills that got defeated this week. Two by vote and one that was pulled before they got a no vote.

These guys are going to keep playing with everything except creating jobs, helping to keep an improving economy growing, and providing meaningful cuts to government spending that spreads the burden across the board instead of putting all the burden just on the middle class, like cuts to DOD, getting rid of subsidies to Big Oil and Coal, closing tax loopholes to corporations, addressing the fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid etc in addition to some of the other cuts they are looking at. The spending cuts need to be spread out so everybody has some pain in the game, NOT JUST ONE GROUP as currently being proposed.

This just in on MSNBC, the Jobless rate drops below 400,000 (383,000) the lowest mark in three (3) years. And what are the GOP/TP doing? NOTHING.

If Thomas does not recuse himself, he should be impeached. Wait, wouldn't that require honesty and love of country from the House Republicans? Won't happen.

This just in on MSNBC, the Jobless rate drops below 400,000 (383,000) the lowest mark in three (3) years. And what are the GOP/TP doing? NOTHING

You know I very seldom disagree with you Navy - but... they are doing SOMETHING and that is attempting to take CREDIT!

They're nothing but a bunch of lazy serial liars...

5 WEEKS they've been in 'power' and NOT ONE job bill!

Bev:

Right on. President Obama has been pushing bills that create jobs and help the small businesses with tax cuts and additional capital to expand. the GOP/TP on the other hand try to stop every one of them. They propose spending cuts that many leading economists claim will cost us jobs, not increase them. Tax revenues will go down even lower than they are today and unemployment will increase. Then come 2012 they will blame this on President Obama. It is all part of the continuing agenda of the right. Trash Jobs, trash the economy, put spending cuts solely on the back of the middle class, deny women their reproductive rights, let SCOTUS justices be GOP/TP fundraisers and break the law, and the list goes on and on.

Our political system is beyond just being broke. It is corrupted and dysfunctional and it will take a major issue to correct. The constant lies based on hate and violence will continue and probably get worse over the next 2 years.

Germany is looking to buy the NY Stock Exchange, what will that do to our country??

If, as the GOP/TP would have everyone believe, President Obama is so bad why are they so hesitant to throw their hat in the ring to run against him?

Guess they don't quite believe their own LIES!

Yup, and Clarence Thomas should recuse himself. No doubt his arrogance will not let him, or his wifey has laid down the law to him!

www.conflictedclarencethomas.com

Good Morning Navy: Excellent post.

Chief Justice John Roberts has a bit of a problem here. Granted he is an active, conservative justice who went beyond calling "balls and strikes". I doubt he wants history to say his court was tarnished by the actions of the wife of another conservative justice. I don't see Justice Thomas recusing himself, but I do see pressure placed on his wife to resign from any job that smacks of a conflict of interest. The problem still exists that Justice Thomas can not look at the case objectively as his mind is already made up. I don't think he has plans to sleep on the sofa.

Feisty:

Good point. It should be fun watching Boehner try to control the TP. Most of us said this was a problem waiting to happen and it appears to be coming true. Time will tell and they will self destruct if they are not careful.

"The problem still exists that Justice Thomas can not look at the case objectively as his mind is already made up."

Gee Dr. Ron, how do you KNOW that?

Did you read his mind?

Joe

No one needs to read his mind. It gives the appearance of impropriety whether or not he and his Lady Liberty stallion have pillow talk.

5 WEEKS they've been in 'power' and NOT ONE job bill!

...and there won't be. They want the President and along with him the rest of the country to fail with the exception of the top two percent.

In the debate running up to the November election, many economists and others pointed out that the GOP/TP milimalist proposals - cutting the budget deeply, stopping a number of programs enacted to fight the recession and preserve jobs, and so forth - would, in fact, turn the world back into recession and cost jobs.

But the anger over the problems of the nation, a generalized anger aimed at the "political establishment" without discrimination, really drove voter decisions. Candidates who raised their voices and fists in wrath, often directed at the Democrats and the President, gathered votes and won seats.

There was a false virtue in that. Many of those opposed specifically to the President and his programs hold ideological views - or other, darker, views - that actually did not address the deeper roots of the national economic crisis. Because many voters simply see the nation's problems as a failure of the politicians, they did not try to distinguish between the ideologues who ran on a different platform than mere disenchantment, and those who were in fact responsible for the problems to begin with.

Now the consequences of that failure of discernment appear. The division in the House GOP is about to grow wider. The ideologues claim - as has been written in 'Vine blogs more than once - that Obama and the Democrats "wrecked the economy." That's utterly false. It is a declaration derived only from an ideological point of view that government should not bail out failing businesses, that government should not regulate the financial markets, that government should not spend money on unemployment compensation or programs to hire workers, and that government should not undertake any other forms of social intervention.

Thus the ideologues claim, and manipulate statistics as they can to "prove," that the stimulus program failed, that it cost millions of dollars per job, that without government intervention the recession would have been less severe and that today there would be many more millions of new jobs. Although repeated studies disproved their attacks on the stimulus program, and that without intervention the world might now be in a prolonged Depression, the ideologues persist in their unreason.

And their same views now drive attempts to re-shape the nation's institutions to match their beliefs. This is where the GOP/TP divide is occurring.

What had not been much debated in the last election was the abortion issue or others involving women's rights. Injecting the poison of that matter into the present debate again exposes the ideological forces behind the ultra-right. If the ideologues persist here and in other issues, they may actually destroy the Republican Party.

Bob, on what basis can you claim that Federal judges mean nothing to President Obama? When has he done anything at all to suggest that?

It's one thing to debate positions and policy, Bob, but your remark in that tone smacks of simple smear and spite. You can do better than that.

You guys are too funny. Since the Republicans have taken over the house various posters end their post with

"Where are the Jobs",

Now you have the Redheaded one claiming that there is no way that the Republicans can be responsible for the lower job claims announced today. You do realize that this exposes you as hypocrites?

Be interesting to see if someone still ends their post with the refrain because they didn't get the memo.

What about Justice Elena Kagan - who was advising the Obama administration on how to make the HCL constitutional. This is clear a case where she should recuse herself - I'm hearing anything about that.

Mrs Thomas, not Justice Thomas, was the one active in those conservative organizations and clearly throughout history justices wives worked on their own projects often related to decisions before the high Court and NONE recused themselves.

The DNC orchestrated attack on Justice Thomas is pure, unadulterated racism at its worse. The veil is so thin it reveals more than it covers.

No mention by any of the DNC paid posters about Governor Ed Rendell's wife- who happens to be a federal appeals court judge- who heard cases on his circuit. No mention of the ninth circuit appeals court justice, whose wife just happens to have been the head of the southern California branch of the ACLU. Think they ever appeared before that bench?

No- Thomas is a conservative African American, which is sin enough for the DNC. That his wife is white is another sin, in their minds.

They have no shame. They have no decency.

And, they have no clue.

Biden is out there promoting $53 billion in new spending on choo choo trains, while this just hit the news

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146021/Obama-Approval-Rating-Deficit-Sinks-New-Low.aspx

Obama thinks people are dumb enough to think the spending is all Biden's fault?

So, let's see how this might go: the republicans submit cuts. Obama remains silent, sending Biden out to decry the heartlessness of the republicans, who want bureaucrats to go hungry, and 30-year old "innovation" to be unbuilt. The electorate, supposedly too idiotic to know better, points the finger at Biden for all the spending. Obama dumps Biden as the cause of all the problems, and coasts to reelection.

Right.

I can understand the underestimation of the intelligence of the average voter- Obama took advantage of that last time out- but his obvious disdain for the intelligence of the electorate did not serve him well in the midterms. Telling people that they were too dumb to know that he knew best for them did not redound to his credit.

I do not think this new tactic will work, either.

Any more than the racist attacks on the wife of a Supreme Court Justice will work.

Do keep it up, though. You continue to alienate people- which is good for the country, as it removes more and more profligate spending, reality ignoring leftists from office.

Ron and others;

You make a very good point. We already know that his wife made money (undeclared by Thomas) for her representation for lobbyists that oppose the HCR Law. You cannot unring that bell. She is now doing the same thing in a different position, the bell is still ringing. If he had any ethics at all he would recuse himself as there is a case on point of another judge in the same position that I have noted above.

The right can spin it all they want, the fact is that at best he appears to be tainted (and we know he lied about the money his wife got- why) and at worse he is biased. You do not allow judges in that position to vote on policies that have such a great impact on our country, PERIOD. I think Scalia and Alito should recuse themselves as well since they are GOP fundraisers cloak in a rob.

DB Akron,

Elena Kagan told the Senate during her confirmation hearings that she would hear the case on HCR if it came to the SCOTUS. She said she would step aside from any case in which she was the counsel of record or played a substantive role.

Evidently this was good enough for the senate to confirm her appointment.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/07/19/kagan-says-shell-hear-health-care-lawsuit/

FIRST Frank-Dodd CASUALTY: Deutsche Börse acquiring NYSE for LOSSES of tens of thousands of US jobs and LOSSES of US salaries and tax revenue EXCEEDING $100 billion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703310104576134653031893900.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

Again Alan, where are the jobs you and the republicans promised? Just sitting back and taking credit for the jobs President Obama has created ain't going to fly with 99% of Americans.

So Alan where are the jobs?

Please Navy,

What Social programs are the Middle Class using?

They want to cut more Social Programs for the Middle Class.

This came right out of your cut and paste. But did not list them.

Feisty, Mo,

As long as the unemployment rate continues to drop the perception will be that the GOP has put people to work. And as we all know, perception is a hard thing to defeat.

Feisty you should know that, a lot of people perceive that you are mean, nasty, and way to far to the left. But having serious conversations with you, I know that you really aren't that person, that you have constructive ideas and views. Your views may be a little more left than mine, but that is where compromise should come into play.

But again, in the political world, if people perceive that the GOP is bringing down the unemployment rate, that will get them re-elected. True or Untrue--it will come down to who can spin it in their direction better.

@Mo-681343

I do not take credit for creating jobs as I am not an employer. Neither should politicians of either party unless they pass legislation that creates more headcount at the state or federal level. I think governments are fairly ineffective at changing the business cycle. I'd be interested hear your explanation of how the Obama Administrations policies are helping job growth now and not last year when the stimulus was in full swing.

Also, and I am not advocating wholesale deregulation, there should be a rationalization of the current laws on the books that inhibit the creation of new businesses. I did start a small business here in NJ and the paperwork involved for a one person entity is unbelievable. The fact that you have no single point of contact with the state government is very frustrating. You have to deal with the paperwork for the treasury, labor and consumer affairs department and this very time consuming and made the whole exercise not worthwhile. This was for a business that paid its taxes on time and kept its paperwork up to date. The final straw was when they insisted that I buy a workers comp insurance policy although I had no employees. Apparently they were worried that I would sue myself and not pay and the state would be on the hook. This meant I wound up the company and generated no more tax income for the state.

John A,

"Judge holds Interior Dept. in contemy over ban" - Associated Press by Michael Kunzelman

"Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government's contempt of this court's preliminary injunction order," he wrote. (U.S. District JUdge Martin Feldman)

Then you have the latest on HCR. It was a Declarative judgement! DEAD! Obama can not by law force any of the 26 states to participate. If the plan doesn't work without mandating 26 year olds to participate - how does it work without 26 states?

What has Obama done? Has he filed anything? Nope - no biggie. We won, we will listen to ways to improve it, but it is over, he aren't going to turn back.

Not simple smear and spite, John, just facts.

Obama has a history of a contempt for the will of the American people. He could not pass cap and trade through Congress bescause the people are so against it. Never mind -"There is more than one way to skin the cat." And has set forth to accomplish his agenda through the EPA and regulations, defying judges, the people, the Congress - doesn't matter. HCR - same thing.

People? CNN says 50% are for repeal of all provisions; Quinnipiac has it at 48%; Gallup has it at 46%; Rasmussen at 55%.

54% say States should have the right to opt out. 60% say HCR will increase the deficit. 58% say HCR will cost jobs. 50% say quality of care will decline....... on and on.....

Then you got Obama waivers for 770 of his best buds, (unions, big supporters, etc)

BTW - How is that legal.

If the President can not make law, how can he give waivers that say his friends don't have to obey the law?

Obama doesn't care - he is above judges the people, judges, Congress, the courts.....

BigBear, the "social programs for the middle class' cuts are the monster in the closet the DNC is using to try to convince the electorate that the government MUST continue to spend billions every day.

It is odd, though, that in my state, the governor enacted deep cuts across the board, and has been rewarded with a pretty high approval rating.

When he cut school funding, the NJEA - the teachers' union- spent millions on television ads, imploring the electorate to "make their voices heard".

We did, just a few weeks later, the highest turnout EVER for school budget elections, defeated 60% of them. Imposing even more cuts, I might add.

The agencies that had their total funding cut are crying the loudest- unfortunately for them, they comprise the sum total of those who are anti- cut. The taxpayers, who pay the bills, are more than happy with cutting the budget.

Heck, if Christie keeps this up, we might just stop losing,population to other states.

no joe, no bo, nj

The DNC orchestrated attack on Justice Thomas is pure, unadulterated racism at its worse. The veil is so thin it reveals more than it covers.

No- Thomas is a conservative African American, which is sin enough for the DNC. That his wife is white is another sin, in their minds.

No Jo the problem black have with Clarence Thomas has nothing to do with his wife, or the fact he is a conservative African American. my grand parent were conservative black who never votes for a liberal until Truman, the only reason why they votes for him is because he came from the same area as my great grand father in Kansas.

No the problem black have with him is 3 fold,

1. When he was growing up he took advantage of all the affirmative action programs in the 60s, which i have no problem with, my uncles did the same thing, but now he want to do away with the very programs that got him where he is today. Turn coat!!!!!

2. Justice Marshall argued and won Brown -board of ed, changing the land scape of America for ever, No jo what did Clarence Thomas do. i will tell you he gave us sexual harassment laws, he was and still is a Embarrassment to the America people conservative and liberal, during the supimes court case that decided the presidency in 2000 he offers no one word, as he voted to seal the deal for the mans son who put him there. A&S Wipe!!!!!

3. the things he said about his family at the conformation hearing was shameful, it was like he wanted to forget where he came from and forget the problems his family has as so many family's have. Judas!!!!!!

George Bush senior let the American people down putting Clarence Thomas on the high court, I'm sure there were many whites men and women who would have been a better candidate for the high court but he was so into giving black folks what they wanted, a black on the court to replace Justice Marshall, no matter what his credentials were. dirty old man!!!!!!

Jenny Thomas lost all credibility when she Phoned Anita Hill demanding her to apoligize for the acusations against her Husband, that i believe were true, think No Jo this women is a lawyer and knew if she went infront of that hearing and lied, she knew the concusses and did the right thing. again dirty old man!!!!!

Today the only good thing to come from that is Women no longer have to put up with the sexual harrisment at the work place, every year companies all over must go over the policy's against sexural harassment and the concusses of that.

No jo as a educator, you know how important Justice Marshall was to the American education system now i must ask, what did Clarence Thomas do to better America?

i could give less that 2 craps what color his wife is, or if he is a conservative or what she does, tea party of what, Clarence Thomas was put on the high court to make a difference just like all the justices, but what Americans see is a guy there for the ride.

No jo you as a educated woman if anybody nomatter what color you are should see though this dirty old man!!!!!!!

The DNC orchestrated attack on Justice Thomas is pure, unadulterated racism at its worse.

Yet another attack on the English language by Conservatives. Did anyone SAY Thomas is dishonest because he's black? No. Did anyone SAY that Thomas is dishonest because he's married to a caucasian? No. Did anyone SAY that people of color are inherently dishonest? No.

Your suggestion is insulting and demeaning to the many people of color serving America in the judiciary, up to and including the late, great Thurgood Marshall.

Clarence Thomas has no respect for the very concept of conflict of interest. He lives with conflict of interest. He profits on conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest follow him to the bench on a regular basis. He sneers at those who raise questions about his conflicts of interest.

Scalia and Alito have similar problems with conflict of interest, though not as severe.

It begins and ends there.

no joe, no bo, nj

We did, just a few weeks later, the highest turnout EVER for school budget elections, defeated 60% of them. Imposing even more cuts, I might add.

Primarily because republicans and tea baggers waaaaaay smarter than you have people like you - voting against themselves.

Congrats - now back to watching nascar and listening to Palins book on 8 track.

GOOD MORNING to the "Pat-on-the-back" Club! Great cut & paste from Bev this morning - keep up the fine cut & pastes. And to Feisty, very funny on the vitrol.

You guys are a hoot.......but not impressive.

I hope that big slob Haley Barbour runs with Michelle Bachman. Entertainment galore!!

IntheMiddle, TX

You know i usually try and Ignore you post, there are filled with hate and anger, i wonder if you live along because if you do i can understand why no one would want you around, but this is the deal my brother from another mother,

How can anybody take Justice thomas serious if his wife and causing a conflict of interest, Now i know this may not mean anything to you, considering your as mean as clarence thomas is old and dirty. he is a joke in ever since, he to me is not qualified to be on the court, and his Skank wife makes it no better, along with the fact she Phoned Anita hill about her Husband.

I can't wait for the day that this goof falls ill and can no longer serve on the court.

IntheMiddle, Justice marshall won Brown-Board of Ed, Now to you a very angry, loud and uneducated person this may not mean anything, but realise that the education your teachers tired to give you was tried because of Justice marshall, So i ask other than sexural harrissment laws what the hell has Clarence thomas given you.

How can they say the DNC attack on Thomas is racism? This Supreme Court Judge lied and cheated on his taxes. And we're talking almost $700,000. What the hell? If any of us did that, we would be prosecuted, our assets would be confiscated and our bank accounts levied. What has happened to him? Hello? This man and his wife are criminals.

No one wants to run because they know they will be beaten. Once beaten it will be hard to run again in 2016. As a Dem who cares about this country if it can't be Obama then Pawlenty is the next best choice. Problem is he will have to ask Sarah first as she seems to wield more control over the party than any of them.

jeff:

First of all you really don't know me to even think that I'm uneducated, in other words a dumb azz n....r. I happen to be very well educated (dual degrees), been married 20+ years and served this country for 22yrs. I have 3 sons, 1 grown, educated and doing excellent. I also own my own business that is doing well with 15 employees and I still work. I happen to be an advocate in some of the worst neighborhoods in Houston. Yes I do communicate with Sheila Jackson-Lee and Al Green to name a few and I let them know that they haven't did a damn thing to help the community since being in D.C.

Brothers like you are part of the cancer that rots our community. Everytime someone of color ascend to a position; the first thing we as black people do is tear them down then whine about there not being anyone black in positions. Though Clarence Thomas may not be YOUR crown jewel, he is not the enemy of the black community. All you're doing is parroting and speaking for these white liberals. They want you tear the man down because you can say things about him that they only wish to say. So the next time you disrespect a brother; you look to see who is in the peanut gallery that applauds.

Make sure you know the person you're putting your mouth on.

Except that the numbers that Billy bragged about weren't there. I disagree with the President in this instance. You want to give an interview to Fox "News", let's do that with Wallace, who is at least a "pretend" journalist. The only thing this interview did was give Billy airs that he actually matters.

NDD: I do not know what President Obama was thinking. O'Riley came off as the blowhard he is and did not get anywhere near the coverage he claimed he would. Kinda like Glenn Beck and his rallies. It get pretty boring listening the the usual misinformed claim that the Democrats are the ones that are intolerant of ideas of others. First what new ideas have the GOP/TP presented on how to create jobs in this country. What new ideas do they have to keep an improving economy to continue to improve? None, just the typically rhetoric with not one idea or plan. It will catch up with them sooner or later, always does.

Wow, Bill-

Nice job of poking the stick into the anthill.

Mere mention of the name Fox or O'Reilly is enough to get those Pavlovian juices flowing among the usual suspects.

I don't know either, Navy: I understand that doing outreach to the low information voters that populate Fox "News" ratings is a good idea. But not with Billy, who thinks that HE is more important then the nation.

All I can say about that pseudo 'interveiw' is - it will make for a great skit on SNL!

Bill O the Clown couldn't have been any ruder (interrupting the President every 19 seconds).

But hey, rude is celebrated & cheered by the right! So why would we expect anything less?

Bill, Fairfax: " First, Obama legitimizes evil Fox news by granting them an interview. That in itself made blood boil on the left."

Au contraire, Bill! We're pretty proud of our President for having the guts to go ahead and do the interview anyway, knowing full well that O'Reilly would be in full attack mode. When's the last time Speaker Boehner or Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann agreed to do an interview in that prime a time spot with anyone from the "leftish fringe" media?

Sorry, Bill - no blood boiling here. No bitter either. Just the same quiet pride as always.

Fiesty;

That is what they do at every interview. When somebody is getting ready to explain the question, and O'Riley knows he is not going to like the answer, they interrupt and try to change the course of the dialogue. We see it here everyday. A good interviewer lets the other side present their case, they do not constantly interrupt and changed direction. That is a tell tale sign of a very weak interviewer that cannot dispute the facts so he tries to keep them from being presented. Only the weak themselves support this and think it was a great job. The informed know better.

Bill, Fairfax VA:

The only losers in this affair are the ever bitter leftist fringe. For them it was just another in a continuing series of setbacks, and they just can't deal with that.

I guess there aren't any bitter leftists around here, since nobody I know of complained that O'Reilly's rudeness was a setback for anyone. Bill thinks it's OK that O'Reilly wouldn't let the president complete a thought before interrupting because he and the other wingnuts never have any complete thoughts themselves -- at least none that haven't been focus tested first by Frank Luntz and approved by the Party.

Navy:

Evidently you have never conducted an interview.

As an Interviewer, you are in control and you do not let the person being interviewed go on a rant. You are responsible to keep the interview going in the direction you want it to but allowing for answers and not rants or talking points.

If O'Reilly to whom I do not watch were to let Obama or any POLITICIAN just talk; they will just spit out prepared talking points and attempt to promote some endeavor they are involved in. That is the kind of shyt that happens on MSNBC. Interupting talking points is not disrespect but nipping the BS in the bud before they even get started.

Once again the President shows us what a class act he is by bearding that "Second Hand Lion" Bill O'Really in his own den.

O'Really is to journalism what the Hindenburg is to aviation, a flaming Nazi gas bag.

Mid-Tex,

YOU have obviously never conducted an interview either. First of all you don't lean into your subject like you are about to assault him. Secondly, you let him answer your question. You only interrupt if he is obviously NOT being responsive. O'Really was overtly aggressive and antagonistic and he refused to allow the President to answer ANY question without repeated interruptions.

That tells us three things. #1 O'Really had an agenda. He wasn't there to "interview" the President, he was there to make a point! #2 O'Really was very insecure in his position and was covering those feelings of inadequacy with aggression. A typical bully tactic. #3 O'Really obviously knew that he was interviewing an historical figure who would be remembered LONG LONG after O'Really is dust. So, he just HAD to try to bring the President down to his, insignificant level.

Mid, I am a former PEABODY AWARD WINNING Journalist who has appeared on "Good Morning America" and "20/20" more than once. I have a wall filled with journalism awards.

Bill O'Really is NOT a reporter, he is a commentator and his "interview" with the President was merely an extension of his rightwing commentary.

He was disrespectful and a bully.

But it was valuable for one thing, the President got to demonstrate his legendary "cool under fire". O'Really's repeated interuptions and cheap shots did not rattle him.

IntheMiddle, TX - President Obama was hardly going on a rant. He rarely even completed a sentence due to the interruptions. I agree with you that the interviewer is in control, but the interviewer needs to permit the person being interviewed to at least express a complete sentence.

Such interviewers work at both Fox and MSNBC. On the other hand, both networks employ some great interviewers.

All I can say Bill is WOW. You evidently didn't see the same interview as the rest of the country. Or did you watch it through the eyes of Fox.

Have a good day in your delusional world.

Skip"

Touche'. Very well written and 100% on point. In my position I have to ask my customers a lot of questions about their business (preliminary interview). I have taken many courses and seminars on how to ask questions (conduct interviews). I ask the question and then shut up and let my client speak their piece. If they get off target I just re-ask the question and again shut up. O'Riley did not do that. He interrupted President Obama so he could not give his answer, tried to get him off course and steer him to his own agenda, and he did have one, and even tried to put words in President Obama mouth.

As I said before these are traits of a very weak interviewer. Those that think this was a good tactic are as equally weak.

Just IN: MURBARAK will step down today.

Skip:

O'Really is to journalism what the Hindenburg is to aviation, a flaming Nazi gas bag.

There was a similar joke a few years ago in Doonesbury:

Question: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?

Answer: One is a flaming Nazi gas bag and the other is just a dirigible.

ya gotta love doonesbury, a fellow Oklahoma by the way.

Thanks Navy, high praise indeed.

Obama/Biden 2012 When you want to send the very best!

Again...

Nice work, Bill.

Pavlov really was brilliant.

Your post has provoked the expected response.

Conditioned reflex, indeed.

Of course, the subjects in Pavlov's experiments were of the highest order...

OK, is this a gas bag bully or is this a determined interogator trying his best to get an evasive subject to answer the question:

O'REILLY: Federal judge in Florida said, your health care law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court may follow on that, it's going to be very close. Are you prepared for that law to go down?

OBAMA: Well, I think the judge in Florida was wrong. Keep in mind that we've had 12 judges said -- that just threw this case out -- the notion that the health care law was unconstitutional.

O'REILLY: But it goes to the Supremes now.

OBAMA: Well, it first it goes to the appellate court -- there's district court, then there are appeal courts, and then it goes to the Supreme Court. But here's the key point, Bill, and I said this in the State of the Union, I don't want to spend the next two years refighting the battles of the last two years.

O'REILLY: Yeah, but you're going have to.

OBAMA: Well, I don't think that's...

O'REILLY: The Supreme Court is going to hear this one way or the other.

OBAMA: What the American people have said is we want cost controls in health care, we want security in health care. What I've said to the Republicans is if you have ideas in terms of improving the health care system, if you have ideas that I can embrace on things like...

O'REILLY: They're not going to bother with it, though. They're going wait until it goes to the court and hope it's thrown out 5-4. My question is are you prepared if it gets thrown out? What are you going to do?

OBAMA: Here's what I'm not prepared to do, I'm not prepared to go back to a day when the American people if you have got a pre-existing condition, if you had a heart attack then you can't get help.

You might notice that Obama never did answer thre question.

O'REILLY: What is it about the job that has surprised you the most? That you weren't prepared for coming in here?

OBAMA: You know, I think that the thing you understand intellectually, but you don't understand in your gut until you're in the job, is that every decision that comes to my desk is something that nobody else has been able to solve. The easy stuff gets solved somewhere by somebody else. By the time it gets to me, you don't have easy answers. You don't have the best...

O'REILLY: So it's like wave after wave of complicated problems and there you are.

OBAMA: Complicated problems. Yes. And well, you have to make your best judgment about this is probably our best approach for the American people. But you know that you don't have perfect information, and you know that you're not going to have a perfect solution.

Good grief, what a softball question. Where's the bully? Heck, Keith or Racheal could have tossed out that bone.

Boy, has the left gone bonkers over this one:

O'REILLY: I asked this to President Bush when I talked to him a few weeks ago. Does it disturb you that so many people hate you? No. I mean, it's a serious question.

OBAMA: You know, the truth is, that the people -- and I'm sure previous presidents would say the same thing, whether it was Bush or Clinton or Reagan or anybody. The people who dislike you don't know you.

O'REILLY: They hate you.

OBAMA: Even -- the folks who hate you, they don't know you.

O'REILLY: That's true.

OBAMA: What they hate is whatever funhouse mirror image of you that's out there. And they don't know you. And so, you don't take it personally.

Sharp folks might notice that when O'Reilly posed the hate question to Bush there was no moral outrage to be heard from Nancy Pelosi and her leftist buds. Only when their man was subjected to the question did they raise hell. But the question was entirely fair on two counts. First, O'Reilly asked Bush the same thing. Second, segments of the population hate (or at least intensely dislike) both men and many folks might want to know how these men were affected by that venom.

BTW, I liked Obama's response, that imagery of the funhouse mirror was quite good.

JoAnne in PA

When's the last time Speaker Boehner or Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann agreed to do an interview in that prime a time spot with anyone from the "leftish fringe" media.

LOL! The last time Palin spoke to a non-Fox news station she cited her proximity to Russia as foreign policy experience and was unable to name a single publication she reads on a daily basis.

Bill,

What I noticed was that President Obama answered EVERY question. O'Really asked him if the Supreme Court ruled adversely on the law, what would he do. His response was "here's what I'm NOT going to do" and he went on to say he would not allow the country to move backwards. That is a valid response.

O'Really wanted the President to "tip his hand". Not gonna happen.

President Obama, more than a match for the Second Hand Lion. He will be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents this nation has ever had LOOOOONG after Bill O'Really is dust.

Try again.

Bill, Fairfax VA:

OK, is this a gas bag bully or is this a determined interogator trying his best to get an evasive subject to answer the question:

You might notice that Obama never did answer thre question.

O'Reilly asked "Are you prepared for that [health care reform] law to go down?" That was a loaded yes/no question that Obama was wise to avoid answering. O'Reilly knows that Obama has no intention of letting the law go down, so he framed the question so he could say the president was "unprepared" to face reality or some such spin. And if Obama had said he WAS prepared for the law to be repealed, then it would have serious political repercussions that would make it more likely the law would in fact "go down." Obama didn't take the bait.

As for the question itself, someone should ask the people who are already benefiting from the elimination of life-time insurance payment caps and other provisions of the new law whether THEY are prepared for the Republicans to repeal the law. The answer from thousands of people would not just be "no", it would be "HELL NO," as John Boehner is fond of saying.

As for O'Reilly's tactics, an interviewer who won't let the person being interviewed finish a sentence without interruption is a gas bag and a bully. O'Reilly is both. Chris Matthews is something of a gasbag, too; he sometimes irritates me by interrupting guests, both Democrats and Republicans. But Matthews does let his guests get a complete sentence in now and then. He certainly gave Michelle Bachmann enough rope to hang herself with when he letter ramble on about investigating Congress for "anti-American" activities. O'Reilly was just interrupting Obama to show his disrespect, which is not the purpose of an interview by a real journalist.

Bill, Fairfax: You might notice that Obama never did answer thre question.

You might noitice that Obama never got to finish a sentence. Much less answer a question. The elipses (...) indicate an unfinished thought.

O'Reilly only made himself look worse. And the President only made himself look better.

Great response, Skip. From someone who should know about interviewing.

fielden

O'Reilly only made himself look worse. And the President only made himself look better.

President Obama was magnanimous. I loved it.

@Bill, Fairfax

BTW, I liked Obama's response, that imagery of the funhouse mirror was quite good.

I liked the way the President laughed in Bildo's face when he said they HATE YOU.

Where are the voices against collapsing posts on this thread?...

have to disagree with several posters here...Not sure what's hard to understand about the President of the United States agreeing to do an interview on the network about to carry the SuperBowl...30 million viewers in one swoop isn't understandable?

Only a very small portion of those are regular FOX news watchers...but a heck of a lot bigger numbers than watched the State of the Union speech. And O'Reilly, who I'm no fan of, was in my view, on his best behavior--even appeared more than a bit nervous...

(And that old story about Rather/Nixon? Hate to tell you but that's hardly viewed in retrospect as a shockingly rude...widely viewed now as how Rather cemented his reputation for asking tough questions in an era when you just didn't do that ( of Presidents anyway).

He certainly set a new speed record for resignation in the face of impending scandal. Interesting...

Great post JoAnne:

Now tell me how you really feel. Loved it.

Before you get too pious I think there are plenty of degenerates on both sides of the aisle. Can anyone say John Edwards? Lets not be hypocrites. I personally think they are all lacking in honor or character.

The man has sullied the name of one of my favorite actors!!!

Christopher Lee is perhaps the only actor of his generation to have starred in so many films. Although most notable for personifying bloodsucking vampire, Dracula, on screen, he has portrayed other varied characters on screen, most of which were villains...

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000489/

Shame on you shirtless guy, you don't deserve the name...

Joanne PA;

Kudos. We have these people on both sides of the aisle and they all should be called out and then thrown out. I have little respect for those that claim to be better and their actions prove otherwise.

ksw62118 -

Which part of "because we all know there's plenty of these stories to go around in both parties" didn't you read? You bet I can say John Edwards!

And dangerfield, yeah, my first thought was of THE Christopher Lee as well. A way better actor than "shirtless guy"!

ksw, Did you bother to read JoAnne's first paragraph? If not You should that way you may realize what you statement looks like.

He certainly set a new speed record for resignation in the face of impending scandal. Interesting...

indeed! It makes you wonder what he's really hiding.

No need to get testy JoAnne in PA or to be rude. But the majority of the posters on this story and the one on this lowlife seem to think we have problems on only one side.

@dangerfield

Love him. I grew up on Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing movies from The Hammer House of Horror (probably could be used to describe the US Congress)

ksw;

Most of us agree we have crazies and lowlifes (your word) on both sides. You attacked the poster implying she did not say that when is was the second sentence. You cannot walk it back now. No walking back statements allowed. You could have just acknowledged you were in error and that would have been fine and you would have gotten our respect.

Say what you will,

But since Boehner has taken over as speaker, those in his party that have come under fire are gone. Even our own MSN has reported that.

These kinds of people are about as smart as a wall. In this day and age, why would someone, who is married even think about doing that. NOT very smart. Single--maybe, but still a change it gets out. I don't know how old the guy is, but hey, when I am that age, if I haven't passed it, I hope I look that good:)-- that should get some yucks:))))

Tom voting has became pointless, if the people of this country want change they will have to use a different tool.

w bush - We do not need to use a different tool. The people of our country need to do a better job educating themselves about issues. We seem to be in the age of "sound bites." We think that listening to a few sentences of a speech or interview, often presented with no context, gives us a complete picture. We need to take the time to go to primary sources to educate ourselves about the issues.

Mary the day has passed where Americans can vote their way back to democracy, the plutocracy has permeated every branch of government and the media, they are in control and the system is rigged various ways to maintain that control, I don't know what the answer is but I am convinced that a persons vote ain't it, the sooner people realize that and pursue avenues that can bring change the better, as long as the people controlling this country can keep the people divided and thinking their vote has meaning they will remain in control.

w bush - I understand what you're saying. And, at some level, I fell that way, as well. It bothers me that my grown children are not at same place, financially, as my husband and I were at their age. But, I guess I'm more optimistic than you. But, votes can only begin to be meaningful again if all people begin to research issues and candidates rather than just listening to sound bites on Fox and MSNBC.

Tom, I always do, much to the chagrin of my GOP friends and family, no matter where I live or what is going on in my life.

Mary you are correct. No other tools necessary people need to get educated on what is going on (and that doesn't mean just the MSM) and then decide for themselves. Investigate and form your own opinions.

I have to agree, you must "Vote" to be heard,

But we also need to try other things to convince our government that we need to them to learn.

Have a tax revolt--don't pay our income taxes--see how far they get.

Convince our states to form constitutional conventions--the method never used--to call for term limitations for our congress. That way maybe they will work for the country not for themselves. But doubtful.

Says all you really need to know about who they see as having value, doesn't it w bush?

w bush:

Ditto John B.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

It is all part of the continuing agenda of the right. Trash Jobs, trash the economy, put spending cuts solely on the back of the middle class, deny women their reproductive rights, let SCOTUS justices be GOP/TP fundraisers and break the law, and the list goes on and on.

Germany is looking to buy the NY Stock Exchange, what will that do to our country??

So true Navy

We can fight back; I mean by organizing re-educating, and signing petitions so we will be not like what is going on in Cairo, Egypt.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from any cases regarding the constitutionality of the health care reform law.

http://www.anthonyweiner.com/conflictedclarencethomas

Can you imagine what America would be like if we did; with all guns here instead of the rocks and sticks the Egyptians used?

Navy, you rock!!!

Navy,

put spending cuts solely on the back of the middle class, deny women their reproductive rights, let SCOTUS justices be GOP/TP fundraisers and break the law, and the list goes on and on.

Spending Cuts on the back of the Middle class--what percentage of the income taxes do the real Middle class pay into the government--Top 5% pay 85% of the money to the federal government. The bottom 47% don't pay taxes--so that leaves about 15% of the money that goes to the federal government on the backs of the middle class. Cutting spending for a lot of programs they don't use. Wow. clearly on their backs.

Women's reproductive rights are not being taken away--their use of government funds to have these procedures is being reduced. A GOP Fearmongering trick?

And where in the Constitution does it say that judges can't go to political fundraisers or speak at different places. So how is that breaking the law?

Below is Article III of the constitution-dealing with our courts.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Ah, BigBear, now you went and knocked off their talking point!

Seriously, though- this concerted effort by the DNC to try to force the retirement or resignation of a sitting Supreme Court justice bears investigation.

One wonders if it is completely legal.

It is certainly despicable. . .

I'm a concerned citizen annoyed that a sitting Supreme Court Justice openly flaunts his conflicts of interest and makes it clear he has no intention of stopping. I have no connection to the DNC.

If you think this is coordinated I suggest you produce some evidence.

So, tell me, John, how you felt about Judge Marjorie Rendell, a federal appeals court judge, hearing cases that impacted her husband- Governor Rendell?

Why nary a peep about that- or did it not bother you?

How about the Nine Circuit court of appeals- colloquially known as the ninth circus due to the off-the- wall rulings emanating from that bench- where one of the justices is married for the decades long head of the ACLU?

That bother you?

Well that was not good either but she does not sit on the final court of say. Any ruling from her can be applied but there is no appeal when the SCOTUS decides.

By the way, John, here is your evidence

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49166.html

Well, that an the email I got last week inviting me to speak out against Thomas.

Ever since I wrote to Menendez against the HCR, I got put on the DNC talking points list.

Somebody fell down on the job there.

Now Dennis,

We all know that the SCOTUS can over rule and change their opinions, so actually a supreme court decision can be overturned just as an appellate court decision.

Such as Gideon v Wainwright overturned Betts v Brady--on the right to a court appointed attorney.

Appealing to the same court will only be heard if there is something new to consider and an application to reconsider carries far less weight than going to a higher court – and there is no higher court.

Just what do you think talking (arguing the case) to the same people about the same issue will change? Time to be honest about the finality of a Supreme Court ruling.

Courts change Dennis, most cases involving the same sort of case are heard by another makeup of the court. I do understand that you won't hear the same case with the same court. But as court seats change the cases come back to them.

It won't be long before Roe v Wade is up again.

That is a poor argument.

If you just want to win this point … then … you win !

Gee Dennis,

If the truth is a poor argument then I am sorry that you don't believe in the truth. Because this happens, it has happened, and it will happen again.

By the way, did you ever see any of those signs placed in Columbus about TCU beating Wisconsin. How did the OSU Athletic Director take it? Just interested, not provoking anything. Wondering if it made the papers up there.

Big Bear,

I just don’t believe we should have to wait half a lifetime because a Justice was less than impartial and I didn’t say anything about your comment being untruthful and if you thought I said or implied it, I didn’t mean to.

I didn’t hear anything about TCU signs but I think a TCU-OSU game would be a good game.

You have to give some respect to a team like OSU that over the last 10 years has a record of 106-22.

Sorry NJ, just because a group of Democratic representatives agree on something that doesn't make it a political hatchet job orchestrated by the party apparatus.

If that were the case anything EITHER party EVER does fits that definition.

Dennis,

I was just wondering, read a story about the TCU alumni putting up signs in Columbus.

I respect OSU--my gosh, Woody Hayes is still a god in our household. In fact, my entire school life was spent getting ready to play for Woody--til he got fired my junior year of high school. Originally my parents & I are from the TooLeeDoo area of Ohio--We still bleed OSU.

I just thought it was kind of a funny story, just looking for someone who might have seen them, and the reaction in Columbus.

"Of course, Quinnipiac is only referring to how Gov. Christie is regarded by his constituents and the voters in his state.

I imagine those views of Gov. Christie are largely irrelevant to the majority of folks posting every day at First Read."

==================================================================

I would agree Mixed Bag, it is easy to glorify a guy like Christie cutting peoples pay and benefits to many people, and cuts are pretty painless as long as you are not on the receiving end, like Christie.

Thanks for the validation, w.

:-)

Its easy picking on poor people...wait until he syarts cutting programs his supporters think they 'earned'...the teabagging right will revolt when their welfare gets cut

Funny that Bag brings up a poll from New Jersey. Apparently this one doesn't count:

www.politickernj.com/44717/obamas-jersey-approval-rating-55-says-quinnipiac

Feb 09, 2011 · President Barack Obama's job approval rating now stands at 55 - 41 percent, up from 50 - 45 percent in a December 21 Quinnipiac University poll ...

Quinnipiac is merely reporting what those of us who live in the state know to be true.

It has the editorial board of my state's largest newspaper, The Star Ledger, having apoplectic fits.

Christie cut deeply his first year in office- including school funding. The electorate responded to those cuts by turning up in droves for the school budget elections- and imposing more cuts of their own.

In this budget, one of the areas to face cuts will be the taxpayer funded preschool programs mandated by our last governor. It all sounded like a great idea- until the measurement of achievement by those students was completed. Turns out, those kids did WORSE than before the preschool program.

Democrats want it continued, you know, just in case continuing the same failed program gets a different result some time in the future.

It's a good thing these people aren't doctors. They would continue bandaging elbows while patients died of heart attacks.

Houston-

Good morning, sunshine!

Thanks for the info.

By the way, one week before Chris Christie was elected Governor of New Jersey, Quinnipiac reported that President Obama's job approval in New Jersey stood at 55-39 percent...actually better than the most recent numbers you cited.

President Obama vigorously campaigned for Christie's opponent, Jon Corzine...and Corzine lost.

So much for President Obama's high job approval numbers in blue-state New Jersey.

New Jersey's voters still elected a Republican and appear to be happy with that choice...which brings us back around to the point I was making (since you evidently missed it), Houston.

Thanks for your interest.

Houston, Bag spends most of his morning trying to find a poll he can taut all day. Nobody pays any attention to his poll dancing any more.

Hi, Mo.

I really loved your predictions last year for the 2010 midterms.

I expect you to do equally well forecasting the outcome of 2012.

:-)

Bag:

By the way, one week before Chris Christie was elected Governor of New Jersey, Quinnipiac reported that President Obama's job approval in New Jersey stood at 55-39 percent...actually better than the most recent numbers you cited.

For someone who regurgitates poll numbers as often as you do, you should know that the 2-point difference in disapproval number has absolutely no statistical significance whatsoever. As for Christie, if he does a good job governing the state and cuts what needs to be cut, he'll do fine. But if he governs according to the rigid conservative ideology that deregulation and budget cuts are the answer to just about everything, he may not be so popular in the future.

Oh well what can I say. Maybe I'll have better luck next time. Hopefully

Actually, Houston...

The President's job approval numbers in New Jersey were, at best, tangential to the subject being discussed, but you chose to interject them anyway. So, I put them into perspective relative to Governor Christie.

I hope you understand that, even if the two sets of numbers were absolutely identical, it would make no difference. The President's numbers were high when Christie was elected and they're high now. So are Governor Christie's...in spite the fact that Christie is a Republican in a blue, northeastern state.

There...we're back on-topic.

Of course poll numbers only have significance in context. As it turns out Corzine's approval number was 49% at the same point in his term, so the two are within margin of error. What's it mean?

A year isn't long enough to establish a track record?

It's a long time to the next election?

The voters are fickle?

Could be all of the above.

Beverly, the CNN poll showed that 51% either definitely or probably would NOT vote to reelect Obama, while 46% definitely or probably would.

If you access them poll, you will find about ten percent more will Definately not vote to reelect him than will definitely vote TO reelect him.

It is almost two years out, but these are not good numbers- particularly in light of the fact that independents are split, (46% for and against reelection), and the fact that there is no clear GOP frontrunner.

When a sitting president is losing to the invisible candidate, it is time to start lining up those paid speaking engagements.

Polls can change on a dime. I seem to remember President Obama was losing big time to Hillary and to McCain and we all know what happened there. Twenty months is a long way off. Nobody can afford to be smug.

And yet somehow he's still MORE POPULAR than Ronald Reagan at this point in his presidency, equally popular to Bill Clinton who was experiencing a spike in popularity at the time.

I guess Reagan never stood a chance at that second term, did he?

That or you're spinning this one about 10,000rpm.

Another fine cut and paste Bev........great job!

That's what the republicans want Amy, a country run by corporations, who will pay their salaries therefore they can't be voted out of office as long as they do as their told.

We are governed by Corporations, we currently live in a plutocracy by definition, and the sooner people realize it, and admit it the sooner actions can be taken to restore some form of democracy to our country.

Well said Jody:

Like Boehner said, we're not perfect all the time. It's looking like we were perfect...once.

Just an observation: Republicans do a better job when they are the minority. When they are the majority and have some responsibility to lead...they are clueless.

It didn't take the folks who mismanaged government so badly last time to prove their skills haven't improved much.

The only thing Boehner, Cantor, McConell, and Republicans in general talked about before the November elections was how they were only concerned with was job creation, since they have took over the only issue they have not addressed is job creation, the American people are so easy it's pathetic.

Jody:

These are the guys that came into power with no pre-existing plans. The want to repeal HCR but have no plan to replace it except with the same 7 or 8 provisions that are already in the Law, no plans on how to create jobs in the country but they do have plans to trash jobs, no plans to help an improving economy instead they are trying to slow it down. People want Jobs and a robust economy. The GOP/TP wants to repeal HCR and Financial Reform and control the reproductive rights and pay of women. Lets see how far this goes.

Rep. Giffords spoke for the first time. She wanted toast with breakfast. I wish her a speedy recovery.

Jody:

Go to Lee's website and READ. There is nothing on there about Family Values, abortion, etc.... HE did not run on those things.

The man was fool to resign over pictures.

Jody

Hang on, Speaker Boehner, you are in for a bumpy ride.

Judging from the 2 National Enquires story about the 2 female lobbyist and a member of his staff who quit due to his womanizing and drinking it appears that's the way he likes it.

@ In the middle

The man was fool to resign over pictures.

You'd rather he taint the republican family value brand in addition to wasting tax dollars?

Kudos to him for being fiscally conservative.

The Republicans make it too easy to pick on them. This has not been a good week for them based on the legislative losses and the family values issues that have taken the steam out of their boasts from their “shellacking” of the Democrats in November.

The most pathetic rendering of the day was captured by Rachel Maddow who showed a clip of Mike Pence at some town hall saying that Republicans were not going to spend all of their time on jobs and the economy and then he went on a rant about de-funding abortions in the country and around the world. Where upon Rachel quipped that maybe Pence is running for governor or president of Abortionstan. Otherwise, how to explain all of this noise about abortions around the world!

And poor Congressman Lee. What was he thinking? Now his shirtless image will be in cyberspace forever. His child will have to live down his stupidity! Prayerfully the Enquirer story about Speaker Boehner having extra-marital affairs will be untrue. I can’t handle more than one sex scandal a week coming out of Washington and it doesn’t matter if it is Republican or Democrat. Can these guys do some work and stop with the sexcapdes.

The highlight of the day was Lawrence O’Donnell beating up on Rep. King who seems to be stuck on “Obama is a Muslim”. When Lawrence asked King for his Christian ID card I laughed out loud.

This stuff would be funny if it wasn’t so hateful and harmful.

Maybe the speech she gave when she resigned as Governor of Alaska halfway into her term?

So your admitting that Obama's 800 billion stimulus bill to create jobs was a waste of money and a failure. Don't you recall last years summer of recovery? If it was so successful, why do the the Republicans need to create jobs?

Just reminding everyone what the Republicans promised Rocco.

Whatsamatter, it isn't fair to point out they promised jobs and are delivering nothing but symbolic votes and Social Conservative wish list items?

John, Do they get the 2 year grace period that Obama did? I didn't hear any of the Dems asking Obama where are the jobs during those 2 years. After all, Obama campaigned on jobs too. I'd rather they spend time on symbolic votes than waste 800 billion. Compared to Obama, that is progress. By the way, they also campaigned on those votes of Social Conservative items and it turned fairly well for them.

Two year grace period?

Have you forgotten that it was 1/16/2009 when Rush Limbaugh told his millions of listeners "I hope Obama fails"?

Have you noticed that the economy has been growing for a year and a half continuously?

Did you lose track that the economy was losing 700,000 jobs/month when President Obama took office, now it's gaining jobs?

Perhaps you didn't hear Democrats asking those questions because they were rolling up their sleeves and working to get things done instead of blocking the work and sitting on the sidelines complaining.

Have you forgotten that over 60% of American voters said their chief concern was "the economy" with only 19% saying "health care"?

I don't know what Limbaugh says because I don't listen to him. He is a loudmouth blowhard from my perspective. Funny thing is I hear most of what he says from the Dem posters on this board. I have not lost track of anything. The point is there were no Dem's asking Obama " Where are the jobs" during those 2 years. And your right, 60 % of the voters said there chief concern was the economy and 19% said health care. So what does Obama do, spends all his and congress's time on health care. That is why the GOP was voted into the House majority on a landslide vote not seen in 70 years. Result, Dem's asking the GOP "where are the jobs". Why, because the Dem's rolled up their sleeves on the stimulus bill that did not create the jobs promised. Sitting on the sidelines seems to be the better option than wasting 800 billion. Unfortunately, there are no do overs. The money is gone.

The problem is they don't have a plan for jobs. They are going to make the same mistake as Obama did. They are gonna spend all their time on healthcare. I just hope they are judged the same as democrats were. I think the Republican could care less. As always, they want to continue profits for the richest in the country. Someone has to profit from pain.

marbrown2008

The problem is they don't have a plan for jobs. They are going to make the same mistake as Obama did. They are gonna spend all their time on healthcare. I just hope they are judged the same as democrats were.

The Democrats didn't spend all their time on health care. It was just all the yelling and screaming and disruption by the teabagger mobs at Democratic town halls that made it SEEM that was all that was going on for a while. Obama and the Democrats quickly approved the stimulus bill, Obama bailed out the auto companies and put them on the path to their current profitability. All that was done in the first few months of Obama's administration.

The Republicans have had the House for more than a month now, and all they did was have futile votes on health care repeal and anti-abortion stuff to appease the religious right. They've done nothing at all about jobs, except for their claim that cutting funding for programs like food safety inspections will magically create jobs somehow. Perhaps by cutting food inspections, they figure they'll create more jobs in the stomach pump manufacturing industry.

Job1:

This is exactly what they are going to do. They will stop every attempt to create jobs, they will try and derail the improving economy, they will gut social programs for the middle class while rewarding the very people that created this mess and come 2012 they will say this is all President Obama's fault. They have done this to him in the past and they will do it in 2012.

The GOP/TP is convinced that their path to the White House is paved with the backs of the Middle Class.

Hi Navy,

So true.

Thanks

The chamber of commerce and big business are creating jobs, only problem is they are all overseas, our tax code still subsidises the practice, and you will not hear the Congress, or the media ever mention that our own laws were written to facilitate outsourcing, because that's what the plutocracy wants. Patriotism and the good of the country are never discussed by the people who make the rules.

w bush;

True as written. Got my vote.

I am with you on this. I believe there is a larger conspiracy at hand. I believe keeping unemployment high is the goal of the republican/tea party movement. I think they have corporate america in its back pocket and they are not going to give Obama another star on the chalkboard. They have a mission to get him out of office and try to claim glory for themselves. This is why it's so important for Obama to re-new his relationships with big business. They would rather send this country down in pursuit of their political agenda.

marbrown:

You have it 100% correct that is exactly what the GOP/TP agenda is. To weaken /destroy the middle class, increase unemployment (less jobs) and reduce government revenues. All designed to put this country in the tank so they can use that against President Obama in 2012. Then it will be Mighty Mouse (GOP) here to save the day. Where are those mouse traps?

Hey Navy, can you document the relationship of the GOP and the Tea Party? Do they share the same headquarters location, the same fiscal data, the identical leadership? How are they connected other than through the media?

Are they not two separate entities with different views?

Query your views since you always connect the dots between the two.

Mark:

Couldn't have said it better myself. Daniels is destroying our school systems and destroying public programs. Cities are struggling to meet budget and provide services. You are right, 'The man is scum."

Looks like you two are in the minority

http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2010/01/poll_watching-3.html

That was one of the most recent polls. Looks like he stays north of 60% in every poll done.

I also read a pretty interesting article on how he managed to get himself an overwhelming Republican majority in the legislature.

Must be hard to be a liberal in Indiana.

No Joe....you miss the point and make it at the same time.

It's not about who the better candidate is in Indiana. It's whether he's a Republican or not. Look at Rep. Dan Burton. AWFUL! So bad that 8 other Republicans ran against him in the primary. Divided it so much Burton only got 30% and STILL won the primary. So...70% of Republicans didn't want him. Did they give any other candidate consideration (Libertarian OR Democrat)?? After all....we're talking a 2 year term. Give someone else an opportunity to better represent the district??

Nope.

Carpet-Bagger Dan Coats? Didn't live in the state for the past 17 years. Was still house hunting when elected.... But he's a Republican.

The ONLY reason Obama won Indiana in 2008 is because the GOP screwed up things SO BADLY at the Federal level that "Called for Republicans at 6:30pm on the evening news election night - Indiana" chose to go w/ a Democratic Candidate for President.

The ONLY reason Daniels won re-election in 2008? The main complaint was Democrats had a LOUSY candidate on the ballot. If they had someone HALF-WAY decent....Daniels would have been gone.

So you see, yes it is frustrating being in the minority and having to think for yourself and actually put some effort and MY OWN thought into who I vote for. As far as a getting a majority in the State legislature...It had WAY more w/ Democrats literally giving up the fight before the bell to start the first round rang.

And that majority, after being voted out of office 4 years ago because of all the social issue BS they they started trying to put into law.....and after campaigning on "smaller government" and government should stay out of our lives (using Health Care Reform as the back drop).....Not even back in office a month and we're seeing bills on Same-Sex Marriage, Abortion, Having to take classes on Marriage from religous institutions or pay 4X more to not take them......

There are A LOT OF PEOPLE ready to kick 'em out again......and we still have 2 more years.

At this rate....You just may see another Hoosier Revolt from the GOP in 2012....even WITH Daniels as the candidate.

Ron - you live in this state......you feel my assessment and brief history is more on target than those polls?

Patrick, last I heard they are putting together an 800 billion stimulus package that will include tax cuts giving you $8 more in your paycheck, put 100's of thousands of people to work on shovel ready jobs and save the state and local government's from firing the only people they employ which are firefighters, teachers and police. It will be rolled out this spring so we can have a summer of recovery. It should work since it has already proved to be a huge success a couple of years ago.

Rocco--"I don't know either, so I'll just give a flip and sarcastic answer in a lame attempt to divert attention from Republican lack of action."

Rocco- maybe they will hire 600,000 people this summer-

To read the LAST congress' bills. ..

John, I agree it was a flip and sarcastic answer but an appropriate response to a flip and sarcastic question that was a lame attempt to divert attention from the Dem's failure to create the jobs they promised.

I worked for Bechtel Power for many years as a EE (nuclear, fossil and oil)... this WH has basically killed the energy sector, except for pushing the mythical green energy program.

If the Reps can push back or void the regulations that Obama insists on pushing out, this should open the gates and allow for a ton of energy jobs to pop up "overnight". We really should be building a fleet of nuclear plants now.

I agree on the comment - where are the jobs. Only I see it as Obama and the Dems wasting 2 years on Obamacare. Get the economy going first, then deal with other issues.

thetotas - While I'm a Progressive, I agree with your statement about the Tea Party being a good addition, providing some balance. I think there are some areas in which Progressives and Tea Party members may find some common ground. My problem with the Tea Party is not with their ideas, but with some of their spokespeople. I just heard Michelle Bachmann speaking about CPAC, stating that it was so important to make sure the President Obama is a one-term president. While members of congress, from both sides, want to see someone from their own party in the White House, they still need to bring forth ideas, rather than just railing against the other side.

I agree some of the representatives go why to far for me. Its like two step forward and one step back. When ever they bring up the Presidents birth certificate it makes me grin. Sharon Angle is to far right for my taste.

Life is a balancing act, we just need to find the middle. I don't feel that compromise is a bad thing, it should always be a give and take.

I am a democrat that believes the tea party is real! The only problem I have is that they have not come with anything to solve some of the issues this country has. All I hear is what they don't want. At least 20% of them are radicals who don't like the fact this country is being ran by a black man. That same 20% spend too much time yelling that Obama was not born in this country. The other 80% wants the same things most americans want, but if the bad 20 is speaking up more than the 80, guess who wins. And that is the problem with the tea party. It's being seen as a radical party because that 20% is doing all the talking. Again, they are real, but they have not offered anything at this point!

Job1:

You are on a roll today. Notice when they find a poll that fits their agenda it is a great poll. When we find one it is suspect and not valid. I am not a big fan of polls to begin with since they are too easily manipulated to produce a specfic outcome. The only poll that counts is the one after the elections. As you said, polls change like the weather.

Santorum is definitely stuck in the 50's "Father Knows Best", JoAnne. Never thought I would agree with Sarah Palin on anything!

I have wondered how he can have national aspirations when he lost the Senate election here in Pa.