Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 24, 2010

STRATEGERY AND THE SHIFTING POLITICAL WINDS.... As most observers have no doubt noticed, political winds can turn pretty quickly. I was doing some research the other day and found a piece noting that the National Republican Senatorial Committee, as recently as May, thought it was likely that Democrats would expand their Senate majority in 2010.

As recently as late July, House Dems were believed to be "sitting pretty" for the midterms.

...CQ reports that the 2010 outlook for Democrats actually looks pretty good and "the only three contests in which CQ Politics rates an advantage to the challenging party are all for seats now held by the Republicans and targeted by the Democrats." [...]

Meanwhile, the geography of the 2010 Senate races is also highly favorable to the Democrats. And given the contrast between ironclad discipline on the GOP side and the "anything goes" attitude on the Democratic side, it looks like for a while yet we may be in a California-style dynamic where Republicans can't win elections but Democrats can't actually pass a governing agenda.

Now, I'm not trying to pick on Matt for this post; that's really what the landscape looked like at the time and it's what CQ actually reported. My point is there's an ebb and flow to political fortunes, not that predictions can look mistaken six months later.

Last summer, it seemed possible, if not likely, that the Democratic majority in the Senate would be larger in 2011. After all, between vulnerable incumbents and GOP retirements, seats in Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Missouri, and North Carolina looked like strong pick-up opportunities. How significantly have things changed? Nate Silver put together an item weighing the possibility that the Dems' 59-seat majority may completely disappear by next year.

In the House, we've gone from a scenario in which a dominant Democratic House majority was practically a given after the midterms, to a landscape in which the list of vulnerable House Dem incumbents is almost limitless.

So, is there anything Dems can do to get the winds to blow back in the other direction? Some aspects of the campaign season are hard to predict -- the strength of the economy will make a big difference, no matter what strategy the parties pursue.

That said, when it comes to Dems and their agenda, we talked earlier about David Plouffe's advice to the party, with suggestions that struck me as sound: "pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay"; create jobs; stand by the stimulus; emphasize reform issues; run great campaigns; and avoid "bed-wetting."

That's a positive, affirming approach. I'm wondering, though, about some of the possible attacks on Republicans.

The GOP isn't in power right now, but the party still has vulnerabilities to exploit.

* Those guys really screwed up the last time.

Republican rule during the Bush/Cheney was a fiasco unlike anything America has seen in a very long time. The party, however, hasn't changed at all -- it's deliberately fought any efforts to improve -- so to reward the GOP in 2010 would be to endorse the same failures. I still don't know why Democrats never chose to label this the "Republican Recession."

* Why turn back the clock?

Nearly every crisis and policy challenge facing the United States right now -- the recession, two wars, a disastrous job market, a massive federal budget deficit, and crushing debt, a health care system in shambles, a climate crisis, an ineffective energy policy, an equally ineffective immigration policy, a housing crisis, the collapse of the U.S. auto industry, a mess at Gitmo, a severely tarnished global reputation, etc. -- is the result of Republican mismanagement, neglect, corruption, or some combination thereof.

The Dem line seems fairly obvious: if the country needs to put out fires, why vote for a team of arsonists?

* "Party of No"

As a rule, voters tend to like candidates/officials who at least pretend to be interested in problem-solving. "Whatever Dems are for, we're against" shouldn't resonate. Most of the American mainstream seems unimpressed by a party that reflexively rejects every idea, regardless of merit, while offering nothing substantive of its own.

* Worst. Ideas. Ever.

Republicans haven't been in power, but they occasionally have presented some genuinely ridiculous ideas over the last year. Resolving the financial crisis with a spending freeze? Voting for an alternative budget that would privatize Medicare out of existence? Pretending global warming isn't real? And remember the truly laughable GOP "health care plan"? C'mon. It's no wonder the RNC's own chairman questioned whether Republicans are ready to be in the majority again.

* "Party of Crazy"

Republicans have spent a year trying to drive away moderates, and taking orders from a drug-addled radio talk-show blowhard. Instead of moderating its message and direction in the wake of humiliating failures in 2006 and 2008, today's GOP moved even further to the right -- becoming the home to Tea Partiers, Birthers, Deathers, Oathers, and "Freedom Fighters."

As far as 2010 is concerned, it would seem Republicans have positioned themselves just outside the political mainstream. (As Charles Barkley said in 2006, "I was a Republican until they lost their minds." It's the kind of sentiment Democratic officials may be tempted to broadcast more.)

Any other possible campaign narratives come to mind?

Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (107)

Bookmark and Share

And it's certainly possible that's the way the landscape would look today, if anything meaningful had gotten accomplished. That's what the people ushered in the Democrats to do - change things. Instead, they ask the Republicans for permission to begin dismantling their iconic institutions, appear surprised when it is refused and then huddle to wait for a miracle.

That's not government.

Posted by: Mark on January 24, 2010 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Trust the Democrats to turn victory into defeat.

On an unrelated but important note -- there is a rogue antivirus software attacking peeps computers over the internet. I got attacked in the early morning hours today, a friend got attacked later this morning. Read about how to arm yourself in advance or get rid of it:


Posted by: karen marie on January 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

You are like chicken little! The sky is falling and oh shit!

Posted by: EC Sedgwick on January 24, 2010 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans have spent decades indoctrinating Americans that the Federal Government is ALWAYS the problem, especially when Democrats are in charge of anything. Democrats have made little pushback... then, or now. This cannot be changed unless the advantages of Progressive/Liberal values and policies are actively touted and the disaster of current Conservative values and policies extensively repeated. It really is the politically similar to Germany or Italy in the 1920's -- and recall how that turned out.

Posted by: gdb on January 24, 2010 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

One thing the Democrats need to get their head around is that so-called "average Americans" do not generally think of themselves as left or right, but as liberal on some issues and conservative on others.

This has always been a difficult concept for the villagers to understand, who just automatically assume that you can do an opinion poll on, say, whether terrorists should be read their Miranda rights, and extrapolate from that whether Americans want single payer health care.

The reality is that the majority of Americans do, actually, want the social services of a government to be liberal, even after the rhetoric about "small vs large government" has died down.

Posted by: squiggleslash on January 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

I think there's a theme Chris Matthews hit on about a week or so ago... ask Republicans what have they done for the American people in the last 20 years.

Over the years, Dems have given us Social Security, Medicare, the Voting Rights Act, Welfare Reform.... what else am I missing. The GOP has done what exactly?

Wouldn't hurt to remind everybody that Obama is trying to do something for working Americans by passing Health Care Reform.

Posted by: T.O. on January 24, 2010 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

bedwetting is in the DNA of Democrats, as is wussiness and inability , in every strand of Obama's genes, to see what Republicans want, to wit, him being seen an absolute failure so they can rule this country for another 30 years just as in the period after Carter

Posted by: banned on January 24, 2010 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Oddly left out of the recommends: Quit kissing banker/Wall Street ball sack. Quit handing taxpayer money, hand over fist, from the the middle and lower classes to the top. Do NOT create a "Deficit Commission" that is actually intended to gut Social Security and Medicare AFTER the mid-term elections in order to give cover to Democraps for destroying, once and for all, FDRs GREAT legacy.

Also not in the list: Fire Geithner, FIRE SOMMERS, do NOT reappoint Bernanke.

All that the list given is is a pile of crap. There is NO change in business-as-usual in it. There is still unmentioned support for bazillionaires over actual human beings. In short, the Democraps are fucked. They still don't get it and their campaign advisors don't get it. WE DO NOT WANT WALL STREET LEFT ALONE AND CODDLED! We do NOT want corporations listened to and given special access and special deals (the Senate health insurance guaranteed profits forever bill).

Oh, and where's our "transparency" that was promised? All I see is secret back office deal and meetings, much like Cheney with oil companies, and no transparency at all.

The Democraps are absolutely and unapologetically corrupt. Same as the GOP. Thus there is no reason to vote FOR Democraps at all.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on January 24, 2010 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats are scared of what people think. Republicans are scared of thinking people.

Posted by: squiggleslash on January 24, 2010 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

It matters not what campaign narratives come to mind if the Democrats are not going to put the message(s) out there in an understandable, compelling way. And they aren't, they've proved themselves to be hideously inept at communicating.

Posted by: Georgette Orwell on January 24, 2010 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

The time for finger pointing and excuses is over, the only thing that stopped the Democrats from passing HCR, is the Democrats. Next election will be bad for all incumbents.

Posted by: JoeSixPack on January 24, 2010 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever messaging Democrats do won't matter as long as they continue to treat it like a cerebral excercise. Republicans go for the gut, they use any means possible (i.e. lying through their teeth / creating illusions of grassroots activism), and they treat their messaging like a professional commercial marketing enterprise.

Steve has the wrong idea. Pointing out how bad the republicans are won't persuade pissed off liberals who feel their agenda is neglected and it won't persuade independents who see Democrats as giving away the farm to Wall Streeters.

A simple fix is to get the party back to what it "supposedly" stands for; fighting for the middle class against special interests. Do HCR by going after big insurance. Do cap-and-trade by going afte big oil. Fix the filibuster by going after D.C. lobbying. And for God's sakes keep the messaging simple, get on the same page, and use buzz words ad naseum.

Posted by: tempered optimism on January 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

frank rich today: "The Obama administration is so overstocked with Goldman Sachs-Robert Rubin alumni and so tainted by its back-room health care deals with pharmaceutical and insurance companies that conservative politicians can masquerade shamelessly as the populist alternative."

Posted by: dj spellchecka on January 24, 2010 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

I just saw a Pepsi commercial for "throwback" Pepsi that is made with real sugar.
If I had my way and was running the DNC I would be rolling out a serious of humorous ads:
"Remember way back when, 2006?"
"Nintendo released the Wii"
"Suri Cruise was born"
"Republican leaders in the House were trying to hide the fact that Congressman Mark Foley was trying to have sex with teenage boys"
"The world found out George Bush's White House had created a worldwide network of secret torture prisons"
"Do we really want to go retro, or do we want better for the future?"

Posted by: flounder on January 24, 2010 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Start talking about deficit reduction. The commission is a good idea. The technical objections all likely true but deficit reduction is a necessary component of winning any future election.

Getting the conversation started for a huge public argument is a good diversionary tactic by both political parties.

Anybody who thinks Social Security or any other basic safety net should be nicked is a complete intellectual idiot and a religious and moral failure, and we can always continue that conversation right here.

The healthcare reform bills before the U.S. Congress are close enough in identity to pass one or the other. They are both deficit-reducers or deficit-neutral as scored, and both of them set-up more exacting cost-control finger-pointing in the near future. Pass one of them now.

The Massachusetts vote shows more concern with overall government attitude to deficits than with healthcare reform. Only 36% of voters want to kill healthcare -- a chunk a little larger than the hardcore right, and all the rest of the voters incuding Coakley's want healthcare reform, they just don't like the sausage-making and all information about the bills has been mislearned from Fox, Rush and the other teagasbaggers.

Only 8% of Brown voters completely oppose the U.S. reform bills. 13% of Brown voters don't like the dealmaking and the politics of how it is being handled. 7% of Brown voters said it's too complicated--they don't understand it--and there needs to be better information. Only 7% of Brown voters say it's not what the people want.

Washington Post Kaiser Harvard poll

So pass the healthcare reform now, because after three months, the emotions will be entirely dissipated.

This comports scientifically with Lee's Three-Month Rule, which is that, while our emotions are so consuming as to be eternal while you are having them, they subside in the middle-term, and in three months you can get the American electorate to believe the exact opposite of what they believed before. I developed this rule after years of empirical study. Yep, there it is. We're all idiots.

The fact is, what the Democrats have to do is NOT DRAG IT OUT with reconciliations. This will exacerbate the sausage-making meme. But small-town op-edders are already salivating around the country to have the finished bill in front of them, so they can look at the trade-offs and decide for themselves, and they can intelligently discuss it, and they can beat these baggers back to weak tea.

People will find out it's a healthcare reform that is full of BIPARTISAN ideas, pretty much what the Republicans might pass in another era, (though considering their actions on Medicare part D they wouldn't pay for it) -- and the main reason they are against this healthcare reform it is to deny the Democrats the political success that will come of it.

In fact if healthcare reform were going to destroy the Democrats, the Republicans would WELCOME its passage! We know from the John Roberts court that they are not adverse to overturning things.

I'm sorry all the progressives here don't like the bill, but there will probably be another Avatar movie someday, where the blue aliens are invaded by green tendrils, and they all climb back up the floating-rock-ladders to the pterodactyl rookery where a suicidal hero-misfit screams "You dastardly Conservatives" before diving-off butt-naked into the big magnetic field -- after removing his shoes and all the contents of his pockets, of course...

Yes all the economists agree that as a matter of Keynesian stimulus-spending, more government consumption is the way to go for another 6 months or year. Business investment will not work with this low capacity-utilization. We saw that mistake when the Bush Tax Cuts extended the Bush recession an extra two years! But capacity-utilization will eventually head upwards again, and then the country will be looking at business investment for capital expansion, and therefore looking at rising interest rates.

Why do I write "all the economists agree?" Because I think John Cochrane mentioned as much, in his diatribe against Krugman's NYTimes-mag takedown of Chicagoism, I'm not going to go re-read it to verify this memory of mine, because most of it seems to have imprinted itself upon my dimming lobes as an embarrassing waste of time. Life on Earth, once solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, may have ascended, in its tonier realms, to salutary, pure, nifty and beautish -- BUT it's still rather SHORT.

I have also argued over the years at DeLong's, at here, and at the others ad nauseum that putting every other breath into "deficit-reduction" is a good way to walk into the future. This is the inhale with the exhale, and thus proper regulatory circulation.

What liberals really ought to do, and here I will get back on my soapbox for about the umpteenth time this last five years, is to develop a theoretical explanation for policymaking that uses transaction-cost economics to argue that some kinds of government programs, ones that are highly targeted at a specific problem and have small bureaucracies, (though not necessarily small spending,) can be efficient innovations, and save costs.

In other words well-designed public institutions can be formally the same as any industrial technological innovation that reduces transformation costs (which are not dissimilar to transaction costs, by extending Newton's Third Law.) The radio receiver makes sound waves out of the electromagnetic spectrum, and that increases your music-listening freedom. Similarly Social Security saves us from a big intrusive means-testing bureaucracy with the concomitant moral hazards on all sides, which would continue eternally for the 50% of the population that fails at taking risks in every generation -- and this SS automatic stabilizer increases our time of freedom because we're not worrying about retiree-policy all the time.

The transaction-cost freedom agenda!

Posted by: Lee A. Arnold on January 24, 2010 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Or you could plaster every available free space with the 2001 to 2009 jobs growth chart and ask them if they want to go back.

Posted by: JoeSixPack on January 24, 2010 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Continuing my train of thought....

Steve is saying that Democrats can change the "political winds" by pointing to Republicans and telling voters how bad they are. That won't work. Much better to show voters how bad they are by putting them back on the defensive side of their big money/ big business counterparts. Time for Democrats to pick up the pitch forks and torches for a while. It may be too late to do this with HCR, but everything else needs to be done from the "Republicans are for those guys" lens. A good start would be legislation to counter the SCOTUS decision while pointing out that it was Republican judicial activism that got us this "big business drowning out the little guy's voice" decision to begin with.

Posted by: tempered optimism on January 24, 2010 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

I am waiting to see if the tax cuts Bush put in expire as Obama promised. Since he seems to have compromised on everything else, he may give into the conservatives again.

Posted by: Jane on January 24, 2010 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

the GOP was in trouble due to a bad brand and an internal civil war between the leadership and the activist base (as we've seen with NY-23 and other areas where third party uber-conservatives are running against the GOP in primaries and in some cases in the general election). Pretty much all the dems had to do was sit pretty do nothing stupid and wait for the GOP to finish imploding.

Instead they decided this was a GREAT time to start a civil war with their own base. The senate rankings of seat most likely to flip over at 538 used to be 50-50 now its heavily democrat.

Way to go guys. Hope the pay off from the insurance industries was worth it.

Posted by: Tlaloc on January 24, 2010 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Play offense. Put the ball in the hole.

Benen: The GOP isn't in power right now, but the party still has vulnerabilities to exploit.

I think not. Steve's list is tired, not wired. There's no stickiness there. It's name-calling politics without a club in one's hand. That dreary list is a confirmation of this fact: The Dem party is out of gas. The iconic donkey is moribund, rattle-breathed, and halfway to jackass heaven...

There is only way forward here: Pass HCR and play offense.

1) Senator Obama needs to quit stalling and over-dribbling. The shot clock is running down, and dribbling rhymes with dithering. I know presidenting is hard, but he needs to get the House liberals into the White House and start making some promises and cutting some secret deals to bring them into the fold. Crikey: promise them acres and acres of new wilderness protection in their states. Whatever. But get this done. Or there is going to be only one conclusion in everyone's minds: Nice fella. But this dog don't hunt. In which case: Both he and the party deserve to lose in 2012.

2) Dissenting liberals need to show some of the party discipline they are always bashing Reid for not enforcing. If Krugman, Kleiman, Klein, Drum, Marshall, and Benen all say pass the bill, that ought to be evidence enough for any dissenting progressives. No? Still think you know more than these guys? What if four dozen of the nation's leading healthcare minds, including the professor who brought the public option to light say pass it? Think you still know better? Yeah right. Please: Your personal ignorance is kowtowing to your stubbornness in a conservatroid kind of way. Yuck.

Clearly, the only well-lit path forward from here is to pass this bill and play offense. The Democratic Party needs this closure. HCR is like a club, a substantial weapon in hand with which to brain republicans. Pass it, and you enter the 2010 melee fully armed and ready to do some bashing...

Without it: It's bed-wetting time again, and blaming those dirty republican-bullies for making you pee all over yourself...

Posted by: koreyel on January 24, 2010 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

You put wildly popular things up for a vote. For example:

1) Minimum wage increase.
2) Ban on denying HC for pre-existing conditions.

Then you force the Republicans to pass Democratic priorities or vote against the mainstream desires.

The problem is that plenty of Democrats are also slaves to our corporate masters, but wear the "D" label because it happened to be the path to power.

Posted by: David on January 24, 2010 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Democratic party and Obama started pissing on liberals and progressives since the day they got elected in Nov 2008. They bailed out big banks with more money, took care of establishment Dems (unions) with more bailouts, completely ignored all the wrongdoing from Bush era, and started compromising big healthcare principles such as single payer universal healthcare, strong public option, prescription reimportation, and open dialog. They took liberals in the house and the senate for granted while bending over backwards to accommodate conservative Dems and even some Republicans.

And now the establishment Dems are howling once more that liberals are obstructing HCR by refusing to pass the Senate's version. Liberals and progressives have already compromised enough. Time for Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to twist some conservative Dem arms so they can put some "reform" back into Healthcare Reform.

And get rid of Geithner, Summers, and Bernanke. Obama already owns the economy because of the big steps he took in 2009 under advice from these wall street insiders. Why couldn't Obama help smaller, responsible banks instead of throwing money at big banks? The smaller banks could have helped the economy grow by lending to local businesses. Instead, Obama's team propped up the big banks who are now taking Bernanke's near 0% loans and lending at 3+ % to the US Treasury to mint profits. Why would they lend to real businesses and take risk when they can make free 3% by acting as a middleman between the Fed and the US Treasury? Why can't US Treasury directly borrow from the Fed? Obama was elected to ask some of these fundamental questions and initiate change to reform the financial system.

When the public sees bankers move on to new heights (pay, bonuses, importance) despite their recklessness, they know their President and their Congress has failed them. Hence the outrage.

Posted by: rational on January 24, 2010 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

I would add that the republicans are the party of lockstep. Any republican politician can campaign on any position he likes, be a fine individual person with a great personal history -- but if he gets to the congress he will just add to the unanimous votes the party has on every issue -- no matter how mundane. They are not individuals, the person campaigning is a chimera for lockstep vote no republican.

Posted by: patrick on January 24, 2010 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

I think Dems should bend over backwards to make Republicans laughing stocks for even daring to advertise themselves as "fiscal conservatives" (if it works, it may have the added benefit of scaring the Blue Dogs into submission). The overwhelming evidence is that Republicans are actually "borrow-and-spend" plutocrats, and they should be labeled as such--over and over and over again.

Posted by: Chris on January 24, 2010 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Here's one:

Reagan added $2 trillion to the national debt
Bush I added $1.4 trillion
Bush II added $5.6 trillion
The current debt (est.) is $12 trillion

(2+1;4+5.6)/12 = 75%

So 3 Republican presidents are responsible for 75% of the national debt.

(If you bring all the dollars up to "present value", it's even worse. I'm being kind.)


Posted by: hby on January 24, 2010 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

"Democratic party and Obama started pissing on liberals and progressives since the day they got elected in Nov 2008."

Even before the election if you count the FISA bill where Obama promised to filibuster it then not only did not filibuster but ended up voting for the bill. He did more to protect telecoms from punitive measures for spying on americans in violation of the law than John McCain (who didn't show up to vote).

That was a gigantic ^%$&ing clue as to who Obama was and what he'd do in the oval office but the supporters just didn't want to hear it.

Posted by: Tlaloc on January 24, 2010 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Face facts. Obama REALLY screwed up. Bush has been out of office for more than a year. Democrats "own" the White House. Let's take a look at what Obama has accomplished. Here is only some of what he owns....

A stimulus package he vowed would keep unemployment from going higher than 8 percent

Giving up a missile shield and getting nothing from the Russians in return

Bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York to stand trial

Dithering...YES, DITHERING...on Afghanistan

Screwing the Chrysler bondholders

An abominable health-care bill opposed by a MAJORITY of Americans

Hiring Janet "The System Works" Napolitano

Hiring Eric "Mr. Pardon" Holder

Failing to follow through on Black Panthers intimidating voters on Election Day


Failed outreach to Iran

Failed outreach to Muslims

Apologizing for America tours

Van Jones

Obama owns every item above, NOT ONE of which he can blame on Bush or the Republicans. So there are EXCELLENT reasons for Obama's anemic presidency. Borrowing from "Seven Days in May," Obama is not just a weak sister. He's a criminally weak sister.

Barack Obama is THE WORST president EVER inflicted on the United States.

But by all means ignore the message of the town halls and the closely run NY23. Ignore Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Come November 2010, "it's a hard rain a-gonna fall."

Posted by: Jack Davis on January 24, 2010 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Full speed ahead with the corruption? With the Louisiana purchase, with the Cornhusker Kickback, with the $60 billion union payoff, with the broken promises and lies. Defend the corrupt stimulous bill that filled the pockets of the special interests and has driven us to 10% UNEMPLOYMENT! With spending hundreds of millions of dollars on Circus trials for murdering terrorists in NYC. Oh and blame George Bush for everything. Ignore the voters of MA and show the American people how Arrogant and Contemptous of the voters Obama and the Democrats really are? Don't even seek to hide it? Good luck with that!!!!

Posted by: valwayne on January 24, 2010 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

That's some sweet trolling there Jack.

From the first year, I seem to remember...

EPA Carbon emissions regulations

The Lily Ledbetter

A Supreme Court nominee

The largest progressive spending program, ever

Car bankruptcies that went ahead of schedule and netted the government money

Successful bank bailouts (though dubious bank regulation)

Unemployment finally hitting bottom
No 9/11-style attacks anymore, instead we get bungling underpants terrorists

One step away from major HCR (unpopular because Dems cannot close the deal, and when acted they are thoroughly enjoyed in their state incarnations by the right and left (see, Brown, Scott)

Respect of rule of law, by treating terrorists on our terms (law) and not theirs (force), reducing the political attraction to terrorism to potential recruits

Reducing spending on things we don't need: missile systems, military expenditures, etc

Posted by: Chris__ on January 24, 2010 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Obama has a long ways to go to be the worst president of the US. What he is is a depressingly similar president to Bill Clinton but unlike Clinton, Obama cam along at a time when we might have gotten a real progressive and made real head way and he's completely pissed that away.

Posted by: Tlaloc on January 24, 2010 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Chris, consider the Sotomayer issue. Obama has a SCOTUS seat to fill so he goes out of his way to pick a centrist candidate and not a lefty ideologue. Great plan. The nomination was still brutal and we end up letting the court drift right. Obama keeps trying to pretend he's president of a fictional version of the US where there's a loyal opposition. That'd be sort of charming if it wasn't also responsible for him completely assing up things that should be no brainers.

Posted by: Tlaloc on January 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

But don't we have 9 months to the elections, over which time the economy will undoubtedly be improving, Plouffe can do his stuff, and the Republicans overplay their hands? Just a wee bit early to surrender?

Posted by: bob h on January 24, 2010 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

You might want to do a little more research before you make fun of the Republicans about "pretending" global warming isn't real - the dominoes have already started falling on how the data was deliberately manipulated by the few scientists who thought up that lovely little scheme.

You aren't going to see it on the MSM - yet. However, it is going to come out eventually, and there are scientists on both sides of the pond who are culpable. Just this week it was revealed that the "glaciers are melting" comment was made off the cuff by someone who isn't even a climate scientist.

As I said, look it up....

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX on January 24, 2010 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

"the dominoes have already started falling on how the data was deliberately manipulated by the few scientists who thought up that lovely little scheme."

No, they aren't. There are ignorant people who have no concept of how science works who believe that global warming is a giant conspiracy. Those people are idiots manipulated by cynical industries to try and create an obscuring cloud of doubt about climate change.

Posted by: Tlaloc on January 24, 2010 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

Here is an article with LOTS of links to other reports:


And just for grins, a few more:




Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX on January 24, 2010 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

During the roundtable on THIS WEEK, Matthew Dowd offered his advise for Obama:

"Get in a fight with the Democrats", because he claims that "the Democrats right now are less liked than the Republicans are in Congress". (They're not)


Posted by: Joe Friday on January 24, 2010 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

I'd like to see the Republicans put on the defensive with the following provisions of the HCR bill: Why do Republicans oppose making quality healthcare more affordable and accessible? Why do Republicans want to withhold insurance from people with pre-existing conditions? Why do Republicans want to deny tax credits to small businesses to offer insurance to their employees? I'd also like to see them face similar questioning for their obstruction on environmental issues: Why to Republicans oppose efforts to mitigate the calamitous effects of accelerated climate change? Why do Republicans oppose lessening our dependence on fossil fuels?

Posted by: Nancy on January 24, 2010 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

What has been forgotten is that the democratic party has controlled the purse-strings for the past 3 years, having taken over the House in 2006. Give the Democrats some credit for adding to the national debt.

Posted by: independent on January 24, 2010 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

The Republican party does have a major problem. They are to the left of the public. That is why the Tea Party, a party that doesn't exist, has a higher approval rating that either Dems or Repubs.

Still I don't see how that could be good news for Dems.

Posted by: MikeS on January 24, 2010 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

"As far as 2010 is concerned, it would seem Republicans have positioned themselves just outside the political mainstream."

Yes, we've just won a MA Senate Seat that was held by Kennedy.


We sure are isolated kooks.

Posted by: LD on January 24, 2010 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

What was the unemployment rate when the Democrats took over the House and Senate in 2006? What was the GDP growth that year? What was the unemployment rate when they got the "Great Majorities" of 2008? What is the unemployment rate after 4 years of Democrat control of Congress? People like you never want to acknowledge that all the spending and laws have been passed by Democrats since 2006. That fact is what independents like me are looking at now. In 2008, the Democrats said all they needed was a bigger majority and the Presidency. Well they got it and look what we have now.

Posted by: Bill Bailey on January 24, 2010 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

Some good ideas here; I particularly liked flounder's political ad @ 3:55. A few individuals who would probably die before ever voting for a progressive policy are rolling in the flopsweat and are only motivated by enjoyment of Democratic discomfiture, but on the whole the atmosphere is guardedly constructive.

Still, though, I don't get why Obama sits by and lets people rant about the "big giveaways" of taxpayer money to banks and other lending institutions. Economists who supposedly know more about national wealth and consumer confidence say that it saved the U.S. from a depression. Krugman has no reason to love Obama - did everything but campaign in print in the Times for Hillary and was bitterly disappointed when she didn't get the nomination, in fact - but is generally admiring of Obama's fiscal policy. Paul Krugman accurately forecast the collapse of the housing bubble more than a year before it happened; if everyone had listened to him, there might have been considerably fewer bankruptcies, and perhaps it wouldn't have snowballed the way it did.

Everybody hates seeing the banks get a break in return for their greedy ways, but the fact is that if the banks had failed, you wouldn't be struggling out of a recession now. You'd be putting cardboard in the soles of your shoes to try to make them last longer, and begging for a handout. Unless you own the home you live in already, that is, and have a safe job.

Bush's extravagance, arrogance and inability to follow the complications of finance put the U.S. in a position that nothing but a huge infusion of cash would have fixed. Anybody who was in power would have had to do it, and if President McCain had simply continued Bush's program of tax cuts and let the market regulate itself, the country would have collapsed. It wasn't far from it.

Obama needs to do a better job of explaining that in terms the average Joe Lunchbucket can understand. Bush was evil, supremely confident in his arrogance because there were enough other get-it-while-the-gettin's-good Americans to keep egging him on, and there was never any doubt which path he'd choose between spending and staying comfortable or financial austerity. Nobody is too big to fail - nobody. Fiscal responsibility is the hard choice, but it will always pay off. The leader who forces it on the country is never popular, but it's the right thing for the country.

Posted by: Mark on January 24, 2010 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats should give the Republicans a taste of their own medicine. The Republicans ran a horrid campaign against Obama and the Democrats in the 2008 election so that the country could get a taste of how wonderful life would be under control of the Democratic party. Now the country knows.

My advice - lose big. Lose the Congress. Give the Republicans sixty votes in the Senate. Lose the Presidency in 2012. That'll show 'em!

Posted by: Porkov on January 24, 2010 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

Dem's tend to vote for Smart Idiots, and the GOP voters like Dumb Idiots.
When they get to D.C., Smart cancels out Dumb, and we end up with a bunch of idiots.

Anyone read the WAPO story Atrios is quoting? About how Obama wanted to create an advancing tide of legislation by getting the GOP to understand it was in their interest to join the popular president?

As I said, Smart Idiots.

The Obama legislative agenda was built around an "advancing tide" theory.

Democrats would start with bills that targeted relatively narrow problems, such as expanding health care for low-income children, reforming Pentagon contracting practices and curbing abuses by credit-card companies. Republicans would see the victories stack up and would want to take credit alongside a popular president. As momentum built, larger bipartisan coalitions would form to tackle more ambitious initiatives.


Posted by: SteinL on January 24, 2010 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

I hope the Democrats do follow the advice of the author because that will insure their defeat. The authors just doesn't get it. The voters are tired of stimulus bills that don't work, giveaways to UAW (cash for clunkers) and bailouts for people who were irresponsible. The voters don't want special backroom deals for medicare in certain states, and they don't want special exemptions for unions for health taxes. They don't want sweetheart deals for mortgages for legislators and they don't want leaders of committees who make the rules being under ethics investigations. The voters have a strong sense of fairness and the Dems have violated that at every turn.

Posted by: jschmidt on January 24, 2010 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

That's it, idiots. You keep on convincing yourselves that everything is fine. If you say it enough times, you think everyone believes it. Your hatred for Bush, the venom you spew about decent people who have different opinions that yourselves, your idiotic attacks on Sarah Palin (why do you fear her so much, because she's right?). Keep on ignoring the wave that is washing over you, please. It is entirely possible that BO was the best thing that ever happened to this country. Finally, this generation got a taste of the socialism that has failed, every time and everywhere in the world where it has been tried. With a little luck, this will be socialism's last gasp for a very long time.

Posted by: mark Alliegro on January 24, 2010 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

Denial, thy name is Republican.

Bush, and the GOP, owns this current economic mess for all history. Just like Hoover owns the Great Depression. Deny it all you like.

Posted by: hby on January 24, 2010 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

Those teabaggers sure did good in NY23. They forced the loss of a seat that had been GOP forever.

Posted by: JPS on January 24, 2010 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

But don't we have 9 months to the elections, over which time the economy will undoubtedly be improving

People look at mild recessions of recent past and assume that an economy can recover from 9 months. Well, this recession has already lasted longer than any recession in recent history, so it is clearly telling us that it is a bit different this time. You don't get a quick recovery when we are still bleeding jobs (because of population growth the economy needs to generate 150K jobs per month just to stay in place, so any number below 150K job growth is increasing the number of unemployed Americans). China and India are still sucking away our manufacturing and professional jobs with their lower costs (and lower quality).

Obama may not be able to turn the economy around, but what he shouldn't be doing is taking resources away from a fragile economy to feed his banker and union special interests. Prosperity is a relative concept. When everyone feels pain, it is a new normal and prices/expectations adjust accordingly. Problem is when politicians maintain the earnings and asset prices (like stocks) of some at the expense of the vast majority. It creates friction and unhappiness. That is what we are experiencing right now.

Posted by: rational on January 24, 2010 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

If the Dems ever get an idea about how to USE power, then they will have a chance on KEEPING it. After several decades of demonstration, they STILL haven't figured out how to deal with the mau-mauing by the Repubs. To bad for the rest of us.

Posted by: M. Carey on January 24, 2010 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

So this is where all the lunatics go.

Here's a memo; Most Americans do not want the government monkeying around with health care.

Most Americans do not want the government providing liberal social services.

Most Americans, and pay attention to this, especially those Americans who grow the food and generate the power for the folks who live in the cities pontificating about the lowely unwashed in fly-over-country, are sick and tired of paying the way for people who do nothing but demand more.

Brown's election is just the tip of the iceberg. This is not about Republican or Democrat, it is about liberty and freedom and if you think that clinging to a government that feels that breaking the backs of its productive citizens with taxes and absurd policies so that a bunch of non-working, socialist, celebrity-worshiping losers can leach off the folks who do the work is a grand idea, well then I really pity you.

My advice, learn some American history. This nation's bloodiest conflicts have been against itself and no amount of propagandizing or wishing it were not so is going to change it. Either the elite learns what Brown's election was about or the nation heads further toward a divided future that can only end in bad for everyone.

You think it cute to call Tea Party People Teabaggers? HA HA HA, Cornwallis probably thought it was quaint that the colonials thought that they could beat his redcoats.

God help us all.

Posted by: colibri8 on January 24, 2010 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

The Mass. race turned on Christmas Eve when the dems ratified healthcare legislation by bribing the good senator from Nebraska. No matter how well this kind of swapping of favors comports with history, it was a bridge too far for most Americans.

The legislative process is never pretty, but this single act characterized a process to many Americans which is as ethically disgusting of the acts of the business community which got us into the current mess. Harry and Nancy forgot to break out the lipstick before they pushed the healthcare pig across the finish line. For all the behind closed doors machinations, the product which emerged betrayed the ugly, ugly process by which it came to life and could not hide what transpired out of public sight.

I suspect that, even more than people's disdain for the legislative product, the legislative process is what energized voters to get the hook for one more candidate who would join Harry and Nancy in the pig sty.

Posted by: mrdon on January 24, 2010 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

This analysis of the MA election from an AFL-CIO guy on the scene seems entirely plausibe, entirely relevant, and if these problems are left unaddressed (note how "Pass. The. Damn. Bill." - without lockstep reconciliation amendment - would *not* help in that regard), entirely lethal politically:


Posted by: tatere on January 24, 2010 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

The Republican message for this fall is simple and one the Democrats can't hide from.

Sure Obama inherited a mess from Bush.

And Obama's policies and lack of leadership took a bad situation and made it worse.

I don't see anyway the economy turns around in time to save the Dems bacon in the fall. In the eye of the public they have failed and there's not enough lipstick to put on that pig.

Posted by: Matt from CT on January 24, 2010 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

I have turned critical of Obama, but I still think he is way better than McCain. McCain would have been an unmitigated disaster, with a Sarah Palin vice-presidency. I believe that is why the public still trusts Obama and approves of him.

Obama got a wake up call. He is a smart man. He will learn the right lessons, as long as he trusts his instincts (over those of the establishment Dems and Wall Street banking establishment) and executes his vision.

Posted by: rational on January 24, 2010 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats need to present a narrative that reaches far beyond the failures of the Bush administration to encompass the ideology that Republicans have been pushing since Goldwater: the effective destruction of the federal government. They need to remind Amercans that conservative Republicans declared nothing less than war on the American government, a war that was implemented under Reagan and culminated, we can only hope, with Bush 2. The current economic crisis is simply one consequence of their destructive tactics and campaigns. The hidden message, of course, is that Republicans hate America for what it actually is (a diverse and increasingly non-white-majority society) and that their decades-long attacks on the American government amount to terrorism. Any objective analysis of their policies would affirm that over the last 20 years they have destroyed the lives of more Americans than all the enemy combatants, terrorists and domestic criminals combined. The Democrats need to make the Republicans take full ownership of their war against America, and that they are offering an alternative--government that works to serve the well-being of all Americans.

Posted by: ewendt on January 24, 2010 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Correction to above, last sentence: The Democrats must force Republicans to take full ownership of their war against America, and explain that they are offering a stark alternative: government that works to serve the well-being of all Americans.

Posted by: ewendt on January 24, 2010 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

When Obama was elected the first thing I said is, Thats okay, the only accomplishment Obama will have in the next 4 years will be the destruction of the Democratic party.

Right now, my words are dead on target! Obama is turning out to be worse than Carter and we all know what happened after Carter, 3 republican presidential wins by a LANDSLIDE!

Obama cant continue to blame Bush/Cheney, its been over a year and it's making him look incompetent. So? Bush/Cheney caused a mess...we know that all ready, tell us how you are going to fix it! Obama is not experienced to deal with it, all he can do is whine about it and make it worse.

Democrats also cant use that the republicans are the party of No because that too will backfire. It was Obama who said he was the man who could bring the 2 parties together and he didnt. By calling the republicans the party of no, he is actually saying that he is not a leader. In fact, Obama couldnt even lead his own SUPER MAJORITY party to pass his health care. The voters are not stupid, they know Obama didnt need one single Republican vote so who cares if they say no or not. What the voters see, is an inept leader. Even Bush could lead and pass bi-partisan legislation, like it or not.

The other grave concern Obama should take into consideration is the terrorist threat. He has gotten very lucky but his luck will soon run out. Hes not interrogating terrorists anymore and everyone in his administration is afraid to even use the word. God help this country but I have this burning feeling in my gut, much like I did about Obama destroying the democratic party, (much like I had a gut feeling there was going to be a very bad earthquake 3 days before Haiti happened) that there is going to be another nasty attack on this country. When that happens, Obama and the democrats are done for good! And this country will be a much better place!

Posted by: TooManyVotersRemorse on January 24, 2010 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

hby, I can play your silly game regarding the deficit...taking your $$ figures as gospel, the three Rep presidents were responsible for $8T but that was over five terms of office (including three recessions). So that makes the average of about $400B/yr. The big O has already piled on well over $1T to the debt so he's spending at more than 2.5 times the rate any of your "big spender" repubs did without any discernable impact. Keep your head in the sand blaming others, call for more spending and debate health care ad nauseum...I'm sure that'll do the trick in Nov.

Posted by: dms on January 24, 2010 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

What alternate reality do you live in? The GOP is outnumbered by 18 in the Senate, 69 in the house, has lost the WH, has a minority of governships, gets no love from academia and is shouted down by ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the WaPo, the NYT and most regional papers. They have been slaughtered the last two electoral cycles. Bush/Cheney have both been in permanent retirement for more than a year. Your solution for Obama's problems is to: find better ways to attack the GOP, starting with references to Bush and Cheney? Beyond moronic. This is why people like me get so sick of publications like the Washington Monthly - because they only talk to people exactly like themselves.

Posted by: Lance E on January 24, 2010 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

Most Americans do not want the government providing liberal social services.

Nonsense. Overwhelmingly large majorities of Americans favor such "liberal" social services as public education, Social Security and Medicare. Oops, almost forgot: you wingers think government should keep its socialist hands off your Medicare, right?

...those Americans who grow the food and generate the power for the folks who live in the cities pontificating about the lowely unwashed in fly-over-country, are sick and tired of paying the way for people who do nothing but demand more

Well, now that is a good one. If you bothered to check, you'd find "the folks who live in the cities" subsidize you people in the heartland to the tune of hundreds of billions a year. Nearly all the blue states are net exporters of dollars to Washington, while the red states where "real" Americans live receive far more in federal money than they pay in taxes.

The joys of an RCP link, eh Steve?

Posted by: Jasper on January 24, 2010 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

Here are some things Democrats could have done:
1. Fix welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are four things the Democrats created which are not only bankrupting the nation but are full of fraud.

2. Take the government out of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac. Corruption from the Democrats created the massive mess for both businesses. Such corruption included forcing both businesses to lend to people that they knew couldn't pay the loans back and to use AIM loans to do it. The Democrats claimed they were loaning to people that could pay and that was a lie.

3. Ban walk away foreclosures which were created by Democrats to help the poor. It mostly helped the rich which could walk away from a housing investment with little cost to the investor.

4. Make countries that have universal insurance to pay for theri illegal aliens in the U.S. Why should the U.S. pay through Medicaid to help illegal aliens from Mexico when Mexico has universal health insurance? Great Britian has a lot of illegal aliens in the U.S. too.

5. Make countries pay for their illegal aliens in the prison system and using other government services.

6. Stop closed door meetings. Obama said there should be transparency, but the Democrats in office are publically going behind closed doors (such as their fight with CSPAN) and stopping Republicans from joining in.

7. Enact tort reform even though Reid and Pelonsi are both against it going so far and wanting to ban states from getting federal aid if the states want to pass tort reform.

8. Allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. It's the Democrats which are trying to prevent that from happening.

9. Force Reid to take in nuclear waste in his district. Europe can have nuclear energy because they ship the waste to Russia. Make other Democrats allow wind farms or other alternative energy businesses in their districts. Sen. Kennedy was one of those senators that claimed to be an enviromentalist while banning wind farms in his district. He wasn't the only Democrat claiming to be an enviromentalist only to shoot down alternative energy. Sen. Feinstein just shot down a solar farm in California. The biggest alternative businsses are in red states with Texas as a leader.

10. Come up with a real plan for Afghanistan. Obama spend a lot of time claiming to come up with a plan for Afghanistan and ended up repeating a speech he made six months earlier. Then there is problems because his new speech has not been supported by his cabinet. While he said the troops will be leaving in 2012, his staff says it's conditioned based. Sometimes Obama says there is a deadline, but he has also said it was conditioned based. Ignore liberal defeatism. Two Years ago, librals claimed that Iraq was lost. Now Iraq's government is fully operational. Liberals claimed 10 years ago, that Colombia was too weak to handle FARC which controlled 50% of Colombia. Now FARC controls less than 2% of Colombia and Colombia has even sent troops to Afghanistan. FARC hid in the jungle, used porous boarders and used drug money to finance their operation. FARC was even better armed than the Taliban. Colombia fought FARC for 40 years but it eventually won or at least came as close to a win as one could get since FARC is hiding in Venezuela and Ecuador.

Posted by: Greg_D on January 24, 2010 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Between Nov 2000 and Nov 2006, there were more consequtive quarters of economic expansion than at any other 8 year period in the history of US, even after the diaster of 9/11. Joblessness under 5% nationally, low taxes and a strong dollar. These are the facts from Bush presidency. If Obama wants to keep his job, he will pivot from the socialist, class warfare agenda and adopt the policy of the greatest Democratic President of the 20th century....cut taxes, because "a rising tide raises all boats."

Posted by: kiwinc on January 24, 2010 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Jasper- you should check who runs those blue states that are giving all that money away. They are mostly controlled by Democrats who never met a tax they didn't like and have never been able to cut a budget. The Democrats have ruined, NY, CT, Mass, California and Michingan among others. They have Democratic majorities in their legislatures and the Dems in Congress are acting the same way.

Posted by: jschmidt on January 24, 2010 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

T.O. everyone of those things you mention have led to the bankruptcy of America so that is not something to be proud of and the voting rights act I believe took republicans to get passed so you might want to check that one too. The bottom line is divided govn't has produced the best results because they were born out of compromise. If you believe only one side has the answers then you are only fooling yourself. The truth it takes a mix of both to get a real solution.

I think there's a theme Chris Matthews hit on about a week or so ago... ask Republicans what have they done for the American people in the last 20 years.

Over the years, Dems have given us Social Security, Medicare, the Voting Rights Act, Welfare Reform.... what else am I missing. The GOP has done what exactly?

Wouldn't hurt to remind everybody that Obama is trying to do something for working Americans by passing Health Care Reform.

Posted by: T.O. on January 24, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Posted by: kabookey on January 24, 2010 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

The party of No will remain on message in 2010. And sorry to say, the dems look ripe for a turkey shoot. Without substantive program successes that the average voter can relate too, the democrats have the practical dilemma of rebutting the political equivalent of "if she doesn't drown, she's a witch" diatribe. It will be interesting to see if, and if so, when and how many democrats start to distance themselves from Obama.

No to Socialism
No to Liberals
No to Big Government
No to Tax and Spend
No to Deficit Spending
No to Carbon Taxes
No to Democratic version of HCR
No to Being Soft on Terrorists
No to Over Regulating Wall Street and Main Street
No to Apologizing for Being an American

Also, "We'll reach across the aisle when the democrats wouldn't. We'll make a contract with you, America."

Posted by: gone_west on January 24, 2010 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Please, continue to believe this crap, that Democrats only need to clarify their message and explain how ruining the country is actually good for its people. Obama is an idealogue, he is not Clinton, he has no idea how to pivot because he believes that Liberalism and Socialism are the only way to freedom. There is not one statesman in the Democrat party that will go to this neophyte and explain logic to him that will save him, and if there were, he would not listen because he believes that he is the One. You are doomed, but please, continue to listen to these "Experts". We conservatives love it!

Posted by: Mark Brunton on January 24, 2010 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

kabookey- look at the social programs the Dems passed-SS and Medicare both in deep financial trouble. Welfare reform was passed largely by a Republican Congress during the Clinton Admin. And the health care bill was a large scale giveaway to certain states and the unions. It did nothing to cuts costs. It taxed business and people during a recession no less. And Obama wants to bring us the cap and tax bill again during a recession. So The Republican need to force Obama to move to the center to get things passed that will benefit the people not the union or the Senators that needed to be bribed to vote for healthcare. Typical Chicago style politics has really ticked off the voters.

Posted by: jschmidt on January 24, 2010 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

OK, who forgot to put the manhole cover back on? There's human sewage all over this thread.

Posted by: FlipYrWhig on January 24, 2010 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

Did you conveniently forget that Scott Brown just ran as a VERY CONSERVATIVE Republican and won - in Massachusetts?

Posted by: Zachary Smith on January 24, 2010 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

This article could've been written by any partisan democrat hack. The party of NO are the DEMOCRATS! Let me explain. All the nonsense, i.e. global warming in particular and the BS agenda Obama has been pushing all year has been rejected! So the party of no is the democrats.... mean NO we will not accept that our ideas are not accepted by most Americans. You have it backwards. Speaking of indoctrination, (in response to some other comment) democrats have been indoctrinating school children for decades.

Posted by: Dano on January 24, 2010 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

And one other thing, Dems should also say, 'We've stopped fellating our Wall Street donors.'

Posted by: Ploof on January 24, 2010 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

"..democrats have been indoctrinating school children for decades..."

Really? How did you escape? Home schooled? Well, at any rate, I say bully for them.

Posted by: bobbyp on January 24, 2010 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Bush didn't call for regulation against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as earlier as 2003. McCain never demanded the same in 2005 and DEMOCRATS Never denied regulations of these two organizations. Obama never took the second most funds, second only to Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, from Fannie and Freddie. Surely this is all the GOP's fault!! lol

Posted by: Drew on January 24, 2010 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

.."because he believes that Liberalism and Socialism are the only way to freedom."

Hey, that's great! So do I!

Posted by: bobbyp on January 24, 2010 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

You seem to forget a couple of things when blaming Republicans. They were so light weight that when Bush was pushing in 2003 to get Freddie and Fanny under control the Dems blocked it and the Repubs ran to the corner. Then again in 2006 they tried and our current Dem. leaders voted for the filibuster to block it again. Those damn Republicans!! Can't you see it is all their fault.

But wait didn't you say the Republicans suffered "humiliating failures in 2006 and 2008." That would mean the Dems have been running the Congress for over 3 years now and we have 10% unemployment and exploding debt. So they control the Congress and the money and it's Bush and the Republicans fault.

Might want to dig a little deeper into the think tank.

Posted by: James on January 24, 2010 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

The time for finger pointing and excuses is over, the only thing that stopped the Democrats from passing HCR, is the Democrats. Next election will be bad for all incumbents.
Posted by: JoeSixPack on January 24, 2010

Joe, it may be true that democrats stopped democrats.... but who stopped those democrats that made them stop the other democrats? Hmmmm... the American people in their sound rejection of the Obama administration in all places, Massachusetts? Hmmmm..... also, if next election is going to be bad for ALL incumbents isn't it odd that neither Coakley or Brown were incumbents? So far demos didn't do to well in NJ, VA and MA. Strange huh? Wishful thinking, YES!

Posted by: Dano on January 24, 2010 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

I once read the opinion that Nixon was an unusual man who could look on himself with absolute dispassion and completely misjudge the man.

He has plenty of company here. The gaps between egos and levels of competence here is staggering.

I bet a survey with honest responses would show that the "progressives" who comment here and elsewhere have a profile similar to that found for the typical KOSSACK: a 60-year old white man who is either a low-level government worker or an aging hippy. Low social status does not match their self-assessment, hence the sour odor of a disappointing life.

The most astounding thing to me is that some actual politicians may actually believe some of the nonsense repeated ad nauseum here.

Conservatives are giddy with hope that some of those politicians might be foolish enough to actually do some of the things advocated here. My opinion is that Obama is the only one narcisstic enough to believe that more skillful for forceful use of words will carry the day.

I have mixed feelings about that: Democrats deserve a thumping equal to that the Republicans received. Unfortunately, that would put the Republicans in power, and I don't think they have fully absorbed their lesson, yet.

Posted by: steve on January 25, 2010 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

When Obama and the liberal left betrayed the very voters who put them in power----they deserve pretty much what they are getting! After all, this is the same administration who gave the banks and brokers over $787 billion of taxpayers monies which ended up as bonuses due to lack of controls on how it is disbursed. The same administration who now want to impose bank fees which will be conveniently passed on the the taxpayers who lent this banks money? You have to be the dumbest of the dumb. Ramming healthcare reform which will only cost practically everyone higher premiums and rationing of healthcare and yet, Obama and his liberal cohorts still have not listened to the results of Scott Brown's election victory in Massachusetts? You liberals can be as tone deaf as you wish but, 2010 mid terms will be here soon enough and I don't see myself from voting more of you out as you do not represent me nor do you represent the majority of Americans although, you guys are too dumb to see that!

Posted by: Virgil on January 25, 2010 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

"Party of Crazy"....right

Posted by: Brian on January 25, 2010 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

Really? How did you escape? Home schooled? Well, at any rate, I say bully for them.
Posted by: bobbyp on January 24, 2010

No, no home schooling. Who controls the unions and who comprises most of the academic world? It's a fact liberals control public education. When professors openly push an ideology on their students it's not really a secret. But, hey surprise bobbyp! It's a fact, like democrats can't seem to actually be honest with why they were rejected in Massachusetts, so instead they'll just be delusional with the message they were sent.

Posted by: Dano on January 25, 2010 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

Most people in america still get warm fuzzy feelings about free enterprise, capitalism, small governments --- all things that are anathema to progressive liberal ideals.

Heck, some even have the audacity to think that governments cannot create real jobs, that only the guys working in the trenches, the entrepreneurs, the small business guy --- that these are the only guys who can create jobs. How dare they?

That's the problem isn't it? Americans have too long a successful history with capitalism and the concept of equality in opportunity, so selling the advantages of socialism and equality in redistribution of wealth to them will take time, something that Obama rushed too quickly to implement.

It's strange to think that when the country is falling apart, the middle class americans are less interested in taking money from the evil rich and mostly just concerned about getting the country to grow again. To be a great country again. Maybe they're just blind. Or maybe Karl Rove was wrong. Maybe deficits do matter, and before you know it, a trillion here, a trillion there, and more people will start to wonder who is going topay for this. Will this be the first presidency to run up a $6T deficit in 4 years?

And though everyone wants to do the right thing to reduce carbon emissions, more than a few people were still surprised when the EPA made CO2 a pollutant. The concept of "I breathe, therefore I pollute" is not quite a positive message for a people used to thinking of their greatness. That's the main distinction between Reagan and Obama isn't it? While both got in amid anger at financial collapse run by the incumbent party, Reagan somehow made americans think they're a great nation.

And Obama just reminds us why we should loathe ourselves, that we pollute the earth by simply existing.

Posted by: jackB on January 25, 2010 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

All of what you said is true: party of no, worst ideas ever, party of crazy - and yet the Republicans stand to gain substantially in this year's elections. Maybe some time in the future Democrats can start winning elections again based only on the fact they aren't Republicans, but in order to win now they need to stand up for someting. Anything you wusses! Being the party of "pragmatism" sounds great on paper, but in practice it means you are just a mooshy squooshy muddle that leaves the impression that you would sell your own mother in a backroom deal. Wake up and grow a spine. It has become far too hard for many people to even hold their nose and click the lever next to "D".

Posted by: Jude on January 25, 2010 at 12:47 AM | PERMALINK

Unless the Dems present and fight for a seriously good-faith plan to reform the financial sector, nobody will, or should, take them seriously. Health care reform is a great idea, but it's obvious that they are using it as a diversion to dilute financial reform.
Health care might be broken, but it most certainly is not responsible for the current state of our economy.
The fact of the matter is that current and past dem and repub reps have completely sold out to the special interest lobbies.

Posted by: oswald on January 25, 2010 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

No wonder the left is pulling the Democratic party into the abyss. The discourse here in the marginal Washington Monthly ranges from the merely imperious to the deeply delusional.

Benen, never one for positing a thoughtful approach to any issue or challenge when an utterly oblivious one will do, stakes out this winning strategy for 2010: "Ignore everything we Democrats have been doing and blame Republicans for everything." And by everything, I mean *everything*. He even manages to fit the collapse of the US auto industry in there. I'm surprised he didn't mention the earthquake in Haiti and the fall of Rome.

Progressives are upset that the country seems to be rejecting their solutions and standard bearers. Or no... their interpretation: Democrats didn't pursue our solutions in pure form but allowed them to be adulterated; otherwise, America would have come to know the wonder of our worldview and thanked us.

Fine. Stick your fingers in your ears and sing "Yankee Doodle." Not much of a political strategy, but apparently the best that most of you can manage. Apologies to my few liberal friends here who seem capable of some honest self-assessment.

Posted by: Detroit on January 25, 2010 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe the Obama administration cleverly gave the banks enough rope to hang themselves, and now they can proceed with a clean-up with the public 100@ behind them, and knee-jerk Republican opposition on this issue will hang the Republicans, too. It's been a great set-up. So, liberals, stop being so pure. This president is dealing eith the art of the possible, not playing games. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The American public is so tired of gridlock. I think when we voted for Obama we wanted change more than we wanted bipartisanship with the increasingly wacky Republicans.

Posted by: Tina on January 25, 2010 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

"They need to remind Amercans that conservative Republicans declared nothing less than war on the American government,"

Stupid lying democrat, that is all that you are. You are no AMERICAN, just a democrat traitor. You can't even spell AMERICAN. WTF? Can you spell your own name?

I can't imagine what a miserable existence it must be to be a democrat or call oneself a democrat. I blindly and ignorantly voted straight democratic for 16 years and to this day I am a registered democratic AMERICAN and not once have I ever called myself or even allowed anyone to call me a democrat. I've never defended the party of democrats or supported them other than my ignorant voting in the past.

As far as I'm concerned the party of democrats are gutless lying traitors and Bush should have rounded up the pukes and had them shot. I'll never vote democratic again besides that party no longer exists.

I'm an AMERICAN not a gutless lying democrat. The party of democrats is nothing but a perpetual fraud. They don't serve AMERICANS or this Country. They are irrelevant, frauds and thieves. They only steal from the productive so they can pretend to care with all their entitlement BS programs. They have to buy relevance the same way they are buying votes.

It is the democrats who have declared war on AMERICANS when they attacked Bush and our Soldiers in the middle of a war. Democrat dope fiend in the MINORITY and out of POWER. Never forget what they did....


Obama is a stupid lying MOFO, molesting the minds of children and raping their ears with his lies. Somebody done got a hold of his big ears and filled them full of Marxist crap.

Democrats are the enemy of this Country and of hard working AMERICANS. They have proven it themselves in words and misdeeds. It's time they pay.

Posted by: RobLACa on January 25, 2010 at 2:08 AM | PERMALINK

The name alone highlights exactly what's wrong with this country today. Democrats who have had the majority in the WH and congress care should be focused on the minority? Not solving problems, but launching political attacks. Right, that's what we send them to Washington for.

Dude, you're part of the problem

Posted by: PA on January 25, 2010 at 5:23 AM | PERMALINK

"create jobs; stand by the stimulus; emphasize reform issues; run great campaigns;"
May I suggest to add "make better weather, everyone rich, eliminate cavities and let everyone choose the color of their skin", at least that would beeasier ...

Posted by: CrisisMaven on January 25, 2010 at 7:16 AM | PERMALINK

dms - only a Republican would consider the US debt to be a silly little game. It was Reagan after all who legitimized the use of deficit spending ("Deficits don't matter. Reagan taught us that." - Dick Cheney). Obama has put up a high deficit his first year, to stem the tide of the disaster that Bush left. True. But Bush had an even higher deficit the year before, and still managed to plunge us into the abyss.

And your logic is as poor as your arithmetic. Reagan and the Bushes racked up $9 trillion, not 8. Do the math.

Thank you for reminding us that 3 Republican presidents brought us 3 recessions. Two of those being the worst and second worst we've had since 1930.

I remind you again that it took only 3 Republican presidents to run up 75% of the US debt. That includes the cost every war, every recession, and the Great Depression.

Posted by: hby on January 25, 2010 at 7:29 AM | PERMALINK

"Between Nov 2000 and Nov 2006, there were more consequtive quarters of economic expansion than at any other 8 year period in the history of US" - kiwinc

This stupid tripe is making the rounds among the lesser lights of the right lately. First off, it's a carefully worded phrase, designed to disguise the fact that Bush had ZERO growth over his eight year term. Second, the most quarters of REAL economic growth happened under Clinton.

Posted by: hby on January 25, 2010 at 7:33 AM | PERMALINK

Damn-it. I missed all the great conserva-spew coming out of Limbaugh's minions over at RCP, and all because I was so selfishly watching football and enjoying my Sunday.

Posted by: oh my on January 25, 2010 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

I think a campaign narrative Democrats should use in 2010, esp. addressed to independents, is "give us a chance." Obama has only been in office for a short while, he is working to do the things he was elected to do, the country is in a big whole because of the bad policy decisions of the last administration, and the things we are trying to do take time. If you turn on us because results don't come immediately, then you make our country ungovernable because our representatives are always looking over their shoulders and afraid to make long-term decisions. We have a plan, we're working on it, give it time to be successful.

Posted by: Eric on January 25, 2010 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

4. Make countries that have universal insurance to pay for theri illegal aliens in the U.S. Why should the U.S. pay through Medicaid to help illegal aliens from Mexico when Mexico has universal health insurance? Great Britian has a lot of illegal aliens in the U.S. too.

LOL. Mexico doesn't really have universal health insurance. In 2006, they enacted a program that will begin to cover all people born after 2006 and in 2009 they enacted a program to universally cover pregnant women. Their healthcare is, like the U.S., based on a free market system and available to only those who can afford it.

Actually, Canada is the better example. Canada enjoys full universal healthcare and rather than Canadians running across the Southern border to "illegally obtain American medicaid" the opposite is true. Canada has a rather strict standard for allowing citizenship. Most Americans wouldn't qualify.

Posted by: oh my on January 25, 2010 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

This has to be left wing site! Many comments shows how out the touch the left is! They are pretty good at insults though! IT IS NOT HOW DO DELIVER THE MESSAGE, IT IS THE SUBSTANCE (LACK OF) OF THE POLICIES STUPID! The American people are right of center and when extreme left agenda is pushed, they push back. That is what happenss! People still think it is matter of communication? Well, they do have a gifted orator who never misses any opportunity TO CAMPAIGN. It is a matter of fact that Obama is The Campaigner and Chief, and guess what? The American people are not buying it. Go ahead, go on attack, people are sick and tired of it. And it is showing, even in MA!

Posted by: FanDaElis on January 25, 2010 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

I would like very much the left to run on "Give us a chance!" strategy! It sounds like a whining! Go ahead, run on such strategy. It is laughauble! The left is clueless! They can not even process in their minds what happened in MA. And the amazing thing they think they are highly intelligent!

Posted by: FanDaElis on January 25, 2010 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

GOP: The Party that Refuses to Change.

Let voters know that it was the GOP which refused to negotiate, refused to cooperate, refused Obama's efforts to create real change.

The GOP keeps trying to say it's Obama who didn't bring change. It needs to be said that they fought it tooth and nail, and that even a modicum of good will on their part would've helped make change happen.

Posted by: chris on January 25, 2010 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

liberals just don't get it. The election of obama wasn't an indication of a national desire to become socialist; it was a repudiation of an unpopular president. Go back and check the approval ratings of the Demo controlled congress for the two years previous to that. We weren't any happier with them! The voting body is the one static; political momentum is the pendulum...and it contiually moves as it reflects the results of eletions based on promices that are impossible to keep.

Posted by: ncarrizo on January 25, 2010 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Let's look at the real supporters who voted for Obama.

There is a belief in some circles that somehow, the american public discovered that free enterprise principles didn't work, and that the american pendulum had swung towards more progressive socialist ideas.

These people now are postulating that the loss in Mass is because Obama did not pursue MORE progressive socialist agendas and that his base abandoned him. I believe this is a very basic misunderstanding what happenened.

1. The turnout in Mass was the highest in decades for a non-presidential election, this was not a low turnout affair hijacked by the radical right.

2. Even a majority of union households voted for Brown.

3. The vote among strong party affiliation went along party lines, but the real change was the independents.

4. When Obama showed up for Coakley, it was now clear to everyone what is at stake --- Obama made the vote a question on his policies.

If you look at the entirety of the Mass outcome, the only conclusion is that the centre middle america --- the independents who voted for Obama in 2008, now voted against him. And this happened in Mass, which makes it very hard to ignore.

What does this really mean? I think first of all that in 2008 middle america got sick of the GoP ruining the economy and voted for change.

I also think that, even in Mass which heavily supported Obama in 2008, this middle america saw what was happening with Washington and got unhappy enough to reverse their Obama vote in 2008.

So this is the crux that really has to be discussed. Can washington govern from either extremes? (the loony left progressive socialist, or the loony right dog-eat-dog hearless capitalists).

Clinton showed that in modern times, the only successful way for progressives to govern is to be fiscally responsible while pursuing social progressive goals.

IE: Clinton made it clear that being fiscally soundness was more important than PCness --- and this makes sense : without the resources available, major progressive liberal initiatives will end up like what happened in Venezuela.

The real mistake here was not that Obama did not accomplish enough progressive goals --- look at the EPA making CO2 a pollutant, this will lay the groundwork for a carbon tax that will force america to consume less oil.

Some believe that in the short term, it will cause massive hardships. Others believe that in the long term, it will create massive new jobs.

Both might be right, but the timing of the current landscale makes the idea of green jobs in the future difficult to quantify, explain, or believe.

So what is left really must be the conclusion that middle america strangely did not believe in the cornerstone of progressive liberal principles : that it is unfair that the downtrodden masses are exploited by the rich class. Somehow, middle america believed (right or wrong) that they only want equal opportunity, and that if they work hard, someday, they can be part of the rich class.

This is the real danger of the myth of the american dream, and why it runs counter to the progressive ideals that inevitably settles on more central planning and more redistribution of wealth.

As long as you have a large group of middle america that still believes in this american dream of working hard to better oneself, you cannot convince them that unchecked borrowing to pay for new programs, government that takes care of them from cradle to grave, taxing the rich till there are no more rich class --- these things won't work for them, they still believe that if they work hard, someday, they or their children will be rich too.

That positive idealism (some call it a myth) when placed next to the pessimistic ideals presented by the progressives (that we are all polluters and by our very existence, are destroying the planet) is too powerful to kill off in one year.

Perhaps after a few more years of Obama, through careful manouevers and crafty policy, you can weaken it enough, hollow it out so that people no longer believe in this idea that they or their children can someday be rich (and perhaps become part of that class that exploit others?).

The american dream is very strong. It takes time to kill it and replace it with a different dream.

Posted by: jackB on January 25, 2010 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

T.O. The democrats did not pass welfare reform, they voted against it. It was Repubs who voted overwhelmingly for it. Same with the Civil Rights Act that the phonies in the democratic party like to take credit for, Southern dems would have killed it but over 80% of Repubs voted for it. Check you facts before spouting.

Posted by: JM on January 25, 2010 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Can we just get *something* done???

As an editorial cartoon in the SLO Tribune today:

It's the Party of No versus the Party of D'oh.

Wake me when the adults get here.

Posted by: Mike Zarowitz on January 25, 2010 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

hby, just on the off chance you're looking for the riposte. Didn't say I was an R, just making fun of your fuzzy math. Sorry, off by just $1T but in today's democratic congress, that seems to be considered petty cash. Guess that means that the O is only responsible for 50% of the remaining deficit. Isn't that great?

Posted by: dms on January 25, 2010 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats, particularly the really leftist politicians and their supporters (many who seem to comment here) have a lot to learn if they want to ju jitsu their way to an advantage after the Scott Brown debacle.

If you want to compound the damage, further alienate the independents, and guarantee a bloodbath in November, by all means double down and push ahead.

They are as much in denial as the Republicans; both of whom seem to want to read the tea leaves and somehow see good omens for their own biases.

Let me discuss just one example: healthcare legislation. The Dems complain the Repubs are the party of "No" and won't be nice bipartisan participants. Obama seems to think bipartisan means they have to climb onto his bandwagon, not that both sides participate in deciding what parts of a wagon can they agree on. But he has no bandwagon because he abdicated to Pelosi and Reid, who haven't a clue. Independents see the failure of transparency and failure of common sense. Americans may want some healthcare/insurance reform, but that doesn't mean they want what is sitting there in the legislation now, like a used diaper in a hot car. If the Party of No can keep the Democrats from driving us over the edge of the cliff on this, then more power to them. I subscribe to the PJ O'Rourke view of power and government (whiskey and car keys and teenaged boys).

The Republicans are making the mistake of thinking that the independents are theirs for the taking, and can be co-opted into the Republican party. A pox on both Democrats and Republicans! Neither is capable of offering this country anything positive without packaging it with their own bundle of toxic ideological poison.

I think both major political parties are making huge assumptions about the large bloc of independents, and subsequently making huge mistakes in strategy and tactics. The Tea Partiers are going to prove to be a difficult bunch to herd, but with any luck they'll damage a lot of Democrats and Republicans in the process. Which can only be good for the country.

Kind of funny that anarchy and chaos are preferable to either major party getting their way.

Posted by: ruralcounsel on January 26, 2010 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

It appears that Obama is going to double down on his progressive ideas for the nation. If he really means what he says, and this is not just a teleprompter malfunction, the nation will have to send him a stronger message in November.

He'll like that message even less, and in all honesty, the GoPs haven't spent enough time in the wilderness to learn humility to be voted back. But if that's the only option left to stop Obama's ideas, there will be enough people who will make that happen.

This is a pity, because Obama is the embodiment of the American Dream, where a kid from a single parent family pulls himself up by his bootstraps,stays in school, works hard and look at him!

The system that Obama wants to 'fix' is not broken --- there is fairness and opportunity for those willing to work hard, he is proof that america is truly a land of opportunity.

But middle america doesn't believe that this should be a land of entitlement.

The fix Obama wants to enforce IS about entitlement and progressive redistribution. The american middle senses that they've elected a socialist, and it's apparent now that they do not want to move this far left.

In fact, instinctively, people see that spendings not directed towards infrastructure for growth is wrong --- subways, bullet trains, intenet, fiberoptics, these things are of lasting beneft to all, and should be valid areas to spend stimulus money --- it's what Keynes would have argued created a lasting persistent and bigger multiplier effect.

But where did the spending go? They went to propping up jobs of unionized state workers, unionized auto workers, cash for clunkers (which while a popular bribe, was not the right stimulus).

It's not that hard to understand middle america's distrust of progressive liberal ideas --- it's this deeply ingrained belief in fairness that success should not be handed down, it must be achieved through hard work, and right or wrong, today, washington is pushing a set of policies that they believe has nothing to do with fixing the economic climate so we can have growth again.

I think what makes it worse is that Obama tried to sell a package and also promise people that nothing will change for those with existing health insurance.

If he was just up front and very simply said, "Universal Coverage is the right thing to do, we should all be prepared to cover these costs". Then, most people, even if they disagree, would have more respect for that honesty, but instead he says things even he doesn't believe now, and we all sense that he is not being honest.

And that really saddens those of us in the middle who wanted him to succeed. Even his supporters must be surprised at the large gaps between his promises and his actions. People can disagree and still respect you if you're honest. But if you consistently try to mislead others, your goodwill will be depleted. And it looks like Obama has depleted much of the goodwill that he earned all his life.

Posted by: jackB on January 26, 2010 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Only the uber left still cling to the Obama brand of Fasism. Control is all he and his lefty lemmings ever desired. Maybe it's time for "chicken little" to be reinvented.

Posted by: Eugene Boyanton on January 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

You dont get re elected by blaming the other guy when your at the helm. Did democrats seriously believe republican would get behind these outdated statist ideas. Let get history straight. The budget busting Social Security Medicaid and Medicare pushed and enacted by democrats and the financial crisis started with the government getting into the mortgage business through fannie and freddie and they were protected from basic accounting audits by democrats. Let's no play the the finger pointing game because every one has a hand in this mess. BS walks

Posted by: The Expert on January 26, 2010 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

May I remind everyone that the Democrats have the MAJORITY in both the House and Senate and until the Scot Brown election, a Senate MAJORITY the Republicans couldn't stop? And they still couldn't get anything done...hmm, hmm, hmm

Posted by: R Kelly on January 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly