The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Political Hay
Print Email
Text Size

Political Hay

Obama’s Plight

By on 10.29.10 @ 6:09AM

It’s different from Reagan in 1982 and Clinton in 1994.

Whether you prefer to believe expert predictions that it will be a “maelstrom,” a “bloodbath,” or merely a “blowout,” Republicans are poised to make substantial gains in Congress next Tuesday and deliver a severe blow to the Obama presidency in the process.

Just two years after sweeping into power on a platform of hope and change, Obama finds himself and his agenda a political liability to Democratic candidates throughout the nation. Though he took office with a 67 percent Gallup approval rating in January 2009, it stood at 44 percent in the most recent survey and has dipped as low as 41 percent. And though he built his candidacy by positioning himself as the anti-Bush, by a 48 percent to 43 percent margin, Americans now think that George Bush was the better president, according to a new survey by Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. The same poll found that 56 percent of the nation wants Obama fired in 2012.

It’s true that as sharp as Obama’s decline has been, the speed of his reversal of political fortunes should serve as a warning to Republicans who are feeling emboldened right now. Just as Obama’s meteoric rise has been followed by a precipitous fall, he could conceivably make a triumphant comeback two years from now.

That said, the two most recent examples of presidential comebacks following defeats in the midterm elections are Bill Clinton after Republicans took back Congress in 1994 and Ronald Reagan after Democrats gained 26 seats to build on their majority in 1982. But there are a number of reasons why Obama’s situation is different.

Clinton was able to mount a political comeback by abandoning his ambitious liberal goals such as health care legislation, bringing up small symbolic issues as in school uniforms and successfully portraying House Republicans as extremists.

Yet while Clinton was willing to sacrifice his agenda for his short-term political benefit, Obama is an ideological liberal who is committed to imposing his policy vision on America regardless of its popularity. Unlike Clinton, Obama successfully passed his unpopular national health care plan, which will continue to disrupt the lives of individuals and businesses over the next two years.

In addition, Republicans have learned a lot of lessons from the experience of 1994, and it’s unlikely that Rep. John Boehner, if he should become House Speaker, will make himself as easy a foil for Obama as Newt Gingrich was for Clinton.

As with Clinton, there are clear parallels between Obama’s situation now, and the political difficulty Reagan found himself in 1982. After running on a promise to restore the nation’s economy, the country was mired in a deep recession with high unemployment despite passing his landmark tax cuts. Reagan’s Gallup approval rating stood at 42 percent in October 1982 (and would reach as low as 35 percent that following January). In 1983, however, the economy improved, and it was booming by 1984 — fueling Reagan’s landslide victory over Walter Mondale.

As with Reagan, Obama’s political fortunes will largely hinge on whether or not Americans feel the economy has recovered by the time of the next election. In Reagan’s case, he took office with an inflation rate of nearly 12 percent. The Federal Reserve Board’s tight monetary policy choked off economic growth early on, but by the end of 1982, the worst was over, inflation was down to under 4 percent, and Reagan’s tax cuts had a chance to work.

Obviously, it’s difficult to predict where the economy will be two years from now. But unlike Reagan, in Obama’s case, the Federal Reserve Board is largely out of ammo in terms of boosting the economy by lowering interest rates further, and instead is expected to try inflating the economy by printing money and purchasing bonds. Meanwhile, the White House has reported that as of September, 70 percent of the economic stimulus package had been spent. With the renewed attention to federal deficits, it’s doubtful that Obama will be able to sign another large economic package.

In addition, the Obama administration has added a raft of new regulations to businesses, including those in the national health care law. The regulatory environment could even worsen further if Republicans take back Congress, because then the administration will become more dependent on federal agencies to impose aspects of Obama’s agenda that he can no longer hope to pass legislatively. It also remains an open question as to whether Obama will be able to get his proposed tax increase by allowing the Bush era rates to expire at the end of the year.

While Obama may have difficulty digging himself out of his political hole on his own, there’s always the chance that he can get help from Republicans. Even if Obama is vulnerable in 2012, the GOP will have to find a strong nominee to challenge him, and right now, the prospective Republican field is uninspiring. There’s also the distinct possibility that Republicans will show themselves to be weak at governing, disappointing their base as well as independents who gave them a chance to prove themselves.

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (399) |

Appleby| 10.29.10 @ 6:36AM

Reagan and Clinton both won their second term mainly due to the decision of the opposing party to run someone against them that nobody in his right mind could feature as President.

Jeremiah| 10.29.10 @ 8:04AM

How right you are, Appleby. In 1996 I ran a federal legislative campaign. After election several of us from both sides of the aisle were doing a program. The host asked us all to comment on what was the best thing about it being finally over. To the hilarity of everyone on the set, I growled that the best thing was I didn't have to say nice things about Bob Dole any more.

John| 10.29.10 @ 11:17AM

Dole was twice the man and patriot that Clinton was--and had the correct ideology. BJ Clinton lowered the bar of the presidency and, if you remember, we all saw what a sleaze he was the last 48 hours he was in office. He was just too slick for Dole, who was a straight shooter. So goes politics.

Doghouse Riley| 10.29.10 @ 11:36AM

Bob Dole is a nice man and a man of integrity.

But he, like McCain, like Bush Sr. and Jr., clearly lacked the political killer instinct.

He and they completely failed to realize that the Democratic Party of today was no longer the Democratic Party of the past.

loulou| 10.29.10 @ 11:42AM

They lack the killer instinct because they are MODERATE aka Liberal Republicans.

That type needs to go join the Democrat Party or go start a third party. We are in the process of purging the uneducable ones.

PRAXIS| 10.29.10 @ 1:48PM

loulou - more name calling won't work.
I consider myself a fiscal conservative, a social libertarian and a REPUBLICAN.

Whatever you chose to call that. The GOP is
the party of Lincoln---with a noble heritage.

I won't let my party be PURGED by red-neck bible-thumpers who want to tear down the Statue of Liberty and replace it with a Cross.

crockdoc| 10.29.10 @ 2:05PM

Praxis, with respect to the fiscal/social ideology, thank you!! I'm in my mid 20s and it's unbelievably frustrating trying to convince people, particularly those my own age, that you can be conservative on one and not the other.

Dave in Detroit| 10.29.10 @ 4:11PM

PRAXIS and crockdoc... With all due respect, don't take "Nobody" too seriously. The Republican table is plenty big enough for you and like-minded people whose top priorities are fiscal sanity and a smaller government of, by and for the people. The social issues are a convenient wedge cynically used by Democrats and progressives to divide conservatives and entice you to their agenda, which is basically: build their power base (government itself); pay off favored voting constituencies with higher spending that's dishonestly cast as helping "the middle class" or the "vulnerable" against "fat cats"; and keep single-issue social voters at bay by making a huge deal of small potatoes like don't ask/don't tell, gay marriage and pot legalization. Disgusting. Your home is the Republican party, as long as a conservative like me is still around supporting it.

Mr. or Ms. Nobody, please consider when you speak of "purges," you alienate people whose interests are probably 80-90% aligned with yours, and tempting them to cast their lot with people whose interests are 20% aligned with theirs -- and zero percent of yours. That's the reasonable calculation in a two-party system. It doesn't mean giving away the "soul" of the party or ignoring the social issues entirely. But you simply can't win with 35 or 40% in the U.S. Yeah, the Statue of Liberty thing was an exaggeration, but it was a joke after all, and progressives are the truly humorless ones.

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 5:32PM

Praxis & crockdoc:

We'll take your votes to elect a Republican to office.
Thank you.

Neo-libertarian| 10.31.10 @ 9:08AM

Hello Philly, Hello Church Mom, I’m your ch…ch…ch…ch…ch…libertarian bomb.

Nobody| 10.29.10 @ 2:21PM

No one wants to tear down the Statue of Liberty, etc. I dare say, look who is showing a "mindset" of intolerance now. Red-neck?

Should I call you a RINO? Maybe you would find a home more suited in the democrat party.

Your intolerance is showing - and by all means, there's the door. No one is making you stay, and no one is begging you to stay. You don't like the tea party or the direction the reublican party is going? You are welcome to start your own 3rd party. I myself am a 4th generation republican, and I am thrilled my party is finally being "purged" of Rinos, spenders and whiners.

'Bout time they recognized how far wrong they went.

"Takin' it back. And this time, we mean it."

Christopher.David| 10.29.10 @ 4:22PM

Why is it your party more than theirs?

What does "4th Generation Republican" mean? Did you inherent your political philosophies or come about them through critical thought & hard examination of the range of political theories available & represented in a democratic Republic? If it's the former then I have to ask, why in God's name would you brag about that?

iss| 10.29.10 @ 4:34PM

Purge away. You and your little rump group will soon be pure as the driven snow... and way out of political power (and not a moment too soon).

Chris| 10.29.10 @ 2:56PM

Please.

Chris| 10.29.10 @ 2:56PM

Please.

mcvthree| 10.29.10 @ 4:49PM

Prax, you hypocritical jagoff, you start by saying more name-calling won't work, but end by calling folks "redneck Bible-thumpers."

Gryphon| 10.29.10 @ 4:49PM

Praxis, if thats how you feel about the Tea Party and the conservative base of the Republican Party, you never were a Republican, and should probably find another party to call home. Besides the fact that you are way off the mark in your comments, if it werent for all the people you just insulted, Blue Blooded Republicans would never ever win. Take off your ascott and put on your big pants ya pansy, its time for the big boys to take over the Republican party, and we dont have time for old men with no stones.

Richard| 10.29.10 @ 10:19PM

Of there are other parties, Perhaps the "American Independant Party" anything instead of being whipsawed by the Corporatist Repug/Dem Parties. Yes Please do pick another party closer to your true feelings, and stick to it :)

idalily| 10.29.10 @ 5:22PM

Praxis, I'm with you. Contrary to what some on the far right say, fiscal sanity and secular education in public schools are NOT mutually exclusive things to believe in. As someone who doesn't give a crap if gays want to marry or what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home or what weed they smoke or what light bulbs they use or whether they worship Christ or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I also become frustrated with those on the far right who chest pound about our "Christian nation" status.

OTOH, I also have an ax to grind with RINOS and Indies, and it is this: what do you BELIEVE in? Find your principles and stand for them, regardless of their popularity in this year's election or their hip/cool/political correctness quotients. Most RINOS are mislabeled as being moderates when what they really are is a bunch of wafflers with their fingers in the air checking the political winds. And Indies are proud of being outside the 2-party system as if it's a superior place to be, but there are some Indies who have an unwillingness to commit to a set of bedrock principles and vote for candidates this year who are the polar opposites of who they voted for last year.

That said, if we are to remain free, we MUST all respect each others views and fight as a united front on the one thing that can unite us all: fiscal sanity. The threats to our liberty from socialists is too great to fight amongst ourselves over whether gays can marry. The demand for our pols is fiscally sane stewardship of our treasury. The rest is chicken feed.

IMO, if Republicans at the federal level stayed out of debates on things like gay marriage, ran strictly on fiscal conservatism in Washington, simplified the tax code with a capped, flat/fair tax, enforced the 10th Amendment, and got us a Balanced Budget Amendment, the Republicans would be heroes to over 3/4 of the country and the USA would thrive.

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 5:50PM

idalily,

I could say we were here first. Without the Christians who came here and began this great nation, we would have a King and a Queen.

So pardon us (the Christians who want to keep our form of government) the way it is and uphold those same values and principles.

Principles you say? Well it's principles I'm giving you yet you in reality aren't allowing me to have them if I am to take your post for what it says.

We don't exactly beat our chests about this country being founded on Christian principles but we are really proud of it.

So yes, we were here first.. Libertarianism will never be the policy of this country because of this very reason~ it does leave God out of "God and country." Something most Americans aren't ever going to be willing to accept.

But we will gladly take your vote for a Republican candidate who is fiscally sound. And hopefully they will work alongside other conservatives while we seek to right this great ship back to some sanity~ both financially and morally.

Occam's Tool| 10.29.10 @ 10:59PM

Why not Jindal/Palin, or the reverse? I think Mr. Jindal has what it takes. John Thune also has what it takes. Hell, Bob Aderholt has what it takes. I want Bob!

Cincinnatius| 10.30.10 @ 6:39PM

You gotta be kidding, right? Bob Aderholt, hasn't had a thought in his life. A follower, that is if things don't move too fast and they don't require any gumption otherwise he'd have to ask his mother-in-law.

rigdum funidos| 10.30.10 @ 2:39PM

the tea party is primarily concerned with the vital economic/budget/economic freedom/less govenment issues. it will gradually take over the Republican party and rebrand it. the broader pary can tolerate differences on social issues, but should largely be on the libertarian side, and it can tolerate differences on defense/international issues (where I think it should be more like Republicans than libertarians). But the critical issue is saving our personal freedoms from the Obama/socialist democrats who are trying to turn us into a Western European union-run socialist state.

Margie| 10.31.10 @ 11:16AM

Conservatives are waking up and voting finally, and that's what's happening. We call ourselves TEA partiers and have always been so. The TEA partiers are all of those of us who have been awake for decades, and those who are waking up now and starting to get involved in the political process. The old "Your Vote Counts!"

Now, there is an anti-semite faction amongst the TEA partiers who are like Tim* here. They will NOT EVER take over ANYTHING in this country. Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman and others are aware of this Leftist Libertarian anti-Israel faction and have backed Israel with a pact.
The TEA party Caucus:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy......ck_on_iran

idalily| 10.31.10 @ 8:00PM

Actually, no you weren't. There were native people here who were not Christians. They don't count? Anyone Jewish who supported the Constitution at its founding don't count? And I will say it and say it and say it again, you do not have the right to legislate my morality because of your religious beliefs. That's what they do in Saudi Arabia, and we are NOT THEM. America is a country for inclusion of all religions and atheists, not just Christians. And we are a nation of LAW. And yes, proclaiming us "a Christian nation" IS chest-pounding that TURNS PEOPLE OFF and LOSES VOTES. And if you insist on legislating morality, all Conservatives will pay the price. We will LOSE elections. And by the way, I am a Christian who also wants to keep our form of government. And I don't see how separation of church and state is a bad thing. Sorry, but that is part of what differentiates our Constitution from Sharia-style law. The Constitution does not endorse a state religion of Christianity. It very specifically does NOT do so.

Marconi| 10.29.10 @ 5:42PM

I call that a Republican who wants to not be known as a Republican.

A social Libertarian *is* a social liberal. The fact that Republicans radio-hosts hijacked the word does not mean it has different meanings.

A fiscal conservative is a fiscal Libertarian.

The GOP *was* the party of Lincoln, just as it was the party of Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes.

The GOP has been fiscally liberal, and socially conservative for the last fifteen years or so, and is going to be only more so.

You are a dinosaur waiting for the meteor to hit.

idalily| 10.31.10 @ 8:04PM

Dinasaur? LOL. Young voters overwhelmingly favor a more libertarian style of governance. And yes, the GOP has been fiscally liberal and socially conservative, and that IMO is where a lot of the resentment toward the GOP is coming from.

Bazza McKenzie| 10.29.10 @ 5:57PM

Ah, Lincoln. Wasn't he the President who started an unconstitutional civil war when some US states wanted to secede as they were perfectly entitled to do? And didn't that war kill more than 600,000 Americans, more than the total America has lost in all other wars? In fact that 600,000 was 2% of the then American population. Is that the noble heritage to which you refer?

M| 10.29.10 @ 6:23PM

Red neck bible thumpers?
Lincoln? Phuck Lincoln. He was a noble as a turd.
And fuck you, you citified piece of shit.

Alan Brooks| 10.30.10 @ 5:13PM

"Phuck Lincoln"

Lincoln did the right thing in destroying the Confederacy-- it was a lie written in letters of blood. You think Confederateboys were mutilated, burned, killed for God?
No, they died in vain.
The Confederacy was cast down forever, with acres of bloody bandages strewn about it.

The Confederacy is cursed in both Heaven and Hell.

AvengingAngel| 10.30.10 @ 9:18PM

QUOTES FROM ALAN BROOKS

“But am so glad McCain isn't president, I wish Obama would get both the Peace Prize and his likeness on Mt. Rushmore. I mean it.”

“But you are doing the correct thing-- fight the Muslims, and we will fight Christian fundamentalists.”

“God is a woman, and Jesus is Her daughter.”

“God is a necessary fiction, because most people are superstitious.”

“God was a woman, and Jesus was gay: he hung out with male disciples, he wore a gown, and he said to forgive thine enemies.
Now, if that's not being a metro, then what is?”

Alan Brooks| 10.30.10 @ 11:38PM

"AvengingAngel| 10.30.10 @ 9:18PM
QUOTES FROM ALAN BROOKS"

You spent all that time collecting those quotes?

Tim*| 10.31.10 @ 9:35AM

Go feed the pigeons in the park ObamaBoy Brooks.

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1861:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Kristen McFarland| 10.30.10 @ 9:00AM

Praxis: part of the problem you seem to suffer from is that both of those ideas are not mutually exclusive ..the Judeo-Christian foundation of this country based on morality, ethics and intellectual honesty seems to be lacking from your own self-assessment as a Republican...to dismiss that foundation is intellectually dishonest..it isn't Bible thumping you seem to disagree with as much as a religious basis..or so it appears..you cannot have the Statue of Liberty without the underlying basis for it and to dismiss it is being dishonest with yourself.

Emma| 10.30.10 @ 1:56PM

I'm a Bible thumper, sir, (assuming you are labeling all conservative Christians in that little piece of namecalling) and the last thing I want is a theocracy in this nation. If I hear any Christians acting like complete ninnies and wanting to "tear down the Statue of Liberty and replace it with a Cross," I will be in their face.

You either need to widen your circle of acquaintances, get a tuneup for your intellectual honesty gene or simply read a little more.

scythe| 10.30.10 @ 7:43PM

Nothin' wrong with name calling if the shoe fits. I am one of those red neck bible thumpers, you know, the phrase you chose to highlight the fact that you are holier-than-thou and above the name calling? I would venture to say that you are neither a fiscal conservative, and probably not even a Republican. You have the instincts and the impulses of a left wing suck weasel , but I'll end with the observation. I detest name calling as well.

Kishego| 10.29.10 @ 2:33PM

They are progressives.

Willey| 10.29.10 @ 4:34PM

Yes, RINOs are Progressives. Purge them!

Possum Dearie| 10.29.10 @ 8:26PM

My beef isn't with Christianity, but with single issue voters who have swamped primaries and nominated unvetted, unelectable candidates in the name of "purity." These so-called conservatives claim to care about the Constitution, but the have problems with the First, Fourteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth amendments. When asked about it, they plead the Fifth. No, thank you. I will not vote for your crackpots who are no more Republican than Alvin Greene is a Democrat. The Democrats have the good sense to ignore him, but the tea party holds their loons up as Republican standard bearers. If you people won't start your own party, more Republicans will leave yours as they tire of the roughing up journalists and head stomping.

Joshua| 10.29.10 @ 9:50PM

If you don't like the Tea Party candidates try putting up a Conservative once in a while. If we don't purge enough of you RINOs from the Republican party, you may get your wish and you will become an irrelevant minority third party.

The Tea Party has saved the RINO Republican Party from its own outrageous, big government spending behavior, and you're a fool not to be grateful.

Good riddance.

FTM| 10.30.10 @ 4:15AM

And so it starts. Fragmentation, factionalization. This is why I haven't bothered to cast a vote since Perot ran, way back when. Perot was the last guy that I ever heard make a political statement based on demonstrable truth, the guy gave facts, figures, tally sheets and charts to prove his point and was ridiculed for it.

I say that the United States will be governed by a military dictatorship within ten years and the discussion on this forum is proof. Conservitives haven't even won the election yet and the political fractures are apparent.

This is my prediction, this is what you will see. Social spending will be cut or at least the rate of expansion will slow. Urban centers that are dependant on social spending will become increasingly violent. Riotous. Govonors will mobilize their national guard organizations to assist local law enforcement in maintaining order. After a couple of months the expense of maintaining a mobilized national guard will further stress already bankrupted states like Kalifornia and the National Socialist People's Republic of Illinois. The federal government will be asked step in and assume full time military control. Past that point the role of civil government will decline until the military is in full control of the country.

Frankly speaking, being a military veteran, seeing the shape of the country and the like I would say that we could do worse. We have an out of control welfare class that knows no other way than to demand ever bigger and more expensive entitlements and two political parties that know no other way than to pander to their crudely educated constituencies. All three corners of the equation deliberately ignoring the fact that the treasury is bankrupt and acting as if the gravy train will run forever.

A pox on both of your houses.

Joshua| 10.30.10 @ 3:26PM

Get off your high horse, Mr. sidelines elitist. It's easy to bitch when you don't have skin in the game.
Perot was a fool, and so are you for voting for him.

FTM| 10.30.10 @ 3:35PM

I'm not an elitist, I'm a pragmatist. If you could count your pecker and get the same number twice you'd know the difference.

Thank you for making my point.

scythe| 10.30.10 @ 7:46PM

Then lance the boil. Because the day of reckoning is inevitable. And I, for one, will no longer put up with my property and earnings being confiscated to appease the rabble. I am armed and ready. Let the games begin.

FTM| 10.31.10 @ 5:05AM

Scythe, 'ol buddy, item number one, making such a statement in public in such a fashion in such a forum probably just tripped a half a dozen internet nutcase trip wires that the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and state law enforcement folks have running on sites like this one that are designed to identify white supermists, neo-nazis and other garden variety nuts. Good job.

Second, you can pick out a really good top-end automatically served, computer controlled close in defense system, something by the good folks down to Oerlikon, BA or GE, you could shoot the lands straight out of said weapon system and still get over-run.

While you're busy defending whatever from your neighbors, when are you going to raise the crop for the next winter, maintain your housing and personal clothing and the zillion and one other day-to day things that you must do in order to survive let alone go potty.

Have you really sat down and thought about this? Is your plan to end up on CNN, (the Communist News Network) like Randy Weaver or the Branch Davidians. If that's the case you have a really good start.

scythe| 10.31.10 @ 3:37PM

Fail to see how DEFENDING myself translates into an act of AGGRESSION. Still retain the right to do that, don't I? When others make noises about mass violence in "inner cities" those are code words, brother. So when you put average Americans with the right to bear arms on par with paramilitary groups waging a covert war on the government, you are way out there. Read the post I responded to again. Read it S L O W L Y if you have to. If I and others are THREATENED by our fellow citizens who have to urge to get VIOLENT because they can no longer be allowed to STEAL with the permission of their whore masters in Congress, you better believe I am armed and ready.

FTM| 10.31.10 @ 3:50PM

The good thing about America is that anybody that wants a gun can have one. The bad thing about America is that anybody that wants a gun can have one. Did you miss your prozac this morning scythe?

Alan Brooks| 10.30.10 @ 11:43PM

"Urban centers that are dependant on social spending will become increasingly violent. Riotous. Govonors will mobilize their national guard organizations to assist local law enforcement in maintaining order. After a couple of months the expense of maintaining a mobilized national guard will further stress already bankrupted states like Kalifornia and the National Socialist People's Republic of Illinois. The federal government will be asked step in and assume full time military control."

You left out how Jack Ruby will return from the grave to fluoridate the water used to bake Girl Scout cookies, causing the UN to confiscate your guns and bullion.

FTM| 10.31.10 @ 4:53AM

Nah, Alan, really. What I am seeing is a country going further and further into debt with no political will to stop the bleeding. The democrat party has demonstrated their desire to spend money that we don't have regardless of effect or paying the least attention to the constituency. The republicans on the other hand operating a winning campaign on, "we're not democrats."

So, what's the plan folks? How do we get ourselves out of a 14 trillion dollar hole? Actually 14 trillion dollars is a conservitive estimate. If you add in the debt accrued bu the various states the number is probably between 20 and 30 trillion dollars.

I'ver posted before a short, of the cuff laundry list of spending cuts and policy changes that are by no means complete or perfect. The laundry list that I have posted however is a lot more than I've heard any politician mention.

I want to hear somebody propose a plan.

FTM| 10.31.10 @ 6:16AM

I have some time before church so I decided to post an example of the delimma that we face. Just one example, there are lots of examples to choose from.

Illegal immigration. The political reality is that the democrats don't want to address the problem in any other fashion than to grant amnensty to these folks believing (rightly) that they would accure an automatic 12 to 20 million additional votes.

The republicans are unwilling to address the problem in that they view the 12 to 20 million people in the country illegally as a source of sub-minimum wage labor for their constituency to exploit.

Now, the facts surrounding the matter is that if we were to grant amnesty to these folks isn't it reasonable to assume that they are going to demand at least minimum wage? Isn't it also reasonable to assume that if we legalize these people that about ten seconds after these folks are legitimized that there aren't going to be any minimum wage jobs available in the country. Isn't it also reasonable to assume that if we legalize these people that they're going to want to import their families? Mom and dad, granny and grampa, the spouse and kids so that 12 to 20 million number suddenly becomes 80 to 100 million impoverished, uneducated people suddenly jammed into the American social service system. The system just implodes.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that the people that are exploiting illegal immigrant labor at present are going to almost immediately want to import another 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants to replace the people that were legitimized?

Now, let me preface all of the above by saying that if I lived where these people lived that I'd want to come here too. Illegal immigrants are just people doing the best that they can to make their way in the world, same as you and I. However, what I've read illegal immigrants cost the state of kalifornia 10 to 13 billion dollars a year in social services, public education and health care. What's the cost across the rest of the country?

A justification that I've heard people use in defense of the illegal immigrant is that these people are performing jobs that Americans won't do. That may well be the case. So we are paying 10% (more likely 20%) of the available, able-bodied American workforce to stay home and not work, via 99 weeks on guaranteed unemployment. That makes sense.

So, you take the issue, illegal immigration and all the peripheral issues, add up the cost and it is readily apparent to me that we need to get on the stick and I mean right now on this issue and get these folks out of the country. They're bleeding us white.

I've read that the republicans want to trim $100 billion out of the 2011 budget. Here's your sign! Make an effort to identify, incarcerate and deport illegal immigrants, left wing whiners and right wing "business intrests" be damned. The total cost that these people add to the federal deficit not to mention state and local deficits would be a windfall. My guess is that it would take a couple high rise buldings full of accountants and a couple of stupor computers just to estimate the savings.

And all that I hear from either of the political parties on the topic is a loud, roaring nothing. White noise. Like I said before, a pox on both of your houses.

FTM| 10.31.10 @ 7:56AM

There, mother-in-law is taken care of, the pellet stove has been maintained as per manufacturers recommendation and I've eaten breakfast. Spouse went off to work about an hour ago.

Spouse and I take care of spouse's mother who is real bad off with Alzheimer's. On top of that glad fact we have two kids in college and not one damned dime of public support. Not that we haven't applied mind you, if we lived in a homeless shelter we'd have do-gooders standing in line with money. Money extorted from frugal and productive people by thugs with guns and badges. Just another amazing feature of the American political reality, the productive are punished in the most shameful manner and the useless are publically rewarded. Spouse is a RN working in a psychiatric hospital and I'm a production support engineer working in the automotive sector. We're so broke I can't pay attention.

The only difference between the cops and the criminals are badges.

The mother-in-law, father-in-law is no more, was robbed blind by a member of the family. The member of the family also cleaned out a couple other members of the family. The cleaner-outer walked away scott free instead of being strung from a lamp post. The cleaner-outer has rights you know. Meanwhile we have useless, public sector do-gooders that swing by every once in a while, unannounced to look in the refrigerator to make sure that mother-in-law isn't being abused or neglected. The public sector do-gooders get all pouty when you don't let every obligation that you're juggling fall to the floor and focus all of your attention on accomidating them.

Spouse and I have had what some folks call a "vacation" one time in twenty-six years of marriage. Work, plan and sacrifice so that you can be robbed to pay some useless slob to reproduce. God Bless America.

Now, based on the observed fact that neither of the current "mainstream" political parties have the political will to do anything in regards to the illegal immigration problem in America not to mention the raft of other problems that are fiscal drains on the national treasury, sources foreign and domestic, someone explain how we avoid a military dictatorship. Sooner or later, by one mechanism or another the big people are going to have to take charge.

FTM| 10.31.10 @ 3:57PM

Well Scythe, 'ol buddy, did you read the above two posts or is your attention span and reading comprehension up to the task.

I'm still waiting for somebody to post a plan to get the US out from under the debt burden that we've accrued paying useless people to procreate.

gearjammer| 10.29.10 @ 1:04PM

He learned too late, in 1996. His wife was a horror in her last campaign.

Willey| 10.29.10 @ 4:35PM

He wasn't so great in his campaign either.

Alan Brooks| 10.29.10 @ 3:19PM

"Bob Dole is a nice man and a man of integrity"

So was Jimmuh. Why do you lacerate yourselves (with guilt) concerning a silly old fool such as Dole, who ran amost 14 years ago? because you are hairshirts-- that is why. You like the sting (frisson Tom Wolfe called it) of defeat & disgrace.
And you will run another loser in 2012 because you lack the unity that:

a. Reagan gave you.
b. the Cold War gave you.

Since about, say, 1990, the GOP has had an auto-destruct mechanism wired into it.

Patriot| 10.29.10 @ 4:33PM

We'll see which party auto-destructs on November 2, Brooks. Defeat and disgrace are bailiwicks of demoncrats like you.

Richard| 10.29.10 @ 10:41PM

Hopefully by now people who voted for Reagan relize, Trickle Down Economics was a joke and a bad one at that.
Reagan Bankrupted the Country, Only we had more inertia than the USSR and it took awile longer for it to stop.
As the only thing that ever trickles down is sludge.

Insanity is doing the samething and expecting different results. Vote independant! neither the D's or R's have done anything useful for this nation since Nixon Resigned.

Jordan| 10.29.10 @ 11:11PM

Let's see some proof for your BS charge, moron. You libtards are going down big time next Tuesday. Talk about sludge--we're going to flush you!

Reaganomics was responsible for 20 million jobs and the peaceful demise of the USSR. It just tears you apart, doesn't it, loser?

Too bad pig Clinton didn't resign after his impeachment--maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened and those 3000 Americans plus so many of our good soldiers would still be alive.

Alan Brooks| 10.30.10 @ 4:45PM

"Vote independant!"

No, Obama is our best trajectory at preventing another four or eight years of a Bush-type chair-warming administration. Please let's keep focused on that, I know it's very hard to concentrate, very difficult; however we have to forestall the Karl Roves of this world. That is priority #1. Roves will do anything they can to gain power- and we must throw a wrench into that sort of thing.
It CAN be done. Please! do you want another four/eight years of sterile Bushian politics? do you want that on your conscience?
TheGOP is being eaten up by guilt because they screwed up bad after the Cold War finished.
Do you want to pour more precious years down the drain by enabling another Bush/Rove administration, Richard?

We have to play carefully with the cards we are dealt with, or let the Grand Old Plodders make us fold. PLEASE think about it.

Alan Brooks| 10.30.10 @ 5:05PM

Richard, we lost 12 years between the two Bushes!
Do you want to try for 16 or 20? PLEASE think about it.

Margie| 10.30.10 @ 11:57PM

Alan,
LOL. Now you're on the side of the Libertarians! Oh the Bushies were sooo bad.
Thar's Neo-cons in them thar hills!

Mark Rhoads| 10.30.10 @ 6:14AM

I agree that Sen. Dole is a person of integrity from the heroic World War II generation. But his personal rationale for running in 1996 at age 73 appeared to be that of a career man who mostly wanted his gold watch of a GOP nomination before he retired. He worked very hard in the last week but he did not know how how to make a conservative case. Bill Buckley said Dole was conservative but not "a conservative" and that is correct. It used to annoy lifelong GOP volunteers when Dole would so often tell his anecdote about how he became a Republican when he got in the wrong line at his county clerk's office in Kansas to register. Dole thought that was a funny story but millions of people motivated to work because of believing in principles were deflated and demoralized by his frivolous and clueless approach to any coherent philosophy.

Margie| 10.30.10 @ 11:53PM

I'm sorry but the only thing that deflated and demoralized me was that Clinton won the Presidency of the United States of America.. not once.. but twice.

God bless Bob Dole, I will always love him. And last I heard he was hospitalized.

RCV| 11.2.10 @ 4:45PM

Bob Dole is a good and decent man, and our country will always be in his debt for his valiant service in her defense.

Margie| 10.31.10 @ 12:06AM

Well said, John.

mulp| 10.31.10 @ 12:11AM

Obama passed Bob Dole's health care plan.

Which was the plan Gov Mitt Romney signed into law in Mass.

So, the problem with Bob Dole, and Mitt Romney, is the were extreme leftists.

The Clintidote| 10.31.10 @ 2:42AM

Dole sucked ass. When the old fool finally retired and left us alone, in his speech he said his proudest accomplishments were the ADA and Food Stamps - two more enormous burdens on the American People.

Stupid old Big Government coot. Odds are that America would be somewhat better off today if the Italians had taken him out during the war.

Paul| 10.29.10 @ 11:22AM

Odd comment. I can understand why you would be tired of pushing a candidates message after a campaign is over, but tired of saying good things about Bob Dole who was well liked on both sides of this aisle. The country would be in a much better place if there were more Bob Dole's instead of the highly partisan elected officials we now have.

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 3:45PM

"Conservatives" love to eat their own.

Gryphon| 10.29.10 @ 4:54PM

Conservatives like to eat their own, Democrats whack their own to get what they want. How many people were just waiting for Bill Clinton to turn into the Bag Man for the Democrat party and the Obama administration. Clinton has tried to whack more people than Don Corleone. Nothing personal in the DNC, strictly business, just ask Vince Fosters family.

Alan Brooks| 10.30.10 @ 11:50PM

"just ask Vince Fosters family."

Or Lee Harvey Oswald's family. Find out if Diana Ross assassinated Martin Luther King, or was the perp Steven Hawking.

Tim*| 10.31.10 @ 11:40AM

Spoken like a Neocon CINO .

Explosion Proof Light | 11.3.10 @ 11:30AM

That is not true, for he done something is helpful to poorer in fact.

loulou| 10.29.10 @ 11:26AM

Bobdole was marginally better than John McCain. Both were tired old men whose turn to run for President had come. Bobdole wouldn't have conceeded BEFORE the election was held the way McCain did. Can you give Bobdole credit for that?

Doug| 10.29.10 @ 11:37AM

Bob Dole was indeed marginally better than John McCain as a candidate, but really, who isn't?

kirk| 10.29.10 @ 12:51PM

Bob Dole and John McCain were both terrible candidates. I hope the GOP is bright enough to figur this out. The GOP wins running successful former governers of major states. That's is. Experince running a large state administration is crucial to good presidential candiddates.

Alan Brooks| 10.29.10 @ 3:24PM

"The GOP wins running successful former governers of major states."

The only thing Palin lacks; but she might be elected POTUS around 2020-- as a sop to rightwing feminism.

Patriot| 10.29.10 @ 4:37PM

Looks like Brooks is finally coming around to the inevitability of a Palin presidency. You just got the year wrong, libtard--it's 2012!

marconi| 10.29.10 @ 5:45PM

Lucky that Palin isn't President. She'd have quit by now because of the gotcha questions of the lamestream media.

Like "Which newspapers do you read?"

Patriot| 10.29.10 @ 6:27PM

Forget it, Mythbot RINO. Your boy is responsible for the RomneyCare debacle in Mass. and we won't forget his big government Progressive agenda.

We've been kicking out RINOs like Myth all year; what makes you think we won't do the same to Myth?
He's democrat-lite, and we already ran that in 2008.
How'd that work out for you, loser?

chester arthur| 10.30.10 @ 10:03PM

Which newspapers do you read?How about,the small town papers that concern themselves with real life and real people?How about,anything but the paper of retching in the rotten apple?

Alan Brooks| 10.30.10 @ 4:49PM

"Looks like Brooks is finally coming around to the inevitability of a Palin presidency. You just got the year wrong, libtard--it's 2012!"

So you tacitly admit her hold is based on right-wing feminism?

chester arthur| 10.30.10 @ 10:09PM

I know too many women who like Palin,who would belt you for calling them feminists of any type,including the rocket engineer I married.They like her because she's trustworthy,intelligent,and ambitious without neglecting those around her.They tend to share those qualities.These are qualities the current urkel-in-chief lacks.

Margie| 10.30.10 @ 11:39PM

Urkel-in-Chief. What a picture.

Donnie| 10.30.10 @ 9:27AM

I am under the impression that everryone thinks the GOP will trot out the same old candidates but one that will top them all if he decides to run is not Jindal but Haley Barbor. He has done great things in Miss. and he would hand Obama the reality check that he is sure to get. He will find out what a mandate from the people really is when he is booted out.

Joshua| 10.30.10 @ 3:28PM

Barbour is too close to GWB. No thanks.

Margie| 10.30.10 @ 11:36PM

I have always really liked Haley Barbour. Great super duper cool guy (which in my book means a great conservative, Right thinking man.)

Sharon Tomal| 10.30.10 @ 12:03AM

Dole lost in part because he was such a decent man. It would never occur to him to lie, cheat, or run a sleazy campaign. He was also a conservative, but pragmatic man as well who sought common ground whenever possible, not because like Clinton, his political life depended on it, but because it was the right thing to do.

Nobama| 10.30.10 @ 3:30PM

Dole is a good man, but he's weak. The sleazy democrats tore him apart.

Noway| 10.29.10 @ 11:09AM

Well, for Clinton, not only did he get the gift of Bob Dole, there was that little thing called Ross Perot as well.

Kishego| 10.29.10 @ 11:51AM

Bingo !! Perot was the spoiler in that race. People that voted for Perot would have by a large majority voted for Dole over Clinton. Clinton only garnered 43 % of the vote. Not a stellar performance.

Kevin| 10.29.10 @ 12:03PM

Kishego, Clinton won 49% of the popular vote in 1996, Dole won 42%, and Perot won 9%. No way Clinton would have lost, with or without Perot.

Fred| 10.29.10 @ 1:11PM

Kevin - doesn't 42 + 9 = 51? Most observers credit Perot with Clinton's initial electoral victory. FWIW

Bob| 10.29.10 @ 3:32PM

Ya gotta love arithmetic!

Roy| 10.30.10 @ 11:34AM

It's not obvious that all of Perot's 9% would have gone to Dole.

Kishego| 10.29.10 @ 2:41PM

You're right Kevin, Clinton won with 43% in '92. So, I defer to Freds post. Perot WAS the spoiler.

Possum Dearie| 10.29.10 @ 8:30PM

Marco Rubio has been leading in a three way race, and he will continue to lead when Meek drops out and endorses Crist. Clinton was always a frontrunner and a charismatic candidate. All the star power in the world won't help Sarah Palin.

Nobama| 10.29.10 @ 9:54PM

Palin IS star power, troll, unlike cardboard cutout RINO Romney--and she won't be impeached like Pervert in Chief Billy Clinton.

chester arthur| 10.30.10 @ 10:11PM

You don't need so much star power if you're qualified.That's why star power,whatever you think that is,becomes so important to the simplistic voters of the idolatist left.

wGraves| 10.29.10 @ 1:47PM

Bush created Perot when he compromised: "Read my lips...no new taxes!" The rest is history.

Patriot| 10.29.10 @ 4:40PM

Bush the elder was a weak RINO who specialized in go along to get along. The democrats destroyed him.

Nobody| 10.29.10 @ 2:25PM

In both elections, Clinton did not pull 50%.

In both elections, there was a less than 50% turn out.

So in both elections, less than 25% of our voters put Clinton into office.

There's your perspective. They still tout the "so popular" message. . . .no, he wasn't. Less than 25% of the electorate elected Clinton both times.

It's all how you "spin" it. Just like his BS about balancing the budget. Little thing called a dot com was over heating under clinton, and then the waves of reduced reagan defense spending - waves of cash rolling in.

A monkey could have sat in that chair and looked good. Lots of us believe a monkey was sitting in the chair.

As I said, it's all about how your market your BS. Not about the truth. . . .

TXoldgeezer| 10.29.10 @ 7:16PM

Most people, starting with Lying Bill Clinton, mistakenly give Clinton the credit for the balanced budget of the 1990's.
Actually, it was entirely the work of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress,

Willey| 10.29.10 @ 9:58PM

You're right about Gingrich's successful Republican Congress--in obvious contrast to the economic mess we're in because of Pelosi's Democrat Congress.

Doug| 10.29.10 @ 11:34AM

Given the scope of Reagan's re-election win (a 49 state landslide), I wonder if anyone could have come close to defeating him. In reality, the Democrats knew their goose was cooked, and gave the nomination to Mondale because it was "his turn." I agree, however, that the GOP screwed up royally by giving Dole the nomination; whether there was anyone else out there who would have done better is, unfortunately, mere speculation.

Pepe Le Pew| 10.29.10 @ 2:39PM

See readers' comments under"Our Norman Rockwell and Theirs."

Pepe Le Pew reports on Bo, the Obama's dog.

Jeffmet| 10.29.10 @ 5:51PM

The only viable candidate that the GOP has right now is Mitt Romney. Sarah Palin is a bunch of talking points. Huckabee and Gingrich are too far t the right. The GOP will push their same old agenda and Obama will kill them in 2012.

Patriot| 10.29.10 @ 6:23PM

Myth Romney is the absolutely worst Repub candidate out there. His RomneyCare debacle in Mass. has sealed his fate forever. Sorry.

Torrap| 10.29.10 @ 6:35PM

I beg to differ. There are quite a few bright (younger) republicans on the horizon; gathering more political experience and credentials than BO ever hoped of having when he ran. And they are not Marxists, to boot.....

Annie| 10.30.10 @ 11:48AM

So true. The Obama election being a prime example, of course. McCain. Yuck. (and I am a republican!)

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.29.10 @ 6:36AM

The reason so many candidates are so weak, and this applies to both parties, is because many appear to be part of the ruling class with few principles to lay before the public. They are simply newly clothed supporters of statism.

Ironically, the one possible candidate who has the Tea Party solidly behind her, is Sarah Palin. Her ascendancy in the Tea Party has some of the Republican insiders shaking as evidenced by this series of statements from Karl Rove:

"As proof that Palin, specifically, was not up to that challenge, Rove cited the promotional teaser from Palin's new reality show, "Sarah Palin's Alaska," in which the tea party champion declares, "I would rather be doing this than in some stuffy old political office."

"With all due candor, appearing on your own reality show on the Discovery Channel," Rove said, "I am not certain how that fits in the American calculus of 'that helps me see you in the Oval Office.' "

Rove then continued with his assessment of Palin's chances of replacing President Barack Obama as the primary resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

"There are high standards that the American people have for it [the presidency] and they require a certain level of gravitas," Rove said, "and they want to look at the candidate and say, 'That candidate is doing things that gives me confidence that they are up to the most demanding job in the world.' "

First, Karl Rove launched George W. Bush who, although he wasn't a bad President, made some serious mistakes. The interviewer who was questioning Rove should have asked Rove where the Bush gravitas was when federal spending was exploding as well as federal authority. Is that what gravitas is?

The statement Rove made about the pubic having high standards when it comes to the President are also ridiculous on another level, because that public elected Barack Obama, someone without high standards who simply built their President on the Bush legacy to some extent, and on Karl Marx to a greater extent. Where were those high public standards during the last election cycle?
If Rove is to be believed then Obama is a great President and he's not.

In essence, the Republican leadership appears to have not learned their lessons yet.

Perhaps Karl Rove has an idealized version of who or what the President should be now, now that the Bush version of gravitas is gone.

Frankly, I think Sarah Palin could do a better job then Obama, Bush or Rove in the sense she hasn't bought into the illusion of statism yet, and although Rove talks a good game, Bush was a statist in many areas and to great degrees. In some instance, like national security, it was necessary.

Rove can rightly state now that O'Donnell was not a perfect candidate because her public speaking skills are questionable. However, her opponent, Coons, is simply an empty suit and Delaware likes empty suits as evidence by Joe Gaffing Biden, the Vice-Presidential clown.

In short, Rove is the embodiment of what is wrong in Washington, D.C., calling for and imagining and declaring there are all types of high standards, when what is really needed is someone who understands what it will take to clean up a sewer.

There is no gravitas in D.C. Not in the Republican Party (Exception Jm DeMint), not in the Democratic Party and not in the body politic who elected Barack Obama.

What we have is the absence of gravitas. D.C. is a gravitas free zone.

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-d.....?icid=main|compaq-laptop|dl1|sec3_lnk2|180760

coal carrier| 10.29.10 @ 7:09AM

Great post.

janet| 10.29.10 @ 7:21AM

I agree, great post!

PolishKnight| 10.29.10 @ 10:16AM

I agree with the post except for this remark: "First, Karl Rove launched George W. Bush who, although he wasn't a bad President, made some serious mistakes."

The difference between a good and bad president is precisely how many serious mistakes they make and GW made a lot of them. Let's start with the BI-PARTISAN serious mistake: Go into a double war that we're still not out of. This gave rise to a bi-partisan peace movement.

Then there's the mistakes he made that alienated his base while not making any new friends: Support for "comprehensive immigration reform" (amnesty). When he made his speech justifying it, I was angered because he insulted my intelligence by saying something like: "We need to enforce immigration laws but at the same time be merciful and let those who broke it go." Yeah, sure.

He federalized airport security which didn't improve matters at all but made it more expensive and created a whole new group of federal unionized employees to vote democrat for years. He actually took the side of the racist/sexist employers and universities that sought to discriminate against white males. He allowed guns to be confiscated from peaceful, law abiding, and even helpful citizens during the Katrina disaster. Oh, wait, I almost forgot that: Katrina. Whether it was his fault or not, he allowed the left to effectively blame him for the whole thing even moreso than the hurricain itself!

Bad president? He was disasterous! He only managed to squeak through two elections because his opponents were so awful. Gore won the popular vote and Kerry/Edwards, well, enough said about the Vietnam war vet who prided himself on bashing OTHER vets and a slimy trial lawyer.

Then... they tried to give us effectively Bush III with Amnesty Maverick McCain who prided himself on hating his own constituency more than the left did because, hey, Mavericks are out of control! McCain was so awful that half of the readers here probably stayed home on election day. Heck, his own daughter probably voted against him after he asked her to. What a bunch of Rove fruitcakes.

Nunya| 10.29.10 @ 11:24AM

PK, good post. I agree with pretty much everything you said (I disagree about the war), but I would add one more--he spent money like it was going out of style, making the Republican party look like out of control Democraps. Now, having said that, Obozo has taken spending to a whole new level of stupidity, but W didn't help himself or the "conservative" party by what he did. Frankly, he wasn't a Conservative, he was a globalist--and that's about the worst thing you can say about anyone, in my opinion.

PolishKnight| 11.2.10 @ 10:05AM

Nunya, sorry about the late response, but I want to clarify why I am against the war.

I know a lot of fiscal conservatives who are against the Iraq war for fiscal reasons. I also know of independents who would ordinarily lean towards the republican party but feel alienated by the war.

Big Tony| 10.29.10 @ 8:25AM

Carl Rove is the same political operative that a few years ago was making the case that defict spending did not matter. Look where that kind of thinking got the republican party. I don't know where he stood on the nation building process that Bush promised he would not under take but I can not understand why anyone takes Carl Rove's comments and opinions seriously any longer.

Marconi| 10.29.10 @ 5:46PM

Deficit spending does not matter. Except when Democrats are in charge of the WH.

Patriot| 10.29.10 @ 6:22PM

Spoken like a true big government RINO Mythbot.

Steve A| 10.29.10 @ 8:39AM

I will probably get hammered for this but I am going to go with it. I think Palin is great, would pull the lever for her all day over BO or any Dem, BUT, its her voice that gets to me. I do not know how to describe it but I have a cringe reaction when I hear her sometimes. Like it or not, I think it is a drag on her chances.

NattyGreene| 10.29.10 @ 9:33AM

I agree. I like Palin. Her judgement is a lot better than most pols and she's got more than enough intelligence to be POTUS. However, the best thing should could do for her Presidential hopes it to hire a voice coach. Its a purely cosmetic thing, but the combination of her voice tone, cadence and syntax is hard to take if you're not from the upper midwest. It plays into the liberal meme that she's just dumb bumpkin, which its pretty clear to me she is not. Palin needs to quit re-enforcing the negative perceptions the media has created about her, but still maintain her connection to "the folks."

Cosmetic issues are, unfortunately, a significant influence when we make judgements about people. Just ask 5'5" man how his height has affected his dating options and career advancement.

scribe15| 10.29.10 @ 10:02AM

I think that Palin's deficiencies are more than cosmetic. Coaches could train her to lower the register of her voice, but they can't teach her how to communicate effectively using the English language. A candidate has to be able to think on his/her feet and put together coherent, cogent sentences, and Palin has trouble doing that. She is going to run for 2012 and its going to be painful to watch the gaffes fly. There are limits to what a coach can achieve, and I think Karl Rove has rightly concluded that Palin is beyond the pale for coachability.

Nunya| 10.29.10 @ 11:28AM

I'm not a big Palin supporter, though I have nothing against her. However, your statement "A candidate has to be able to think on his/her feet and put together coherent, cogent sentences" completely belies the current Idiot in Chief we have now. The man can't speak intelligently without a teleprompter or some leftist interviewer lobbing him softballs.

Just sayin'....

Doghouse Riley| 10.29.10 @ 11:39AM

Conservative candidates will never get a pass from the MSM on gaffes and incoherency the way that Obama, Biden, Reid, etc. do.

We need to accept that fact. It means that we can't nominate candidates who can easily be portrayed as lightweight, regardless of the fact that the Democrats can get away with it.

iss| 10.29.10 @ 12:26PM

Obama talking to the Republican Congress:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47cEX9z_akQ

No teleprompter. And, please, don't pretend that these are not intelligent answers. You might not like the answers but they are clear and well argued.

So you're either stupid, ignorant or being deliberately deceitful.

Nunya| 10.29.10 @ 1:34PM

Ad hominem attacks, anyone?

They're the result of a lack of an ability to have an intelligent discussion.

iss| 10.29.10 @ 4:11PM

Oh me oh my.

Try responding directly to the substantive point I've made instead of dodging.

jennifer| 10.29.10 @ 2:58PM

He didn't look so good on John Stewart's Daily Show when he said that Bush's economic advisor, Larry Summers ( who he hired also ) had done a "GREAT JOB"!
Even Stewart said he shouldn't have said it. POTUS looked defensive and ill prepared.
What if it had been a "real" interview with "real" pressure Q's?
So much for tingly feeling up the interviewers leg, huh.

iss| 10.29.10 @ 4:19PM

Actually Stewart asked questions that went right to Obama's weakness (timidity in the face of Republican obstructionism) as perceived by many liberals / progressives. Stewart also by the way showed an unnecessary level of disrespect for the office of President by using the word 'term' to address Obama. Obama answered his questions clearly and intelligently and once again, without using a teleprompter.

iss| 10.29.10 @ 4:21PM

I meant to say

"by using the term 'dude' "

Willey| 10.29.10 @ 4:44PM

I've read that Obama uses a teleprompter in staff meetings and Cabinet meetings. What a moron.

Perhaps he uses a teleprompter when he tells bedtime stories to his daughters, too.

BHO| 10.30.10 @ 1:37PM

All these complaints about the way Sarah Palin talks is straight out the ruling class playbook:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....s-and-the/
Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America's ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

chester arthur| 10.30.10 @ 10:16PM

There may be limits on what a voice coach can do for Palin,but with urkel,no limits on what a teleprompter with more experience than the current president can help the little marxist claim to be able to do.

Nobody| 10.29.10 @ 2:38PM

Dittos to both you and Steve A's observations. Her hard "r"s and her "arighty then" fargo type inflection just absolutely grates on my nerves.

She needs to put a ping pong ball in her mouth for a month and speak around it - to teach her how to "open" the vowels in her speech.

Her voice and pronunciations are grating and irritating. She's more effective as a leader of a movement.

I don't want her as my candidate. We have other options available to us. John Thune, for 1. Mitch Daniels is another. . . .

I really don't want a retread like Sarah. I'm sorry. She reached too high, too fast - without gaining enough polish in either her speaking, or her views. She should have recognized she was out of her league and sought help anywhere she could.

And I'm sorry to all her fans out there, but the tweeting? Knock it off if you think you're a leader.

The nation needs a "leader". . not a "tweeter." I don't want to be concerned with her sitting across from Momouhd Aminneedofadinnerjacket being afraid of her saying saying "you betcha" and winkin' at the guy.

Yea, she's down home folksy. . . .I get it. I don't want a "folksy" president. I'm sorry, I don't.

That's going to get me massacred, but I'm just not a fan. I know lots of people who feel the same way. She's great as a "movement" leader, but I don't want her as my president.

Clevelander| 10.29.10 @ 3:57PM

@Nobody

I totally agree with you. I like Sarah, but she will not score a GOP victory in 2012. She's great for "motivating the base" (how I hate that phrase), but she will persuade no one. The voice doesn't help, but she is a political neophyte who seems less intelligent than she is. If only Chris Christie were ready to run. This guy's got Reagan potential.

Patriot| 10.29.10 @ 4:51PM

Hmmm. I smell the stench of Romneybots.

Palin's the only Republican who has stood up to the Leftwing juggernaut during the last two years, and a lot of us admire her for her courage in the face of the Left's hateful assault.

She's smart as hell, has more charisma than anyone else on the political scene and is one tough cookie.

I've never worked for a campaign in my life but I will bust my tail on behalf of Sarah--and there are many more like me. You underestimate Sarah Palin at your own peril.

Marconi| 10.29.10 @ 5:48PM

I think you should change your name to Really True American Patriot.

Nobody confuses you for a patriot right now. Sarah might.

And, please bust more than your tail. Your head might be nice.

Patriot| 10.29.10 @ 6:20PM

Typical SEIU thug liberal "tolerance" on display or perhaps just another idiot cardboard RINO Mythbot. Can't really tell the difference because your stench is the same.

Doesn't matter, we're going to crush both of you thin-skinned losers. You'll see.

Occam's Tool| 10.29.10 @ 11:02PM

Hey, I'm 5'8" and my wife had to beat several women off to catch me. It helps that I was well-off and had a shoe size triple E. Say no more. Sarah is a fox.

lanceaf| 10.29.10 @ 9:39AM

When you ask someone about Palin, you get a negative reaction.. Then, you ask, "Why?".. And, you don't get a valid response... Or, you get a response about her appearance or demeanor..
Your observation is correct.. Her appearance/voice is the biggest drag on her chances.. She doesn't 'appear' to be a president...
Consider this: suppose you asked Obama to write down his platform and beliefs on paper (redistribution of wealth, taxes, Cap-n-Trade, Health care, etc..).. then, you asked Palin to write her beliefs on paper.. (lower taxes, less gov., oil, etc..).. which would most Americans favor?
Now, ask each person to give a speech... Who will be more persuasive?
it's a sad situation in America.. Most voters don't do their homework and look at the candidates voting record and platform.. Instead, they rely on television ads, unsubstantiated promises, the appearance of a candidate, or simply they vote dem or GOP...

Maccabeus| 10.29.10 @ 10:06AM

I love Sarah Palin precisely because she is so down to earth and speaks plainly and clearly. She often says what many Americans are thinking, and she says it in language anyone can understand. That being said, I do not think she is presidential material - at least not just yet. Her approval ratings are not all that solid either. The bottom line for me is this: the Republicans (and the Tea Party) must nominate a presidential candidate for 2012 who can easily beat Obama and who does not carry alot of controversy or baggage. We need a fresh face with solid conservative credentials and proven experience, someone who can match Obama in eloquence and expose his distortions and obfuscations. There are any number of candidates available: Sen. John Thune, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Rep. Ron Paul, former Sen. Rick Santorum, etc. I would stay clear of Palin, Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee or any candidate from the past. The GOP needs to think outside the box and be bold, fresh and creative. Obama must be defeated in 2012 and none of the past candidates can do it.

Dai Alanye | 10.29.10 @ 1:42PM

"...match Obama in eloquence..."

Surely you jest. Obama often comes across as nearly incoherent without his teleprompter, although he recently has succeeded in memorizing stock answers to certain questions. In general, however, he cannot coherently speak off the cuff.

Obama can assume the role, yetis unable to perform in a presidential manner. I'm willing to concede him a reasonably high I.Q. but his abilities are only those of a community organizer. That is, a person who facilitates those who actually come up with and act upon solutions to problems. He isn't a leader in any normal sense of the term, only able to pose as one in order to mislead indiscriminate voters.

Maccabeus| 10.29.10 @ 4:11PM

When I said the GOP needs a candidate who can "match Obama in eloquence" I meant someone who can, in fact, speak eloquently without the aid of teleprompter so at least in the eyes of the public and the liberal media (which will be biased in Obama's favor) cannot possibly complain that the GOP candidate lacks public speaking skills and can, at a minimum hold his own against the public perception that Obama is eloquent. I agree with you on all other points.

iss| 10.29.10 @ 4:27PM

Obama talking to the Republican Congress:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47cEX9z_akQ

No teleprompter. And his answers couldn't be scripted here since he was replying on the spot to questions posed by the Republicans.

Please don't try to claim that this is incoherent. No-one with any clue would call this performance incoherent, whether or not they agree with his actual policies.

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 4:48PM

But that's the entire point, iss.
It's the policies I despise. The policies!
Socialist policies may be "coherent" to those whose ears want to "hear" them. He may speak them "well."
But that in and of itself is utterly worthless.
Give me Sarah Palin's sometimes high pitched voice with her God loving America loving right thinking knowledge and understanding of how & what makes this country great anyday over this Marxist-in-Cheif's horrible destruction of our freedoms!

Willey| 10.29.10 @ 4:56PM

Poor iss! The Obama drone can produce only ONE example of Obama speaking without a teleprompter.
LOL!

Obama "dude" got his clock cleaned by Jon Stewart last night and it made him look even weaker than usual.

I would laugh at the poor dear iss if he weren't so pathetic.

scribe15| 10.29.10 @ 9:51AM

I agree- Palin has a screechy, high-pitched, grating voice..cringeworthy. also annoying is her hopeless syntax and what she thinks passes for a sentence. Like " I'd rather be doing this than in some stuffy political office." She just seems uncomfortable speaking English- she pauses where it doesn't make sense to pause when speaking, like she has no feeling for the meaning of what she is saying, or doesn't get how the words are supposed to fit together to mean something...together with that manic grin of hers- weird how she is so engaging to so many people. Do you really want to hear her screeching from your tv for 2 years, running for 2012?

Nobody| 10.29.10 @ 2:48PM

Truthfully speaking, I can tolerate Palin more than I can Obama. I finally know what liberals were dealing with and their "Bush derangement syndrome." I can't stand listening to Obama's tent revivalist preachy sing song snake oil garbage anymore. And his tired old stupid joke about "put the car in D". . . .it was stupid the first time, now, it's just pathetic the 180th time.

Palin? I cringe, but I can tolerate her. Obama? No. He's just a smoke blowin' BS artist who doesn't have a clue what he's doing while he blithers at you. And when the nation disagrees with him, he still thinks he needs to blither at you more.

He is narcissistic and worships "all things Obama" and never considers he may be wrong. He clings to his self aggrandizement with a tenacity that suggests he's unbalanced. His speeches give every indication he refuses to listen to the nation's message. Even as he is about to take a pounding at the ballot box, he thinks the republicans have to work with him, and not visa versa. He's out of touch with reality. And ever time he opens his yap, he proves to the nation how out of touch he is. He's just not going to listen to the nation. So each time he flaps his gums, the wave gets bigger and bigger against him.

And he deserves it. His arrogance and narcissm is just jaw dropping.

Yea, I'll listen to Palin any day of the week over Obama.

skip| 10.29.10 @ 5:00PM

scribe15:

Now reread your post of 9:51AM and insert 'Obama' for 'Palin', and change time frame to the last 2 years.

Tim*| 10.29.10 @ 10:50AM

Actually Scribbles,what we really don't want to hear is your claptrap .

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

We Remember In November.

WayneH| 10.29.10 @ 11:27AM

Tim, you need to recognize that the posts here regarding Palin are almost universally respectful of her policy ideas, her integrity, etc. Like you, I'm also a big fan of the Tea Party but that does not mean I have to blindly follow a leader whose speech deficiencies cause a large portion of the electorate, including myself, to cringe. Blind devotion to leaders is what got us into this mess. If Palin is the best the conservative movement can offer, than I think we may as well kiss 2012 goodbye now and save ourselves the screeching.

Tim*| 10.29.10 @ 12:03PM

Wayne:
Apparently,you aren't aware that We Tea Party Rebels are urging Our Kingmaker Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina to run for The Presidency in 2012.

Brian| 10.29.10 @ 8:54AM

"Rove can rightly state now that O'Donnell was not a perfect candidate because her public speaking skills are questionable."

Are you serious? Carly Fiorina or Linda McMahon would have hired this woman as an admin assistant with her joke of a resume and record of suing her employers.

No way is this woman qualified to be a Senator. We need to recruit better candidates than this.

Joel| 10.29.10 @ 9:26AM

I think that we need to split two things here. Christine O'Donnell's primary victory and the general election. Christine O'Donnell's fiscal message won against a "moderate" or a statist Republican that would have been another mainstreet partnership type that plagued Bush(43)'s term.

Her message won...its just that she has some personal skeletons that relegated her unfit for the general election.

Notice that the media zeroes in on O'Donnell who is virtually the only "Tea Party" candidate that is likely to lose this election. An ultimately winning strategy in most cases is exactly what happened in this primary. Vote for the strongest fiscal conservative(low taxes, low regulation, simplified laws in general, anti-debt, etc) in the primary and support them for the general election.

Conservatives are bound to the Republican party in this day and age, but that doesn't mean that we need to poison ourselves by presenting milquetoast Democrat-lite options to the rest of the electorate. The winning formula is to present fiscal conservatives with strong moral fiber...these candidates won't have this type of achilles heel.

PolishKnight| 10.29.10 @ 10:22AM

One of the reasons why it's hard to find "qualified" conservative candidates is that even many conservative voters themselves accept the liberal media argument that candidates need to be perfect and flawless.

Let's consider the conservative icon Ronald Reagan and the liberal media campaign against him: He was old and senile. He was a B movie actor who starred with a chimp. A chimp! Can you see the leftist media now asking him: "Governor Reagan! Do you hang out with chimpanzees today and ask them for advice? Or do you deny it?"

Consequently, we are often stuck with career republican politicians who have uninteresting backgrounds and are either boring or play it safe or worse, have learned to play ball in politics. If they have actually connected with their electorate via having a normal job, or having explored conservative political ideology via meetings, then they probably have said a few bad things or hung out with someone that the media will sieze upon.

In the meantime, the well qualified president of the USA thinks that there are 52 states and Al Gore thought he invented the internet.

Richard| 10.29.10 @ 3:00PM

The difference is Reagan would have come back with a snappy reply like "Today, I hang out with you guys, and you dont look like chimps" and let the "act like chimps" just hang there

BHO| 10.29.10 @ 9:33AM

Not disagreeing with you but Obama isn't qualified to be the President and he is in fact the President. I would prefer Christine O'Donnell over Lindsey Graham or John McCain any day of the week.

Deborah D | 10.29.10 @ 1:36PM

Hear! Hear!!

George| 10.29.10 @ 10:12AM

Why don't you get a dictionary and look up gravitas?

Merriam Webster| 10.29.10 @ 10:57AM

Definition of GRAVITAS
: high seriousness (as in a person's bearing or in the treatment of a subject)
Examples of GRAVITAS

1. The new leader has an air of gravitas that commands respect.
2. a comic actress who lacks the gravitas for dramatic roles
3. The new leader has a certain gravitas.

Origin of GRAVITAS
Latin
First Known Use: 1869

chester arthur| 10.30.10 @ 10:22PM

'Why don't you get a dictionary and look up gravitas'?Simply because the liberals need to learn how to look up words they use without understanding for themselves.Geez,don't liberals think people can do anything for themselves?

jackie| 10.29.10 @ 10:20AM

right on.

scribe15| 10.29.10 @ 10:27AM

Karl Rove was just trying to be nice by saying "gravitas". what he means is that the President of the United States should be an educated person who can string two sentences together. That isn't elitism, it's a candid assessment of what a candidate needs to do the job of President, and Palin doesn't have it. Judge people by their skills, their ability to communicate, their innate intelligence, regardless of social class. Don't condemn Karl Rove because he is "ruling class"- he has a tremendous gift for analysis.

BHO| 10.29.10 @ 10:39AM

To: Scribe15
Who are you kidding? George W. Bush had trouble stringing two sentences together. In fact comedians had a field day with it. In fact, Rove does not have a gift for analysis. Washington is a sewer full of corrupt politicians and only those who believe in the ruling class defend it by claiming higher standards. See the comments above for an analysis on Bush.

Nobody| 10.29.10 @ 3:03PM

Yes, Rove is very gifted. Bush was also gifted. While he went to Yale, he still projected a "down to earth" texan style. Reagan, an affable good natured, positive man. Palin has numerous attributes, but some really annoying ones that, unless she mitigates, I can't get past them.

Obama's idiocy wiht his sing song tent revivalist preechy stuff is getting really old, really fast.

The problem for that idiot Obama? Bush, love him or hate him, you knew he was doing what he thought was right for the nation, because he loved this country.

Can you really say the same thing about Obama? No, you can't. His "we suck '09" tour, his self aggrandizement in Germany, his bowing all over the place, issuing deadlines to Iran as if simply the act of "Obama's decree" would be enough to stop them. . . .his ignorance with the freedom fighters being gunned down in the streets, and it takes him 4 days to respond? The "3:00am" call with the oil spill, and it took him 62 days to waive the jones act when nations all over the world said "you've got a problem there skippy. Take our skimmers." And Obama refused.

He's arrogant, stupid, self aggrandizing, narcissistic and absolutely appalling.

When he makes decisions, do you really think he has our best interests at heart?

Polls say no. Remember, once you're considered "too dumb to govern" by people, you never get the "look how smart" he is prism back. Everything he does will be measured through the "look how dumb he is" prism.

Welcome to Carter territory. Carter never recovered. Self pitying, self enamoured at his own superiority, still behaves like that. The biggest idiot POTUS we've ever had, and he still thinks he's relevant.

Obama is heading there - and won't recover. Clinton "aw shucks"ed himself out of his stupid frat boy behavior. . .Obama doesn't possess that personality trait.

Obama is arrogant, aloof, self enamouring, self aggrandizing. Aren't you glad he complains about the press while he's buying shrimp on his vacation while 1 in 7 is struggling to feed their kids?

This guy acts like he was "drafted" rather than sought this office. Aren't you glad he's going to spend 10 mil by the end of htis year with his personal entertainment and private whitehouse concerts on our dime, while people are losing their homes and lives?

This is who Obama is. He's never lead anything in his life. He thinks you should give him unshaking loyalty, and he should never have to explain himself, or wear the consequences of those leadership decisions.

He wants to be a rock star, not a leader. Obama should have learned to play the guitar. . . .

FrankPOP| 10.29.10 @ 11:15AM

Chris Christie looks like a man with some gravitas. He a conservative governor in a deeply blue state. Independents and Tea Partiers alike would swarm to his type of common sense populism. He said he is not running but he would be a strong contender in the wishy washy GOP field.

Kishego| 10.29.10 @ 1:21PM

I think a Christie/Jindahl 2012 ticket would be awesome. Or a Jindahl/Christie ticket. Either would be good.

Deborah D | 10.29.10 @ 1:44PM

Good choices. I'd actually like to add a possibility -- Mitch Daniels/Christie or Daniels/Jindal.

Christie is a great attack dog. Daniels has more experience in IN as governor. Both could point to what they've done in their own states.

Lots of good choices out there.

Kishego| 10.29.10 @ 2:18PM

I would fully support My Man Mitch, I'm a big fan of his. He's done an excellent job here in Indiana. A Daniels/Christie or, a Daniels/Jindahl ticket woukld indeed be equally awesome.

Nobody| 10.29.10 @ 3:07PM

I'd like to throw in John Thune's name into the ring.

Love Mitch, and Christie both. I'd like to see Thune in the mix also. . .

Kishego| 10.29.10 @ 3:23PM

And they keep telling us there are no good choices to run on the Republican ticket, bull. These are all excellent choices for us come 2012.

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 3:10PM

Christie, Palin, Jindal, DeMint, Daniels~
ALL a breath of fresh air compared to our present Obamination in office.

Roy| 10.30.10 @ 11:49AM

I loved Palin at the 2008 Repub convention, voice and all. Then again I am from the upper Midwest.

It just makes me bitter that the leftoids were able to push her out of her governorship with the yibbering "ethics" complaints. Otherwise she'd, by 2012, be halfway through her second successful term as governor of a state that, like Texas, would be doing much better than the nation at large.

Margie| 10.30.10 @ 11:30PM

Heartfelt words which I share with you.
God is just. The Left isn't REALLY getting away with anything.. just in this here life. That's all. In the meantime we continue fighting.. and knowing that God is on the side those who do right.

With all this talk from the Left about how we should all RUN for our lives from Sarah, I know she has an excellent chance of winning if she runs for President.
The Left ALWAYS underestimates the goodness that is inside of the majority of Americans. Like Ronald Reagan, Sarah appeals to just about EVERYONE!
God bless her. (And you too.)
p.s. my husband just made the comment that speaking of underestimating us, imagine if the Left did leave Sarah alone and she did finish out her term as Gov., she wouldn't be running for President right now. (If she is that is, and if so, so be it).

So we see that once again, every word of God proves true and in this example I apply the following verse:

"As for you, you meant evil against me (Sarah); but God meant it for good.." Gen. 50:20.

Sunnyside| 10.29.10 @ 11:25AM

I agree.

loulou| 10.29.10 @ 11:32AM

Rove and his ruling class GOP cronies are the problem. He just had to have that tantrum and trash O'Donnell more than Creepy Coons ever has.

And pantywaist Cornyn couldn't bring himself to wholeheartedly support O'Donnell. The GOP rulers want Senators they can call the shots for. That would have been Mike Castle, not O'Donnell. The NRSC wanted Crist, not Rubio and Trey Grayson, not Rand Paul, etc.

Texas Conservative| 10.29.10 @ 12:40PM

I think the CONSERVATIVES should nominate Marco Rubio for President. He has the essential level of CONSERVATIVENESS, is young, well educated, has done other things in life OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT (unlike Obama), and can help galvanize the Hispanics to the CONSERVATIVES. Notice I didn't say REPUBLICAN - its the CONSERVATIVES WHO COUNT. Run Rubio, especially if Florida elects a Republican Governor who can replace Rubio with another CONSERVATIVE.

Nobody| 10.29.10 @ 3:12PM

Why doncha wait and see what Rubio actually does first before annointing him.

He could be an abysmal failure.

There are lots of other people who have more experience than Rubio for 2012.

I'm thrilled how bad Crist looks right now after this nonsense with Meeks. He's another "sore loser" who saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to face the music.

Cornyn should be slapped hard for opening his mouth at all if he didn't want to endorse O'Donnell.

I'm waiting to go at Sen Inhoffe for opening his fat yap saying he couldn't wait for the "ear marks" moratorium to be lifted. And Republican Rep Lewis, California, too.

Go after both those guys, and defeat them next round when they're up. "Pork Barrel" parasites.

Get rid of them - put up challengers. Earmarks should be made illegal. If your project isn't good enough to stand on it's own, you have no business demanding tax money from someone in Utah pay for your garbage project in Ohio.

Keep purging parasites like those guys out of the republican party. Get rid of all of them.

Roy| 10.30.10 @ 11:51AM

Sen. Inhofe is also the Republican who most vigorously stands up to the warmodoom alarmists. I've never thought the "earmark" thing was nearly the big deal people made out of it.

Margie| 10.31.10 @ 12:12AM

I agree. I think Inhofe is one of the good guys. Not all of the oldies need to be thrown out. There are a lot who do good, and have done for decades.

daboss| 10.29.10 @ 3:44PM

that might work ....

The Clintidote| 10.31.10 @ 2:50AM

The GOP will nominate whichever doddering old man is the oldest. Because it'll be his turn.

Boner and Lightloafers Lindsey will guarantee this outcome.

phil| 10.29.10 @ 12:52PM

the fact that you say obama has marxist ideology only shows that you are in fact ignorant. do you understand what marxism actually is?

what's funny is that you old white people... cause that's what all of you who agree with this post most certainly are... actually have this irrational fear and hatred of socialism. people under the age of 30 think it's both sad and funny when you make comments about progressives being communists/socialists/marxist. it's kinda like when grandpa makes blatantly racist statements.

you realize that this country was a much more "socialist" country from 1900-1970. and in particular in the post WWII years. higher rates of union membership, over 80% income tax at the highest levels, etc. and also the largest growth in wages for the lower class and middle class... and really the creation of the American middle class.

Kishego| 10.29.10 @ 2:02PM

I think you are the one that is ignorant. Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto ; " The history of all hitherto existing is the history of class struggles". Obama is all about "class struggles", you cannot watch a speach of his without hearing him at some point talk about greedy CEO's or evil corporations. Karl Marx believed that socialism would replace capitolism and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure capitolism. He referred to the transitional period from socialism to capitolism as "the workers democracy" (Workers of the World Unite, sound familiar). So again, I think you are the one ignorant of Marx, Alinsky (Obama's inspiration, you know the guy that dedicated his book to Lucifer) et.al.

Kishego| 10.29.10 @ 2:03PM

ooops! that should say "pure communism" not capitolism.

Nunya| 10.29.10 @ 2:05PM

Phil, people under the age of 30 have been brainwashed by an educational system designed to do exactly that.

Progressivism, Socialism, Marxism, etc., et al, are all flawed ideologies. All of them.

Kishego| 10.29.10 @ 2:25PM

You're right Nunya, people under about 35 have never experienced a real economic recession, and have no understanding of the havoc and evil that socialism, or communism or state capitolism, is and has been capable of. They just are not taught about these evil ideologies. Ask anyone under 30 who Joseph Stalin was and 9 times out of ten you get a blank stare back at you.

iss| 10.29.10 @ 4:58PM

It's spelled 'capitalism' not 'capitolism'.

Have you actually read what Phil has said, people?

PAY ATTENTION
"you realize that this country was a much more "socialist" country from 1900-1970. and in particular in the post WWII years. higher rates of union membership, over 80% income tax at the highest levels, etc. and also the largest growth in wages for the lower class and middle class... and really the creation of the American middle class."

Not one of you morons has actually addressed this substantive point. The US was MUCH more 'socialist ' than it is now for most of the twentieth century and who would claim that it was not hugely successful throughout the 20th C?

Address this point please.

Nobama| 10.29.10 @ 6:11PM

Shut up, stupid. You leftists have just nationalized 17% of our economy with the passage of ObamaCare. We are much more socialist now than ever before. Stop lying.

Nobody| 10.29.10 @ 3:21PM

Actually, you give yourself away with "you old white people". . .

It seems you yourself are entrenched in a "race" mindblock, and a paradigm of ignorance.

Show me a 30 year old who laughs about Marxism, I'll show you someone still living at home with mommy and daddy in the basement, sitting in his underwear reading HuffPo.

Ask any successful 30 year old - versus "any" 30 year old, and you'll get a world of difference in the answers.

Look around you - and you'll see your future. If you surround yourself with underwear cladden whiners who expect the tax payers to wipe their butts every time they mess themselves, that's who you will be.

As for the rest of us well adjusted individuals who actually contribute to society, we have healthy children who understand they need to make it on their own, and will be fine. This is just a rough patch. We'll get through it.

It's only a question of how long the whiners are going to sit on their blankets before they realize, no one is coming to clean their undies. They need to clean themselves up. (Yep, I'm talkin' to you California. Think all those towns in CA better consider a chapter 9 bankrupcty.) Because we "americans" aren't gonna bail your sorry rear ends out. You made your mess. . . you clean it up.

iss| 10.29.10 @ 4:48PM

Phil, well said.

On right-wing sites, surrounded by some of the most laughably ignorant opinions, clear headed sanity looks all the better!

Willey| 10.29.10 @ 5:01PM

"Clear headed sanity?" You mean like your posts showing that Obama gave exactly one successful speech without a teleprompter?

You're pathetic.

loulou| 10.29.10 @ 6:19PM

"...actually have this irrational fear and hatred of socialism."

That's what I read in Phil's post. He's quoting Jimmy Carter almost verbatim. Yeah, I DO have a fear and hatred of socialism.

Patriot| 10.29.10 @ 6:38PM

And it's not irrational!

carnot| 10.29.10 @ 9:19PM

awwww....yesssssss...those days are looked upon in fond remembrance by Black America!

CJ| 10.29.10 @ 12:54PM

While pithy, I think you’re mischaracterizing Rove’s comments. In his comments about the public having “high standards” with regard to presidential candidates, I understand Rove to be referring to the level of the candidate’s gravitas – in other words, does the candidate appear to be a serious person that the electorate could envision holding the office. I didn’t understand that comment to refer to the depth of the candidate’s agenda or platform (about which Obama had very little, other than “hope and change”). Because Obama got elected does not mean that he is a great President; merely that he was an effective candidate. That much is undeniable – he won!

In this context, your comment about Bush’s lack of gravitas in connection with his federal spending habits is similar misplaced because you’re mistaking Bush’s conduct or effectiveness as President, while Rove is talking about the public’s perception of a CANDIDATE’S gravitas to be president. Bush the Candidate was positioned as being an effective governor of a large state and before that an effective businessman. In Rove’s words, those were the things that Bush the Candidate was doing/had done that gave the public the confidence that he was up to the task of being president. I think Rove’s criticism of Palin is that being on a reality TV show isn’t as likely to instill the same type of confidence in the public that she what it takes to be president (putting aside the fact, of course, that she was briefly governor of Alaska).

So, while DC is lacking in many things, I don’t necessarily think it’s gravitas – there’s substance to what those people are doing (unfortunately). There isn’t always very much principle, however. And, whether one likes her or not, I would argue that Palin presents a more principled candidate that we usually see.

BHO| 10.31.10 @ 7:17AM

Name one act of gravitas in D.C. You left that out while claiming it's there. Let's see one example.

BHO| 10.31.10 @ 7:17AM

Name one act of gravitas in D.C. You left that out while claiming it's there. Let's see one example.

Bobo| 10.31.10 @ 5:42PM

Corruption?

Booger | 10.29.10 @ 6:44AM

From the desk of Republican National Committee Chairperson Michael Steele:

My Fellow Republicans,

I believe it behooves us at this juncture to ponder our future. With the mid-term elections now just a few short days away, our internal polling suggests that there is an off-chance that we may actually take at least one house of Congress. I must confess, no one is more surprised by this turn of events than myself. As you are all well aware we are not yet ready to govern, yet it seems the reigns of authority are about to be thrust into our unwilling hands. Thus we should consider what we will do with the aforementioned reigns.

I believe it is of the utmost importance that we not govern in an irresponsible fashion which might alarm the people of this nation. Nothing could dim our future prospects more than to seek out unnecessary confrontations with our Democratic colleagues, and especially with our noble and ever-popular president. It is our responsibility to find ways to compromise with our President and thus provide a model of good governance, which will then show the people of this country that we can indeed be trusted with governing powers. Above all, me must avoid confrontations with our Democratic friends, as this will only increase the problems of partisanship which have embroiled our nation of late. By showing a willingness to compromise, and even capitulate, we will demonstrate that we are the better people.

That being said, I know some of you are concerned about incoming Congresspeople and Senators who may be members of the "Tea Party" movement. I too have noticed that they do indeed possess an unnecessarily pugnacious attitude. Might I suggest a course of action in dealing with these individuals? Let us invite them to soirees, dinners, fetes and all manner of fabulous entertainments afforded to us in this fair city. Once they learn that it really is possible for them to be well-liked here if they will only tone down the rhetoric and ease up on the fighting then surely they will learn to get along with our Democrat friends. I know it's worked for the rest of us.

Now as to the matter of 2012. We need a candidate who will not disturb the electorate. We need a candidate who will not make waves or rock the boat. We need a candidate who knows how to play the game here in D.C. so that he can actually get things done. We need a candidate who knows how to compromise and reach across the aisle. We need a candidate who understands that Republicans aren't really ready to govern, and so will allow the bureaucrats to run the show for us. I think you know who I mean. C'est moi, c'est moi! And just think, by voting for me you can show that America is finally a post-racial society and you aren't a bigot. What could go wrong?

Sincerely,

Republican National Committee Chairperson Michael Steele

steamboat| 10.29.10 @ 10:34AM

And Democrats are ready to govern ? LOL - Look around Bub.... they're governing has been an utter disaster for America. Hence th edisaster for Dim on Nov 2nd.

TEXAS CONSERVATIVE| 10.29.10 @ 12:43PM

IS smoking dope legal in your state?? What planet are you currently residing on???

iss| 10.29.10 @ 5:03PM

You got my vote Mike. Lay it on me bro!

Nobama| 10.29.10 @ 6:09PM

You mean your "votes" right, iss? We all know you libtards like to vote over and over again.

Mark| 10.29.10 @ 1:44PM

Generally correct post.
I'd cite Paul Ryan for gravitas. The biggest problem with Rove was his misplaced loyalty to the Republican tag. I still is galling to think of the White House supporting Arlen Specter in his primary. That loyalty was repaid just as anyone could have predicted.

Booger II| 10.29.10 @ 7:22AM

PS: "What could go wrong?" was a rhetorical question and I was not seeking an answer. So don't get back to me with questions or statements about my allegedly trying to buy a luxury jet to fly around in because I was simply trying to get into the mind of Nancy Pelosi. On one level I agree with her that "It's not a jet, it's a ride." Forget the fact that I'm spending over $10,000 a month jetting away to get the flavor of publicly financed accouterments. As far as some other allegations about strip clubs and high expenses, including over $42,000 spent on a trip to Hawaii, those aren't relevant and the question about what go wrong was simply rhetorical. Also, forgive me for playing the race card at one point. I was under stress from spending so much money. I'm sure you understand.

Once again, faithfully yours,

Michael Steal

coal carrier| 10.29.10 @ 7:36AM

Obama was a junior Senator with no accomplishments and no experience. His gravitas is that he is a word merchant and possesses great handlers. Of course the George Soros money helped, along with the Roman Columns.

And I wonder if when he attended Columbia and Harvard if he ever took a history course. Did he study economics? How about mathematics? We certainly know that he didn’t study geography, (57 states).

But what does one expect when someone starts out his or her career by studying political science? What else can they turn into but a lip service lawyer?

Brian| 10.29.10 @ 9:19AM

Roman Columns? Boy, did I get it wrong. I thought they were Greek, to represent the "Unknown God" (i.e., the Big O) who the masses were worshiping. See Acts 17.

Joel| 10.29.10 @ 9:28AM

He studied Geography alright...in an Islamic school...

loulou| 10.29.10 @ 11:34AM

Barry the non-citizen didn't study geography, he LIVED it--in Indonesia, in Kenya, in Pakistan...

Maccabeus| 10.29.10 @ 10:12AM

The nation was well aware of Obama's thin resume and pathetic lack of executive experience. No one wanted to listen and obviously, most voters chose to turn a deaf ear to just about every warning concerning Obama. It should come as no surprise to anyone, especially now that the country has recovered from Obamania, that Obama would take the nation down the path he has chosen, regardless of public opinion. The man has an agenda and he is hell-bent on imposing it on the country because his arrogance and sense of superiority over the masses dictates so. Now the blinders are coming off most eyes - sadly not all - and the most pressing goal of the GOP in the next two years is to nominate a candidate that can utterly defeat Obama in 2012.

RustyG| 10.29.10 @ 7:51AM

"Just as Obama's meteoric rise has been followed by a precipitous fall, he could conceivably make a triumphant comeback two years from now."

When I hear pundits make a claim such as this all I can do is scratch my head. If whoever is running against this POS would simply tell the truth about who he is and what he believes, without even mentioning the destruction to America that he has caused, the man would be unelectable.

Deborah D | 10.29.10 @ 8:27AM

I'm with you, RustyG. I can't believe Americans would be gullible enough to re-elect a Marxist. Americans want this guy gone! It's not only the economy we're concerned about out here! We're concerned about the country! This guy has his boot on the neck of businesses, entrepreneurs, corporations, the American taxpayer and everyone else I've left out. We know we can't expect much to improve until he and his little cabal of leftists is swept from the government. Republicans have to watch every damn cabinet, every damn czar. If you can't afford to do it -- I'm sure there will be tons of American volunteers.

All a Republican candidate for president has to say is: "We will make a clean sweep of every last rule, regulation, overbearing law and government glut left over by the previous administration. We will defund, cut-off and get rid of: the EPA, the Energy Department, the Department of Education (and the rest of the BS crap floating in the alphabet soup of big government.)" And not just say it, but tell the people how he/she plans to go about it. Get the rest of the Republicans running for re-election (and not running) to pledge their devotion to those causes. If there is a will, there is a way. "Afterall, we are Americans." -- Ronald Reagan

BHO| 10.29.10 @ 8:51AM

Bravo!

Louis Jenkins| 10.29.10 @ 8:13AM

"...70 percent of the economic stimulus package had been spent. "

On what? Somebody tell me on what? The Pretender n Chief has spent money, on graft, on a few roads here and there, on the SEIU, and such, but has it really helped? I think everyone here knows the answer. Come this Tuesday get up, go to the polls, and let the Pretender n Chief know what you think. A flat rejection of Obama, his minions, and his policies will be the order of the day. And be careful if you vote a Republican straight ticket, I'm hearing that many of the electronic voting machines are rigged and default to Democrat.

Money Well Spent| 10.29.10 @ 8:27AM

Well, over $800 was spent teaching African men how to wash their cajones? You got a problem with that Senor?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75198
The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent $823,200 of economic stimulus funds in 2009 on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex.

The genitalia-washing program is part of a larger $12-million UCLA study examining how to better encourage Africans to undergo voluntary HIV testing and counseling – however, only the penis-washing study received money from the 2009 economic stimulus law. The washing portion of the study is set to end in 2011.

pete the mediocre| 10.29.10 @ 10:21AM

Good Lord! What would it cost to teach them how to bathe their entire bodies?

Carrie| 10.29.10 @ 6:07PM

They've never made the attempt, so how would they know?

Curly Smith| 10.29.10 @ 8:30AM

In 1982 the Democrats ran against Reagan
In 1994 the Republicans ran against Clinton
In 2010 the American people are running against the Political Machine

The Democrats have nationalized races since the invention of television and "broadcast journalism". The Republicans nationalized the 1994 races with the "Contract with America". The Tea Parties nationalized the people against the Establishment. Make no mistake, the 2010 elections are as much against the Republican policies and leadership of the past decade as they are against the administration.

But, contrary to what Bill Hussein O'Stalin suggests above, I beginning to think that the GOP Leadership has learned their lesson and they want 3rd Party challengers for every seat in 2012. They're like every lousy boss you've ever had, they'd rather drive the company into the ground than delegate and give up power. It's their party and you'll vote for who they want you to. And you'll like it!

hardcard| 10.29.10 @ 8:37AM

hey mr. rove remember jimmy carter ? gravitas?

hunter| 10.29.10 @ 8:44AM

Well... whom ever said that health care would be Obombas Waterloo will be found to be right. Not that it would be his Waterloo because he couldn't get it passed..........But because he did. By arm twisting, threatening, lying, cheating. Welcome to WATERLOO, Mr. President! It begins November third.

Lazy Jack | 10.29.10 @ 8:53AM

Obama unfortunately mistakes rewarmed ideas from the '30s as brilliance. His greatest sin really is that he is not original, but his sales skills - aided and abbetted by sycophants who think Keynes was just swell - have convinced just enough people that he actually knows something.

The sad truth is we are living through an ongoing economic and political sitcom called “That ‘70s Show.” Some facts:

Democrats have held majorities in the Senate 73% of the time since 1932. Democrats have held Majorities in the House 79% of the time since 1932. So, for 78 years Democrats have controlled the legislative, spending, and social agenda of the United States for about 75% of the time. It is “That ‘70’s Show.” When James Carville declared in 2009 that this was a new dawn and Democrats would hold a majority for the next forty years it must have been a joke. There was nothing new about it.

The tragedy may be that he will win again because on balance, congress and the public appear to prefer style over substance.

Lazy Jack

www.thanksforthelaughs.wordpress.com

Tim*| 10.29.10 @ 9:00AM

We Tea Party Rebels don't allow our opponents to "Define" Us or The Candidates We support.
Obviously, there is an ongoin' effort by a coalition of Democrats,their Media Flacks & RINO-CINO's to "Quayle" Palin & Trash The Tea Party.
We are also urging Our Tea Party Kingmaker & The Conservative Point Man Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina to Run for The Presidency in 2012.

We Tea Party Rebels like it when the opponents & their fans Boo Us. That's because we're givin' them the much ask for electoral "punch in the mouth" that they've been askin' for.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

We Remember In November !

scribe15| 10.29.10 @ 10:08AM

Don't get too smug, there, Lipton. Proud about droppin' yer g's an all that . just because ya don't talk pretty don't necessarily mean yer right. Remember, pride goeth before a fall. Including bein proud of bein' Mr. Everyman aka Joe6pack.

Tim*| 10.29.10 @ 10:25AM

Gee Scribbles, We don't take lectures from Rulin' Class Apologist Twerps like You either.

We Tea Party Rebels Will Give Ya Our Answer On November 2nd !

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up In Rebellion!

Lawrence of Lutz| 10.29.10 @ 9:04AM

Oboma will win in 2012. Why?
Because he will spend money on welfare, government unions and any other way to "bribe" the voters. On the repub side, they'll pick another loser like the past....Dole, McCain. Rove and Company would rather lose to the democrats than lose their power in the party. The country is already half way over the cliff.

George S| 10.29.10 @ 9:41AM

Obama's only asset in 2008 -- his skin color -- no longer holds hypnotic, guilt-inducing powers over a badly bitten and seriously smarter electorate. He's going nowhere in 2012.

scribe15| 10.29.10 @ 10:14AM

It isn't Obama's fault that the left decided to have a giant political orgasm over him and chose to believe that he would transform the country...and the world! overnight. Bill Clinton said it best during the bitter primary- Obama's rap was "one big fairytale" that Liberal America chose to believe. Why go for dumpy old Hillary in her stodgy pantsuit when you could go for a rock star and pat yourself on the back for promoting the first black president?

PolishKnight| 10.29.10 @ 10:49AM

Scribe15, the term "giant political orgasm" describes the left's reaction over Obama accurately.

I lived in the DC metro region when he was inaugurated and the attendees really acted as if this was the most important moment of their lives. It was a moment for them where reason and context were totally missing and replaced with sheer joy.

For blacks and even non-whites in general, it was a moment to be (rightly) proud of: The first non-white-male president. It was a glass ceiling breaker. In addition, after Obama won a primary against Hillary, it also meant moving the Democrat party away from the elite upper class white women feminists into one where non-white interests would lead.

For the (remaining) white male and female liberal elitists, it was an era of the end of White Guilt. No longer did they have to feel guilty for all the sins of white males. Well, they would still blame conservative white males for everything but THEY were absolved with their vote for him. Perhaps even in their hearts at the time, they thought that this "diversity" speil that they use to attack white male conservatives with was real.

Then there's the morning after.

They basically put Jimmy Carter into office. In addition, his magic didn't work overseas after election. Since Europeans and the rest of the world didn't buy into White Guilt which is a leftist paradigm to dehumanize white male conservatives, he fell flat immediately after he started asking world leaders to actually DO anything for him. Meeting with him for photo ops to bash GW Bush is one thing, actually committing troops and/or money is another.

At home, he did the predictable which is the problem. He blew money like a drunken sailor since he already got GW to help him spend a lot of it before the election. He rammed through a health care bill that stunk even by leftist standards.

Does anything feel like they're living a "diverse" Sweden, yet? Exactly. It's just like life under GW Bush, only poorer.

There's an old saying: If you want to discredit someone, give them their way for a while.

Yosemeti Sam| 10.29.10 @ 9:55AM

" ... Just as Obama's meteoric rise has been followed by a precipitous fall, he could conceivably make a triumphant comeback two years from now...."

Um, what you been drinking?

" ... triumphant comeback ...."

IOW, Americans could flock to buy a refurbished pig in a poke again!

In a pigs' eye!

Um, was that too Hussein bashing of me?

Um, too pork-minded of me?

Forsooth - BHO & Co. has been a weapon of mass destruction to Americas' Constitutional precepts.

He et al belongs in the historical political mire for their actions.

Anon:

Parenthetically, Rove is still a political Turd and Steele may claim pungent leftovers. Shoo to both!

These two clowns should be of non sequitur importance to the GOP culling process for conservative candidates in 2012.

THEREIN, is where BHOs' 'plight' would stem from - the riches of unpredictability from GOP anti-RINO conservative gauntlets; thanks in part to O'Donnells' stimulating conservative guide to haunting of RINOs.

Minds have been terribly wasted via the PEN1 spiel - aiding and abetting BHO and his cohorts in Congress.

Order of the day: WE THE PEOPLE know WHO our AGGREGATE 'enemies' are - address them accordingly.

2010 - springboard to 2012!

Greg | 10.29.10 @ 9:57AM

Obama will not change, and he will not recover. He will ram as much of his agenda through as he can, then mysteriously step down before 2012. He's a full on believer in the power of the state, and will do whatever he can to increase that power, even though it will destroy the state.

http://theillinoisguy.com/2010.....-the-team/

Mike D.| 10.29.10 @ 10:22AM

Barack O'Marxist is not going to move to the center, he's a marxist revolutionary usurper, not a Clinton type Politician. Revolutionaries LOVE to be marytred for the cause. If he gets beat in 2012, he will see himself as just that. He will ram through by executive order or by whatever other means constitutional or not his agenda and fall on the sword for his "heroic" contributions to the revolution. These Marxists love this "selfless" sacrifice to the cause mental masturbation they engage in. If he goes down in 2012, the media and "entertainment class" will have him on such a high heroic pedestal he will need a parachute to ever see the ground again. He is their Che Guevara. The martyred "hero"

Mimi| 10.29.10 @ 10:01AM

We are now about to do OUR COUNTRIES DUTY AND VOTE. This republican rout will be like none other in our HISTORY. This one is different...very different! It is an AMERICAN battle with "THE ENEMY WITHIN" . it will be a repudiation of a LIBERAL, LEFTIST.SOCIALIST take-over. Right now we are clinging with clenched fists to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION with all our might! We will hold account those who invented plans to take away our rightful LIBERTY!!!! Fiscal , taxes prosperity and social-cultural problems will all fall by the wayside and get properly solved once...PROBLEM NUMBER UNO is taken care of. Long live AMERICA for the ages. Nov. 2nd well done....we have just begun!!!

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 3:14PM

Amen to that & well said, Mimi!

steve purtell| 10.29.10 @ 10:07AM

I think Obama will be like Carter, too stubborn to change, rather than Clinton. Hopefully, we can find the next Reagan in the next two years. Concerning Karl Rove (I've know him since College Republican days) he'll be around in in the next GOP administration whether a solid conservative or a squish.

Iska Waran| 10.29.10 @ 10:25AM

Palin does not deserve to be nominated because she shared the ticket with McCain - who ensured passage of the loathsome TARP by making it his top priority. It matters not whether TARP "worked" - which is debatable. TARP prevented economic losses from flowing to where they rightly belonged (mostly foreign mortgage bond holders). It cemented the idea that losses can be expected to be forever socialized, a very bad idea indeed. She's co-opted the Tea Party mostly because the mainstream media needed a figurehead and she seized the opportunity. That the Tea Party has no formal structure means that she cannot easily be repudiated.

Furthermore, it would be unnecessarily difficult to win in 2012 with a standard-bearer who speaks in clumps of dependent clauses and who quit halfway through her first term as governor. Half of her campaign budget would have to be spent on full-time employees inserting verbs into her flow-of-consciousness speech. If we trust the voters who cast out the Dems in 2010, we should also trust that there is good reason why Palin has a 27% favorable rating in recent polls.

Other would-be GOP candidates who would go down like the Hindenburg: Huckleberry, Mitten and Newter. All we need is to find a decent, plausible candidate who is not weird. There must be at least one.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.29.10 @ 10:25AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I blogged this reply on another forum RE Sarah.
The guy was expressing hope that Sarah would be nominated so Obama could clobber her.

"Your reply reminds me of that ole' Brer Rabbit story. "Please don't throw me in dat dere briar patch!!!"

I know this may sound a little counterintuitive, but let's wrestle with it a little.

IF Sarah runs...she will force the other candidates running in the primaries..."to man up" (smile).

If the unthinkable happens and Christine of Delaware comes in with 4 or five points under Coons... the question in the ole'boys club will be..."what if we had supported the republicn voters of Delaware? What if we had backed their choice?"

One false flag the media (communists) always waves is that Palin is a "Polarizer". Sir, our country is polarized in my mind to a larger degree than at any time since 1861.

...Polarized to such a degree that "moderates" are straddling an ever more cutting..... barbed-wire fence.

In my experience, I have never seen Orson Scott Card THE GREAT MODERATE totally blown up.
Go check out his last two or three articles at the Ornery American. Whoah!

One friend suggested that by 2012 Daffy Duck could beat Obama, especially if we get a Republicn House to make him whine even more, or if international threats spin out of control due to his wimpyness on defense.

I just finished very plausible fictional scenario novel that examines the near future. You can get the foreword and chapter one link at
www.texassaidno.com

Finally, the elephant in the room these days is the Iranian nuclear threat.

Instantly after the mid-term elections, I fully expect Sarah to make a very strong case for cutting off the Mullahs' revenue source and fuel supplies...and right the heck now.

She could have another #1 bestseller already out churning her money, but she has purposely kept it in secret until after the mid-terms. She has a solid sense of priorities.

...I fully expect Israel to do her best to delay Iranian nukes for at least two years. A story just came out this morning that Iran's primary long-range missile complex sufferred a major explosion disaster. Israel?

I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

Oh...yeah...the exact same kinds of things said of Palin were said of Ronald Reagan..."A B-Movie actor" yada yada yada.

I hope she tests the water....then runs like the dickens. (smile)

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 3:19PM

Excellent post, Old Tex.

Yep. They said the same lame things about Reagan. And now it's Sarah's voice or her accent.
Meh!
Sarah will do as Ronald Reagan did~ ignore them.
A force much bigger than they think to be reckoned with.
Indestructible ~ full of integrity and the love of God ~She is a winner!

scythe| 10.29.10 @ 10:29AM

There is one HUGE difference between Reagan and Obama. PEOPLE LIKED REAGAN. They are beginning to loathe and despise the Done. You can't fix fear and loathing.

skip| 10.30.10 @ 1:00PM

"Beginning to...?" I despised the despicable maggot as a senator before he was a candidate.

Give me a Washington, Lincoln, or Reagan.

No respect will ever be given to a Carter, Clinton, or Obama voter.

Voice of Sanity| 10.29.10 @ 11:07AM

So if I read all of these comments correctly, Barack Obama is an Islamist Marxist who was elected only because he is biracial and is bent on running America into a ditch so that his foreign Islamic buddies can take over.

Right....

Then there's Sarah Palin, your hero, who is also a half term governor that rarely says anything of substance and who quit her elected office in order to be...what...a reality TV star....our next president?

Right....

Oh, and Jim DeMint...gravitas?...

Right....

The primary reason for the TEA Party and the Republican "resurgence" is 9.6% unemployment. If that stays the same in the next two years, Obama will be in trouble. If that goes down appreciably, he will be re-elected. Simple as that.

scythe| 10.29.10 @ 11:31AM

You sound so smug...so how come you haven't a clue that the effective rate of unemployment hovers around...17%? You boil everything down to unemployment but under that rubric, breathing life into those disastrous numbers are the policies of the Marxist in the White House. Everything he stands for, everything he has done is retrograde, backwards, pre-enlightenment, and feudal. Failures from once century to the next and yet, he is too stupid to get it. Or perhaps malevolent enough to keep the misery alive. You keep parroting the propaganda of the left, keep slashing away at all the right wing bogeymen you have been PROGRAMMED to do and we will kick the floor under you two years from now. A wise man once said that the beginning of intelligence is the realization that you might lack it. You need a wake-up call when you disdain others who are at the moment, wiping the floor with your heroes. LOL

Tim*| 10.29.10 @ 11:56AM

DeMint received a bachelor's degree from the University of Tennessee and an MBA from Clemson University.

Prior to entering politics, DeMint worked in the field of market research. In 1983, he founded his own research firm, The DeMint Group. He was president of this corporation until 1998 when he entered Congress
From 1999 t0 2005 DeMint was a United States Congressman from South Carolina.
From 2005 DeMint has been A United States Senator from South Carolina.

Committee assignments:

* Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
o Subcommittee on Economic Policy (Ranking Member)
o Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development
o Subcommittee on Financial Institutions
* Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
o Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security (Ranking Member)
o Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet
o Subcommittee on Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion
o Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance
o Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security
* Committee on Foreign Relations
o Subcommittee on African Affairs
o Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights
o Subcommittee on European Affairs (Ranking Member)
o Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs and International Environmental Protection
* Joint Economic Committee

RCV| 10.29.10 @ 1:46PM

This is a paid political announcement from the DeMented for President campaign.

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 3:20PM

Heh. And why not?
Give due credit to where it is due.

Tim*| 10.29.10 @ 4:59PM

Trumps Unpaid Anti-Tea Party Whores .

Nobamao| 10.29.10 @ 5:06PM

You three should get a room--in an insane asylum!

Tim*| 10.29.10 @ 5:36PM

Apparently, Nob Job will be gettin' his usual room with his hand.

Nobamao| 10.29.10 @ 6:05PM

Sounds like you know your hand intimately, Timmy the blind 'whack'job.

Tim*| 10.29.10 @ 6:10PM

Sounds like You're An Old Hand Nob Job Calloused Paw.

Nobamao| 10.29.10 @ 6:36PM

You brought it up first, horndog. What's the problem, no ladies in your life? It's understandable judging by your hysterical posts.

You sound like a lonely loser.

Tim*| 10.29.10 @ 6:46PM

You sound like Ya been clawin' your Nob, NobJob.

Nobamao| 10.29.10 @ 7:25PM

Pervert.

Tim*| 10.29.10 @ 7:53PM

Gender Confused.

Nobamao| 10.29.10 @ 10:04PM

You're an ambidextrous tranny, talk about confused. LOL!

Tim*| 10.30.10 @ 12:00AM

You're A Species Confused Dog Humpin' Pussy.

Snicker, Mock, Taunt,Insult !

Nobamao| 10.30.10 @ 12:40AM

No action, Tim? Probably never. It shows.

Tim*| 10.30.10 @ 1:00AM

No Cajones NobJob? Probably Not. Bris Gone Bad?

Nobamao| 10.30.10 @ 2:00AM

The lady doth 'project' too much, Timbo*.

Tim*| 10.30.10 @ 6:35AM

That Ain't No Lady,That's Just NobJob In His Sister's Dress.

Nobamao| 10.30.10 @ 3:38PM

You sound like you're familiar with cross dressing.
Does your boyfriend know about this?

Tim*| 10.30.10 @ 11:59PM

Does Your Sister Know That You're Wearin' Her Dresses NobJob ?

Nobamao| 10.31.10 @ 5:41PM

Do yours?

skip| 10.29.10 @ 5:04PM

Whew.

It would be unbearable to go a whole thread without the post of reason to enlighten one and all.

R(etardation)
C(an't begin to describe the)
V(ile venal virulence)

Tim*| 10.29.10 @ 6:02PM

Ooooor,

R(ectal)
C(ake)
V(ampire)

skip| 10.30.10 @ 1:04PM

Ew.

RCV| 10.30.10 @ 6:04PM

Tim, like many kids in junior high, has an obsession with bodily functions.

Tim*| 10.31.10 @ 12:02AM

Like many ObamaBoys, RCV is a bodily function.
He's A Shit.

Goldie| 10.31.10 @ 5:40PM

Tim's a sphincter.

carnot| 10.29.10 @ 9:35PM

and you see no connection between that unemployment rate and the ability of people who are disaffected from this administration to sustain it?

KJ from TX| 10.29.10 @ 11:11AM

Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are simply the embodiment of stupid people getting representation in America. You've got to be severely ignorant to think Palin is intelligent. At least the Democrats present original ideas--most of which the Tea Partiers are too dull to undetstand so they trust Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh, et al. to label them as 'Marxist'--while the GOP and Tea Party don't have any ideas other than talking trash about Democrats and claiming to uphold a Constitution that most of them (including Palin and O'Donnell) either don't understand or haven't even read. In fact, conservatives have only offered the same failed ideas that ruined the economy in 2008--tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of industry. Don't you Tea Partiers realize that you are just expendable pawns for big business to get tax cuts and less regulation so that big business can continue to rip you off, drop you from insurance policies, toy around with your life savings, and keep you hired on temporary contracts (instead of committing to you full-time)?

loulou| 10.29.10 @ 11:39AM

KJ from TX: You're from Austin, aren't you? Admit it.

PolishKnight| 10.29.10 @ 12:03PM

KJ, your response is funny because it's so typical of leftist thinking. For starters, you project upon conservatives having talking points dictated to them (you claim it's Hannity/foxnews when the left and yourself gets theirs from the DNC and NYT).

Next, you accuse us of talking trash while you accuse us of being stupid (the number 1 leftist insult). Of course, this is because the typical smug leftist's most important ideal isn't about "helping" people, blah blah blah, but rather their own notion of being smart and superior. You like to think you're helping the world by telling them how it can be a wonderful place once we agree that you are right and we're wrong and that you are smarter than us. This is similar to radical followers of Judeo-Christianity who want to help "save" the world by getting them to agree with them. You have God inside of you and you want us to worship you, er, "him". Thanks, but no thanks.

The accusation that right wingers are just tools of the evil rich and that it's always failed capitalistic policies that ruin things, that goes back to Marx more than a century ago. We didn't just "label" you as Marxist, you're spouting off those old ideas and then accusing us of being backward. Once again, projectionism. Remember: It was the left that wanted to give liar loans based upon race in order to buy votes for the Democrat party and it backfired. tee hee. Take it up with Barney Frank. It was GW Bush that asked for oversight and was shot down by Pelosi! Look it up!

In the meantime, enjoy losing the election next week.

Kishego| 10.29.10 @ 3:12PM

Leftist thinking ? Isn't that an oxymoron PK?

Torrap| 10.29.10 @ 7:38PM

touche'

PolishKnight| 11.1.10 @ 2:30PM

I don't believe in looking down upon my opponents as non-thinkers or even stupid. On the contrary, the most crazy people in the world are those who put a LOT of thinking into silly ideas and come up with ingenious ways to avoid confronting reality.

Liberalism worships intellectualism and it's warped version of reason as a replacement god. Becoming a Christian gets you into heaven, becoming a leftist gets you into the cool people's club. Kind of like high school.

I find what makes a leftist most uncomfortable is not to argue with his dogma or facts (often shown later to both be false) but with his motivations. They don't care about people nor about Truth but rather put a lot of energy into their belief that they're smart and superior to unbelievers. Consider the "climate denier" paradigm. I simply say that's what is important to them and walk. They fume...

George True| 10.29.10 @ 12:22PM

The Democrats present original ideas?? Pull-eese. Their so-called original ideas are the same old warmed-over leftist/socialist claptrap from the 1930's. These "original ideas" have never worked anywhere they have been tried. If you really believe all that workers-of-the-world-unite crap, you are a fool.

Are you aware that unions have given more money to Democrats in the last two election cycles than all the eee-vil corporations have given to both parties during the same time? No, of course you don't know that, because you have not done your homework. You know nothing beyond the standard leftist talking points. That's a good doggie.

JERSEY MARK| 10.29.10 @ 1:07PM

The Democrats? Original Ideas? Keynesian economics is almost 100 years old and has never worked. Universal healthcare has been a Progressive dream for more than 100 years. The whole Progressive ideology is nearly 150 years old and led to such sterling characters as Hitler, Mussilini. Their ideas have been tried at length in Europe since WWII and they are now moving toward free-market capitalism as they are nearly bankrupt. You are soooo condescending toward conservatives yet you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what caused the "great recession" primarily because you and the rest of the Progressives have no idea about cause and effect or basic economic principles. As Reagan said - It isn't that Liberals aren't smart. It's just that so much of what they know isn't so.

JSWALKER| 10.29.10 @ 2:04PM

YOUR'E AN IDIOT

Willey| 10.29.10 @ 5:15PM

Nice spelling, libtard. I can see you are obviously a stellar graduate of our wonderful, liberal run public school system.

Willey| 10.29.10 @ 5:12PM

Someone's been swilling the Marxist Kool-Aid! If you Leftist elitists are so smart why is our country in such a mess? Stratospheric unemployment and historically high housing foreclosures are the direct result of Obama's purposeful wealth redistributive policies.

Leftists won't be happy until our country is totally destroyed--and we are well on our way.
Vote like your lives depended on it, because they do.

Republican_Watcher| 10.29.10 @ 11:16AM

The problem with Obama is our uneducated masses think that it is all about cutting spending. Republicans have also portrayed a scenario of Obama raising taxes. The reality is there were no tax increases at all. Republicans have sold the public about fiscal discipline and zero deficit with tax cuts, spending cuts, no cuts in Medicare and Social Security and defense and a balanced budget. 68% of the spending is on Medicare, Social Security and Defense. The much-hated stimulus actually gave middle-class tax custs. So, how is the Math going to add up? The tea party myth will bust with the first budget by the House GOP.

stormyweather| 10.29.10 @ 12:45PM

Once again, another communist fool calling the voters "uneducated", implying that we the little people arent smart enough to understand Oscums "brilliance". I understand one thing , doofus. I understand my healthcare costs going thru the roof , paying for someone elses healthcare(since when do I have to do that?). I understand what a TRILLION dollar per year budget deficit leads to. I UNDERSTAND 17% REAL unemployment. Frankly, dork, I have no desire to understand a dunce like you. Just to deport you to a communist or moslem country of your choosing. America has no need for losers like you.

Fred Wiesen| 10.29.10 @ 11:21AM

Some of the comments about Palin are simply ridiculous and arrogant as well as stupid, especially when comparison is made with the current president is simply ludicrous. He's not even a good wordsmith. He only has a good resonant voice with a head full of mush whereas Palin may not have a pleasant sounding voice, but she sure does have her feet on the same grouond as most Americans and a head full of common sense and a life full of good practical experiences that she shares with many of us. Sure, I, a man, would delight in electing such a person as my president. It would be a huge improvement over the past few males we've had in the office.

Joe| 10.29.10 @ 11:30AM

44% is a very good approval rating in this country. All it will take to sway Americans the other way are the tax break extensions. Watch.

jersey mark| 10.29.10 @ 1:17PM

Obama will not get any credit for extending the Bush tax cuts and if they don't extend the top end, nothing will happen with the economy as the top end is the marginal rate applicable to after tax rate of return analysis of new projects, but then you would have to have a basic understanding of micro-economics and its impact at the macro-economic level.

Jeffmet| 10.29.10 @ 6:28PM

The rich did fine in the 1990's under the Clinton tax rates. This notion that a 3 percent tax increase for the wealthy will kill the American economy is ludicrous. Especially since they are the ones who are making out like bandits during this current stock market upswing.

Nobama| 10.29.10 @ 11:22PM

I detest democrats and their ugly class warfare. You fools are so full of envy and hate. Losers!

The rich did fine in the 1990s because Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and FORCED Clinton to cut taxes.

We're in a severe recession and raising taxes now on anyone is insane--you libtards will be sorry--we already are.

$250,000 a year is not wealthy, and these people are small business owners who are responsible for 70% of the jobs created in our country.

You liberals will destroy us yet.

Doug| 10.29.10 @ 11:43AM

This article can be restated in one phrase, "it's ours to lose," with the warning that the GOP has shown an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. All the more reason for newly elected Republicans to forge their own path and stay true to the ideals that are getting them elected.

blbtampa| 10.29.10 @ 11:54AM

Am I the only one who, when they hear a pundit saying that Sarah Palin will fail or is done, in the back of their mind, visualize Will Farrel running from the dinosaur being asked if he ever gets tired of being wrong and replying "I do I really really do!"

Jabez| 10.29.10 @ 11:54AM

This article is devoid of any substance whatsoever. GOP is going to have a kooky house and a balanced Senate. The American public doesn't want gridlock, they want results. It's going to be tough goings to try and convince the TPs to work on crafting legislation on the other side. Once again the GOP has overplayed their hand. On top of that we may actually make some Foreign policy strides as the economy heals (on it's own, not due to any politician). Meanwhile the sentiment driving the Tea Party starts to subside. Enter Sarah Palin and re-election for Obama. The other option is that the GOP truly get some things done and nominates a mainstream candidate.

Steve A| 10.29.10 @ 12:19PM

Yeah, OK Jabez, Maybe we will try a nice mainstream guy like McCain. You have absolutely no clue. Conservatives will take gridlock all day long over this current nonsense.

Here is what is going to happen. You heard it here first. House landslide for GOP. House crafts conservative legislation, one after the other, that the radical President will veto, culminating in a budget that de-funds healthcare legislation. De-ja vu government shutdown a la 94' but this time the cat is out of the bag & you do not have Gingrich to pin it on. Economy continues to tank. Obama is crushed as an economic imbecile in 2012. Bank on it.

jersey mark| 10.29.10 @ 1:26PM

Here, here! The Democrats in the Senate and Obama will be the obstructionists, the "Party of No!" but in this case they will be saying no to The People which will end badly for them. Unless there are sufficient Democrats to join with Republicans to override Obama' veto and repeal the Obama agenda and bring back a more certain business environment supported by meaningful tax cuts, especially at the top end, the economy will go nowhere. The Obama agenda has so increased the costs of doing business that it has taken virtually all future plans and projects off the table as economically unfeasible. This is basic micro-economics which is "greek" to the Progressives.

Jabez| 10.29.10 @ 2:05PM

The House is the vessel for voter over-reaction. This is why you see that the GOP is going to regain the house and not the Senate. People give a lot more pause before electing some kook to an office with a six year term. So you're going to pick off Harry Reid, big whoop. That's a good thing for the Dems. They'll install someone who doesn't incite so much anger in the opposition. The Senate GOP is going to have a lot of trouble with the House legislation. A lot of purity tests are going to be applied to current GOPers b/c they cannot vote for the legislation that the house produces. I wish I actually could mark your words and see who is right but I have better things to do (although I did come back here to respond). You'll have to put up a candidate with common sense solutions like Mitch Daniels rather than a Teapartier who just rants about spendng with no idea how to responsibly cut it.

Jabez| 10.29.10 @ 2:07PM

...or decline receiving it in the case of ole Miller in AK.

Jeffmet| 10.29.10 @ 6:33PM

I guess you right-wingers liked it when the banks had carte blanch to do whatever they wanted. Also what is the GOP going to do to bring jobs back to the US.

Patriot| 10.29.10 @ 7:33PM

Obama is owned by Wall Street, moron. You liberals are braindead.

What about the liberal social engineering policies of Fanny and Freddie that you democrats pushed beyond reason? It was Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd who pressured the banks to make those bad loans.

You incompetent democrats always expect us to clean up your mess. When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker in January 2007, unemployment was 4.6%--after 4 years of democrat disastrous rule it's 9.6% or higher. Thanks for all you do, libtard.

Jeffmet| 10.30.10 @ 8:41AM

Remember the housing bubble did not begin to pop until the first part of 2008. Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd did not become committee chairman until January of 2007 well after the sub prime loan market had exploded. Also I never saw any GOP push to oversee what was going on at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were happy with the way the economy was at the time. When the housing market exploded the Democrats were only in power for a year and 4 months not hardly enough time to place the blame on the Democrats in Congress. As for the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) the Federal Reserve and FDIC have both indicated over 55 percent of those loans came from institutions not regulated by the CRA. Many of those loans were approved without even checking credit reports or employment verifications. The government cant force the banks to do that. The Community Reinvestment Act was created 1978 by act of Congress and signed by President Carter to eliminate red-lining where banks were steering minority applicants to certain geographical areas and away from others. The government cannot force banks to approve home loans to less than qualified borrowers. That would not have passed court scrutiny. Also the federal government was not the entity that created the CDO or credit default swap. That was a Wall Street creation. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed the Glass Steagall Act allowed banks to participate in the CDO market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were just loan guarantees the banks had to ensure the credit worthiness of the borrower. It seems like every time the GOP pushes for deregulation the targeted market goes wild. The credit default swap market exploded after the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Wall Street was building a house with a weak foundation. When it finally came down it took the entire econ0my with it. This had nothing to do with Chris Dodd or Barney Frank. Do some real research and quit listening to people like Rush and Glenn who only lie and use spin to brainwash the intellectually lazy.

Patriot| 10.30.10 @ 4:48PM

You're lying as usual. Social engineering or 'Social Justice' is a tenet of Socialism, and I think it's amusing that you're trying to deny it now that the housing meltdown YOU CREATED has blown up in your face. Coward.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed under Jimmuh Carter in 1977 and was strengthened by Bill Clinton in 1999. The CRA was used to force banks to make bad loans to people who could not afford them which led to a high number of defaults. ACORN was one of the community groups that used loud protests at banks to bully them into making the loans. Obama was part of this bullying effort when he worked there. He's the Community Organizer in Chief.

Republicans tried to rein in the explosive spending of Fannie/Freddie several times under GWB, but the regulators were rebuffed by Barney Frank and the Black caucus with accusations of unfairness and racism. All of this is documented on YouTube not Glenn Beck, moron.

So don't even try to lie about your responsibility for the financial meltdown because the proof can be easily found.
GWB's mistake was not making the democrats' obvious social engineering and corruption public.

Wall Street also played a role in the financial mess--but we know YOU DEMOCRATS started it--and many democrats made huge money off of the financial meltdown (Jamie Gorelick, Jamie Ruben, Charles Raines, to name a few.) .

I'd love to see Dodd, Schumer and Frank frog-marched to jail--they deserve it.

So, if you are wondering why you democrats are being rejected by the American people at this time, look no further than this one huge example of arrogance, greed and disgusting corruption that infects your party. ObamaCare is another.

You are corruptocrats.

Jeffmet| 10.30.10 @ 5:40PM

Again the federal government cannot force any bank to give a loan to someone who is not credit worthy. It would not pass court challenge. Shelia Bair Chairman of the FDIC and Ben Bernanke Chairman of the Federal Reserve have both said that over 55 percent of the loans were authorized by institutions that were not regulated by the CRA. The banks kept approving the loans because the knew the could spread the risk via CDO. A Wall Street creation not a government one. Clinton got the GOP to agree to a upgrade of the CRA in order for him to agree to sign the repeal of Glass-Steagall. The CDO market skyrocketed after that. Try doing some real research. Also remember it was Henry Paulson Bush Sec of Treasury and former CEO of Goldman Sachs who went to Congress and asked for the TARP bailout.

Patriot| 10.31.10 @ 3:26AM

Again, I will point out the facts of the Democrat created housing meltdown to you with 'real' research. Perhaps you are stupid, have overdosed on Marxist Kool-Aid or both--but I will try again.
Leftist Democrats such as Barney Frank and the Black Caucus used ACORN thugs to occupy banks with loud protests and shouts of racism to get the banks to make bad loans. A lot of customers were scared off by these obnoxious protests. Of course the banks were intimidated by you thugs, it's what you do best. Your bullying tactics forced many of them to capitulate, and the rest is history.

You Democrats were in control of Congress when you forced TARP through--and it took TWO times for you to pass it over the objections of Republicans. So don't give me that BS about Paulson--you ran the Congress in 2007-08, and you pushed TARP through.

You Libtards can try to squirm around the truth all you want, but we know what really happened to our economy and why it's in the tank, and we won't forget. EVER!
Your freakin' Leftist social engineering policies are destroying our country and we are going to stop you-- November 2 is just the beginning.

carnot| 10.29.10 @ 9:43PM

rid the nation of Obama and and every other incompetent, corrupt democrat and republican. that in itself ought to reduce the unemployment rate 3-4%!!!!!

Kishego| 10.29.10 @ 3:19PM

I'll take gridlock over what comes out of Washington anyday. The less they accomplish, the better for the rest of the country.

John Jarrell | 10.29.10 @ 12:01PM

There may be one major difference between the Reagan and Clinton eras and the "Age of Obama." That being that a lot of people are more aware of the progressive program that has been instituted over the last 100 years, Obama's regime being the culmenation of those efforts.

Regardless of the stated objectives of the progressives (a "people's paradise" in some form or other), the effect of a collectivist state is always the same: Soviert Union, Cuba or North Korea.

If the Republicans prove as feckless this time as they were in 2006, look for Americans to rally to a new "Constitutionalist Party" in 2012, putting the GOP on the ash heap of history.

PolishKnight| 10.29.10 @ 12:10PM

John, if you haven't seen it already, check out The Soviet Story. It shows the horrors of what the former USSR did in the name of "Change".

The fact is that while the left wants to have a Sweden (which is not full of folks who look like Obama!), and are instead trying to create a USSR, the end result of their anti-west policies is to create a state with a combination of the culture/politics/economy of Syria and Mexico.

The typical blue state elitist lives in a lily white suburb, drives a car plastered with "get someone else to stop driving to save the Earth" bumper stickets, etc. They are limosine liberals living in a fantasy land. They're like Jimmy Swaggart style hypocrites. Gore flies around in private jets and runs his A/C non stop in 5 houses while preaching to "stop the evil rich".

The fundamental motivation for their beliefs is religious: They like to think they're smarter and better than non-believers and if this means destroying the planet (while claiming to save it), so be it. They get off on being more important than the non-believers. They don't want to drink the cool aid (they'd like to force it down someone else's throat while preaching "love") but they would take it themselves rather than admit they are losers. At least the wealthy elitist leftists such as Obama get their friends and buddies high paying government and industry jobs at the expense of the poor. They're at least making a buck. These elitist losers are like weed smoking soccer fans in their mother's attic lecturing about how they could change the world if the "stupid" world would just revolve around them.

In the meantime, a good life is it's own reward. I didn't buy a house. I have a family. I'm living my life. Most of these elitist self-hating white guilt jerks are going to be buried by someone else's children.

iss| 10.29.10 @ 1:04PM

So what's your take on Sweden then?

PolishKnight| 10.29.10 @ 2:10PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/die.....man33.html

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/.....s-awesome/

One of the things that really stood out to me was the high rate of unwed motherhood in Sweden: 54%. Some of this is due to irreligious couples shacking up, of course, but also a lot is due to the anti-male welfare state.

It's taken a while, but Swedish society is breaking down along with their welfare state as they're starting to crack down and punish the proletariat or, namely, working men. To pay for welfare mothers, they are slowly starting to crack down on "deadbeat dads" where "deadbeat dad" really means men who live like women on welfare. The fun ride is over guys!

iss| 10.29.10 @ 1:02PM

"the effect of a collectivist state is always the same: Soviet Union, Cuba or North Korea."

Have you ever heard of Sweden? Would you regard Sweden as a socialist country? Is Sweden similar to any of the three countries you've just listed?

PolishKnight| 10.29.10 @ 2:15PM

Here's the link from above. For some reason, it got cut off:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/die.....man33.html
"Worst of all, the Swedes have not always acted benevolently, as reported on page A1 of the August 29, 1997, Washington Post From 1934 to 1974, 62,000 Swedes were sterilized as part of a national program grounded in the science of racial biology and carried out by officials who believed they were helping to build a progressive, enlightened welfare state...In some cases, couples judged to be inferior parents were sterilized, as were their children when they became teenagers."

Gotta love that future utopian society! Don't forget, it was proposed by Karl Marx originally that a final solution is the best affirmative action!

https://mises.org/Community/forums/t/12840.aspx
"Until its complete extermination or loss of national status, this racial trash always becomes the most fanatical bearer there is of counter-revolution, and it remains that. That is because its entire existence is nothing more than a protest¦ against a great historical revolution... The next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but also entire reactionary peoples, to disappear from the earth. And that too is progress." -Karl Marx, 1849, Neue Rheinische Zeitung.

iss| 10.29.10 @ 5:25PM

Yeah

Try this from Wiki-

"After World War II a succession of governments expanded the welfare state by raising the tax level. During this period Sweden's economic growth was also one of the highest in the industrial world. A series of successive social reforms transformed the country into one of the most equal and developed on earth. The consistent growth of the welfare state led to Swedes achieving unprecedented levels of social mobility and quality of life—to this day Sweden consistently ranks at the top of league tables for health, literacy and Human Development—far ahead of some much wealthier countries (for example the United States)."

Sweden's socialist policies have sometimes been overdone but nevertheless it has remained MUCH more socialist than the US, and yet.......

"From the mid 90s until today Sweden's economic growth has once again accelerated and has been higher than in most other industrialized countries (including the US) during the last 15 years."

Hmm. So it's socialist and yet it's people are much healthier than Americans, it's got much less poverty than America, and it's ALSO got much better economic growth than the US for the last 15 years.

carnot| 10.29.10 @ 10:00PM

yea...too bad you didn't highlight the other sections describing the response to budgetary crises in the 1990s and ensuing regulatory constraints on all sorts of metrics including public spending as a % of GDP.

the article also noted several historical circumstances that abetted Sweden...not the least of which was its cowardice when it came to the heavy lifting of security.

a country the size of NYC! yea...good one there!

skip| 10.30.10 @ 2:39PM

Sweden has long been held as the epitome of a socialist nation.
Research showed at the height of its socialism Sweden was both the least religous population and had the highest rate of suicide in the world.
The economic and social failures of socialism in Sweden have led Sweden to denationalize and privtize key corporations and industries.
While Sweden moves to become more like the United States the United States moves toward the failures that are leading Sweden to become more like the United States.
Are we a stupid nation or what?

PolishKnight| 11.1.10 @ 2:37PM

ISS's wiki quote is a perfect example of why many teachers hate the service. Some of the facts are wrong and people can misinterpret the OPINION of the writer of a summation as fact.

Anyway, notice how ISS neatly tried to sidestep my point that the Swedes practiced national socialism. In addition, he also doesn't notice that there aren't too many "obama's" being elected there... But hey, give them time!

The leftist self-hatred of it's own European ethnicity while worshiping western Marxism reminds me of the scene in Zardoz where the tired elite scream to the barbarians: "Kill me, please! Give me the gift of death!"

If Sweden is so great, move there. This isn't just a "love it or leave it" proposition but also a challenge to ask that if a country is such a utopia, why aren't more people moving there? Maybe they really don't want utopia since they know it won't really work.

stormyweather| 10.29.10 @ 12:37PM

Let me put it nicely-The Oscum wont move to the center because hes a commie ideologue, which Clinto wasnt. Clinton was a chameleon who wanted to do whatever it took to stay in the whiter house. If that meant compromisin g with Newt Gingrich, then so be it. On the other hand, what have you heard from the Oscum? Insult hispanics for not voting for Ds? Tell them the GOP has better "get ready for hand-to-hand combat"(like that wimp would know about that) . Soros and the other nutty lefties wont let Oscum go right, so he wont.

Skep41| 10.29.10 @ 12:58PM

Clinton spent 14 years in elective office. He was tossed out of his governorship once for being too liberal and always understood how to pretend to be a centrist. Reagan has two terms as Governor of the largest state in the country and understood political reality. Obama had zero political experience before he became president. A no-show state legislator from a safe district, a no-show first term Senator who won a three-way race after his main opponent had his divorce transcripts leaked to the press, a president who took power with a complete lock on both houses of Congress; this guy has never had a chance to learn any political skills. He considers his opponents as enemies, crazies, reactionaries who are beneath contempt and has shown himself unable to provide leadership to those who should be his allies. This should be interesting.

Anthony| 10.29.10 @ 1:07PM

Anybody read Paul Krugman today?
No wonder Obozo and the left are pushing health care, the entire left is off their medications.

Anthony| 10.29.10 @ 1:09PM

are off their meds, sorry.

Perusha| 10.29.10 @ 1:12PM

Palin, Palin, Palin!!!

What a polarizing figure!

When Peggy, the swoonin’, Noonan penned an article during the 2008 election, about Sarah Bailin’ Palin, despite years of enjoying he pert prose and “at the revolution” point of view, that was the last time I could stomach her New York City “establishment” crap. She sucks---since the space, prominently featured, in the WSJ, that she takes could be more wisely used by a true freedom lover, like a black hole there is no chance for an alternative opinion.

Also, wrt Palin, et al, and the 2012 election---once again, all the attention on appearance and how her voice might offend someone betrays a lack of seriousness. First, if anyone truly believes, personally, that they would rather have a bitchin’ looking president with a physical voice that makes them feel good instead of one who can be counted on to do their job based on sound principles---follow the Constitution!!!—then they are suicidal fools.

And, since most of the commentators on this site seem to be more engaged in politics than Joe six-pack, if/when they ascribe this second level concern about other voters, the ones who aren’t as “sophisticated” as they are, then they are essentially admitting our elections are as much of a silly farce as those votes we all took part in, when choosing a powerless high school president.

In short, the populous---the sum of all of our citizen’s fears, one person at a time---chooses the leaders in terms of: how popular is he/she? Oh, he’s so nice! She goes down well on TV! I can see putting up with her/him for four years.

Ah, but what about what she will DO?

Elected Americans SHOULD be, up front and honestly admitted by themselves, prior to even running for any office, servants. They should inherit the political “Earth”, as the meek sacrificing George Washington clones we---NEED.

The only mature way for a qualified voter to approach ANY candidate for higher office should, of course, take into account the style dimensions, like the overweight guv of New Jersey, or the squeaky voice of whomever, but the ultimate decision must rest on whether they are honest AND what their PRINCIPLES are.

An honest STATESMAN, especially the president, should simply face every specific decision with a computer-like yes or no filter---is this Constitutional?

Since America has, IMHO, already gone over the tipping point and is quickly sliding faster and faster down the slick slope to irremediable tyranny, the elections next week probably are the last chance to even slow down this fall from freedom’s grace.

Big government or not? Mob rule, led by the liberal mafia, or not? Individual freedom AND responsibility, or not?

As Dick Morris’ book title about the living pimple, WJ Clinton puts it—“Because He Can”: I think that’s the title.

Well, the vast left wing conspiracy, NOW in your face un-glory, in spite of everyone knowing that it is a minor majority of the citizenry, is empowered by history’s results---Obama did fool a majority of us!---by this belief.

What’s not forbidden is allowed!

Also, what can’t continue must---STOP!

That means that either the voting public, at the polls, is able to remove the ones who “can” ruin our days and replace them by Constitutionalists, and if not, the real producers will stop them!

Either stop the nihilistic bastards politically, or economically!

The BIG STOP is one certainty we can all count on---hope and change is NOW.

RIGHT!!!

Steve A| 10.29.10 @ 2:32PM

Perusha, All I need to tell you to validate the point that a large percentage of the voting bloc is shallow, superficial & dense is to take a look at the ratings for reality TV. Wanna argue about what the informed voter SHOULD be like, fine, but the "reality" is not so my friend. This is how we ended up with BO.

Perusha| 10.29.10 @ 2:55PM

Steve A, I don’t understand your point.

I don’t watch reality shows, and never have, even when the first ones, like “Survivor” etc started, so I don’t know what their ratings are. They ARE still running, though, so enough “stupid” people must be watching, eh?

Do you agree that enough “stupid” people voted for Obama, as I do, which is prima facie evidence of this?

By the way, one person’s “informed” may just be another one’s “misinformed”, and basically that’s the point.

“Stupid” is surely a pejorative word, but I freely admit that I was stupid enough to vote for Carter, and even, in 1964, when George Wallace gave a talk at the west coast university I was then attending, thought he made a lot of sense, despite the fact that I was definitely biased against him due to his bigoted racial actions and beliefs.

Stupid: 1. in a state of stupor; dazed; stunned; stupefied, 2. lacking normal intelligence or understanding; slow-witted; dull 3. showing or resulting from a lack of normal intelligence; foolish; irrational [a stupid idea]; dull and boring; tiresome [a stupid party]; also used colloquially as a generalized term of disapproval
SYN.---STUPID implies such a lack of intelligence or incapacity for perceiving, learning, etc as might be shown by one in a mental stupor.

AMEN!

The definition seems to me to prove my point---most people ARE in a stupor, to wit ASLEEP and NOT paying attention, even while being awake, conventionally.

You are what you put your attention on. And, putting your attention on X inevitably creates what you are CHOOSING to become.

Example---at this hot tub therapy pool I enjoy regularly, a lot of time I must share it with overweight and obese people. The other day two such women were there, and guess what they were talking about? Eating!!!

QED

David| 10.29.10 @ 2:13PM

Praxis, your comments were way out of line. It is repubs like you that get repubs into trouble. You are no different than Arlan Specter, Lindsay Graham, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins.

Bam Bam will have an excellent chance to be re-elected IF he make Hillary his running mate. If not, he will have a difficult time getting re-elected.

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 3:24PM

Swoonin' Noonan. Heh. Very good.

Bob| 10.29.10 @ 3:30PM

On the precipice of a mammoth, crushing victory over the forces of the left by an electorate explicitly voting for the right philosophical reasons, the author is already in the doom and gloom form that we expect from those afflicted with inside the beltway addled mind syndrome. Wake up and smell the National Tea Party. What are you brain dead? This ain't no regular movement goin' on here and it ain't gonna sit down for no one. This country will be free again, free again!!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 10.29.10 @ 3:38PM

"what's funny is that you old white people... cause that's what all of you who agree with this post most certainly are..."

They think whites don't go to the bathroom. Obama knows it, too-- he is no fool. And he hAS to be re-elected otherwise another GOP memoir-writer will be elected two years from now.

BTW, Bush's 300+ page waste-of-paper is to be published next month. Republicans will throw away the $30 just to have the book on their coffee tables.

Nobody| 10.29.10 @ 4:32PM

Don't be so sure about not getting any veto overrides.

Remember, only 1/3rd of the senate is up right now, and even more democrats are up next. As of right now, democrats are running as "conservatives" and are suddenly interested in newfound "fiscal religeon."

The remaining senators that haven't faced their voters yet are going to want to prove to them that they're not "Obama/Pelosi" supporters. I.e. Ben Nelson, etc.

Don't be too sure the remaining Democrat Senators won't become the republicans' "new best friends forever" and pass their legislation, which means, a veto over ride.

Yep, no faster way to prove you are doing what the people want than to over ride a veto with the republicans. Obama never cared what happened to the democrats. He walked them into an Obama "Jonestown" of his own making. When they spoke to him about jobs and priorities, he arrogantly told them "you've got me."

Howsthat workin' out, huh?

Remember, Obama is term limited. (sooner rather than later I hope.) They're not. He walked them into an Obama Jonestown, not caring what happened to them.

Now, how much allegience do you think Obama is gonna have with the remaining senators or those that just squeaked by? Hmmmmmm?

His arrogant "don't think we're not keepin' score, brother" comment? They're gonna look at him and say "yeeaaaaaaaa, sooooooooooo whaaaat. Go ahead." And ignore Obama.

He won't have any where near the allegience on the hill that he had when he behaved so arrogantly and blew them off. Even Obama's own aides were quoted in the book as saying "priorities were set aside for big legislative ideas."

Think any of the democrats about to go off the end of the plank "appreciate" what Obama did to them? How about those that haven't faced the voters yet - looking at their anger. . . think they're gonna get 100% behind Obama?

Pfffffffffffffff, Obama just burned a Rhode Island Democrat and endorsed Chaffee. . .a mishmouthing garbage used to be republican turned independent. . . .

What will the democrats actually owe Obama? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. His arrogance has destroyed them. Pelosi's idiocy has made them a laughing stock. . . .Obama isn't going to have a lot of friends left on the hill.

The power of the "republican agenda" may be stronger than just their numbers. . . . . .especially with Democrat Senators who are eager to prove their new found fiscal religeon. They'll grab reublican legislation and run home with it and brag about it being "bipartisan."

Is Obama going to be out there "vetoing" stuff - like a "bipartisan" legislation - and then have a "bipartisan" veto over ride? Hmmmmm?

Go for it your moron Obama. . .we're waiting. . .

No, I don't believe it's going to go well at all for Obama if Tuesday is devastating. There's no reason to reward a moron like Obama who didn't care about anyone but himself.

Hang Obama out in the wind by himself. . .that's what he deserves. Don't listen to him, don't follow him, and over ride him with the republicans every chance you get.

Alan Brooks| 10.30.10 @ 4:57PM

"Silly, silly conservatives on this blog"

Not even...
they are right-wing emotionalists, hysterical concerning a black guy being president. They wish Jefferson Davis had beat Lincoln.

elithium11| 10.29.10 @ 4:59PM

Silly, silly conservatives on this blog. You can always tell the Fox News sheep. "The republican agenda" they are talking about was tried just very recently and it all failed miserably. Now they want us to think they'll get it right this time? Spare me the bullshit.

George True| 10.29.10 @ 7:06PM

Facts? Evidence? No, didn't think so. Just the tired, worn-out old leftist screeds. Sorry pal, that dog won't hunt no more.

Alan Brooks| 10.30.10 @ 5:00PM

"Just the tired, worn-out old leftist screeds. Sorry pal, that dog won't hunt no more."

No, Elithium11 is correct, the Grand Old Plodders botch it time & again. Look how shrill the tea partiers are; they are wild-eyed wingnuts, not conservatives.

skip| 10.30.10 @ 9:11PM

Stupid and dishonest is no way to go through life. Ask RCV.

Tim*| 10.31.10 @ 9:58AM

Uh Lordy !
ObamaBoy Brooks has a problem with We Tea Party Rebels.
We'll give Brooks our answer on November 2nd.

daboss| 10.29.10 @ 4:51PM

I had a nice long document ready for posting ... but instead i will post this:

There is no rolling back the Fed Gov. What happens next is anyone's guess.

The constitution is dead to the Fed ... nothing we do can fix it.

carnot| 10.29.10 @ 10:09PM

oh yes there is...implode it. and that has already started.

consent of the governed is an immutable principle. the machine has to be fed.....those doing the feeding are eventually going to walk away.

Jamie| 10.29.10 @ 11:40PM

I don't know about that, carnot. It's not easy to force gorging hogs to leave when they've been feeding at the public trough for a long time.

Maybe a little "friendly" persuasion will help the process along.

carnot| 10.31.10 @ 9:56AM

I already see and hear it going on. just a matter of time before it becomes "statistically significant". the anger in the hinterlands is much greater than those in power are willing to admit. and it covers much more than unemployment - that is too simplistic.

awolf | 10.29.10 @ 5:20PM

Polarized light provides clarity. Nothing wrong with someone who expresses the good and true. Yes, Chris Christie would exemplify the ability to cut onerous government down to size, yes Cornyn understands whats wrong with Obamacare professionally, and yes McCain is a patriot, but when it comes to the campaign of Sarah Palin --- WILD HORSES COULDNT KEEP ME AWAY! Every time she speaks my inner ear resonates! When I see the disabled baby she wouldnt throw away to avoid embarassment and expense, when I hear her deep admiration for America and her sublime worship of liberty -- I will vote for her, I will send money to her, I will make phone calls, I will lie down in front of bulldozers for this woman. All I can say is when it comes to Sarah Palin its not just politics, its beyond principles, its down to bedrock. We will go to hell and back for her. Wild, wild horses couldnt keep me away.

Patriot| 10.29.10 @ 6:31PM

Wow! Great post. I love Sarah, too. I wish I knew more like you who lived near me.

Jack in the Midwest| 10.29.10 @ 5:21PM

Lets just say no to Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich and any other hack that could never win the general. We need an articulate conservative, who can think on his feet and has a sense of humor. If there is such a person, I haven't found him. Heaven forbid we have another Dole, McCain, or anyone named Bush.

loulou| 10.29.10 @ 6:24PM

Ditto.

George True| 10.29.10 @ 7:14PM

Yesterday I watched about a 45 minute video clip of Chris Christie speaking at the Indiana Republican Party dinner. He was extremely eloquent, passionate, funny, and had everybody hanging on every word. He spoke contemporaneously from his heart for the better part of an hour with no notes and no teleprompter.

He took on the Democrat controlled New Jersey legislature and won. He forced them to balance the budget through cutting spending across the board and without raising taxes one red cent. He also took on the corrupt New Jersey Teachers Union and won.

There is our champion.

Gigi| 10.29.10 @ 11:33PM

May be if he loses 100 pounds first.

torrap| 10.30.10 @ 6:49PM

I don't understand the concept of style over substance when it comes to our elected officials.I think maybe our society is WAYYY out of whack...Americans need to start voting with thier brain instead of thier eyes, that is; if they have a brain....

Gigi| 10.31.10 @ 3:31AM

It ain't about style, torrap, it's about Christie not having a heart attack on the campaign trail. I really would be worried for his health.

He'd be crazy to undertake that strenuous path so over-weight. Maybe you should grow a brain.

torrap| 10.31.10 @ 12:06PM

LOL...I'd be happy to match brains with you any day. Judging from your other posts; your spelling and grammer could use improvement. But I digress. Mr. Christie's physical condition is his business, not yours. It is fairly shallow to comment on it, and also shows your personal bias. A thin smoker risks the same odds of a coronary as a large non-smoker. In Mr. Christies case, I think he should be judged on his gray matter rather than his adipose matter.....

Gigi| 10.31.10 @ 5:23PM

Little torrap's got his panties in a pinch. My spelling and grammar are just fine, thank you, and so are my reasoning skills. Yours--not so much.

Sorry, if Christie decides he wants to be POTUS he's no longer a private citizen, and as an American citizen, his health is certainly my business.

You're fixated on Christie's looks, not me, and your comments say more about you than anything I've said. Did the truth hit too close to home??

torrap| 11.1.10 @ 3:12AM

damn, girl...u sound just like a democrat...attacking someone you know absolutely nothing about. FYI: you have NOOO idea how off base you are; but hey, knock yourself out!!!!

Willey| 10.29.10 @ 5:59PM

If we don't roll back the government, we will cease to be a Republic.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, "People get the government they deserve." And we deserve the one we have.

somnolence| 10.29.10 @ 6:30PM

I continue to have a lot of confidence in a Palin candidacy just because of the fact that so many on this page resort to a reactionary liberal rage, which is really disguised fear. I would like to know just what is Obama really going to run on? Pacification of the unions at everyone else's expense? Obamacare? Both Palin or Romney would decimate him in a debate if held presently. It would be Obama who would look silly and shrill, not Palin by a long shot. Yeah, John Kerry is right about the remark he made yesterday about his frustration of living in a "know nothing age." Starting with himself.

Jeffmet| 10.29.10 @ 6:45PM

How can Romney run on opposition to the Obama health-care plan when he passed one just like it in Massachusetts.

Patriot| 10.29.10 @ 7:36PM

Exactly! We already ran an elitist RINO in 2008; how did that work out for us?

Why vote for democrat-lite when you can vote for the real thing?

Hawkeye| 10.29.10 @ 6:39PM

Keep an eye on Pawlenty. He's my darkhorse for 2012

Bill Sundling| 10.29.10 @ 9:38PM

Obama in 2010 isn't like two-term presidents after the first year. Obama has done so much damage to the economy that we aren't going to have a recovery the way we've known them in the past. Obama's fortunes aren't going to reverse. He'll have a 25% approval rating two years from now.

Willey| 10.29.10 @ 10:08PM

A wounded radical is even more dangerous than a healthy one. I don't trust the Marxist or his cadre of Marxist czars.

Windbag| 10.29.10 @ 10:09PM

This election is looking a bit grizzly for Obama, instead of Mt Rushmore he gets the Darwin award.

torrap| 10.30.10 @ 6:52PM

ROFLMAO.....I can just picture that Darwin on his mantel next to his Nobel....

Stephanie Foley| 10.29.10 @ 10:22PM

I think Marco Rubio or Chris Christie would be the great hopes for 2012!

DG| 10.29.10 @ 11:11PM

No way that the evil Bush is considered a better President than Obama. That is total bull. Everyone knows that Bush was our worst President ever. This article is biased for the evil Republicans who destroyed our country and ran it into the ground.

Gigi| 10.29.10 @ 11:30PM

Keep telling yourself that, libtard. Obama and the dummocrats own this terible economy and next Tuesday's election results are going to prove it.

Do yourself a favor on election night and make sure you don't keep a loaded gun on your nightstand.

Travis| 10.30.10 @ 12:03AM

Great comments and discussion! Try to keep comments objective, and if you do any name-calling at least make it humorous and non-offensive (if that's possible).

As for purging the Republican Party of non-conservatives (fiscal and social), I'm all for it. If you are a Libertarian you can vote for us or vote for a Libertarian candidate, but we need a legitimate 3rd party, so it's either going to be Libertarian or the Tea Party will leave the Republican Party to the Libertarians.

And please, more than anything, kick your politicians door down until he/she fully supports the FairTax!

Nobamao| 10.30.10 @ 2:03AM

Travis, we have to be smart about this or we will split our vote and give victories to the dummocrats. No way, no how.

The Underwearinator| 10.30.10 @ 12:05AM

Your a rasist!

Doug1943 | 10.30.10 @ 5:48AM

I believe Phil and ISS are in error.

Phil believes "people under 30" have a good understanding of Marxism, socialism, etc. I'm afraid he's confused himself and his friends for "people under 30", not one in a thousand of whom could probably even tell you what century Marx lived in, much less engage in an intelligent argument about the merits, or otherwise, of Marxism. (And, to be fair, neither could 1 in a thousand people over 30, Left or Right.)

Phil and ISS tell us that "20th Century America" was much more "socialist" than today, and therefore much more prosperous. In fact, they're speaking of post-WWII America, and just about 3 decades of that. It's debatable whether this prosperity was caused by high taxes and high union membership -- a much more likely cause is that America, in the wake of WWII, was far and away the dominant economic and military power on the planet. We probably owned an absolute majority of productive forces, in the years after WWII. But if you want to cherry-pick features that supposedly contributed to our prosperity during that period, note that we didn't have the social spending of the Great Society, either.

Michael L. Hauschild| 10.30.10 @ 6:29AM

An interesting side note to this piece is that the photo accompanying it was taken when the boys were informed that Hillary had fallen into the tiger cage at the San Franciscan Zoo.

Tim*| 10.30.10 @ 6:40AM

Actually Mike, those are pictures of Clinton & Obama right after Hillary & Michelle asked them," Do these dresses make our asses look fat."

SpottyBush| 10.30.10 @ 8:24AM

Nope, All he has to do is declare war on 3rd World Country and he's won! That's been the trend for the past 30 years.

20 years of which the GOP has been in control, creating deficit after deficit, driving up the national debt, laying waste to the concept of fiscal conservatism. Clinton (the best "Republican" President since 1970) attempted to reign in spending and left "W" with a surplus. "W" went on spending spree that would make the most die hard Liberal's blush. Instead of asking for sacrifice from Americans in order to drive down the debt and deficits "W" gave them tax cuts. Yup, tax cuts that drove our deficits and national debt higher!!!! "W" did all of this in relatively good economic times leaving the cupboards bare when rainy days arrived.

Voilia, Obama takes power while the country is facing the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression and he is promptly fitted with "
fiscal" straight-jacket by "W".

Now we expect our President to fix a problem created in 30 years in 18 months?

Our electorate is "SEE-SAW STUPID!" if they think the GOP is going to get us out of this mess.

Regina| 10.30.10 @ 4:53PM

Our debt has exploded 4X in the twenty months of Obama's presidency, and only a braindead liberal would try to blame it on someone else.

No wonder our country is in such a mess with so many stupid liberals around.

Tim*| 10.30.10 @ 8:54AM

New numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office.

The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.

Jeffmet| 10.30.10 @ 9:22AM

A recession is caused by a fall in aggregate demand. If consumers and businesses are not spending then someone has to step in and pick up the slack. Hence the government. The government has gone into debt to finance wars so what is wrong with the government going into debt to deal with an economic crisis? The same people who were complaining about the stimulus plan were some of the same people who were lining up to get their share of the pie. Also tell the people whose jobs were saved by the government bailing out GM and Chrysler that the government was wrong for doing that. I live in Indiana and GM and Chrysler have called back a bunch of workers due to the bailouts.

Tim*| 10.30.10 @ 11:09AM

Gary North, August 14th 2010:
" Ever since the third quarter of 2008, the nation's nominal GDP has increased by a tiny $100 billion, but the Federal debt has increased by 25 times the GDP increase.

This means that the hoped-for stimulus has not worked. It has taken $25 of Federal deficits to produce $1 of GDP growth. This marks a major anomaly for Keynesian economic theory. The justification for government deficits in Keynesian theory is that government spending restores economic growth. Money spent by the private sector does not increase economic growth in a recession; government spending does. This has never made any economic sense, but now the non-response of the economy is exposing this original nonsense for what it always was: nonsense. The Federal deficit is skyrocketing, but the economy has barely increased, statistically speaking......"

Jeffmet| 10.30.10 @ 11:53AM

Much of stimulus money went to states to help with their budget shortfalls. This helped states from laying of more workers. The problem with the economy is the housing and credit markets. Until you get that straightened out you will continue to have slow economic growth. How is the GOP going to deal with that?

Tim*| 10.30.10 @ 12:36PM

The GOP already proposed a $5,000.00 ReFi Tax Credit to cover ReFi Closing Costs ,to buy down points on ReFi .to increase equity of slightly underwater to qualify for Refi.

Many Republicans say they want to abolish the mortgage agencies and get the government out of the housing and mortgage business.

"Americans should never again be forced to hand over their tax dollars so that other people can escape the consequences of their own mistakes," said Rep. Tom Price, Georgia Republican and executive director of the House Republican Study Committee.

skip| 10.30.10 @ 1:17PM

Bailouts to auto manufacturers and state governments is a very bad thing.

More aggregate jobs are lost than saved by the confiscation of wealth at the expense of some people for the benefit of other people.

What makes the other people so special?

Those auto workers and state employees ought to be ashamed of what they took for their own benefit at other's expense.

Uncontitutionally, I might add.

Obama, today, after 21 months as president, does not have the experience or qualifications to run a convenience store.

Liberalism is wholly lacking in intelligence and wholly lacking in honesty.

Jeffmet| 10.30.10 @ 4:35PM

So starting a war that costs trillions of dollars was a good thing? Also Obama is staying in Afghanistan because of pressure fro the right. Not because he thinks we can win. How much is that costing the American people?

Nobama| 10.30.10 @ 4:56PM

Give it up, libtard. Obama's outrageous overspending has caused this mess and Americans know it.

You'll see the proof on November 2. Enjoy!!

Jeffmet| 10.30.10 @ 5:50PM

Don't fool yourself. the GOP will agree to raise the debt ceiling. Why? Because they will want to keep funding the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also so fare they have not said where they want to cut. Soon as they show their cards then the American people will turn against them. The American people always say cut spending. As long as it is not their program that does not get cut.

skip| 10.30.10 @ 9:31PM

1) Common defense is constitutional
2) Welfare is unconstitutional
3) If the republicans screw this mandate up they will be ousted as fast the democrats
4) Not doing the right thing just because it is hard is despicable
5) If other people support you against their will you are a despicable person
6) There is no guarantee this country has had its last civil or revolutionary war.
7) Liberalism is wholly lacking in intelligence and wholly lacking in honesty (read posts this page for proof)

Nobama| 10.31.10 @ 3:34AM

Liberalism is totally lacking in honor. Leftist Liberals are dirtbags.
Good post, skip.

carnot| 10.31.10 @ 9:52AM

ummm....many folks are angry cuz hige amounts of stimulus expenditures are either unaccounted for or wasted on absolutely trivial trash intended to payoff political debts.

nope. Mr Obama OWNS IT. AND HE WILL CHOKE ON IT...... :-)

Stormy| 10.30.10 @ 9:36AM

"I consider myself a fiscal conservative, a social libertarian and a REPUBLICAN."

That is what is called a Neo-con. Neo-cons are former liberals who got run out of the Democrat Party, when it became the Democrat Socialist Party.

Steve W from Ford| 10.30.10 @ 12:49PM

It's really very simple. Obama is a much worse politician than either Clinton or Reagan along with being an incompetent administrator who does not know how to surround himself with competent people. When you add to this the arrogance that blinds him to a failed ideology you have a recipe for a ruinous presidency.
Nemesis most assuredly punishes hubris.

rigdum_funidos| 10.30.10 @ 2:43PM

do not give in and use the word 'progressive': they are liberals through and through, and when they soiled that word they are trying to use 'progressive' --as if lemmings progressive off a cliff is a desirable thing. No, we are not 'regressive' and they are not 'progressive' and don't let them slip that one by you.

Nobama| 10.30.10 @ 4:59PM

Research Progressive and you'll see it's just another word for Communist. Liberal means freedom, and we all know Marxist Democrats hate freedom for Americans.

JG| 10.31.10 @ 8:32AM

Calm down people. You would have all been served better if you stayed with Britian and the Monarchy. We have a Queen now in Australia and she is quite a good girl. As a leader she stays above politics. You people worship your leaders and system of goverment too much. Afterall its an 18th Century democracy. We at least have a 19th Century democratic model.

Henry VIII| 10.31.10 @ 5:30PM

JG, you're probably the biggest "Queen" in Australia.

The British Monarchy has been around for about a 1,000 years, how is that a 19th Century democratic model?

We worship God, not politicians--what are you smokin'?

Tim*| 10.31.10 @ 10:04AM

Uh Oh !

The Shrimp Fell Off The Barbie.

fantum| 10.31.10 @ 10:26AM

Ahhhhh... The sweet smell of Democrat FEAR!

YOU DEMOCRATS DECLARED THIS WAR ON AMERICA...

Now Americans are gonna shove it so far up your rectum it will require a surgeon to get it out! (Good luck finding one under ObamaCare.)

WE ARE BRINGING A TSUNAMI TO THE NOVEMBER 2ND ELECTIONS!

We Are Coming for YOU Congress!
http://usataxpayer.org/htm/vids.asp?A=50369481

AND NOVEMBER 2ND IS JUST THE FIRST WAVE!

Don't miss this - The Last Best Hope
http://usataxpayer.org/htm/vids.asp?A=69378366

DUMP "I the Obama." - RETURN TO "We the People!"

Dale Cord| 10.31.10 @ 10:48AM

Obama is not ruffled in the slightest! He is able to remain calm, cool and collective because, he has George Soros money backing him. He already knows the voting polls will be fixed in his favour. Just as they have been in the past with F.D.Rs , J.F.Ks elections that were bought and paid for by the fortune made by Joseph Kennedy Sr., through prostitution, bootlegging, and many other criminal activities. L.B.J s, Bill Clinton's, and the Bushes elections were made possible, by the Italian Mafia’s money operating their illegal businesses here for decades now. The corruption in our government has infected every aspect of our lives, and just as a lethal dose of poison or contagious disease like the Bubonic plague. It will bring down our country and, great will be our fall. Read your history books and you will find that every great nation, that has become intoxicated with immoral behaviour and oblivious to others needs for survival has, become ashes and fodder for the next generation of fools.

Johnny| 10.31.10 @ 5:35PM

You don't think Obama's looks ruffled? You must be kidding--he looks and behaves desperate to me.

We have read our history books, why do you think we're trying to reverse our present course?

Get off the sidelines and help out!

Semper Fi 1965-69| 10.31.10 @ 3:06PM

As much as I like Jindal, he is like Obama, HE IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!!! His parents were both born in INDIA, which like OBUMMER, he is not eligible , because of his parents birthplace. If he is put on the ballot, we would have ANOTHER INELIGIBLE PERSON RUNNING. When it is exposed that OBUMMER was not eligible to run, EVERY LAW HE HAS SIGNED WILL BR NULL AND VOID!! Itt will come out when the republicans grow a set and investigate this TREASON!!

Heywood| 10.31.10 @ 4:55PM

Tired of seeing Bush 'started 2 wars'--not at all separate wars--separate theaters of operations is what it is. And it was a fully bi-partisan necessity --Democrats always have went along with funding it and also had full UN support at the time and still is necessary today--they just had an attack yesterday in northern Afghanistan where our side killed over 70 combatants who attacked a base in a well organized way.
The alternate is what, exactly? Fight these terrorists in WalMarts??
Nobody likes it but if anyone has a better solution let us know please?
The Republicans lack someone like a Margaret Thatcher or Reagan--excellent leaders don't come along too often and with this current war we absolutely need a great leader to win it.

Dale Cord| 11.4.10 @ 12:58PM

Most of the population of our country is suffering under the delusion, that the Republicans are for the American people. There is no difference between these two UN-AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES, who have been fleecing the citizens of this country now since Woodrow Wilson's Communist regime took root in Washington. Being uneducated in history and politics is no shameful thing considering, our educational system is being controlled by the political machine in Washington and abroad. What is shameful though is to remain in a state of mental confusion as to who our enemy really is in this country. To focus your mind on entertainment though, instead of who is violating the sanctity of your freedoms, livelihood, home and privacy as an American citizen is the epitome of shameful stupidity. Your bible and history books have a multitude of warning signs for your survival in this world of predators. Who seek not only your income but your very soul. If you really want what is best for your loved ones, and true God given freedom and equality for all in America. Then open your eyes and unlock your mind and let truth set you free. The removal of both the Democrat's and Republican's in this great country of ours would be a great start. Read our Constitution for the legality and authorization by the people to do this or, remain subjects and cannon fodder to the warlords and criminals who rein over us at this present time. "There is a way that seems right to a man but, the end therein is Death"

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:41AM

It's true that as sharp as Obama's decline has been, the speed of his reversal of political fortunes should serve as a warning to Republicans who are feeling emboldened right now.

More Articles by Philip Klein

More Articles From Political Hay

It’s.The.Law

May 20, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

Holder’s Holdout

May 16, 2013 | Kaylin Bugos

From Bimbos to Benghazi

May 9, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Downsize the Liberals

May 1, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

The Reactionary Republicans

April 30, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/29/obamas-plight

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord|17 comments

Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?

David Catron|4 comments

How Long Is This War?

Jed Babbin|4 comments

It’s.The.Law

Ross Kaminsky|5 comments

Flatten the IRS

Ray V. Hartwell, III|13 comments

A Nation on the Edge

Joseph A. Harriss|2 comments

Downton’s Class System — and Ours

Tom Bethell|2 comments

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|114 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The IRS Scandal: It’s Not a Bug, It’s a Feature

Mark Meckler | 6:34AM

Alan O’Day, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 12:26AM

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 5.19.13

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn't Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.