"For her part, Gillibrand doesn't sound especially worried about Senor, given his discrediting role in the Bush administration."

Ummm...Rob Portman is leading in Ohio over the Lt Governor and the Secy of State

I live in Oregon and from what I can tell Ron Wyden isnt in any danger. Our local public radio station had a bit about this yesterday. For some reason, I dont think a gay tea partier is going to be much of a threat. Yes, seriously, there is a gay tea party candidate who is thinking of challenging Ron Wyden.

Re: Whitman -- It wasn't just "odd," it was damaging. The local press turned on her, linked her refusal to take questions to other refusals -- to produce her tax returns, for example. She looked foolish and puppet-like: asked a question, she turned to what must have been handlers off camera and asked (my paraphrase) "What do you want to do about this?" One of the usually placid local anchors observed, again my paraphrase, "It didn't look like she was in charge of her campaign." Also, she looked awful -- limp longish hair, a bland, too soft face, horribly bored with the process. I was, um, startled by how bad and how clumsy it was.

Ben Smith, Politico: "Gillibrand is seen as a weak candidate"

Prediction (and you heard it here first): If Senor runs, Gillibrand will kick his ass all the way to Baghdad.

I'd like someone to explain to me Ron Wyden's various conceptualizations of health care reform. He has sounded all over the map this past year. Appears to be a good guy at the moment...

Crist's woes are due to the fact that Republican Party is intent on purging the party of non-crazies. There are only a few left, and most of them are pretending to be crazy and hoping nobody will see through them.

Wyden is great. I am from a neighboring state and we watch him all the time. He is not 'all over the map'...he believes in single payer BUT believes that if we get it PASSED, something on the BOOKS then we can 'fiddle' with it later. If nothing passes we'll wait another 40 years for a chance.

Hey! Let's talk about the Chamber of Commerce. What a bunch of jerks. Have you seen their new ad? What I fear is that older people think the Chamber is the little town meeting group that your dad belonged to. NO! They are the biggest lobbying group in the US and they are running LIES about health care. Is there ANYONE you can trust these days?

Ummm...Rob Portman is leading in Ohio over the Lt Governor and the Secy of State

Ohio isn't New York, though. Senor ain't gonna fly.

Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, a leading GOP gubernatorial candidate in California, hasn't quite figured out how to work with the press. Yesterday, she invited reporters to a public appearance, but when they asked questions, Whitman had security escort them away. Odd.

Meg thinks she's running for CEO of California, not Governor. CEOs never talk to "little people." If this politically-illiterate representative of everything wrong with American capitalism becomes governor, it will prove that the state of California really is populated by morons.

Former Colorado Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, the leading Republican candidate for the Senate this year, recently told a right-wing crowd that she considers Social Security an untrustworthy "Ponzi scheme."

It is a Ponzi scheme, in the sense that it requires a continuous flow of new investors (i.e., workers) to keep it going. It has to be that way, given that the typical recipient ends up getting far more in benefits over time than he or she actually paid into it. See also: Medicare.

What Norton, her teabagging friends and many less-insane people on the right never accept is that "big gubmint" is not some awful, external force; it's us, each and every one of us, and we all share ownership of that, whether we (as individuals) agree with its policies or not. We own it, for better or worse. So yeah, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but we're not only its victims, but also its perpetrators, three-hundred-plus-million Bernie Madoffs.

@ daryl:
caught crist on npr the other afternoon and he seems to be swinging to the right as hard as he can (not that it will do him a damn bit of good). he was doubling down on the worship of st. ronnie (small gov, lower taxes, etc., etc.) that i half expected him to say he'd like to dig up the corpse and deliver a long, slow, wet, sloppy bj.

"There are plenty of incumbent Senate Democrats who are vulnerable this year. Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon isn't one of them."

If an analysis was done, I believe that you would discover that the democrats running for reelection who are progressive are the ones not in trouble and the ones running as rethug-lites are the ones in trouble.

Here in Indiana, where the Democratic State Central Committee get to pick the candidate to replace Evan "I'm Glad He Is Going" Bayh, the dumbocrap leaders still do not understand that even the idiot voters in Indiana will select a real rethug over a pseudo-rethug 99% of the time.

@ mellowjohn:

Ew.

so do you think the fine folks at CNN do the right thing *snicker* and take Campbell off of political duty *snork* if her hubby is running for a high profile US Senate seat? *hahahahahaha*

sorry. sometimes I just crack myself up.

I don't understand the question, zeitgeist.

I also don't get what zeitgeist is driving at.

I'm confused, too.

dumbocrap leaders still do not understand that even the idiot voters in Indiana will select a real rethug -- sadoldvet

dumbocrap? i quit writing like that when i was about 15

* Former Colorado Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, the leading Republican candidate for the Senate this year, recently told a right-wing crowd that she considers Social Security an untrustworthy "Ponzi scheme."

yup. i see her point. i mean social security has been around for only 70 years or so. not much of a track record to go on. and the federal government has been around in its current form for a mere 221 years -- a pretty unstable organization. it could go poof any day now. if we had only relied on the private market -- pensions, stocks, etc. we would all be better off, wouldn't we? oh wait ...

Social Security would have to be the worst con job ever.

Social Security Promises:
------------------------
An average 2% return on investment (conservatives LOVE to gripe about that.)

NO payback until you're 65.

If you die before 65, the plan determines who gets any benefits and how much your survivors get.

The plan admits it hands out money to people who have paid in almost nothing (debilitation benefit and survivor benefits for children)

What investor would pay into this thinking they're going to get filthy rich???

OTOH, if you do live to be 100, show me a 401k account that can keep paying out while keeping up with inflation for 35 years straight.

Social Security is not a ponzi scheme.
The payout is reliable but not exceptional nor even promised specifically to the investor.

You don't have to like it, but use of inaccurate labels tends to discredit what legitimate criticism might be weighed.

Ohio isn't New York, though. Senor ain't gonna fly. -shorstop

A short list of other things Ohio isn't:

Paying attention.

NY R party, the gift that keeps on giving. Dan Senor? wow. Gillibrand is far from a weak candidate. She won over us liberals, she'll have no problems.

Thanks For This Post, was added to my bookmarks.