"opposed by a majority of Americans"? Who does he think he's kidding?

These people are kooks.

Flashback - 2001

Bush, standing at 90% approval ratings.

Both VA and NJ had gubernatorial races going on.

Dems won in both GOP strongholds.

Does that mean the country shifted left?

Why are we paying attention to this clown anyway.

Creating its own reality is a nice euphemism for DELUSIONAL!!!! These people are simply amazing.

What you all fail to understand is that Michelle Bachmann IS the center of the Republican Party at this time. She really does represent the mainstream of GOP thought and likely GOP voters.

So, by Gerson's lights, GOP victories in VA (a heavily GOP state to begin with) and NJ (where the encumbent was widely despised for poor performance) really do signal a shift to his vision of the "center." Of course, what this also means is that Republicans now think that the American Nazi Party represents the right, while the far right is some yet undiscovered group of planetoid groups that have yet to coalesce. Think Orly Taitz.

In slightly blue V, Creigh Deeds ran against HCR and climate legisltion, and lost anyway.

I one of te reddet distrits in the country, Bill Owens campaigned in suport of HCRand climate legislation, and became the first democrat elected in the district in nearly 140 years.

What was Gerson talking about again?

If the pundits said it, it must be true. Then you look at issue poll results, and you realize that the center-right position in the US must be what Henry Waxman and Barney Frank believe, and what the Republican Party believes is the far-extreme right.

I was going to write to Gerson about the "indifference" comment, but on closer review of the Snow transcipt it doesn't look like it was ever suggested that Bush wasn't watching the returns. Here's the whole relevant part:

Q What is the President's mood like today about the election?

MR. SNOW: The President is in a good mood. Let me tell you what will be going on with the President today, because a lot of you are interested in that. No planned public events. He'll be having dinner with Brad Freeman and some members of staff. Karl Rove and a few others will be up in the Residence tonight. The President will be making phone calls.

But we are not anticipating any public statements out of the White House. Look instead for the Republican National Committee or the House or Senate committees in terms of responding to what's going on with elections. They're the ones that will be handling state-by-state, return-by-return, and so on. You can expect to hear from the President tomorrow, details TBD.

Q What do you mean by phone calls? You're talking about to the winner --

MR. SNOW: He'll be talking to candidates, typically what you do on election night.

Q Tony, if the Democrats do take the House control --

MR. SNOW: We don't answer "if control" questions.

Q There would be a phone call from the President, presumably, is that right?

MR. SNOW: The President makes phone calls on election night. I'm just not going to get into hypotheticals, but --

Q Can you quantify how many calls, to how many candidates?

MR. SNOW: No. I think it's -- I think this is something that you sort of play by ear. There is no "to do list" on calls. I'm sure the President is going to talk to a lot of people for whom and with whom he's campaigned. He'll be talking with House leaders. But, no, I don't have any real sense.

Q Will there be any opportunity to see him watching results tonight?
MR. SNOW: I doubt it. No plans for that, no.

On the contrary, Bush holed up in the residence with Turd Blossom would rather suggest that he was watching. I do think Gerson is an idiot and a hypocrite of the first order, just not in this case.

Just sayin'.

Glad to see that Steve singled out Gerson's sorry excuse for commentary in the Post today. Here is what I said myself on the Posts' on site:

Sometimes I wonder if even Gerson believes his own BS.

But the obvious partisan hackery seemed particularly thick today: "By creating deficits unequaled as a percentage of the economy since World War II, by proposing to nearly triple the national debt in the next 10 years, by using the economic crisis as an excuse for the massive expansion of government authority over health care, Obama has become a polarizing."

And this from the guy who wrote for THE most polarizing figure since public opinion polling was invented?

Am I the only one who is tired that so many writers at the Post have partisan conflicts of interest? Even on those few occasions when Gerson tries to come off as impartial (the "both sides are equally to blame" kind of thing) it is almost always by way of setting up an argument so that it benefits conservatives in the end.

The right tried to rehabilitate Nixon for 30 years. They're certainly going to try with Bush, since many on his staff like Gerson were relatively young. We will never hear the end of it.

The alternative to constant rehabilitation is to admit that you worked for the worst president in American history, a man who was widely loathed by the entire world for his stupidity and immorality --- and all the while, you thought he was a pretty righteous dude.

Gerson: under dickhead, it says see him.

Hmmm ... how far right must we bend? Most elected Democrats are to the right of Richard Nixon. His own plan for health care reform, to give one example, is far to the left of anything on the table proposed by these supposed radical leftists.

I live in a "red" -- very "red" area. But when I actually question what it is people think of as important, invariably it's the Democratic platform that would be more likely to be helpful. (& keeping in mind that I'm not about to proselytize for the Dems because I think they're a bunch of corporate whores all-too-willing to sell voters up the river for some of the lovely corporate largesse.)

All that being said, I utterly hate what the Republicans have done to this great nation and would like to see them marginalized until they are forced to concede their many errors, and begin to reform a platform more in keeping with reality & the needs of the people.

I do like Gerson's tip of the pen to the French "monarchy" however. I suspect it's a snide two-fer to reinforce Obama's "elitism" and his general .. ah .. foreignness. (He's a Kenyan, you know.) But oftentimes, during the NY-23 campaign, the way the various Republican zealots were so willing to purge and eradicate their own kind, reminded me very vividly of the French Revolution. As channeled by the Keystone Kops.

what do you expect Gerson to do? He's a right-wing pundit. He has to toe the line, no matter what. You keep fighting the good fight and hope no-one notices that you're stark-naked, in pretty bad shape, with a near-microscopic schlong.

That's Gerson.

:D Especially good comments today. ^Raising an appreciative glass^ Well done!

"...opposed by a majority of Americans, with almost no support from the other party -- ..."-Gerson

WTF? Gerson is so out of touch with the mainstream it appears he doesn't even read the polls. His imagination is what is real not the facts. I hope no dem falls for such stupidity. All they need do is remember Rove ranting about how dems who oppose the war will all lose in the '06 elections...just the opposite happened.

The only dems being defeated or that will be defeated are those running as republicans.

Upon close analysis of the votes cast in these two state, two congressional and otherwise local elections, I am wagering that generally we will find the decisive factor was an abysmally low turnout (even when compared to the last comparable off year race) by Democratic, and Democratic leaning independent voters. If so, the question we must answer is what events and tactics, other than the obvious (incumbents do poorly in recessions, etc.) suppressed our vote? Is it possible that the 24/7 radical propanganda from the right over the last 10 months and its effect on the Congress, is having some negative effect on our base, as well as a positive effect on theirs. If so, this deeply polarising effect would directly contradict Gerson's claim that Rethugs' success proves they are 'moderating'. By moving insanely to the right, the Rethugs are poisoning the process and keeping moderate voters away from the polls. Because they have more extremists in their ranks than we do, the result, at least in off year and local races, is low turnout right wing victories. If this thesis is right, their radicalising tactics are unlikely to work in Presidential years and less likely to work in even numbered years. In short, this year's victories - consistent with Obama's continuing strength in the polls and other evidence of Rethug unpopularity - may signify no real improvement in the Rethug position with the larger electorate.

I see ... Yesterday, while the GOP House leadership called Dem HCR bill terrorism and vowed zero GOP votes, it was being endorsed by AARP and the AMA. ... oops. I guess the 'ideological center' isn't anywhere near where Gerson thinks it is.

Further on the question of Democratic turnout this time and to improve it see

http://www.observer.com/2009/politics/political-necessity-climate-and-energy-policy

Gerson is a ridiculous man's ridiculous man.

Thanks to a heart attack before age 40, Gerson has been living on the lip of the grave from an unnaturally early age. Remind you of anyone? That's right: Cheney. Makes you wonder whether that sort of stress is the path to mental health.

That said, I always love to hear wingers go into their "center-right country" spiel. When we stop hearing that, it'll be a sign they're starting to face reality.

I hear Republicans declare that Bush was not a real conservative -- and that's true. What I want to hear is how the current crop of Republicans would have done 2001-2008 differently: spend less on military? push for bank regulations, re-enact Glass-Steagall? enact a war tax? reduce or eliminate tax cuts?

If we had journalism, journalists would ask Republican candidates these questions.

2006, nothing. Ask what W. was watching on Election Night 2005.

A center right country when your candidate to win has to run television ads that doesn't identify himself as a member of the GOP. I don't think so.