Friday Talking Points [131] -- Democratic Campaign Advice
This week, Congress -- moving with its usual less-than-blinding speed -- passed a Wall Street reform bill, a mere two years after the crisis hit. Wall Street responded by pulling a secret lever which caused the biggest earthquake Washington has ever felt.
Well, actually, that's not strictly accurate. The D.C. area did experience a mild (by Californian standards) 3.6 earthquake, but I would pin its cause on the fact that the Nationals baseball team now has a hot pitcher. Anyone who laughs at the possibility of baseball influencing plate tectonics obviously wasn't in the San Francisco Bay area for the 1989 Loma Prieta quake, which happened at the exact time the third game of the World Series was about to begin -- between the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland Athletics. It was obvious to anyone who felt the quake that fault-line tension among baseball fans across the bay was the reason the stresses in the earth were triggered.
But, silliness aside... oh, wait, we have some more silliness to attend to first! Robert Gibbs, the official press voice of the White House, made what is called properly a "Washington gaffe" last week on a Sunday morning talk show, by admitting what pretty much everyone's been saying for about a year now -- the Democrats are in danger of losing control of the House of Representatives in the upcoming midterm elections. This is not exactly news, as I mentioned. What was considered news was that an official spokesman admitted the truth in an inconvenient manner, politically (the definition of a "Washington gaffe"). House Democrats wailed, and "Democratic rift!" stories began appearing in the media.
But maybe this is exactly the sort of wake-up call Democrats need right now, and maybe Gibbs deliberately was trying to shock them out of their somnolence.
Democrats really do need to wake up and defend their political position strongly, or they are going to get wiped out this year, and we will be talking about Speaker Boehner next January. Astonishingly, they don't seem to realize this and continue "bringing a knife to a gun fight" -- from the president on down.
Last week, this column pointed out the fact that Obama has been making some campaign-style speeches of late (pushing his "green jobs" agenda, mostly), but he shies away from identifying the opposition. He seems curiously incapable of saying the word "Republican" to define the Democrats' opposition. This week, Salon.com noticed the same thing in a different speech.
This is just pathetic. We are in a political campaign, folks. It is time for some partisan political rhetoric from Democrats. Republicans certainly show no fear of pinning blame for everything under the sun on Democrats, but Democrats timidly cower in a corner and can't seem to make an opposing argument. Even the prospect of losing their cushy political jobs hasn't seemed to motivate them yet.
Case in point -- Wall Street reform. The mainstream media largely yawned about this bill, unlike the healthcare three-ring circus earlier. Perhaps this is due to who owns the large media outlets? Perhaps... perhaps....
But in any case, if the media won't do the job of informing the American public that Democrats just managed to pass the most widespread regulations on banks since the Great Depression -- while Republicans stood firmly on the side of the plutocrats -- then it is up to Democrats to make this case, and tell this story pretty much every chance they get. This could be the central issue in the upcoming election, if Democrats play their hand right.
Of course, that's a mighty big "if," I have to admit.
But we'll get to such fiery rhetoric later, in the talking points, so let's get the awards out of the way first.
Before we hand out our first award, the coveted Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week, we have to at least acknowledge a feat of sheer impressiveness outside the world of politics. The "Barefoot Bandit" was finally caught last week, in the Bahamas. But the impressive thing is how long this kid evaded the authorities, all the while living it up and breaking into various vacant homes and businesses and stealing the occasional boat, car, or airplane. This crime spree spread across numerous states and lasted years. That's pretty impressive for any criminal, especially one who was being actively sought by police who must have been seriously annoyed at how the kid kept slipping their clutches (and taunting them while doing so). In any case, while we here certainly don't condone crime in any way, at the same time we think it's a safe bet that the movie which will inevitably follow, telling the Barefoot Bandit's story, will be enormously popular with the public.
But since we have no idea what the kid's politics may be, he simply doesn't qualify for the MIDOTW award.
Instead, we're giving the award to failed Senate candidate Bill Halter of Arkansas. Halter's campaign was the motivation for Senator Blanche Lincoln to begin fighting for very strong derivatives reforms to be included in the Wall Street reform bill. This was initially met with some skepticism and derision, since Lincoln's not exactly known for taking on Big Business (quite the opposite, in fact). Lefty pundits argued that (1) the whole thing was a stunt by Lincoln to win her primary, and she would immediately drop it afterwards, (2) derivatives reform was simply not going to make it out of the Senate, (3) the House/Senate conference committee would strip it out and weaken the overall bill, and (4) it was a gimmick, and would never survive the process and make it to Obama's desk. These pundits were wrong. The measure was slightly weakened, but made it largely intact into the final bill the Senate just approved.
And we have Bill Halter to thank for it. If Halter hadn't mounted his primary challenge to Blanche Lincoln (and come so close to unseating her), she never would have even brought the subject up, much less have fought for it. Even though Halter did fail in his campaign, the silver lining for all of us is that it lit a fire under Lincoln, and forced her into the awkward (for her) position of attempting to be some sort of populist, and forced her not just to introduce derivatives reform, but also to follow through on it, lest she be seen as a naked opportunist and a crass politician.
None of which would have happened without Bill Halter's campaign. So, while it is small consolation for losing a Senate primary race, we simply must award Halter the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award, for the secondary effects his campaign had on this important piece of legislation.
[Congratulate Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter on his official state contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]
Senator Russ Feingold disappointed many Democrats this week, since he was the only Democratic senator to vote with the Republicans against the Wall Street reform bill. He says he voted against the bill because it wasn't strong enough -- making a stand, in other words, against craven incrementalism.
But the net result of his proud stance was to weaken the final bill. If Feingold had been on board for the final vote, then Democrats would have had to dicker with one fewer Republican in order to get it passed. The Republicans who voted for the bill exacted their pound of flesh before doing so -- mostly in the form of watering down when the bill would take effect, and with other loopholes here and there for Wall Street to exploit.
So while some may say Feingold was taking a stand for what he believed in, the actual outcome of his brave stance was to move the bill even further away from where he wanted it to be. It backfired, in other words, because no other Democrats were convinced to join Feingold's position. But at least Feingold had a moral stance to explain his vote, which is why he is only awarded a (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week.
Instead, this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is none other than Nebraska's Senator Ben Nelson, who voted with Republicans to block extending unemployment benefits to millions of Americans in the midst of the Great Recession. Next week this impasse will be resolved, as Democrats pick up the final remaining vote to pass this extension (as West Virginia replaces the late Senator Byrd). Nelson will likely vote against it next week, as well, but it won't matter because Democrats will by then have enough votes to put it over the top, bringing relief to millions.
Exactly why is this man a Democrat, anyone?
[Contact Senator Ben Nelson on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]
Volume 131 (7/16/10)
Before I begin, I have to point out a new hilarious Tom Toles cartoon in the Washington Post today, which compares Republican attitudes on unemployment and their own employment as politicians, and is well worth checking out, if you want a laugh.
This week, we're going to approach the talking points slightly differently. The first talking point is going to be the overall campaign theme Democrats should really be out there screaming from the rooftops. The rest of the talking points will break this first statement down into a few component parts.
Politicians and candidates always run the risk of losing. But here's a big secret that Democrats really need to pass around: if you fight for your views, you run less of a chance of losing than if you refuse to even define the fight in voters' minds.
There may be other good ways for Democrats to enter this campaign season. There may be other good ways to get their message across. But, at this point, I would welcome any cohesive overall campaign strategy from Democrats, because right now there is nothing but an enormous vacuum resonating out there. Democrats can either fill this void with their narrative about why voters should send them back to Washington, or else they will not be sent back to Washington next year.
It's time to stand up and fight, folks. Here are my ideas on the best ways to do so. Please share your own in the comments.
The overview
Let's start with the overview, and then move on to individual points.
"Republicans wrecked the American economy, and Democrats are busy cleaning up the mess they left behind. Democrats are on the side of Main Street, standing up to Wall Street, while Republicans fight for big bankers and against the American consumer. In fact, Republicans are fighting to keep the George W. Bush policies which caused this disaster in the first place. They have no ideas on how to move America forward, and are instead for repealing what Democrats have managed to accomplish in order to move us right back to where we were under Bush. The only idea they have come up with is to say 'No!' And now they're trying to convince voters that they should be the ones to lead America straight back to the Bush economy. Because make no mistake -- that is what they intend to do, and that is what they will try to do if you vote for them. Democrats want to move this country forward, and the only thing the Republicans have to offer is moving us backward. We think the country deserves better than that."
Wall Street versus Main Street
I've been saying this for months now, and I still haven't heard this phrase coming out of many Democratic politicians' mouths. This is political negligence of the first order. This issue is hand-tailored to the anger and frustration out there in the country, Democrats are on the side of the angels, and it is downright astonishing that Democrats have so far refused to make this case.
"All voters need to do to figure out who is fighting for them in Washington, and who is fighting for the billionaires on Wall Street is to take a look at who voted for the biggest bill to rein in the bankers since the Great Depression. Democrats fought hard for tough new regulations. Democrats got this bill through Congress. Democrats fought to protect consumers. Democrats fought on the side of Main Street. Republicans fought against all of this -- against rules to prevent another financial meltdown, against even allowing the issue an up-or-down vote, and against consumers. Republicans fought hard on the side of Wall Street, against Main Street. It's pretty obvious which party cares about American consumers, and which party cares about obscene profits for big bankers while they ruin the economy. If your values are closer to Main Street than Wall Street, then it's a pretty easy choice -- vote Democratic this November."
Deregulation discredited
This is another basic bedrock issue that Democrats never even try to defend, even though it is quite easy to do so. For the second week in a row, I am providing a link to a new column by the incomparable George Lakoff, which delves into this subject even deeper (from a slightly different perspective), and I encourage everyone to read his article.
"Republicans have been worshipping at the altar of 'deregulation' for decades now. What they never tell you, though, is that most of those regulations were put in place for a damn good reason -- to prevent disaster. Republicans have been letting industry write its own laws and write its own rules for a long time now -- which leads straight to preventable disasters like what just happened in the Gulf of Mexico. Because what Republicans really want is for Big Business to be able to do anything it wants, and then for the federal government to come in and clean up any disasters which follow. We saw this with the Wall Street meltdown, and we saw it in the Gulf. The word 'regulations' is just a fancy way of saying 'rules.' Republicans want there to be no rules. Democrats want common-sense rules to prevent foreseeable disasters. When Republicans say they're for 'deregulation' they are saying they don't want there to be any rules to the game. When Democrats re-regulate Wall Street to avoid future disasters, Republicans fight us every step of the way. But just imagine if Republicans had their way in your life -- say they 'deregulated' traffic laws, for instance. I know I wouldn't want to drive to the store and back in a world with no rules of the road, because I'd be taking my life in my own hands to do so. But that is exactly what Republicans mean -- when they champion 'deregulation,' they are saying there should be no rules of the road for anyone. Democrats strongly disagree."
George W. Bush
This one is likely to cause some howls. But the case can be made, easily.
"Republicans accuse Democrats of trying to tie them to George W. Bush, and they dismiss this as some sort of political trick. But we Democrats would much prefer not to even bring Bush's name up ever again. Unfortunately, this is impossible, because the entire Republican platform right now is to go back to the way things were under Bush. We honestly do wish Republicans would come up with some new ideas which we could then debate. So far, they have not. Pretty much every position they hold is exactly the same position they held under President Bush. They simply do not have any new ideas, and are left screaming 'No!' and 'Repeal!' every time Democrats want to move forward. By doing this, Republicans are standing firmly with Bush and the status quo under Bush. They apparently think that things were fine and dandy when Bush was running the show, and that the answer for America's future is to return to this idyllic time. Democrats remember things differently, though, and are much more optimistic about America's future than Republicans appear to be. So, please, Republicans, if you'd like to move the political conversation away from George W. Bush, we're quite willing to do so -- as soon as you come up with some ideas that are in any way different than Bush's policies. Once you do so, we'll promise never to mention Bush again, how's that?"
Forward versus backward
This is such a basic thing, but (once again) I still have yet to hear any Democrat make this case.
"Democrats want to move this country forward. Republicans want to move us backward. It's really as simple as that. Democrats are proposing ideas and passing laws to guarantee a bright future for this country. Republicans keep trying to drag us back to the failed policies of yesteryear. It all boils down to whether you see the future optimistically or pessimistically. Democrats are betting on America's future in a big way. The only idea Republicans are trying to sell the voters is to move backwards, instead. The choice for the voter is an easy one. Democrats will take us into the future, Republicans will march us swiftly in retreat, to the doomed policies of the past."
Repeal means moving backward
In fact, that last one needs to be further spelled out.
"Republicans, every time Democrats pass a bill to ensure a bright future for America, immediately vow that they're going to run their campaign on calling for its repeal. They are fighting for the status quo America faced when George W. Bush left office. They are fighting against change -- any change. But I've noticed a curious thing. Republicans quickly come out for repeal, but after a period of time, they talk about it less and less -- because the American public figures out for itself what to think about the new Democratic policies. And, over time, the public turns against the knee-jerk 'repeal' position of the Republicans. So while it is amusing to hear Republicans denouncing the Wall Street reforms just passed now, my bet is that over time they'll talk about it less and less on the campaign trail, because fighting hard for Wall Street's profits (and against consumer protections for Main Street) isn't really the crowd-pleaser Republicans may now think it is. Make no mistake, when a Republican runs on 'repeal,' they are running on the concept of moving this country right back to where we were under the Bush administration."
Just say "Yes!"
Turn Nancy Reagan's signature phrase around. If the Republicans are the party of "no," then (by default) the Democrats become the party of "yes." So use it!
"Republicans are now proud that their party is seen by most Americans as the party of 'no.' They are actually proud that they have refused to consider any new idea for the past two years. If President Obama announced he had personally found a cure for cancer, Republicans would immediately scream that it was 'a job-killer for oncologists' -- that's how knee-jerk they've become. In fact, Obama spent much of his first year reaching his hand out to Republicans, in the hopes that they would work with him, only to have his hand slapped aside every single time, as the Republicans screamed 'No!' to anything he proposed. Well, I don't know about you, but if Republicans want to carry the brand of being the party of 'no,' I think I'd take a look at Democrats, since by elimination that makes them the party of 'yes.' I guess we're just a little more positive about America's future than Republicans. We'd like to encourage all voters to join us in saying 'yes' this November."
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post
-- Chris Weigant
"This week, Congress -- moving with its usual less-than-blinding speed -- passed a Wall Street reform bill, a mere two years after the crisis hit. Wall Street responded by pulling a secret lever which caused the biggest earthquake Washington has ever felt."
ROFL! I heard about that!!! The first thing I thought was, one of the Framers must not be too happy. Hahaha.
"Democrats really do need to wake up and defend their political position strongly..."
To whom? That is the question and the big, big problem for Dems. It's not like the Indies suddenly left over something or other in the Wall St. Reform legislation, and now the Dems have to go cajole them back. They left a good long time ago. Last February, only 21% of likely voters (roughly the percentage of liberals/progressives in the country, you'll notice) felt that the government was operating with their consent. As of yesterday, it's 23%, with 60% contending that the government does not have the consent of the people.
Then there's this:
75% Are Angry At Government’s Current Policies
Voters are madder than ever at the current policies of the federal government.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 75% of likely voters now say they are at least somewhat angry at the government’s current policies, up four points from late November and up nine points since September. The overall figures include 45% who are Very Angry, also a nine-point increase since September.
Just 19% now say they’re not very or not at all angry at the government’s policies, down eight points from the previous survey and down 11 from September. That 19% includes only eight percent (8%) who say they’re not angry at all and 11% who are not very angry...."
Granted, they're angry at both parties, but having only two to choose from, they're leaning very much to the right. Check out this nightmare:
Trust on Issues
Voters Still Trust GOP More on Most Key Issues
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues
Unless "education" suddenly becomes the primary concern of voters over the next four months, I think Dems are gonna get their heads handed to them in a big way.
Case in point -- Wall Street reform. The mainstream media largely yawned about this bill, unlike the healthcare three-ring circus earlier. Perhaps this is due to who owns the large media outlets? Perhaps... perhaps....
I think the lack of public interest has much to do with it. Only I think the MSM (and Dems, in general) are reading that "lack of interest" wrong. I don't think it's a lack of interest; it feels more, to me, like the quiet before the storm, i.e., folks are all done screaming. Now they're just waiting.
That isn't oil washing up on Alabama's sugar-white beaches. It's the putrefaction of a conservatism that has died of deregulation fever.
"Republicans are now proud that their party is seen by most Americans as the party of 'no.' They are actually proud that they have refused to consider any new idea for the past two years. If President Obama announced he had personally found a cure for cancer, Republicans would immediately scream that it was 'a job-killer for oncologists' -- that's how knee-jerk they've become.
I don't think that's it, Chris. I think congressional Republicans are saying no because their constituents are telling them to say no. Plain and simple.
CW: "...we Democrats would much prefer not to even bring Bush's name up ever again. Unfortunately, this is impossible, because the entire Republican platform right now is to go back to the way things were under Bush."
I hate to break it to you, but Obama's doing all the same things Bush did. Only worse. 'D
Democrats really do need to wake up and defend their political position strongly, or they are going to get wiped out this year, and we will be talking about Speaker Boehner next January.
I have been saying that for half a year now. :D Nice ta have official confirmation. :D
"Republicans wrecked the American economy, and Democrats are busy cleaning up the mess they left behind.
Oh come on.. Dems have been in power for nearly 4 years now...
There comes a time when Democrats need to face up to their responsibility in this mess..
Always passing the buck and blaming others is why Democrats are going to be booted out in November.
Ink,
That isn't oil washing up on Alabama's sugar-white beaches. It's the putrefaction of a conservatism that has died of deregulation fever.
And yet it's all but assured that Dems will lose their House majority and their Senate majority is now becoming more and more at risk..
Doesn't sound like conservatism is as on the verge of death as you might think.. :D
CB,
I don't think that's it, Chris. I think congressional Republicans are saying no because their constituents are telling them to say no. Plain and simple.
Which is why the GOP will be swept back into power.. They may govern ham-handedly and make plenty of mistakes but at least they actually LISTEN to the American people.
Let's face the facts, people.. Democrats are going to have their heads handed to them in November.
There is nothing promising on the horizon that will help Democrats and there are plenty of "coming attractions" that are going to show exactly why this batch of Democrats we have in power now are incapable of leading..
Terrorist attack, racial investigations, more and higher unemployment are just a few of the reasons why, in the here and now, Democrats in government are an endangered species...
Michale.....
"There is nothing promising on the horizon that will help Democrats..."
I don't think that's the point. I think it's a "damage done" problem the Dems have, which they can't undo. Because the "damage" is the constant power-grabbing that's gone on for the past year and a half: nationalizing this; socializing that; expanding Big Brother's power to the point where they've now awarded themselves the ability to seize financial institutions. Cuba, anyone?
That's what has the majority of Americans so angry. This is why "55% of Likely Voters find 'Socialist' an accurate label of Obama" (and, by extension, the Dems who've instituted said socialistic laws and powerful new government agencies and unelected czars, etc.)
That's not something the Dems are going to be able to "fix" on the campaign trail. No amount of "explaining things a little better" is going to appease Americans who feel like they woke up one morning to discover themselves living under the equivalent of a Fidel Castro regime.
I don't think that's the point.
Well, it may not be THE point, but it certainly is A point. :D
Look, everyone knows that the American public has the attention span of a (how did CW put it??) mosquito on crack...
I am certain that Democrats are deluding themselves into thinking everything that is happening in the here and now will fade by Election Day..
But what they can't (or more accurately, WON'T) comprehend is that there is NOTHING good coming down the pipe.
About the only thing that can save Democrats this November is First Contact..
And I bet that Obama will screw THAT up as well... :D
Michale.....
CB,
I am certain that Democrats are deluding themselves into thinking everything that is happening in the here and now will fade by Election Day..
With apologies to Liz :D here is a perfect example of what I meant...
Vice President Joe Biden brushed aside suggestions on Sunday that Democrats will suffer big losses in November midterm elections, vowing that Barack Obama's governing party will "shock the heck out of everybody."
Speaking on the ABC News program "This Week," Biden dismissed prevailing wisdom that Democrats, 17 months into Obama's transformative residency in the White House, would suffer a drubbing at the hands of salivating Republicans.
"I don't think the losses are going to be bad at all," Biden said. "I think we're going to shock the heck out of everybody."
Biden said he was "confident when people take a look at what has happened since we've taken office in November and comparing it to the alternative, we're going to be in great shape."
The vice president said he believes the Obama administration will get credit from voters for helping guide the economy out of recession and passing key legislation on health care and financial reform.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.0cc4a694b9a5e1dfeb575b3343e2bc74.c51&show_article=1
Michale.....
Michale,
Vice President Biden has always been an optimistic sort. But, I think he's largely right about the outcome of the midterm elections.
Of course, I'm still a cockeyed optimist, too ... after all is said and done.
By the way, Michale ... the comments attached to that link you provided are quite ill-informed, not surprisingly. That's me trying to be nice.
Michale, I think Biden was probably hyping hope and enthusiasm to the hilt as part of a damage-control effort, to clean up the mess Gibbs made the other day, when he spoke about the House being in play. That statement so infuriated Pelosi that I think everyone in the White House is scrambling to show their support and confidence. It's a pretty transparent effort, IMO, but the veep is generally the person to do lead that kind of effort.
Biden said he was "confident when people take a look at what has happened since we've taken office in November and comparing it to the alternative, we're going to be in great shape."
LOL. Biden understands the trouble they're in. He didn't even want to touch HCR, knowing that socializing health care was not gonna fly with the American people. And when it passed — or was rammed through, I should say — experienced inside-the-beltwayers knew they were going to pay a hot political price. And they know payday's a-comin' in November.
Liz,
Of course, I'm still a cockeyed optimist, too ... after all is said and done.
Yea, politically speaking, I was the same about 2 years ago..
Obama cured me of that. :(
By the way, Michale ... the comments attached to that link you provided are quite ill-informed, not surprisingly. That's me trying to be nice.
Yea, it's Breitbart.. About par for the course. :D
CB,
LOL. Biden understands the trouble they're in. He didn't even want to touch HCR, knowing that socializing health care was not gonna fly with the American people. And when it passed — or was rammed through, I should say — experienced inside-the-beltwayers knew they were going to pay a hot political price. And they know payday's a-comin' in November.LOL.
Yea, it's actually quite funny in a sad sort of way..
CrapCare is the Democrat's only real "achievement" to date.
But they can't trumpet it, they can't yell it from they rooftops, they can't even TALK about it and try to explain it, because they know 75% of Americans hate it.
The DP's biggest achievement can't be talked about because Americans hate it.
Howz THAT for being hoisted by their own petard?? :D
Michale.....
The DP's biggest achievement can't be talked about because Americans hate it.
Howz THAT for being hoisted by their own petard?? :D
LOL. Yet it continues to be referred to as a "victory." Every time I hear that, I wonder what the spin is gonna be after it constitutionally crashes and burns in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Speaking of which, did you hear? The mandate is back to being a tax: "When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.” http://tinyurl.com/3yj5c3n
Meanwhile, are we sure Holder actually went to law school? What does levying a tax have to do with mandating that American citizens purchase a product from the private sector? Miss the point much, Eric?
Meanwhile, are we sure Holder actually went to law school?
Considering this is the guy who let the media decide whether or not the Arizona law was "bad", I have my doubts...
Remember?? Holder criticized the law for weeks and then admitted he hadn't read it. He was just going by media reports.
Michale.....
Michale: "Yea, it's Breitbart.. About par for the course."
Actually, it was an Associated Foreign Press (AFP) article. Poor Breibart is so misunderstood. LOL. His news articles are all from various newspapers and newswires (similar to Drudge's setup). It's a really good site for getting a day's worth of news really quickly.
Michale: "Remember?? Holder criticized the law for weeks and then admitted he hadn't read it. He was just going by media reports."
I'll say it for the 18th-millionth time: Two people in this administration have got to go, immediately if not sooner: Gibbs and Holder.
I did not know that...
I stand corrected.. :D
Michale.....
Michale, to your earlier point about CrapCare being Obama/Pelosi/Reid's major achievement, but they can't even talk about it because the majority of Americans want it repealed, check this new poll out:
"By far, the most alarming numbers this poll presents for President Barack Obama are the reelection figures; against a generic Republican candidate, he loses by 5 points, 37-42. In general, when an incumbent's reelect numbers fall below 50 percent, it's a sign of trouble to come — and Obama's inability to break even 40 percent may be the most telling indicator to come out of these data." http://tinyurl.com/25pz8tb
"I did not know that..."
Few do, with all the Breitbart bashing that goes on.
'D
Ya'all know me...
I REALLY hate to toot my own horn....
But......
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2004646,00.html
Beeep Beeeep Beeeep :D
Michale.....
Are you the guy sitting by the window? Or are you one of the Top-10 Militant Animals? 'P
Are you the guy sitting by the window? Or are you one of the Top-10 Militant Animals? 'P
Logan:"I don't know!"
Rogue:"You don't know or you don't care!?"
Logan:"PICK ONE!"
-XMEN
:D
Ya'all just have to realize that, if the Democrats DO lose both the House and the Senate, I will become COMPLETELY insufferable, right?? :D
At least, MORE insufferable than I already am... :D
Michale.....
I'm right behind ya, bro. 'D
I don't think the Republicans are gonna get the Senate, though. I just don't feel it in my bones. I think they're gonna take the House (please, with the grace of God; just so I don't have to listen to Nancy Pelosi anymore). The Senate? That's a tough row to hoe.
Instead, this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is none other than Nebraska's Senator Ben Nelson, who voted with Republicans to block extending unemployment benefits to millions of Americans in the midst of the Great Recession.
Ya know...
Unemployment benefits wouldn't be such a big deal if the Obama Administration had concentrated on JOBS instead of CrapCare....
Once again, we see the shortsightedness of the administration coming home to roost..
Michale.....
Shortsightedness on a level that's nothing short of stunning. After defying the will of the American people with CrapCare, what did they think was gonna happen in November? Or were they even thinking at all?
I think that CW's analysis of Obama is right.
His mind is skewed in such a manner that he thinks that everyone simply HAS to understand and accept what he is doing.
He doesn't realize that his thinking is fundamentally flawed.
Therefore, Obama simply assumes that everyone else MUST be wrong and will eventually "get it"...
Obama is in for a rude awakening...
Michale.....
Therefore, Obama simply assumes that everyone else MUST be wrong and will eventually "get it"...
Same with Pelosi. I think she's just starting to "get" that her speakership is in jeopardy and couldn't be more shocked and amazed.
For people who are supposed to be so intellectual, they're not terribly bright, from where I'm sitting. They're kinda clueless, in fact.
Meanwhile, have we all seen this rather explosive little item?
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/b26468d00ac1e36f5f4b6544e4000712-16.html
Same with Pelosi. I think she's just starting to "get" that her speakership is in jeopardy and couldn't be more shocked and amazed.
The 2 scariest words in the human language.
"President Pelosi"... :D
Meanwhile, have we all seen this rather explosive little item?
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/b26468d00ac1e36f5f4b6544e4000712-16.html
I am outraged that I am not outraged by that..
So much for the claim that Media isn't in the bag for Obama.
Michale.....
The 2 scariest words in the human language.
"President Pelosi"... :D
Thanks for the chill. How many days in the Oval Office before articles of impeachment would be drawn up? I say roughly nine. Possibly ten, but that's pushing it.
Thanks for the chill. How many days in the Oval Office before articles of impeachment would be drawn up? I say roughly nine. Possibly ten, but that's pushing it.
My guess is that the Republicans, for the good of the country, would investigate the possibilities of "Pre-Impeachment"...
:D
Michale.....
Hahahahaha! Too funny, Michale.
Speaking of grounds for impeachment...
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/fd671a397fcd35a9423d7933ca729544-41.html
Yea, I read that..
Scary..
But hay... I am a guy who has ...
"... this morbid curiosity to face the end of the world."
-Morgan Freeman, OUTBREAK
:D
Michale.....
Well, with this N. Korea stuff going on, you may just get your wish granted. 'D