Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Republicans: Competitors, Not Saviors

While Republicans argue the stimulus didn’t work, it’s empirically provable that it did. Meanwhile, though, the Republicans, having excoriated Democrats over their emergency spending, their stimulus spending to boost the economy. They want you to believe that they are better, that they’ll hold the pursestrings tighter than Ebenezer Scrooge. I write here to put to bed the con job that Republicans are trying to pull on the American people about their so-called talent for fiscal restraint.

There are few liberals who will argue that the Stimulus was not an extraordinary fiscal expenditure. In fact, most liberals would tell you that's the point of it.

Republicans claim that Democrats are recklessly spending, pointing at the budget deficits in part inflated by emergency measures. The claim they will make besides is that they are the party of restraint, that they won't bust the budget or increase spending.

There doesn't seem to be any sunlight between the different wings of the Republican part, between regular and tea-party flavored GOP candidates. They all want to push this idea.

Anybody, though, who says this is exercising fiscal restraint is wrong.

The Bush tax cuts for the rich, those earning more than $200,000 a year, are what is at issue here, since Democrats generally support the extension of the lower income tax cuts.

The figure on the Bush Tax Cut's direct cost is a cool $2.5 trillion in their first ten years. This after Bush said it would take $2 Trillion dollars off the national debt.

The outlook for what happens with this extension of the Bush tax cuts is not pretty:

That long-term financial nightmare the senator is talking about is, in large part, a product of the Bush tax cuts themselves. Maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will only add to that problem. We estimate, using Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Tax projections, that maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will directly reduce revenues by about $690 billion over the next 10 years.* But the true cost of those tax cuts is actually a bit bigger than that.

The cost of those tax cuts is going to go straight onto our national credit card unless we raise taxes from everyone else to pay for the $690 billion in tax breaks for the rich or we find $690 billion in spending cuts. And that means increased interest payments on the debt. When we add in the costs of additional debt service, the true price of maintaining the tax cuts for the wealthy jumps by almost $140 billion.** In total, keeping those cuts for the rich will cost almost $830 billion over the next 10 years.

This is an important point to make, really, because it gets at the heart of why Obama's spending on healthcare reform is not that kind of problem. Obama went looking for and found his offsets, his new taxes, and because he did, the program's not going to add to the deficit.

Are Republicans looking for offsets? No.

These are the Senator Kyl's own words:

WALLACE: We’re running out of time, so how are you going to pay $678 billion just on the tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year?

KYL: You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely congress has the authority and it would be right, if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.

To understand where Kyl's conception of offsets goes a awry, and what makes him, regardless of his intentions, an irresponsible steward of fiscal prudence, we simply have to look at one equation:

Revenues - Spending = budget outcomes.

Like it or not, taxes are necessary. They are how we pay for much of the government we get the first time, and because we do it then, the only time. If we're running even, or if revenues exceed spending, then everything on the budget is paid for, once and for all.

But what if Revenues are less than spending? Well, as anybody who's graduated high school knows, if you subtract more from a number than its value is, you get a negative number.

That's your deficit. You will get it when you spend more than you take in, and when you decide to take in less than you know you need to cover your spending. It really isn't that complicated.

Take a look at that figure up there, the cost of extending the tax cuts for the rich for the next ten years. That is lowered revenues, plus the cost of debt financing spending not covered by revenues.

The Republicans are not offering you free money. They are taking out a loan in your name, and telling you its free. They say they're giving you back your own money, but they're not. They're giving you back China's money, and taking your own later.

If you add in the money it takes the US Government to finance the debt, the$ 690 billion it will cost to make the rich richer ( I didn't think we had a problem with rich people being poor) will cost $830 billion. That sounds pretty much like the size of the cost of the Stimulus.

Am I wrong in saying that for all intents and purposes, the Republicans, including the supposedly more virtuous Tea partiers, are going to deficit spend just as much as the Democrats in order to stimuluate the economy, which is their stated goal? They aren't going to act to close up the deficit any time soon.

By that, I mean their plan actually calls for them to take fifty years to do it.

And with tax cuts like the above? Even fifty years is pushing it, I think.

The Republicans are really in no hurry to solve the problem they claim to be superior problem solvers on. They can raise the smoke and mirrors, but their policies, in the deliberate choices they make, contradict their rhetoric.

And worse, really, you can say they have terrible taste in targets.

Why? As the CBO notes, most Bush tax cut dollars go to higher-income households, and these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners. In fact, of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck. (The CBO did not examine the high-income tax cuts separately, but the logic it used suggests that extending those cuts alone would have even less value.) The government could more effectively stimulate the economy by letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits and tax credits favoring job creation. Dollar for dollar, each of these measures would have about three times the impact on GDP as continuing the Bush tax cuts.

Republicans are pulling a fast one on the average person. They assert that what they wish to do will grow the economy. It will not. They assert that it won't make the deficit worse. It will. They say that they are better at controlling deficit spending. There will be, in fact, no fiscal difference between what they, even the Tea Partiers, are telling us to do, and what Democrats just did. Republicans will not save Americans from deficit spending. They'll simply do it a different way and lie about the consequences.

If you, the voter, are expecting the Republican alternative to be better for this country, at least on the budget, then you are bound to be disappointed. The Democrats nowadays are not afraid to tell you that they are attempting to stimulate the economy, to encourage jobs through additional spending. The idea will be to directly pay for the jobs, rather than wait and hope that the richest two percent of Americans to do it when they get around to it.

Stimulus spending has been proved to work. Tax cuts have proved to be one of the most ineffective means of stimulus.

If the Republicans are going to insist on forcing taxpayers to pay for over eight hundred billion dollars of expenses, then they might as well try an approach that's proved to be more efficient in creating economic activity, rather than telling us we should give the money to the rich and wait for them to get strangely altruistic about it. Yes, I know, the rich would try and make money with their investments, but I think as the past few years have demonstrated, there are plenty of ways to make money without giving people jobs. If we, the American people, want the job done right, we better do it ourselves, through our government.

Vote for the people whose plan actually has some hope of doing good for the economy.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at September 7, 2010 2:15 PM
Comments
Comment #307969

Speaking of Savior, do we rmember this:

http://obamaoursavior.blogspot.com/

“WITH INSURMOUNTABLE LEADS IN ALL THE POLLS, THE QUESTION IS NO LONGER WHO WILL WIN, BUT HOW BIG OF A LANDSLIDE OBAMA WILL WIN BY: 90%? 80%? 70%? HENCE, IT CAN ALREADY BE DECLARED THAT OUR SAVIOR, BARACK OBAMA, HAS WON AND WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF OUR NEW OBAMACA NATION.”

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 7, 2010 5:18 PM
Comment #307973

Beretta9-
Funny thing- quick to put down Obama for the millionth time, but do you have an actual response to my point?

No.

Funny thing is, I have never based an argument for Obama’s election, or his re-election on the premise that he’s some mysterious savior from beyond.

No, I support him because I trust that he has strengths, mundane, mortal strengths but strengths nonetheless that other candidates, Republicans or Democrats, did not have. I did not expect perfection, but I am generally pleased with the results.

Your alternatives, really, are rehashes of the policies that already did such terrible damage. The Bush Tax cut renewal is just one example.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 7, 2010 5:47 PM
Comment #307975

I would ask Mr. Daugherty a simple question. If obama, reid, pelosi and the other libersocialists currently holding office had been alive and in the political sphere when our founding documents were being debated, would they have been allowed to even talk about their hair-brained schemes concerning taxation and spending?

I don’t think so. They would have been laughed out of the room. In fact, they never would have been in the political sphere to begin with.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2010 6:14 PM
Comment #307977

On the other hand, Mr. Daugherty, If obama, reid, pelosi and the other libersocialists currently holding office had been alive and in the same room with Marx and Lennin when they were writing they might have been asked for their advise and council.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2010 6:19 PM
Comment #307978

More good news for the repcons.

“The midterm elections are being closely watched for the answer to a high-stakes question: Will Republicans have a majority in Congress for the next two years? But it is the outcome of a lower-profile battle over state legislatures that could strengthen the Republican party for a decade.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/politics/08legislature.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2010 6:38 PM
Comment #307979

Royal Flush-
Right, right. No refutation about the point, just self-serving fantasies.

Well, you can play with your action figures all you want to, Dark Helmet, and get the results you want from your imaginary hypotheticals, but in the real world, if you cut taxes without offsetting them, while you run a deficit, you’re going to make the deficit worse. That’s not socialism, that’s not communism, that’s fifth grade arithmetic.

If you guys can’t do the math, you can’t balance the budget. You’ll sabotage yourself every time, and it will be because you can’t help yourselves.

Hell, you guys had a magnificent, favorable political advantage with the last redisricting, but nothing can overcome the degree of policy failure to which Republicans have sunk. The fact that they’re not willing to change just means they’ll end up in the same crappy situation again.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 7, 2010 6:57 PM
Comment #307986

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “…but in the real world, if you cut taxes without offsetting them, while you run a deficit, you’re going to make the deficit worse.”

News alert for SD, the repcons do have plans for offsetting government costs. It’s called reduce spending. When they unravel this obnoxious and costly health care legislation, recoup unspent stimulous dollars, halt the growth of government, bring government worker salaries down to earth and a few other things being planned, it sure won’t make the deficit worse.

In addition, just having adults in charge in congress will be enough to stimulate business to grow, hire, do research and build capacity.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2010 7:42 PM
Comment #307990

I object to obama’s remark yesterday about being treated like a dog as though that was bad. Most dogs reside with loving families and are treated very well indeed.

Perhaps what he was referring to was his objection to being required to acknowledge from where his food and sustenance comes. Or perhaps, he was referring to the mad dog that bites his owner.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2010 8:14 PM
Comment #307991

Two for two.

Two responses by conservatives to the post that do not contain one iota of fact or even a reasonable opinion. Just derision, sarcasm, and attempts to discount the value of the post by means of character bashing.

It is this attitude, so often displayed today, that keeps us from conducting any reasonable business which will lead to solutions.

Posted by: LibRick at September 7, 2010 8:19 PM
Comment #307994

Royal Flush-
So, you got $863 billion dollars worth of offsets? You can talk about little snips here and there, but you folks never talk about that scale of offsets. Democrats? Democrats have already achieved that, with Healthcare Reform. That’s how we paid for them.

The joke here is that the Republican plans to reduce the deficit that I’ve seen have time horizons like forty or fifty years. Really. You can say you can do something like close down a department or an agency, you can talk about entitlement reform, but its always something that won’t fly with other voters.

Promises, which the Republicans are always full of, and predictions, which the Republicans always make about their programs, do not reduce deficits.

Neither will a failure to jumpstart this economy. People who aren’t working depend on the government, or at the very least, if you do the Republican thing and let them fall through the crack, aren’t contributing revenue. It may not be politically correct for you to recognize that fact, but a person who’s not working isn’t paying the taxes we need them to pay.

We need America working and productive, not muddling through the next couple decades of an unnatural economic event’s consequences as if it were a natural correction of the economy.

As for the Obama remark, are you serious? Man, he can’t even use a standard figure of speech without you folks getting contrary about it. That’s how deranged folks on the right have become about Obama. They’ll contradict themselves, slag their own thinktank-generated policies, flip-flop on their positions, all to avoid doing anything the same as the hated liberals.

The Republicans have built a cult around contradicting and vilifying liberals. But such a cult cannot effectively lead, because it will put its antipathy towards liberal policies ahead of getting things right and doing some good, and that will affect the way voters look at the party over time.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 7, 2010 8:56 PM
Comment #307995

“In addition, just having adults in charge in congress will be enough to stimulate business to grow, hire, do research and build capacity.”

You mean like they did during the Bush years? The fact of the matter is that US corporations have not been in the business of hiring Americans for some time. They have not invested in capital expansion in the US. The recovery from the 2001 recession was virtually jobless despite massive tax cuts and relaxation of regulatory controls. Job creation during the Bush administration was the worst since Hoover. We now have a serious gap between demand and output capacity (70%) resulting from the economic collapse of 2008. The private sector is underwater. The consumer is deleveraging from unsustainable debt. Why would corporations invest in increased capacity when the current capacity is underutilized? When demand is not there?

What are conservative “adults” proposing as an alternative to the consumer debt driven economy? What are the “adults” going to do to reverse outsourcing American jobs to China and India?

Posted by: Rich at September 7, 2010 9:02 PM
Comment #308002

Stephen

Come on. You say you are a scientist. You know that NOTHING in a social science like economics can be empirically proved. If you disagree, please tell me what economy you used as the control group.

And then you even manage to bollix your own economic theory. If government injecting more “stimulus” into the economy is good, why would you want to raise taxes and take money out? It might be fun to soak the rich, but it is like cutting off your nose to spite your face in a time of recession … if you believe in that Keynesian stuff you are selling.

Posted by: C&J at September 7, 2010 9:41 PM
Comment #308005

Stephen:

“but do you have an actual response to my point?”

I get dizzy responding to the same liberal talking points over, and over, and over, and over, etc. etc. etc.

“No, I support him because I trust that he has strengths, mundane, mortal strengths but strengths nonetheless”

No., you support him because he’s a liberal democrat. It wouldn’t matter what hairbrianed idea he came up with, you would still support him.

“Your alternatives, really, are rehashes of the policies that already did such terrible damage.”

The “rehash” is the same old liberal talking points.

Royal:

If Obama, Reid, and Pelosi had been around when the Constitution was written, they would have been working for the British, or tarred and feathered as traitors.

One of the keys to the midterms is the Gov seats. The republicans are poised to gain many Governor’s seats, which means representative redistricting.

Just having republicans take control will help the economy. I predict an immediate jump in the market, when republicans take control. There are no businesses willing to expand or spend money as long as obama has a dem congress willing to do his bidding. Once republicans take control of congress, obama won’t matter. He will be a lame duck (or dog) president.

Stephen said, “The Republicans have built a cult around contradicting and vilifying liberals. But such a cult cannot effectively lead, because it will put its antipathy towards liberal policies ahead of getting things right and doing some good, and that will affect the way voters look at the party over time.”

If ths isn’t the pot calling the kettle black.

.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 7, 2010 10:21 PM
Comment #308021

Sleep well, all…………

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142892/Parties-Tied-Generic-Ballot.aspx

Posted by: jane doe at September 8, 2010 12:09 AM
Comment #308035

C&J-
No, I’m not a scientist. I’m fairly scientifically literate, though, so I know what you’re getting at. There’s no such thing as definite proof or airtight laws in economics. That said, you can observe how things tend to go, and generate general theories from that, and test them against results. You’re just never going to get anything that’s clockwork determinant out of it.

Have we ever seen, for example, a tax cut recoup it’s directly caused drop in revenues? No. For one thing, it’s poor stimulus. You’re putting money chiefly in the hands of those who have more of it, and who are therefore less likely to spend it.

We have to realize that the default behavior of the wealthy is to keep wealth, not spend it. Those who are a river to their people, like Anthony Quinn’s character said in Lawrence of Arabia are not going to be listed in the top billionaires list. Those who keep most of what they get, will be.

The irony is, though, if you stimulate the economy from below, it inevitably percolates up. The rich get their money, one way or another. The question is, between the government giving it out, and the rich getting it, how much of the economy has it soaked through?

The point of infrastructure spending and things like that, is that you pay the worker, the worker pays other businesses, the other business pay investors, and the investors invest again, or keep their money in business that are now doing better and earn more. That, instead of simply investing at the top in businesses that may not have the customers to produce the kind of return on investment you want. Investment is pointless if unemployment and tougher economic times keep consumers from making these consumer companies money. We cannot run an economy on the good fortune of the top two percent alone. A consumer economy requires consumers to make it work.

As for raising taxes? It’s the average person’s economic situation that’s putting the squeeze on the economy. The economic elite are not hurting for cash, and not spending it on employing people anyways. The last time the Rich were earning this much in proportion to everybody else, it was the start of the Great Depression.

So, we won’t really be taking money out of the system that was actually getting spent, by people who would spend it.

Beretta9-
Definition: Liberal Talking Points. Noun. Pronunciation: Libruhl Tocking points. Any fact or opinion whose validity or truth that Beretta9 doesn’t want to acknowledge.

Listen, unless you can provide a good reason why people should not believe a fact or an opinion, simply calling it a liberal talking point is just putting the partisan blinders on to avoid dealing with it.

The Republicans are bad enough on this, and it will be their downfall, ultimately. The truth of an issue does not depend on which side of it a liberal lands. The question is not whether what I say is a liberal talking point, or a conservative one, it’s whether I’m right or wrong.

Go ahead and find me the evidence that says that a tax cut like this has ever made its revenue shortfall back. Then you can claim that the arithmetic of cutting taxes is overwhelmed by the calculus of economic growth, that the complex nature of events changes the simple interaction of less taxes collected versus the same or greater amount of spending undertaken.

As for an immediate jump in the markets? Of course. You depend on the speculators to tell you where the economy should be. Let me tell you though: if today is like yesterday, it won’t save the economy. See, its not regulation keeping us down. It’s that unregulated derivatives market that makes it dangerous to let the big banks fail, for fear that they’ll all go at once, because of all the different instruments your regulatory laxness allowed to be written up between them.

You go on believing that the special interests know best and that history won’t repeat. Meanwhile, Democrats will work to make the economy work on a productive basis, instead of indulging the speculators.

As for the pot calling the kettle black? Who is relying on political propagandizing against my party’s leaders, and who’s presenting a simple, elegant case on the facts as to why Democrats have a better fiscal plan, and why the Republicans at best have an equivalent, if not worse one? I’m not relying on people believing your party’s leaders are extremists of some kind to disregard your argument.

I simply appeal to the facts as they are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 8, 2010 9:09 AM
Comment #308038

If Obama had led the Starfleet, Darth Vader would have never become the evil emperor, and daisies would be blooming everywhere year round. True fact.

That is all.

Best laugh I’ve had all year.

Posted by: gergle at September 8, 2010 9:51 AM
Comment #308039

If Obama had led the Starfleet, Darth Vader would have never become the evil emperor, and daisies would be blooming everywhere year round. True fact.

That is all.

Best laugh I’ve had all year.

Posted by: gergle at September 8, 2010 9:52 AM
Comment #308049

I was just reading about Boehner’s reaction to Obama’s tax cuts. It’s going to be hilareous to watch Obama cut the Republicans to shreds on this.

Boehner does more flips than a circus dog.

Wasn’t there a TV character named Boner who did really stupid things? Is this him all growed up?

Posted by: gergle at September 8, 2010 11:59 AM
Comment #308065

“For most of the year, America’s political and media elites, including the Obama team itself, have touted the notion of an economic recovery (which never materialised), significantly underestimated the rise of the Tea Party movement, and questioned the notion that conservatism was sweeping America. It is only now hitting home just how close Washington is to experiencing a political revolution in November that will fundamentally change the political landscape on Capitol Hill, with huge implications for the Obama presidency. What was once a perspective confined largely to Fox News, online conservative news sites, or talk radio is now gaining ground in the liberal US print media as well – historic change is coming to America, though not quite the version promised by Barack Obama.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100052779/even-americas-liberal-elites-concede-that-obamas-presidency-is-crumbling/

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 8, 2010 2:46 PM
Comment #308072

RF, don’t you find it interesting that you have to go to the UK paper to read this? The US MSM is in complete denial. I beieve you are correct, real change is coming.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 8, 2010 3:53 PM
Comment #308083

B9, yes…real change not only in congress but in state houses all over the nation. With rep/cons retaking some state houses, and with redistricting soon to take place, the political landscape could see conservative changes lasting a decade or more.

The libersocialists need to spend a decade in the wilderness waking up, changing stripes, and tuning in with American sentiments before they are ever again allowed anywhere near the levers of political power.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 8, 2010 5:18 PM
Comment #308084

Royal Flush-
Yes, this post seems atypical for the Director of The Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. Wouldn’t expect this from that sort of person at all.

When are folks on the right going to learn that people like me on the left always google your claims when you make them?

Beretta9-
You know, America isn’t the only place with right-wingers. I know this gets lost in the rush to paint Europe as a socialist paradise.

Royal Flush and Beretta9-
And really, you two, despite all this trash-talk about who’s going to win or lose the election, you two still haven’t provided a decent refutation to my point- that is, that the extention of the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich, which both establishment Republicans and Tea partiers support, would add just as much to the deficit as a complete second stimulus.

Folks, if that is your tax policy, if that is your change, then what is the goshdarn point of winning this next election? All it demonstrates is that the political imagination of the Republicans is basically bankrupt, and that they can’t do anything but rehash failed policies, and political practices that got Clinton re-elected.

Republicans aren’t learning anything from their mistakes. That’s the chief reason for the strength and the stubbornness of my resistance to Republicans coming back to power. Their errors caused us enough damage the first time, why we need to give them a second chance to vindicate their ideology is beyond me.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 8, 2010 5:31 PM
Comment #308092

September 7, 2010
Parties Tied at 46% in Generic Ballot for CongressLatest weekly update shows more competitive contestby Frank NewportPRINCETON, NJ — Republicans and Democrats are tied at 46% among registered voters in Gallup’s weekly tracking of congressional voting preferences, marking a shift after five consecutive weeks in which the Republicans held the advantage.


Sorry Beretta9 Latest gallop poll.

Posted by: Jeff at September 8, 2010 5:59 PM
Comment #308098


Rich, the liberals are closer to realizing what the current reality is. But, even they are not making proposals that will effectively address the financialization of the economy and the loss of jobs to low wage, low regulatory outsourcing.

On the other side, conservatives seem to be determined to give the Republicans the opportunity to complete the mission of turning America into a third world country.

What is missing in modern American Society? A calming force, a force that can apply a system of do’s and don’ts that will create order out of chaos. Such a system, if proposed by secularism is unacceptable to the commonality, even if derived from religious sources.

Posted by: jlw at September 8, 2010 6:18 PM
Comment #308103

Such a system, if proposed by secularism is unacceptable to the commonality, even if derived from religious sources.

Posted by: jlw at September 8, 2010

Say What???

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 8, 2010 6:39 PM
Comment #308116

“RF, don’t you find it interesting that you have to go to the UK paper to read this? The US MSM is in complete denial. I beieve you are correct, real change is coming.”

Beretta are you kidding me! The source of the article Royal linked to is the Washington Post newspaper. SO much for the US MSM being in complete denial.
I guess being true to form you never let a fact get in the way of your misinformation, half truths and outright lies.

To help you out here is a quote from the link provided by Royal.
“No. It’s a direct quote from yesterday’s Washington Post, usually viewed by conservatives as a flagship of the liberal establishment inside the Beltway.”

Posted by: j2t2 at September 8, 2010 9:02 PM
Comment #308120

Since the material originated from the Washington Post, then it makes the content even more condemning of Obama and the dems.

Stephen,

“Royal Flush and Beretta9-
And really, you two, despite all this trash-talk about who’s going to win or lose the election, you two still haven’t provided a decent refutation to my point- that is, that the extention of the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich, which both establishment Republicans and Tea partiers support, would add just as much to the deficit as a complete second stimulus.”

The reason we don’t answer is because we do not accept your false premise that tax cuts increase the deficit. Why would we want to argue a point we don’t accept? Lower taxes means increased revenue, what part of this don’t you understand?

jeff;

“September 7, 2010
Parties Tied at 46% in Generic Ballot for CongressLatest weekly update shows more competitive contestby Frank NewportPRINCETON, NJ — Republicans and Democrats are tied at 46% among registered voters in Gallup’s weekly tracking of congressional voting preferences, marking a shift after five consecutive weeks in which the Republicans held the advantage.


Sorry Beretta9 Latest gallop poll.”

From your link;

“Last week, Gallup showed Republicans leading 51 percent to 41 percent, fueling speculation about a coming GOP wave in the midterm elections. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee e-mailed the latest poll to reporters almost immediately after it came out in an effort to push back against that narrative”

So, you are saying the generic congressional ballot which had republicans up 10 points a week ago, is now even? The article even said republicans had led for 5 weeks, but now they are even? Well, this clown you are quoing also said the Beck Rally only had 87,000. Plus or minus 9,000. Evidently he got his poll numbers from the same Cracker Jack Box…

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html

Today Scott Rasmussen gives the republicans a 12 point lead over democrats in the Generic Congressional Ballot:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/most_recent_videos/2010_09/scott_s_report_generic_congressional_ballot_update

Why don’t you just keep living in fantacy land?

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 8, 2010 10:06 PM
Comment #308121

jiw,

I am afraid that you are correct. As one economic commentator put it “the United States is the first country in history to destroy the prospects and living standards of its own working people.”

Posted by: Rich at September 8, 2010 10:08 PM
Comment #308124

BREAKING NEWS:

Tonight on Hannity, Carl Rove, for the first time, predicted an enormous loss for democrats in November. He is predicting an 80-85 seat Republican pickup in the House.

I guess this is due to the Republican 12 point lead in the Generic Congressional Polls.

Did anyone watch the Obama speech today in Cleveland? They had to bring in students to fill the empty seats. If you watch the crowd, there was no response from the people. They looked bored. He spent the whole speech attacking the minority leader. Instead of dealing with the problems he and the demcrats have caused, it was the same old blame game. What a whiner. He is an embarrassment to America.
But he did say everyone’s taxes would go up next year.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 8, 2010 10:21 PM
Comment #308128

So Beretta you have given up on the US MSM being in denial and have conceded you know not of what you speak? Yet now here you are again spouting more nonsense about others living in fantasy land. Go figure.

I watch a bit of collage football and have learned that although the point spread predicted by the experts is sometimes quite large and the fans of the favored team obnoxiously loud about what they consider an easy victory the next weekend over the underdogs, they still play the game. Sometimes the obnoxiously loud fans are disappointed because the underdogs whupped their team. Will you concede that anything short of 80 seats in the House this coming November is a defeat for the repubs now that your experts have declared it to be so?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 8, 2010 10:40 PM
Comment #308129

“Will you concede that anything short of 80 seats in the House this coming November is a defeat for the repubs now that your experts have declared it to be so?”

No, but I will leave it up to you to make that decision.

By the way, where does the left go to read positive material that shows everything is alright?

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 8, 2010 10:44 PM
Comment #308144

“No, but I will leave it up to you to make that decision.”

So Beretta you boast constantly about the upcoming conservative takeover of the government yet when a movement leader determines 80 seats minimum you lose the courage to back him up? Your boasting seems to be a bit much when you can’t match the boasting with the courage of your convictions. School yard bullies do that don’t they?

“By the way, where does the left go to read positive material that shows everything is alright?”

I’m not sure. It seems to me most of us prefer the truth and facts not bloviating news flashes from the propaganda station.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 9, 2010 6:58 AM
Comment #308145

You mean like Daily Kos; I understand

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 9, 2010 7:41 AM
Comment #308150

I don’t know about j2t2, but I’ve never visited the Daily KOS. I might go there now that I’ve been advised it could be a positive influence on my thinking. Thanks B’69’ (tee hee).

Posted by: Marysdude at September 9, 2010 10:43 AM
Comment #308153

Beretta9-
No, it doesn’t sound like thier company got their numbers out of a cracker-jack box. it sounds like they literally looked at the crowd and counted, gridding off attendees and then having the computer count the individuals in the box.

Of course, that doesn’t feel right to some, but I will take a count based on scientific methods over one based on somebody just pulling a number out from a non-sunlit place close at hand.

As for Rasmussen? I don’t want to suggest that the guy may have a bias simply based on poll results, but I think there’s some pretty good evidence of who he works for.

But the real reason you’ll want to come is to meet, intimately dine with, and hear from — in very informative and scintillating panel sessions, or at any of our fun receptions and late-night pool-side smokers (featuring H. Upmann cigars) — the array of all-star speakers who will be on board: political expert Karl Rove, historian Victor Davis Hanson, premier Islam scholar Bernard Lewis, conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, conservative web guru Andrew Breitbart, media critic Bernie Goldberg, top columnists Tony Blankley and Cal Thomas, Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld, terrorism expert Andrew McCarthy, GOP strategist Vin Weber, conservative economist Alan Reynolds, New Criterion editor Roger Kimball, ace pollster Scott Rasmussen, European Parliament Tory star Daniel Hannan, conservative scholar Peter Schramm; and from National Review: Liberal Fascism author Jonah Goldberg, NRO editor-at-large Kathryn Lopez, NR Institute president Kate O’Beirne, senior editors Jay Nordlinger and Ramesh Ponnuru, “Campaign Spot” blogger Jim Geraghty, former editor John O’Sullivan, and acclaimed artist Roman Genn. Plus we’ve got more outstanding invitations…outstanding.

You can find complete information about the trip, and a secure and immediate way to book your stateroom, at www.postelectioncruise.com. Don’t delay.

And this is for a National Review Cruise.

As for where we go to read positive material? We seek out sites to find the news. I don’t want to get hooked into some media machine designed to pump sunshine up my ass. I want the facts, good, bad, or indifferent, so I can exercise my judgment on matters. Anybody who goes looking for positive, rather than just letting it come their way is allowing themselves to be manipulated. The real world doesn’t kiss the butt of our political parties.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 9, 2010 12:08 PM
Comment #308154

Stephen,
IMHO the Republicans are neither competitors or saviors. For that would take conviction to the Truth. No, instead their leadership has continued to stand on the other side of Ignorance in hope that they can convince Americans nothing can be done to address the problems Mankind has faced for thousands of years.

In fact, one of the most common arguements I hear is they can take their money overseas and invest it which to me sounds like real americans wanting to do what is best for “We the People”. So, why they stand oppose to President Obama and the Democratic Party on the merit that “I got mine you get yours” I wonder if they would be so quick to jump that creek if they realized the Democrats or a third party could clean them out in a matter of 4 years.

No, the republicans do not need to be put back in charge of the House of Representatives and why I still have me personal doubts that the Glen Becks of the World have seen the light. I for one am glad to see President Obama standing up for the American Business Owner with such bold talk. Because why I still wait for the surprised look on My Comunity Elders and Peers faces when they awaken to the fact their children can build a Better World just given the debate of Energy Independence.

Seeing if the present day Republican Party can accept the idea economic slavery and social seggration is fueling the fire of fear and hate just as it did in this nation and around the world during bondage slavery. I wait to see if the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s are their Parents and Grandparents or have they grown up to realize that regardless of race, color, or creed all Humans are subject to the Rule of Law as Citizens.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 9, 2010 12:14 PM
Comment #308165

Henry,

So we sow, so shall we reap? Who’d a thunk it…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 9, 2010 1:52 PM
Comment #308173

The 5 Percent Doctrine
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: September 8, 2010
Recommend
Twitter
comments (296)
Sign In to E-Mail

Print


Reprints

Share
CloseLinkedinDiggMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink A minister in Gainesville, Fla., has created an international uproar by vowing to burn the Koran on Sept. 11. This is under the theory that the best way to honor Americans who died at the hands of religious extremists is to do something that is both religious and extreme.


Tony Cenicola/The New York Times
Gail Collins

Go to Columnist Page »The Conversation
David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns.

All Conversations »Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (296) »
I am not going to mention his name, since he’s already been rewarded with way too many TV interviews for a person whose seminal career achievement has been building a thriving congregation of about 50 people.

The Koran-burning has been equated, in some circles, with the fabled ground zero mosque. This is under the theory that both are constitutionally protected bad ideas. In fact, they’re very different. Muslims building a community center in their neighborhood on one hand. Deliberate attempt to insult a religion that is dear to about 1.5 billion souls around the globe on the other.

This week, New York City was visited by another minister, with the depressing title of “Internet evangelist” who announced plans to build a “9/11 Christian center at ground zero” in response to “the lies of Islam.” This guy, who is from Tampa, drew an estimated crowd of 60 people. Does that make him more popular than the minister from Gainesville? Plus, is there something in the water in Florida?

When this sort of thing happens, it is important to remember that about 5 percent of our population is and always will be totally crazy. I don’t mean mentally ill. According to the National Institute for Mental Health, 26 percent of American adults suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year. So, basically, that’s just normal life. I mean crazy in the sense of “Thinks it is a good plan to joke with the flight attendant about seeing a bomb in the restroom.”

There is nothing you can do about the crazy 5 percent except ask the police to keep an eye on them during large public events, where they sometimes appear carrying machine guns just to make a political point about the Second Amendment. And, in situations like a Koran-burning, make it clear that the rest of us disagree.

So far, the people lining up to denounce the burning of the Koran include the pope, Gen. David Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. On the Republican side, Haley Barbour, theMississippi governor and would-be presidential contender, stepped up to the plate. “I don’t think there is any excuse for it,” said Barbour at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor.

Unfortunately, Barbour followed up his bow to tolerance by suggesting that the public’s confusion over Barack Obama’s religion is because of the fact that “this is a president that we know less about than any other president in history.” The governor claimed that Americans had been particularly deprived of information on Obama’s youth, while they knew a great deal about the formative years of the other chief executives all the way back to the way the youthful George Washington “chopped down a cherry tree.”

Let us reconsider the above paragraph in light of the fact that while Obama wrote an entire book about his childhood, Washington never chopped down the cherry tree.

But I digress. While a pope, a general and a cabinet member are speaking out, the candidates running in this year’s elections seem to be superquiet about the Koran-burning. However, quite a few have been racing to bash the Muslim community center for Lower Manhattan. In Florida, the gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott has an ad railing against a mosque “just yards away” from ground zero, which is semiaccurate only if you believe “city blocks” and “yards” are the same thing. And in New York, the Republican candidates for governor appear to be running for the Mosque Removal slot on the ballot.

“Just before the primary, we had candidates who thought they might gain more votes by bashing Islam,” said Saleh Sbenaty, a leader of the Muslim families in Murfreesboro, Tenn., whose community center construction site has been vandalized twice in recent weeks. “We had a rough, rough time during the primary.”

My memories of Sept. 11, 2001, are still intense, and they are mainly about the outpouring of concern from the rest of the country. The piles of donated clothes and food piled up, unused but not necessarily unwanted since each bit was a token of someone’s good will toward the city. Helping us achieve that state of public grace is the highest possible duty of every elected official.

But, lately, they’ve abdicated or worse. And the fight for public sanity has fallen to average citizens, like Professor Sbenaty, who is still trying to explain to the rest of the world what happened in his community. “Let me say first,” he told an interviewer on NPR, “there are crazy people in every society.”

Posted by: Jeff at September 9, 2010 3:19 PM
Comment #308174

The real world doesn’t kiss the butt of our political parties.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 9, 2010

Right on…I checked in the mirror, mine are still red…you?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 9, 2010 3:22 PM
Comment #308175

Correction…Right on…I checked in the mirror, my lips are still red…you?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 9, 2010 3:24 PM
Comment #308182

Royal Flush-
What the heck are you saying?

I’m simply saying here that nobody can afford to be only getting their information from party-friendly sources. For me, political sources are a small subset of the sources I read. I get my science and technology news directly from publications that specialize in that. I don’t tend to turn my nose up at the mainstream media, though I prefer it when I get more than the hundredth dissection of the same event.

The trouble with chiefly relying on political sources is that as persuasion-oriented enterprises, they have the potential to get into a closed loop of self-persuasion at all times. In that direction ultimately lies madness. You have to have good, independent reality checks in order to preserve good, decent perspective on the practical side of politics, to keep people focused on using politics as a tool to get necessary policy enacted, not facts and figures as the means to push a pre-determined agenda.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 9, 2010 5:15 PM
Comment #308186

Thank you Mr. Daugherty. Much like you I scour many sources every day. It does make one wonder why we don’t agree occassionally since we are both truthseekers. But then, those much touted “facts” you often claim in your comments are, much like mine, merely our intrepretation of data.

Can we at least agree upon that?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 9, 2010 6:08 PM
Comment #308201

Stephen, this is not on subject, but may be of interest to some…..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/sep/10/dont-ask-dont-tell-overturned-california-judge

Posted by: jane doe at September 9, 2010 11:06 PM
Comment #308211

This is an answer to off subject; but here we go again to the UK Guardian to find out what is going on in America. Does it surprise anyone that a CA judge would make this ruling? Where to we go from here?

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 10, 2010 9:01 AM
Comment #308212

Also off subject…see what you started jane doe?

I’m assuming that those on the right will forget all about Gore v Bush and Citizens United, and call the judge in this case ‘activist’. Please be true to form on this ‘right thinkers’ (is that an oxymoron?).

Posted by: Marysdude at September 10, 2010 9:10 AM
Comment #308213

PS:

Double entendre?

Posted by: Marysdude at September 10, 2010 9:13 AM
Comment #308219

ObamaCare ‘Amnesia’
Long ago, in a political galaxy far, far away, Democrats passed …

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358904575477683320736458.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

“They’re betting that between now and November, you’re going to come down with amnesia,” President Obama told a Milwaukee crowd on Monday, vilifying the Republicans who “helped devastate our middle class.” But it seems as if the real case of amnesia—or maybe post-traumatic stress disorder—has struck the Democrats, who are now doing everything they can to help voters forget ObamaCare.

This is a remarkable turn of events for Mr. Obama’s major domestic achievement that was also supposed to be a political winner. Facing a grim November, Democrats are now running on another quarter-baked stimulus plan and the specter of John Boehner’s perpetual tan, instead of the bill they spent more than a year debating and hailed as the liberal triumph of the century. Democrats now barely mention ObamaCare on the trail—unless they’re trashing it.

In Milwaukee, the President made a few desultory mentions of “health care that will be there when you get sick.” And in Cleveland Wednesday, his list of the iniquities from which he saved the country included “health insurance reform that stops insurance companies from jacking up your premiums at will.”

But what about all the grandiose ambitions of universal coverage? What about bending the cost curve? The parade of horribles that would occur if Congress failed to act? “Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result,” as Mr. Obama put it in a speech to Congress a year ago.

The only politicians who today are finding any redeeming electoral value in ObamaCare are Republicans running on reform alternatives and the Democrats who voted against it. In South Dakota, four-term Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is running ads that tout her vote against “the trillion-dollar health-care plan.” Mrs. Herseth Sandlin won in 2008 with 68% of the vote but now is in a dead heat against GOP challenger Kristi Noem.

Idaho freshman Walt Minnick says in one TV spot that “I’ve had to say no far more than I’ve said yes. I’ve said no to more government spending, no to President Obama’s big health-care plan,” because “standing up to what’s wrong in Washington is right for Idaho.” Pennsylvania’s Jason Altmire, class of 2006, features constituents who say things like, “You saw when he voted against health care” and, “He’s not afraid to stand up to the President.”

Frank Kratovil from Maryland’s eastern shore says he voted against ObamaCare and sundry other White House priorities because it was merely “common sense and doing what’s best for our families.” All these Members would be better off had their party used its historic majority for something else, but then again at least they’re better off than Blue Dog colleagues like Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) and Tom Perriello (Virginia) who voted for it and are in danger of defeat.

The Barney Franks and Pete Starks can continue to plug ObamaCare from their safe liberal redoubts. But the marginal seats are the ones that matter for controlling Congress. At any rate, even among the 219 House members and 60 Senators who voted for final passage, the new Democratic triage strategy seems to be to claim the bill is not perfect and could be improved, but it still has a heart of gold.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, who wrote most of the bill, attempted this line at an August townhall in Billings, Montana when he tried to calm an angry voter by saying, “Mark my words, several years from now, you’re going to look back and say, ‘Well, that wasn’t so bad after all.’” Now there’s an endorsement.

This public revolt comes despite the millions spent by Big Pharma and the Obama Administration to promote the bill since its passage. The Administration even rolled out ol’ Andy Griffith of Mayberry for a plug, which has only hurt his reputation. This week two new pressure groups are forming to try again, the Health Information Center and the Health Information Campaign. These outfits were founded by former White House communications director Anita Dunn and Democratic strategist Andrew Grossman, formerly the executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, the Service Employees International Union-backed antibusiness outfit.

They plan to spend $2 million on TV advertising before the election to rebut ostensible “myths.” Perhaps they have in mind the 1% to 9% premium increases that insurers nationwide are planning for individuals and small businesses to cover the cost of new mandated benefits, as the Journal’s Janet Adamy reported.

These and many other emerging consequences of the bill—all of them predicted by opponents—are the reason it remains so unpopular. Democrats convinced themselves they could ram ObamaCare through Congress on the liberal noblesse oblige theory that the public would eventually come around, but their own campaign strategies now show how wrong they were. If Democrats are victims of their own success, so is everyone else—because despite the political second thoughts, the country is still stuck with this policy debacle.”

Can any liberal explain why this article is true??? When Republicans promise to repeal this law, are they competitors or are they saviors?

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 10, 2010 9:45 AM
Comment #308221

Speaking of Ol’ Andy Griffith, the adds only ran for a couple of weeks and I haven’t seen them since. Do you think Seniors figured out the administration was playing games by using Andy to convince them the obamacare was good for them? Seniors are getting wise to the dems lies.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 10, 2010 9:51 AM
Comment #308223

Royal Flush-
If we are truth-seekers, then we don’t agree on that until we know what we are agreeing about.

And it seems you want me to agree that it’s all about intepretation. Well, the problem is, not all interpretations are created equal.

The subject of my post was that the costs in terms of deficit spending for extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest Americans would cost the same, after you added the servicing of the debt, as another stimulus.

You would assert that this tax cut would create economic growth sufficient to fill in the gap. That, or Congress would see the light and just eliminate 690 Billion dollars in spending.

But where the evidence that these things would actually happen? Growth, even in the days of Reagan, even when cutting the top rate from 70% to 50%, did not make up for the Reagan Tax cuts. In fact, Reagan felt himself forced to institute what his own economist, Bruce Bartlett, would later call the “largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

Bush, Sr. faced the same problem. Reagan’s 1986 tax cut did not succeed in raising enough growth to cover its debts, and despite the fervor with which Republicans then held the “Starve the Beast” theory of fiscal rebalancing, the deficit did not close up, and Bush’s “No new taxes” pledge came back to haunt him.

Clinton then came back, and in what was a politically unsound move, raised taxes. Republicans hammered him for it, and maybe won the majority on it.

But isn’t it strange that it was after this point that we started seeing the deficits going down?

Are the Republicans succeeding in making sane economic and fiscal policy politically radioactive? I think so, and that’s the frightening part. Since the spaceship rarely lands on earth nowadays, few Republicans in the institutional right, or among the politicians have have really developed a sense for the consequences of their policy.

While I think there is room for multiple interpretations of the same facts, I also think its crucial that interpretations be put to the test, and by that I mean a truly nuanced test, rather than a self-interested gloss.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 10, 2010 10:50 AM
Comment #308227

Well Mr. Daugherty, I extended the olive branch and got a thorn bush in return.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 10, 2010 12:35 PM
Comment #308228

“With a bruising election likely ahead of them and the economy proving resistant to any quick fixes, nearly two dozen moderate Democrats are pushing for a proposal on the expiring Bush tax cuts that was all-but-unthinkable to liberals a year ago — extending all of the tax cuts, even those for the wealthiest Americas, at least for a while.”

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/keep-bush-tax-cuts-for-wealthy-worried-democrats-liking-the-id/

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 10, 2010 12:53 PM
Comment #308229

Your olive branch was a little thornier than you’d like to admit, the problem being that it represented an attempt to get me to say that it was all just a matter of opinion.

That’s not an acceptable peace to me, because my philosophy is opposed to that. One interpretation of the facts is not as good as another. Like I said, there may be room for multiple interpretations, but they have to be put to the test. On that point, I’m not interested in making peace, because that is a fundamental political principle to me: that there are are policies that work, and policies that don’t, and that there is a way to tell the difference that we must incorporate into our policy making process.

As for the tax cuts? I think its more political habit taking over, than any real response to public opinion. Public opinion in the country is against extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich by a majority in every poll I’ve sen on the matter. Support for keeping them? In the thirties. Bad policy, and unpopular to boot. Only Democrats afraid of what Republicans say about them would consider it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 10, 2010 1:26 PM
Comment #308230

Conservatives extend olive branches frequently, but they always seen to come at us with a pointy end. Prodding or stabbing ain’t the same as stroking or soothing.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 10, 2010 1:44 PM
Comment #308231

Hey dude….glad to see you’ve been keeping track in here. When I came in, I had this strong whiff of bovine bull excrement, though. Looks like the rep/cons are busy trying to spin things around.
Here are a coupe of interesting things going on:

Another day, another poll showing overwhelming support for taxing the rich

Gallup released a new poll showing that America is still just fine with making the rich pay more taxes.

PRINCETON, NJ — A majority of Americans favor letting the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration expire for the wealthy. While 37% support keeping the tax cuts for all Americans, 44% want them extended only for those making less than $250,000 and 15% think they should expire for all taxpayers.

Add it up, and that’s 59% saying the rich shouldn’t keep this tax break. Or, looking at it another way, 81% supporting tax cuts for the middle class. Even 43% of Republicans polled think they should either expire totally, or be extended only for the middle class. Of course, it’s not just Gallup that’s found this. Greg Sargent helpfully pulls all the polling together to show why this is “an argument Dems have a rather good shot at, you know, winning if they decide to go for it.”

* A new National Journal poll finds that 56 percent support ending either all the Bush tax cuts or just the ones for the wealthy, while barely more than a third want to keep them all.

* The new Gallup poll shows that 59 percent of Americans — and a majority of independents — supports either ending all the Bush tax cuts or just the ones for the wealthy.

Indeed, Gallup finds that Obama’s proposal — ending the tax cuts for the wealthy but not for everyone else — has the support of 44 percent, more than any other solution.

* A CNN poll in late August found that a majority, 51 percent, favors ending the tax cuts for the rich, and another 18 percent favor ending them all.

It also found that among independents, 44 percent favor ending the tax cuts for the rich, while another 21 percent favor ending them all. Letting the tax cuts for the rich expire has majority support in all regions of the country except the south.

* A recent CBS poll also found a sizable majority, 56 percent, think the tax cuts for the wealthy should expire….

UPDATE, 11:09 a.m.: Here’s another one: A recent Newsweek poll found 52 percent support letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, while only 38 percent support keeping them in place.

As Greg points out, people really seem to get the idea on this one—Obama and the Dems want a tax break for middle class America, and Republicans are fighting it to keep the rich from having their taxes raised. As he says, “this, of all things, is not an issue where Dems should conclude in advance — as they often do — that once Republicans go on the attack, it’s game over and Dems can’t possibly win the argument.”

Ben Nelson has been the only Dem to blab his opposition to Obama’s strong statement that “[W]e should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer. We are ready, this week, to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less.” But he hasn’t said anything about supporting a GOP filibuster, which might be why the White House seems confident that a veto threat isn’t necessary.

Necessary or not, it might be something for the White House to rethink, because a really good fight over how the GOP is holding Obama’s tax cuts for the middle class hostage to help the rich might be in order during the next 53 days.

and……

NV-Sen: Angle backs out of debate with Reid

The WaPo reports that Sharron Angle has just canceled a debate with Harry Reid that would have been hosted by Jon Ralston:

Sharron Angle cancels debate, infuriates reporter

Sharron Angle’s last-minute decision to pull out of a planned debate has angered long-time Nevada political journalist Jon Ralston.

“Earlier today, Sharron Angle’s campaign agreed to accept our invitation to debate Harry Reid on ‘Face to Face’ in an hour-long live broadcast from Reno on October 21st. Within hours of Reid accepting, Angle’s campaign called to say, well, it’s backing out now,” Ralston said on the local news show “Face to Face” Thursday. He then played a clip of Angle saying she would like to have a debate on the show with Reid.

“I thought I had seen it all in this campaign. I guess not,” Ralson continued. “I had agreement from Angle’s deputy campaign manager for this debate, but soon after we announced Reid had agreed to the date and place, her campaign spokesman called to say there was no agreement. I’m not making this up, folks. A campaign spokesman overrules a deputy campaign manager? I really don’t understand the hierarchy in that campaign.”

For all her bluster about “Second Amendment remedies,” it’s too bad Sharron Angle won’t take advantage of those offered to her by the First.

Posted by: jane doe at September 10, 2010 2:34 PM
Comment #308260

Just out of curiosity, has a president ever used a teleprompter, with someone giving him the answers, when taking questions from the press? What’s wrong with this man, is he to ignorant to just answer questions?

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 11, 2010 12:41 AM
Comment #308283

He became the President of the United States, and you became a blowhard, who has a problem with the written word, on Watchblog.com…yep, he’s ignorant. If you stood in front of a crowd with a teleprompter, you STILL would fall short.

>is he to ignorant to just answer questions? For your edification, the first ‘to’ in your question is spelled ‘too’.

Okay, Stephen and David, I’m outta here.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 11, 2010 1:04 PM
Comment #308292

dud, silly; so now we pick on typos.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 11, 2010 2:56 PM
Comment #308293

B9, you just don’t get it, do you? And, therein lies the problem!!!
Again the Gump phrase applies: “stupid is as stupid does”.

Posted by: jane doe at September 11, 2010 3:14 PM
Comment #308300

jane doe,

Please address your responses to the proper name…B’69’(tee hee). It is the one language he undrestands.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 11, 2010 6:18 PM
Comment #308302

“Just out of curiosity, has a president ever used a teleprompter, with someone giving him the answers, when taking questions from the press?”

What are you talking about? He used a teleprompter for his opening statement. There was a large screen displaying the remarks for the press. The responses to the questions were not telepromptered.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2010 6:55 PM
Comment #308307

Rich,

Write in French, as B’69’(tee hee) does not comprehend written English.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 11, 2010 8:41 PM
Comment #308319

MD, you really should cut that out. Critique the message, not the messenger.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 12, 2010 10:18 AM
Comment #308331

WR,

You are right. I was merely responding to the ‘dud’ thingee in 308292. I’m a senior citizen and can be childish if I want. I like to say, “stupid is as stupid does’, and now I can follow that with, “immaturity goes around and stays around”.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2010 12:11 PM
Comment #308341

MD,
I spend my summers working as a camp counselor. Campers often say, “But he/she started it!”, but I always reply: “I don’t care who started it as long as you don’t finish it”.
I just don’t have that much tolerance for these sorts of things. I view WatchBlog as a valuable resource precisely because it usually maintains a civil atmosphere of sorts. I’d hate for this place to degrade into a name-calling competition as is often found under the comments of online newspapers and other blogs.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 12, 2010 2:39 PM
Comment #308345

Warped Reality,
You’re actually a relative newcomer in here, as some of us have been frequenting this blog for several years.
It has always been monitored pretty closely for civility and idiocy. Some of us have been close witness to the wrath of David, while others any more seem to be able to “function” somewhere significantly below the standards set back when we first came in here. I’m not sure what it is, but we have commented among ourselves that Stephen seems to have lost a lot of his fight after withstanding attacks from the neocon peanut gallery, and even David doesn’t have the old spark he used to. It’s like dealing with the playground bullies…..they don’t always have much going for them above the neck, but if they think they get in a good lick, they will crow forever.

Posted by: jane doe at September 12, 2010 3:42 PM
Comment #308352

Hey WR…here’s another variation on your comment…”Campers often say, “But he/she started it!”, but I always reply: “I don’t care who started it as long as you don’t finish it.”

The boy says to the teacher who interruped the fight…”It all started when he hit me back.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 12, 2010 4:34 PM
Comment #308353

Mr. Daugherty, I read your comments about my olive branch and now understand that no reconciliation or common cause is possible with you. Your comments seem to imply that my interpretation will always be wrong and yours always right when we disagree.

Fair enough, now I understand the rules by which you wish to play. I should have known better as I recall some time ago you wrote in a comment that you did not want me to refer to you as friend.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 12, 2010 4:41 PM
Comment #308358

“The White House is now letting it be known that it is miffed that more Democrats aren’t running to embrace its new “economic” plan. But as parents are fond of telling their five-year-olds, choices have consequences. This White House could have pivoted to the economy at any point—as many Democrats were begging it to do—but instead doggedly pushed ahead with an unpopular agenda. Many Democrats are no longer listening.

Will the anti-Obama strategy work? In this environment, running away from Mr. Obama certainly beats running to him. Then again, midterms are referendums on a president’s agenda, and the country is in a mood to punish Democrats en masse. For those anti-Obama Democrats who do survive, the political lesson will be that there is mileage in telling Mr. Obama no.

This is where today’s exodus will really be felt—after the election. The president still has a to-do list. Yet the more this election becomes about the toxicity of his “accomplishments,” the less ability Mr. Obama has to command a caucus. Republicans will be hunting for votes to block and reverse, and some liberated Democrats may feel happy to help.

Bill Clinton dealt with the 1994 massacre by moving right and triangulating. It is unclear whether the ideological Mr. Obama has the ability to follow suit. What is clear is that some big changes are now necessary. The Obama heyday is officially over.”


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704644404575482122517174884.html

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 12, 2010 7:11 PM
Comment #308362

jane doe, I actually started reading WatchBlog back in October 2004. I commented very infrequently back then under the name Warren and later under the name Warren P
(but not Warren Dace). Regarding Stephen & David, I think it is a lot easier to criticize someone else’s polices rather than defend your own party’s ideas, which is the trouble
they’ve been having. Also, I think it was easier to write things when the tide of public support is in your favor like how it was in 2005 & 2006 and it’s pretty evident that the
tide of American support has shifted rightward recently.

Royal Flush, thanks for the chuckle.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 12, 2010 8:38 PM
Comment #308364

WR……the Warren monikers do sound familiar. About mid 2003 for me…and I do agree that it’s easier to be a bit more jovial, or even just tolerant when the tide is going in a favorable direction for us.
It still doesn’t excuse the incessant battering done with what I believe to be barely concealed efforts to “out” a few posters.

Posted by: jane doe at September 12, 2010 10:33 PM
Comment #308366

WR,

You and me have agreed on several things on this blog, we’ve also not seen eye to eye on some, and on some we’ve agreed to disagree, but we’ve NEVER had reason to find the other obtuse or discourtious. Today, it is more and more difficult to find reasonable debate and/or causes with substance. Many who now write here are mere inches from trollville, and stay here only in order to stir up hate and discontent. From a political blog site, it has turned into a mud wrestling contest (and I ain’t talking about pretty girls in tiny bikinis).

I never said, “he did it first”, I merely pointed out that my outburst was in response to his stupidity. I don’t lay down for anyone to kick…not him and not you either.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2010 11:48 PM
Comment #308374

Concerning the right-wing commentators, I just think they just are just salivating right now over the prospects of Speaker Boehner coming. The Left had a similar episode back in late 2008 early 2009 when we were excited over the prospects of President Obama as well as super-majorities in both houses of Congress. The honeymoon for the Republicans will end next spring though when they realize that they are on the wrong side of the American people. By 2012, Americans will actually have experienced the health care bill first hand and their opinion of it will improve. Any attempt to repeal the thing will result in a strong backlash from the electorate.

Nevertheless, I agree that both sides a responsibility to demonstrate courtesy while commenting here at WatchBlog, no one has an excuse to behave poorly or child-like.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 13, 2010 7:21 AM
Comment #308381

Latest poverty numbers are out one in five that’s 20% of Americans now live in poverty. I would like to thank those on the right for making that possible.

Posted by: Jeff at September 13, 2010 11:37 AM
Comment #308388

Jeff…perhaps the credit for the poverty numbers (a link would have been nice) should go to obama and the dem congress. Unless I am mistaken, they are in charge…NO?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 13, 2010 3:24 PM
Comment #308389

Jeff,

It has been the conservative goal forever…Third World America.

You see, the thing about conservatives is, they don’t care whether they have only nickels or if they have dollars. It is all the same to them…just as long as they have ALL the nickles. It’s merely a game of ‘King of the Hill’ to them. A race to the top, and to hell with the bottom. Kill Social Security, sure; quash Medicare, of course; Encourage the wealthiest half percent to become wealthier, even if it makes the lowest eighty percent poorer, why not? The last guy standing ‘wins’.

Do you think the heads of AIG, Lehman’s, Goldman gave a poop about America or Americans? You’ve been dreaming. Do you believe Sam Walton and Teflon Ron broke the back of unions because they loved America and Americans? You are having a nightmare. Do you honestly think the Republican party leadership in Congress has any desire to save the middle class? You’ve been sold a pig-in-a-poke by Glenn Beck.

Twenty percent poverty will never be enough for the right. Eighty percent will allow them to say, ‘WE WON!”.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2010 3:36 PM
Comment #308390

PS:

Jeff, I think that was 20% of our children are in poverty, not Americans. I think the figure for all Americans is between 14% and 15%. What a country…20% of our children are currently in poverty.

Some will lay that to our current President, but that many kids did not become poverty stricken in one nineteen months.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2010 3:44 PM
Comment #308398

RF,
Why it would be easy to say the increase in poverty is a Democratic or Republican problem. Unless you are saying that Congress gets to establish the payscale for all American Workers than one must be forced to look at the fact Management of the Corporation has failed to look out for Labor even at their own downfall.

Yes, we could get Congress to address the problem by raising the hourly wages of the American Worker to $15-20.00 per hour. And though it would greatly effect our ability to compete with nations like China in the short run. Seeing China and others are coming to terms with the need to have economically viable and financially imdependent consumers. I wonder how long it will be before Stock holders and Board Members realize their lives depend on a structured plan to eliminate poverty.

And why I offer no limks in order to prove my point, I do have history and the cheers of millions as Gangsters ruled the Roaring 20’s in Americas’ Heartland.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 13, 2010 7:19 PM
Comment #308407

“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.” -Henry Louis Mencken

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 13, 2010 10:16 PM
Comment #308410

DRR,

If NO party is fit to govern…it doesn’t leave us much wiggle room does it?

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2010 10:53 PM
Comment #308421

Marysdude,
While both the Democratic and Republican Party are fit to govern (taught) I do believe most of us forget that it is what we do as individuals which makes the difference. And though I do not say that to belittle anyone, except for a handful of Presidents and Civil Leaders throughout our history I do believe even scholars would have a hard time proving that one party has lead the way in dealing with out ever changing society.

For example; we can thank Bill Gates for the PC, but to say he lead us to start political blogging, setting up social networks, and whatever else one does with their computer is a leap to far. And the same can be said about most of our Elected Officials. Sure their vote for or against things has informed us and in some cases changed the way we carry oirselves; nevertheless, they have falling short of revolutionizing the American Dream.

And why that is not a bad thing in and of itself, the fact Political Teachings nowadays is geared toward supporting the Status Quo happens to be a matter of (excuse the pharse) Political Ignorance and the wimpness of the Elders of Man to embrace the Ultimate Political Debate.

Besides, how much wiggle room does one need if their goal is to promote Political Enlightenment and step away from Political Stupity? The question now is do we as a nation and a society have the political will to move forward or will it take a Leader of Man who can sell their own Vision of the future over the one most Americans have come to learn.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 14, 2010 8:03 AM
Comment #308424

Marysdude, There is always what the vote was intended for - to oust incumbents responsible poor government until such time as their replacements get the message. Remember, our founders installed the vote in partial response to their inability to replace King George with their vote. They feared the voters, however, and so only gave them the vote for House Candidates, not the Senate or President. We should have matured as a democratically elected government by now.

Wiggle Room? There is always room to hold your own representatives accountable for poor and disappointing governance. Always. It only requires an objective and informed electorate. We will get there eventually. The only question is, whether we get there before our future has been ruined by the Party’s and their special interest puppeteers, or, after it is too late to rescue that future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 14, 2010 8:31 AM
Comment #308425

SD
Just thought I might come back for a bit to see if many Americans are still a bunch of ignorant, agorant self serving,fools. No change I can detect from far and away. Good luck.

Posted by: bills at September 14, 2010 8:35 AM
Comment #308436

Beretta9-
You know, if it wasn’t for the fact that Obama consistently sounds smarter than most people your party’s offered up, you wouldn’t have to try and push insane speculation about teleprompters.

In this case, Obama would fool nobody. A teleprompter of that kind would show Obama text through those panes of glass or plastic tilted at his sides. Any reporter in the room of clear enough eyesight could not only see it was being used by the reflection on the panes, but they would also be able to read his “secret” notes.

Royal Flush-
Your olive branch was for me to agree with you that it was all a matter of personal interpretation.

It’s not to me. You can act all aggrieved over that, but it’s not worth it. I simply see too much objectively wrong with the Republican theories to think that it’s a simply matter of personal opinion. It’s not like I’m seeing a higher poverty rate and simply blaming Republicans because they happen to be conveniently there.

No, I’ve got a firm grasp of the policies that look to be possible. I can tell you how different problems contributed to the overall problem of our economy.

What can you tell me? That you might do well in the next elections? Well I know you might do well. That some weak-water Democrats are feeling your political pressure? I know that.

But here’s what I also know: that the dissatisfaction isn’t focused on liberalism, so much as the fact that conditions in America simply stink. The Republicans think they might be able to duck responsibility, but what will they do? Even the Republicans, who make the inability of government to do good a a cornerstone of their political perspective cannot get too incompetent and out of touch without endangering their future prospects.

You folks are coming back too soon, having not learned the policy lessons of before. You will count on the President not to take the opportunity to slam a Republican Congress over its misbehavior. I wouldn’t count on that myself.

I wouldn’t count on Democrats to just take this one lying down. I wouldn’t count on voters being in a forgiving mood if Republicans think they can get away with the same old stuff.

Republicans have lost many of the recent races because they’re perfectly willing to push their luck on letting objective policy problems get out of control, while they do their politicking, their rhetorical runarounds.

Your party hasn’t matured, and I think over time, it will run out of that generation of Democratic lawmakers that made a habit of deferring to them. Sooner or later, today’s Democrats will get today’s Democrats in Washington.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2010 11:57 AM
Comment #308442

Sooner or later, today’s Democrats will get today’s Democrats in Washington.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2010

This quote from Mr. Daugherty is mystifying to me. The house as presently constituted was elected barely two years ago and yet, Mr. Daugherty claims they don’t represent “today’s” dems. What has changed, the dem voters or the dem legislators?

From what I read, the dem voters are mostly discouraged and many will not vote in November. And, many dem legislators are denouncing obama and the legislation passed by the dem congress. Mr. Daugherty needs to re-examine his statement and add some clarity.

Mr. Daugherty in his comments can’t see to recognize and understand what I wrote about compromise. He continues to insist that only he has the facts and knows how to interpret them. Only one who is extremely arrogant could hold such a notion.

Some facts are indisputable such as 2+2=4 or “the sun always rises in the East.” Other’s not so much. For example; in a two man race one could say the winner was second to last and be correct.

Many times so called facts are what one person decides they are. And, it is with these “facts” that most of us argue.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 14, 2010 1:05 PM
Comment #308443

RF,
Since 2+2 does not always equal 4 and the sun only rises in the East twice a year I do believe Stephen and you are talking about degrees of being right by the knowledge Man holds today. The question you need to ask is where in the conversation does your points cross and where due to ideology they are far left or far right of each other.

Since although it is easier to say 2+2=4 and the sun comes up in the East “Just Because” as one gets older do they not learn the Silent Knowledge and Wisdom of Man?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 14, 2010 1:24 PM
Comment #308444

SD
Just thought I might come back for a bit to see if many Americans are still a bunch of ignorant, agorant self serving,fools. No change I can detect from far and away. Good luck.
Posted by: bills at September 14, 2010 08:35 AM

Hey, bills, nice to hear another voice from the past …and you’re right. Different names, same rhetoric.
Hope you’re well and things are good for you !

Posted by: jane doe at September 14, 2010 1:35 PM
Comment #308447

Since although it is easier to say 2+2=4 and the sun comes up in the East “Just Because” as one gets older do they not learn the Silent Knowledge and Wisdom of Man?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 14, 2010

HUH? And, what exactly is this “Silent Knowledge and Wisdom of Man?”

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 14, 2010 2:09 PM
Comment #308448

I wonder what bills expected to find with his vastly superior, yet humble, knowledge and wisdom?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 14, 2010 2:12 PM
Comment #308450

Possibly the forum we had here before being invaded by the space rangers.

Posted by: jane doe at September 14, 2010 2:52 PM
Comment #308451

Harmony and peace Jane? Must have been boring.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 14, 2010 3:07 PM
Comment #308458

Royal Flush-
If my quote mystifies you, then ask yourself a question: was every one of them elected in the last election.

Let me save you the trouble: they weren’t.

Some folks are trying to run against Obama. I wouldn’t recommend it. Your people are too good at what they do. They won’t relent on a Democrat simply because they muddle their support for the party.

I wouldn’t count out Democratic Party voters just yet. This time in 2008, Obama was behind McCain. Polls might tell you who’s enthusiastic or not, but they are at best a snapshot, a guess, and it might do you some good to consider that not everybody who finds the current crop of Democrats in Washington disappointing finds the idea of Republicans winning a majority in the House an acceptable outcome. And if it does happen?

Well, Republicans expected a permanent majority in 2004. By 2006, their majority was history, because Democrats finally got together. That framework has not gone away. Republicans have battered down Democrat’s spirits, but they haven’t taken them off the field.

Mr. Daugherty in his comments can’t see to recognize and understand what I wrote about compromise. He continues to insist that only he has the facts and knows how to interpret them. Only one who is extremely arrogant could hold such a notion.

There’s compromise where the facts are unclear, and then there’s compromise where the facts are clear, and clearly against a certain conclusion. I offer the facts that I believe justify my opinion, and I offer them freely. I’ve written a number of posts on the matter.

For my part, I do not believe the facts belong to us such that a person can just freely mutate them to fit what we decide them to mean. For my part, I believe facts are what they are. Our perception of them might be faulty, or incomplete, but that doesn’t mean we can simply fill in what we want to fill in to suit our ideology. I believe in logic as being what makes conclusions testable, and thereby what leads us to make conclusions that pass such tests.

I believe it is arrogant to approach a situation as if we can talk our way out of the different problems, instead of actually dealing with them. We must be humble enough to seek out knowledge not merely mold fact for the sake of our political goals.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2010 4:28 PM
Comment #308468

jane doe,

Some still do not understand the concepts behind ‘debate’. Harmony and peace are not necessary, but civility is if the plan is to participate in a meaningful way. If participation in a meaningful way is not the goal, then why bother unless disruption and divisiveness is the goal?

Posted by: Marysdude at September 14, 2010 5:48 PM
Comment #308472

MY post, “This quote from Mr. Daugherty is mystifying to me. The house as presently constituted was elected barely two years ago and yet, Mr. Daugherty claims they don’t represent “today’s” dems. What has changed, the dem voters or the dem legislators.”

Mr. Daugherty’s response, “Royal Flush-
If my quote mystifies you, then ask yourself a question: was every one of them elected in the last election.

Let me save you the trouble: they weren’t.”

Hmmm…is this one of those “new facts” that Mr. Daugherty is so fond of commenting on. Most of us still believe that the entire house stands for election every two years. I wonder when that changed.

Mr. Daugherty then writes; “There’s compromise where the facts are unclear, and then there’s compromise where the facts are clear.”

Very interesting comment about “facts”. If something is a “fact” then it is true and irrefutable. Anyone who denies a “fact” is either ignorant of the fact, chooses to discard or deny the fact, or alters the facts to suit their purpose. But, if it is a fact it remains a “fact” and can not be compromised…as he suggests.

Mr. Daugherty then treats us to comments containing gibberish about facts that are “clear” versus “unclear”. That would seem to imply that some “facts” will become clear in time. Is this silly or what? How would we know it was a fact if it was not clearly a fact?

It is very clear to me now, based upon Mr. Daugherty’s comments, that he wouldn’t know a fact from a fart. It is always sad to find someone, so entrenched in their beliefs, that they can no longer even understand the concept of the word “fact” and often confuse it with wishful thinking.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 14, 2010 6:27 PM
Comment #308476

It is very clear to me now, based upon Mr. Daugherty’s comments, that he wouldn’t know a fact from a fart. It is always sad to find someone, so entrenched in their beliefs, that they can no longer even understand the concept of the word “fact” and often confuse it with wishful thinking… Well It’s clear to me the republicans could not know a fact or tell the truth if it was pushed up the orifice of the place a fart comes from.

Posted by: Jeff at September 14, 2010 7:59 PM
Comment #308481

Dude……on last comment:
Thank you grasshopper….. after I almost choked reading it…

Posted by: jane doe at September 14, 2010 9:11 PM
Comment #308499

RF,
Why I should tell you to go talk to your grandparents about the Silent Knowledge of Man. Seeing the easiest way to explaon it are things that make you go “Hum?” I wonder how often you cut short a debate when it requires one to go past what they have learned in Life and School.

For example; children are taight the world is round and for many years adults did not know any different. Nevertheless, the Space Age tells us the world is not round, but shows us a gifferent shape. And though one would really have to get into studing the shape of the Earth to realize that it does not maintian a solid shape. Try proving the Theory to the Learned and Unlearned of Society.


Hence, as long as parents and politicians insist on useing the Just Because Argument or agree to disagre than not even Space and Time are safe from the Silent Knowledge of Man. For can you truely define the two words?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 15, 2010 12:10 AM
Comment #308506

Henry,

Some folks can’t even comprehend the two words they just read, because they can’t count to two.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 15, 2010 9:13 AM
Comment #308510

Dude…since you seem to understand “HenrySpeak” perhaps you could explain what he just wrote about “Space and Time are safe from the Silent Knowledge of Man”. Good luck with that!

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 15, 2010 11:35 AM
Comment #308514

Royal Flush-
Yes, the entire house stands for election every two years, but the turnover is nowhere near a hundred percent. Hell, it’s nowhere near ten percent, most of the time.

So each party is a composite of different members elected over different periods of time.

Some of the Democrats are newer, less vulnerable to the GOP’s intimidation and appeals. Others are of previous generations, whose political senses were developed in the midst of the rise of Reagan and the Republicans during the eighties and nineties.

Democrats, though, have changed, in the rank and file. The newer Democrats were shaped by Republican aggression to be particular short on their patience with their counterparts. Politics for Democrats, at this point, is filled with the tension of those who accomodate with Republicans, and those who simply want to get into smashmouth political fights with them.

As for the rest of that stuff?

My point is simple: If the facts tell me you’re full of ****, why compromise my position with yours? There’s no point for me to throw the game to you, to muddle up the strength of my argument, just so you can keep up.

The irony here is that I’m more than willing to earn victory in this debate, where you want everybody else to give it to you by way of institutional assistance. Well, sorry, if you want to win a debate with me, you’d better not leave your brain at the door.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2010 11:46 AM
Comment #308518


DS ereht gnikniht peed fo tol A.

Posted by: tom humes at September 15, 2010 12:31 PM
Comment #308534

RF,
How many times have you told someone or your children “Just Because” even though you knew the answer? How many times have you been told “Just Because I said so” by your Elders and Parents even though they knew the answer? Yes, reading between the lines may be harder for most men than women; nevertheless, Humans by Self-Nature has used the Silenr Knowledge of Man to communicate forever.

For example; find someone who speaks a different langauge than you and through a little bit of work both of you can understand what the other person is saying. How is that possibile?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 15, 2010 3:49 PM
Comment #308547

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “My point is simple: If the facts tell me you’re full of ****, why compromise my position with yours?”

Well, you had the facts totally wrong on the frequency of election of house members so why would we not beleive that many of your other “facts” are just mistaken opinion or gross errors?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 15, 2010 6:16 PM
Comment #308665

Royal Flush-
Totally wrong? If I had said that Representatives are elected every three years, I would be totally wrong. If I said that Nancy Pelosi was elected in 1987 to her seat, I would be right. I would not be implying that she did not stand for re-election, which is what you would have readers believe I was saying, for some odd reason.

If you want to invent stupid reasons for dismissing my credibility so you don’t have to mount a decently valid and sound argument to counter mine, go ahead. You’ll make my job easier.

Moving on, my original point is that current movements only gradually tend to remake Congress. Incumbents tend to hold on to their jobs. Now, Republicans might be speeding up the process by knocking off the fence sitting incumbents who would actually compromise with them, so the irony there is great in my mind. Republicans will quicken the process of Democrats becoming less friendly, more assertive as a party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 17, 2010 9:33 AM
Post a comment